diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_100157957.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_100157957.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2849101649e7de41f1c1874833c56030086e4393 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_100157957.html @@ -0,0 +1,383 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Bhupendra vs State Of U.P. on 17 October, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

4. At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicants contends that except for Section 338 IPC, co-accused Chhote @ Vedpal has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 07.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32955 of 2023 (Chhote @ Vedpal Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the order dated 07.08.2023 is reproduced herein under:- +

+
"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. +
+
+ +
+ +

12. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. +

+

13. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted" +

+
5. Learned counsel for applicant thus contends that since applicant has been enlarged on bail under the principal Sections, he liable to be enlarged on bail under Section 338 IPC. +
+
6. On the above premise, it is urged by the learned counsel for applicant that the case of applicant-Bhupendra is similar and identical to that of co-accused Chhote @ Vedpal. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which, the case of applicant-Bhupendra could be so distinguished from co-accused Chhote @ Vedpal in respect of the charging Sections in which, he has already been enlarged on bail. It is thus urged that in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the bail order of co-accused Chhote @ Vedpal, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. +
+
+ +
+ +
9. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused and coupled with the fact that co-accused Chhote @ Vedpal has already been enlarged on bail under most of the charging Sections except Section 338 IPC, the case of applicant-Bhupendra is similar and identical to that of aforementioned co-accused Chhote @ Vedpal in respect of the same charging Sections, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant could not point out any such distinguishing feature from the record distinguishing the case of applicant-Bhupendra from co-accused Chhote @ Vedpal so as to deny him bail, the clean antecedents of applicants, the period of incarceration undergone, the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, yet in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant in opposition to the present applications for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicants have made out a case for bail. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_100558061.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_100558061.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..11b13a1456dd29533ca8d5e8702d4b80f8e97047 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_100558061.html @@ -0,0 +1,2203 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Thota Venkateswarao vs The State Of Ap on 6 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 34, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

+

Thota Venkateswarao vs The State Of Ap on 6 January, 2025

+ +
        THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
+
+
+CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475,
+
+ 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839,
+
+                     5920 and 9083 of 2024
+
+
+COMMON ORDER:
+ + +

Crl.P.No.5197 of 2024 + + + This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A32 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

2

+ + + + +

2. Sri N. Harinadh, learned Counsel for petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, + +learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- + +State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.4896 of 2024 + + +

3. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A46 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

4. Sri Mukkamalla Rama Swamy, the learned counsel for + +petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + 3 + + + + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5230 of 2024 + + +

5. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A35 and A51 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

6. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + 4 + + + + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5256 of 2024 + + +

7. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A43 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

8. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + 5 + + + + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.5367 of 2024 + + +

9. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A4 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

10. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 6 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5475 of 2024 + + +

11. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A64 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

12. Sri Karanki Yaswanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, the learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

7

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5487 of 2024 + + +

13. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A47 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

14. Ms.P.Srilatha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 8 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5503 of 2024 + + +

15. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A19 and A20 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

16. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 9 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5550 of 2024 + + +

17. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A2, A16, A37 and A45 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

18. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

10

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5553 of 2024 + + +

19. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A7 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

20. Sri Peta Gnana Teja, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 11 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5585 of 2024 + + +

21. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A1 and A67 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

22. Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

12

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5652 of 2024 + + +

23. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A15 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

24. Sri Chalasani Venkat, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

13

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5718 of 2024 + + +

25. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A8, A22, A36 and A68 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

26. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 14 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5724 of 2024 + + +

27. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A3 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

28. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

15

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5752 of 2024 + + +

29. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A31, A53 and A65 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime + +No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna + +District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections + +143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) + +of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

30. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

16

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5839 of 2024 + + +

31. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A55 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

32. Sri B.V Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 17 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5920 of 2024 + + +

33. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A6, A13, A14, A17, A27, A28, A30, A39, A42, A52, + +A54, A56, A61 and A69 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

34. Ms.V.Devi Satya Sri, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

18

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.9083 of 2024 + + +

35. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A75 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

36. Sri G.L.Nageswar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor + +appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments. + + +

37. In all the above bail petitions, detailed counters were filed + +by the respondent-State. +

19

+ + + + +

38. All these criminal petitions pertain to Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station. By these petitions these + +accused pray for pre-arrest bail. All these petitions were heard + +together and by this common order they shall be disposed of. + +The crime incident allegedly occurred on 20.02.2023. Upon a + +written information dated 22.02.2023 F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was + +registered. The scene of offence was Telugu Desam Party office, + +Gannavaram. Sri Mudunuri Satyavardhan belonging to Madiga + +caste, which is a scheduled caste, was computer operator + +working in Telugu Desam Party office and living in the said office. + + +

39. During the time when this crime incident allegedly occurred + +the party in power was YSR Congress Party. Investigation + +commenced and went on for some time. Thereafter there were + +general elections and the then opposition party/Telugu Desam + +Party came into power. Thereafter investigation continued + +further. The allegations and counter allegations in this case + +disclosed the rift between both the political parties. Petitioners + +contend that this is a case falsely alleged against them out of + +political vendetta. According to State, for political reasons there + +was inadequate investigation soon after commission of the + +offence. By the time this crime incident occurred Sri Vallabhaneni + 20 + + + + +Vamsi Mohan was Member of Legislative Assembly for + +Gannavaram Assembly Constituency. He is one of the accused + +in the present crime. +

+

+

40. The version of the prosecution is that on 18.02.2023 during + +afternoon hours a press meet was held by Sri Vallabhaneni + +Vamsi Mohan wherein he allegedly made certain insulting + +remarks as against Sri N.Chandrababu Naidu, Sri Nara Lokesh + +and their family members and used indecent language. In + +response to it, certain leaders of Telugu Desam Party conducted + +a press meeting on 19.02.2023 in the morning hours and + +condemned the statements made by the opponent political party + +people. +

+

+

41. In the above backdrop of facts, the crime incident allegedly + +occurred. It is stated that on 20.02.2023 at about 5:00 P.M. + +Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan went to Telugu Desam Party + +office and on noticing followers of Telugu Desam Party he caused + +enquiries about Mr. Pattabhi of Telugu Desam Party and warned + +them that they would finish Telugu Desam Party and left the + +place. +

21

+ + + + +

42. In the next 30 minutes at about 5:30 P.M. about 100 + +persons belonging to YSR Congress Party came to Telugu + +Desam Party office wielding sticks, stones, petrol bottles and + +various other arms and while hailing Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi + +Mohan they attacked the party office. They threw stones, entered + +into the party office and destroyed the furniture, broke two + +computers and two televisions and caused tremendous panic + +among everyone available there. In the first information report + +the de facto complainant was able to mention the names of 44 + +accused. It also made a mention about four named accused who + +came upon him and abused him by his caste name. The further + +case of the prosecution is that these hooligans caused chaos and + +some of them using their sticks and cricket playing wickets + +seriously damaged three cars/AP 39 K 1999, AP 16 DJ 9499 and + +TS 10 EC 4099. It is also stated that one Mr. Rabbani poured + +petrol on the car bearing No.AP 16 DA 5555 and lit fire to it. The + +version of the de facto complainant is that there were police + +people at the Telugu Desam Party office and they remained mute + +spectators. During investigation it was found that some of the + +accused made attempts to burn the party office as walls in one + +room were found with charred marks. +

22

+ + + + +

43. Investigation has been in progress. Some of the accused + +were arrested and were remanded to judicial custody. According + +to prosecution, at least 44 accused were absconding. After + +gaining contact with about 28 accused they were questioned + +about their mobile phones and only seven out of them + +surrendered their mobile phones and 20 of the accused furnished + +false information with regard to the instruments they used and + +their mobile numbers. +

+

+

44. During the investigation, CCTV footage was collected. + +When the crime incident occurred, various people captured it on + +their mobile phones and all such material was collected. Based + +on these investigative efforts, allegations are made against all + +these petitioners by the prosecution that they are all involved in + +this crime incident. +

+

+

45. Broadly stated all these petitioners raised the following + +contentions: +

+

+

 That there was unexplained delay in registration of crime. + + The incident occurred on 20.02.2023 and F.I.R. was + + registered on 22.02.2023. That around the same time and + + place certain incidents occurred which resulted in + 23 + + + + + registration of multiple F.I.Rs. and many of which disclosed + + accusation of criminal acts of followers of Telugu Desam + + Party as against members of YSR Congress Party + + members and this case is in a way a counter blast to Crime + + Nos.132 of 2023 and 133 of 2023. +
+
+  F.I.R. does not contain any allegations of overt acts against + + these petitioners. +
+
+  After change in political party in power witnesses were + + planted and false evidence is created. +
+
+  The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. were bailable and + + many of these petitioners were served with Section 41A + + Cr.P.C. notice. However, after the change of political + + Government police have unlawfully brought additional + + penal provisions to nullify the rightful reliefs available to the + + petitioners. +
+
+

46. Plethora of precedent is cited on behalf of the petitioners + +and on behalf of some of the accused meticulous written + +arguments are filed leaving one to wonder that this to pronounce + +a judgment as if it is one after trial. +

24

+ + + + +

47. The following significant aspects are required to be noticed: + + +

F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was registered for the offences + +punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435 and 506 read with + +149 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989'). Since caste atrocity was one of + +the offences alleged, on the instructions of Superintendent of + +Police, Krishna, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gannavaram + +took up investigation. After recording the statements of about six + +witnesses, the investigation officer found that the provisions of the + +Act, 1989 were not applicable. Therefore, he applied to the + +Superintendent of Police to accord permission to delete those + +provisions. By proceedings dated 04.07.2023 the Superintendent + +of Police granted such permission. Investigation went further and + +scores of witnesses were examined. Thereafter by way of an + +alteration memo dated 07.08.2024 the investigation agency got + +added Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989. It + +also added Sections 436, 450 and 452 I.P.C. It is also to be + +noticed that in this case so far there are 71 accused. + 25 + + + + +

48. Since in the present crime incident not only offences under + +the Indian Penal Code but also offences under the Act, 1989 are + +alleged, the forceful argument raised by the State is that + +anticipatory bail petitions are not maintainable by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. The further argument is + +that the High Court does not now possess concurrent original + +jurisdiction for bails as well as anticipatory bails and it has only + +appellate jurisdiction by virtue of Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and + +therefore, these petitions are to be dismissed. In such + +circumstances, this Court on 13.11.2024 requested the learned + +counsels on both sides to address arguments in that regard since + +the jurisdictional bar has arisen. +

+

+

49. Valiant submissions are made by the learned counsels for + +petitioners wherein references are made to Sections 18 and 18A + +of the Act, 1989 and precedent is cited to show that if there is no + +prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989 is + +made out, anticipatory bail could be considered. It is also argued + +that this Court in these petitions during hearing granted interim + +protection and therefore, the same may be made absolute since + +these petitioners have not violated anything thereafter. + 26 + + + + +

50. The point that falls for consideration is: + + +

"What is the effect of Section 14A of the Scheduled + + Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the concurrent original + + jurisdiction of the High Court in considering bails + + and anticipatory bails where offences under the Act, + + 1989 are involved? +
+
+POINT: +
+
+

51. Offences under the Act, 1989 can be taken cognizance of + +and tried and be disposed of by Special Courts and Exclusive + +Special Courts as provided in Section 14 of the Act, 1989. Those + +Courts since now empowered to take cognizance hold power to + +take remand of the accused and consider bails. There is no + +provision in the Act, 1989 adverting to the aspects that are to be + +considered by those Courts when they entertain bail petitions. + +Therefore, those Courts draw their powers from the Code of + +Criminal Procedure. Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal + +Procedure is headed as provisions as to bail and bonds. It + +consists of Sections 436 to 450. They refer to bail in cases of + +bailable offences and bail in cases of non-bailable offences. + 27 + + + + +Section 438 Cr.P.C. is given heading direction for grant of bail to + +person apprehending arrest. To the extent the said provision is + +required alone is extracted here: +

+
"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending + arrest: +
+
(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be + arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- +

bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the + Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the + event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that + Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the + following factors, namely:- +

+
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; + +
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to + whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on + conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; + +
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and + +
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of + injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so + arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an + interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail: + +
Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, + the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order + under this sub-Section or has rejected the application for + grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer + 28 + + + + + incharge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the + applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in + such application." +
+

52. Thus, as per the above provision, those accused who + +anticipate their arrest may seek pre-arrest bail and they could + +move such applications either before this Court or before the + +Court of Sessions. It is in the light of such a provision the + +petitioners have straightaway moved this Court for their prayers + +for pre-arrest bail. +

+

+

53. The first submission of the State is that in cases of caste + +atrocities anticipatory bails cannot be maintained by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. Those provisions read as + +below: +

+

+

"18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons + committing an offence under the Act.-- Nothing in + section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case + involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of + having committed an offence under this Act. + + 18A. No enquiry or approval required.--(1) For the + purposes of this Act,-- (a) preliminary enquiry shall not be + required for registration of a First Information Report against + any person; or + 29 + + + + +
(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the + arrest, if necessary, of any person, + + against whom an accusation of having committed an + offence under this Act has been made and no procedure + other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall + apply. +
+
(2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply + to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or + order or direction of any Court." +
+

54. The crisp response from the learned counsels for the + +petitioners is that the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would + +apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist + +pointing towards the commission of an offence under the Act, + +1989. If the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under + +the Act, 1989 are not disclosed on the prima facie reading of the + +allegations levelled in the complaint or F.I.R. then in such + +circumstances, the bar of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would not + +apply and the Courts would not be absolutely precluded from + +granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons. In justification of + +this argument they cited ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + +India in Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala1. + +1 + 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601 + 30 + + + + +

55. If one goes by the contentions of the learned counsel for + +petitioners this Court is to take a view whether the allegations in + +the F.I.R./written information of the de facto complainant prima + +facie disclose caste atrocity or not. However, according to the + +State, even such a view cannot be taken by this Court by virtue of + +interdict contained in Section 14A of the Act, 1989. Therefore, it + +is required to notice what this provision says. The provision reads + +as below: +

+

+

"14A. Appeals:--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained + in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an + appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not + being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an + Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and + on law. +
+
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section + (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, + 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court + against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive + Special Court granting or refusing bail. + + (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for + the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall + be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of + the judgment, sentence or order appealed from: Provided + that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry + of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the + 31 + + + + + appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal + within the period of ninety days: Provided further that no + appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of + one hundred and eighty days. +
+
(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far + as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months + from the date of admission of the appeal." + +

56. As per Sub-Section (2) of Section 14Aof the Act, the + +petitions for bail are to be considered by the Special Court and in + +the event of their granting or refusing to grant such bails the + +aggrieved can prefer an appeal before this Court. Thus, the + +concurrent jurisdiction for consideration of anticipatory bails + +provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C. stood excluded. It is not as + +though the aggrieved is deprived of all the remedies. After + +inviting an order on the bail petition from the Special Court the + +aggrieved is entitled to prefer an appeal before this Court in terms + +of Section 14A of the Act, 1989. In the case at hand, the + +petitioners have moved bail petitions straightaway before this + +Court. At any rate, what is before this Court is not an appeal + +against an order passed by the Special Court with reference to + +bails. It shall be stated that on the same subject matter High + +Court could not be said to possess concurrent original jurisdiction + 32 + + + + +as well as appellate jurisdiction. If one is to state that a bail is + +different from anticipatory bail the result is that in anticipatory + +bails this Court holds original jurisdiction and in regular bails it + +holds only appellate jurisdiction. Assuming that in a case a + +petition for anticipatory bail being moved before the Special Court + +resulted in dismissal, then according to the logic applied by the + +petitioners the petitions would have to move only another bail + +petition before this Court and not an appeal. Such logic is in + +violation of what is clearly provided in Section 14A of the Act, + +1989. It is to be seen that the question of bail presupposes + +detention or custody of the person. In a case where a person is + +arrested he prays for a regular bail. In cases of anticipatory bail + +in the event of granting the relief, it has no effect unless and until + +the accused is arrested. In other words, the order of anticipatory + +bail comes into effect only after a person is arrested and not + +otherwise. In contrast to regular bail, in cases of anticipatory bail + +the order is obtained in advance. In regular bails it was obtained + +after arrest. The timing at which a prayer is made, and an order + +is granted, have no relevance when it comes to operation of + +those orders as in both the cases they come into operation only in + +those cases where a person is arrested. In such view of the + 33 + + + + +matter the word bail used in Section 14A of the Act, 1989 + +encompasses regular bail as well as anticipatory bail. Therefore, + +it must be stated that an application for bail or anticipatory bail + +can be filed only before the Special Court or the Exclusive + +Special Court as the case may be and not before the High Court. + +An order granting or refusing bail or anticipatory bail by the + +Special Court or Exclusive Special Court can be assailed before + +this Court invoking its appellate jurisdiction provided in Section + +14A of the Act, 1989. This Court had deliberated these aspects + +on earlier occasions when similar questions were raised and it + +reached to the same conclusions and reference can be made to + +the following: +

+

+

1. Nakka Nagireddy v. State of A.P.2 + + +
2. Deepak Kumar Tala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh3. + + +

57. Similar conclusions were reached at by other High Courts. + +Reference can be made to the following: +

+

+

1. K.M.Basheer v. Rajani K.T.4 + +2 + 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5322 Order dated 11.11.2024 +3 + Order dated 22.10.2024 in Criminal Petition No.6487 of 2024 +4 + 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 472 + 34 + + + + +
2. Lokesh v. State of Karnataka5 + + +
3. In re Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 v. Nil6 + + +
4. Atul Rajput v. The State of Madhya Pradesh7 + + +

58. At the bar, for petitioners, Abhishek Awasthi v. State of + +U.P.8 is cited. That is a case where other subsections of Section + +14A of the Act, 1989 fell for consideration and the powers of the + +High Court were considered under Section 482 of Code of + +Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings. + +Finally, it was held that with a view to prevent the misuse or + +abuse of the Court or law, the High Court holds inherent + +jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. + +Such question is not available before this Court. Even otherwise + +a brief reference to what was stated by their Lordships in Shajan + +Skaria's case9 would be sufficient here. At paragraph No.49 their + +Lordships stated that if the accused puts forward the case of + +malicious prosecution on account of political or private vendetta + +5 + 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15742 +6 + 2018 SCC OnLine ALL 2087 +7 + Order dated 10.04.2024 in Crl.A.No.3261 of 2024 of the High Court of +Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur +8 + MANU/UP/4595/2024 + 35 + + + + +such aspects can be considered only by the High Court in + +exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code or + +in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the + +Constitution of India. However, powers under Section 438 of the + +Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised once the + +contents of the complaint/F.I.R. disclose a prima facie case. In + +fact, in that case Section 14A of the Act, 1989 did not come up for + +consideration since the anticipatory bail petition was first moved + +before the trial Court and as against those orders appeal was + +preferred before the High Court. +

+

+

59. The plethora of precedent cited before this Court is not with + +reference to Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and therefore any + +reference to those cherished principles of those rulings is not + +required. This Court refrains from delving into other facts and the + +principles of law governing anticipatory bails since any such + +discussion may unnecessarily prejudice the contentions of both + +sides when appropriate applications are filed before appropriate + +Courts for the reliefs or when the maters come up before this + +Court in appeal. +

+

9 + Supra 1 + 36 + + + + +

60. Learned counsel for petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5920 + +of 2024 argued that this very Bench on earlier occasions + +considered and granted anticipatory bail and therefore, the same + +benefit can be extended to the present petitioners. The attention + +of this Court is brought to Sri Settipalli Raghurami Reddy v. + +The State of Andhra Pradesh10 and Julakanti Brahma Reddy + +@ Brahma Nanda Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 11. In + +both those matters the question about Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 was never raised by either side and therefore, there was no + +occasion for this Court to express itself on that aspect of the + +matter. After those orders it was in October and November 2024 + +only this Court had occasion to consider Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 and accordingly decided the earlier referred Nakka + +Nagireddy's case12 and Deepak Kumar Tala's case13. + +Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions of the learned + +counsel for the petitioners. +

+

+

61. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition + +No.5920 of 2024 further argued that the investigating agency is + +10 + Order dated 23.07.2024 in Criminal Petition No.3807 of 2024 +11 + Order dated 13.08.2024 in Criminal Petition No.10005 of 2023 +12 + supra 2 +13 + supra 3 + 37 + + + + +not entitled to add new penal provisions and cited State of + +Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde14. That was a case + +where on written information police registered a crime and + +investigating into it and filed charge sheet specifying certain penal + +provisions. At that stage the informant filed a petition to add + +Sections 364, 394 and 398 I.P.C. The question arose about the + +powers of the Magistrate at that stage as to whether he can + +incorporate those penal provisions as requested by the informant + +in a charge sheet filed by the police. Their Lordships stated that + +allowing incorporation of new provisions into the charge sheet as + +requested by the written informant at that stage is impermissible. + +However, the Court which is to try the case has to consider the + +first information report and all the other material collected and + +take a decision to frame appropriate charges under all the + +relevant penal provisions. Thus, the cited ruling has no relevance + +to the present case at hand. In the case at hand, the + +investigating police, exercising their right of investigation, have + +found it appropriate that the material on record do attract various + +provisions which were not originally mentioned in the F.I.R. Such + +power cannot be questioned. Informant would only put forth the + +14 + AIR 2014 SC 620 + 38 + + + + +facts before the registering officer and the Station House Officer + +on receiving such information using his own diligence + +incorporates the relevant penal provisions in the F.I.R. During + +investigation certain facts may be found incorrect and certain new + +facts may have been discovered and certain new accused may + +have been found having connection with the crime. There can be + +no legal hurdle in that regard since investigation is a voyage of + +truth. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsels for + +petitioners that provisions under the Act, 1989 were brought into + +effect during investigation and therefore have to be discarded is + +an argument that cannot be sustained. It may be recorded here + +that even to begin with in the case at hand the F.I.R. mentioned + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989. At the present also + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989 are alleged by the + +prosecution. Simply because at one stage such penal provisions + +were dropped does not mean that at a later stage they cannot be + +brought in. The argument that the new addition was not granted + +by the Superintendent of Police cannot be countenanced since + +the method of investigation is sole prerogative of the investigation + +officer. For the above reasons, the point is answered against the + +petitioners. +

39

+ + + + +

62. In the result, all these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. It is + +made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate + +petitions for appropriate reliefs before the appropriate Court. In + +the event such petitions are filed, the Court where they are filed is + +to consider the petitions on judicial side and dispose of them in + +accordance with law. Any observations made herein are confined + +to these petitions and they have no bearing on the merits or + +demerits of the case on either side. +

+

________________________ + Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J +Date: 06.01.2025 +Ivd + 40 + + + + + THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR + + + + +CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475, + 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839, + 5920 and 9083 of 2024 + + + + + Date: 06.01.2025 + + + +Ivd +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_100980474.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_100980474.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..59962f24626eee96a06c6f557e05e7f4aa829f42 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_100980474.html @@ -0,0 +1,424 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Girdhar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:11536) on 7 March, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

4. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.69/2024) +

5. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.69/2024) +

6. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.69/2024) + + +

8. Concerned Police Station Shreekaranpur +

+
+ +
+

12. Date of passing of 21.10.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.14884/2023) + +

14. Concerned Police Station Kotwali Barmer +

15. District Barmer +

16. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 420 and 406 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.14885/2023) +

17. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.14885/2023) +

+
+ +
+

34. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.15296/2023) +

35. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.15296/2023) +

36. Date of passing of 22.11.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.15296/2023) + +

38. Concerned Police Station Pratap Nagar +

+
+ +
+

76. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.90/2024) +

77. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.90/2024) +

78. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.90/2024) + + +

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no + + case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his + + incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in + + the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the + + accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based + + on conjectures and surmises. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_101240344.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_101240344.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5fbcf0f0f00af3ff06639a7a45d8086a35810f26 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_101240344.html @@ -0,0 +1,455 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ashish Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The petitioner is in custody for about 4 years. + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 665 of 2023 + + The instant Revision is filed by CICL himself, + + challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order, + + dated 9th of August, 2023, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2023 + + by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum- + + Children's Court, Banka. The CICL was arrested in connection + + with Banduwa Kurawa P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023, corresponding + + to G.R. No. 1202 of 2023, for the offences punishable under + + Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 + + of the Arms Act. However, later on, Sections 34 of the IPC and + + Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section + + 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes + + (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added. Prayer for + + bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Appeal in + + exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Juvenile + + Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter + + referred to as 'said Act') vide order, dated 15th of June, 2023. + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 687 of 2023 + + The petitioner/CICL was arrested in connection + + with Fesar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, + + 325, 307, 34, 504, 506 and 379 of the IPC along with his father + + and uncle. The petitioner prayed for regular bail before the JJB, + + Aurangabad. In JJB Case No. 932 of 2023, prayer for bail was + + rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 41 + + of 2023 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children's Court, + + Aurangabad. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal + + and affirmed the order of the JJB. The petitioner has assailed the + + said order of the Appellate Court on various grounds, specially + + on the ground that the father and uncle of the petitioner have + + already been granted bail for the same offence. + +
+
+ +
+

Reg. Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2024 + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + The petitioner was booked along with other major + + accused persons in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 237 of + + 2022, dated 13th of August, 2022, under Section 302 and 34 of + + the IPC. The petitioner being a CICL prayed for bail before the + + Juvenile Justice Board, but his prayer for bail was rejected. He + + preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the said Act before the + + learned Special Judge, Children's Court and the said appeal was + + also dismissed and the order of rejection of bail passed by the + + JJB was affirmed. It is stated by the petitioner that the accused + + persons who are major, namely, Sushil Kumar Yadav and Anil + + Yadav were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on + + 26th of April, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 4091 of 2023. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_101616040.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_101616040.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..359cf77a5e3724004215404973df912061e354af --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_101616040.html @@ -0,0 +1,372 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Haider Ali vs State on 10 September, 2015 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the present appeal and +set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 and 302 of IPC +by invoking section 34 of IPC. Bail bond furnished by the appellant is +discharged. Copy of this judgment will be sent to the trial Court. +

+

(SANJIV KHANNA) + JUDGE + + + (R.K.GAUBA) + JUDGE +SEPTEMBER 10th, 2015 +afa + + + + + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_1027578.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_1027578.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7d5ee9fcf7957cb5ab05725a9ee1032236afc765 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_1027578.html @@ -0,0 +1,2877 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Deorao S/O Sonbaji Bhalerao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 June, 2008 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 18, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Bombay High Court

+

Deorao S/O Sonbaji Bhalerao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 June, 2008

+ +

Author: A.P. Lavande

+ +

Bench: A.P. Lavande

+ +
                               1
+
+
+
+
+                                                                  
+       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
+
+
+
+
+                                          
+                 NAGPUR BENCH : N A G P U R.
+
+
+
+
+                                         
+             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 103 OF 2003
+
+
+
+    1. Deorao s/o Sonbaji Bhalerao,
+
+
+
+
+                                  
+       aged about 64 years,
+       Occ.: Retired teacher.
+                     
+    2. Kulbhushan s/o Deorao Bhalerao,
+                    
+       aged about 29 years,
+       Occupation Driver,
+        Both r/o Nehru Nagar,
+        Ghatanji, Distt. Yavatmal    ... APPELLANTS.
+      
+
+
+               - VERSUS -
+   
+
+
+
+    The State of Maharashtra,
+    through P.S.O. Frezarpur,
+    Tq. Ghatanji,
+
+
+
+
+
+    District Yavatmal.        ... RESPONDENT.
+
+                       .....
+    Mr.Amol Mardikar Advocate (Appointed) for the Appellants.
+    Mr. J.B Jaiswal , A.P.P., for Respondent.
+
+
+
+
+
+                       .,...
+
+                            CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE &
+                             A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.
+                     RESERVED ON : 07.04.2008.
+                     PRONOUNCED ON : 30.06.2008.
+
+
+
+
+                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 :::
+                                 2
+
+
+
+
+                                                                   
+    J U D G M E N T (Per A.B. Chaudhari, J.) :
+ + + + + +

The two appellants in the instant appeal have + + challenged the judgment and order dated 30.11.2002 made + + + + + + by the II Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, in + + S.T. No. 219/01, convicting both of them for the offence + + + + + + punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of + + Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to suffer + + rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of + + Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for + + + two months. +

+ + + +

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that appellant + + no.2 Kulbhushan and deceased Sunita Bhanse were + + + + + + residing at Ghatanji, district Yavatmal. Deceased Sunita + + was married to one Chandrakant Bhanse but she had + + developed extra marital relations with appellant no.2 and + + + + + + had left her husband. Appellant no.2 and Sunita came to + + Amravati and started residing as tenant in the house of + + Vishwanath Alone (P.W. 3). They stayed there for about 10- + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 ::: + 3 + + + + + + 15 days. +

+

3. On the date of incident, i.e. 5.7.2001, at about + + + + + + 10 p.m., appellant no.1 Deorao- the father of appellant no.2 + + + + + + and his mother came to the house of appellant no.2 at + + Amravati. There was a quarrel between deceased Sunita + + and appellant no.1 because she was residing with appellant + + + + + + + no.2. During quarrel, at about 11-15 p.m., appellant no.1 + + took out a container containing kerosene and sprinkled the + + same on the person of Sunita and thereafter appellant no.2 + + by means of a match stick set her on fire. She came out of + + + + the house in a burning condition raising cry. Vishwanath + + + + + Alone (P.W. 3)- the owner of the house, noticed that both + + the appellants were running. With the help of other + + + + + + persons, Vishwanath extinguished fire by water. +

+

Thereafter Sunita was taken to the hospital by the + + + + + + appellants on the request made by Vishwanath. At about + + 11-55 p.m. Sunita was admitted in the hospital. Necessary + + arrangement for recording the dying declaration of Sunita + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 ::: + 4 + + + + + + was made. P.W. 4 Mahore- Special Judicial Magistrate + + arrived at the hospital and issued letter (Ex.22) requesting + + + + + + the medical officer on duty to examine the patient and after + + + + + + obtaining necessary certificate from the medical officer he + + recorded the dying declaration of Sunita (Ex.23) in question + + and answer form. After the dying declaration was recorded, + + + + + + + the medical officer again certified that the patient was + + conscious throughout. On 6.7.2001, at about 9-20 a.m., + + Sunita expired. A.S.I. Kakde (P.W. 2) having received the + + dying declaration registered the crime under section 302 + + + + read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and arrested + + + + + both the appellants on the same day. He drew the spot + + panchanama and seized a plastic container containing + + + + + + kerosene, match-stick, burnt saree etc. He forwarded the + + dead body for post mortem after completing inquest + + + + + + panchanama. Dr.Diwan (P.W. 5), who performed autopsy + + on the dead body of Sunita, found 95% burn injuries with + + septicaemia. After completion of investigation, charge- +

+ + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 ::: + 5 + + + + + +

sheet came to be filed against both the appellants. +

+

4. Both the appellants denied the charge framed + + + + + + against them and claimed to be tried. The trial proceeded. +

+ + + + +

The defence was of total denial. The trial Court on + + appreciating the evidence on record held that the only + + evidence before it was in the form of dying declaration (Ex. +

+ + + + + +

23) which was free from doubt and believing the same + + convicted and sentenced both the appellants, as stated + + above. +

+

5. Mr.Mardikar, learned counsel for the appellants + + + + argued that the dying declaration (Ex.23) is liable to be + + + + + rejected in the first place because the deceased had + + admittedly suffered burn injuries to the extent of 95% and + + + + + + it was impossible for her to speak or give the dying + + declaration (Ex.23). According to him, Sunita was not in a + + + + + + fit mental condition to make voluntary disclosure of the + + incident and, therefore, it was risky to rely upon the sole + + piece of evidence, namely the dying declaration. In this + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 ::: + 6 + + + + + + connection, he relied on the decisions of Supreme Court in + +

(i) Paparambaka Rosamma & ors. v. State of A.P. - +

+ + + + +

(1999) 7 SCC 695 and (ii) Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State + + + + + + of A.P. - 1999 ALL MR (Cri) 1784. +

+

6. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. inviting our + + attention to the evidence of Special Judicial Magistrate + + + + + + (P.W.4), who recorded the dying declaration, pointed out + + that full care was taken by this witness before and after + + recording of the dying declaration. According to the learned + + A.P.P., this witness in his evidence deposed all that was + + + + required to prove a dying declaration, namely that the + + + + + patient was conscious and in a fit condition to give dying + + declaration and was accordingly certified by the medical + + + + + + officer before recording the dying declaration. The dying + + declaration was recorded by him and he stated before the + + + + + + Court that the contents of the same were correct. He had + + read out the contents to the patient who admitted them to + + be correct. Thereafter he obtained the signature of the + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 ::: + 7 + + + + + + patient and also put his signature on the dying declaration. +

+

After recording dying declaration the medical officer again + + + + + + examined the patient and certified that she was in a fit + + + + + + condition throughout when the dying declaration was + + recorded. According to him, this is enough and it was not + + necessary to depose the exact words the deceased had + + + + + + + uttered about the person who poured kerosene on her + + person and set her on fire because there is a presumption + + of genuineness attached to the document of dying + + declaration as per Section 80 of Indian Evidence Act, it + + + + being a record of evidence given by a witness to a + + + + + Magistrate authorised by law. +

+

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the + + + + + + parties. We have gone through the entire evidence on + + record. In view of the submissions made before us, the + + + + + + questions which arise, inter alia, for our determination, + + are as under : +

+
(i) Whether presumption under Section 80 + of Indian Evidence Act can be drawn in + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 ::: + 8 + + + + + + respect of a dying declaration recorded by a + Magistrate without proof as to the cause of + + + + + + death of the dying person or as to in all the + circumstances of the transaction which + + + + + + resulted in his death and particularly in + respect of the name or description of/and + act of the accused/offender in committing + + + + + + the offence of murder? +
(ii) + Magistrate + + Whether + who + it is necessary + recorded the + for the + dying + + declaration to depose before the trial Court + about the name and act of the accused + which resulted into the murder, in the + + + + words spoken up by the dying man? +
+ + + +

Since the above questions were of great importance, we + + were required to find out the genesis of the law in relation + + + + + + to the above aspects. +

+

8. The Indian Evidence Act, Act No. 1 of 1872 (15th + + + + + + March, 1872) was codified as there were no fixed rules of + + evidence. The law was vague and indefinite. After two + + years of passing of this enactment, on December 3, 1874, + + the Division Bench of Bombay High Court, as to the dying + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 ::: + 9 + + + + + + declaration, in the case of Reg. V. Fata Adaji & Two + + others reported in (1874) 11 Bom HCR 247, held as + + + + + + under: +

+ + + + +
"The law does not provide that the mere + signature of a Magistrate shall be a + sufficient authentication of such a + + + + + + document, and it is obviously desirable that + + the person who took the statement should + be subject to cross-examination as to the + + dying man's state of mind when he made it, + and as to other circumstances. We must, + therefore, exclude this document in + + + + considering the evidence in the case." +
+ + + +

As to the submission that the statement be admitted + + without proof under Section 80 of Evidence Act, the Court + + + + + + said : +

+
"The Magistrate was(i) not the committing + Magistrate, and (ii) the prisoners were not + + + + + + present, and (iii) had no opportunity of + cross-examining the dying man." +
+

Thus this Court held that the person who took + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 ::: + 10 + + + + + + the statement of the dying man must be examined before + + the Court for knowing the truth about the dying man's + + + + + + state of mind when he made it, and as to other + + + + + + circumstances. Further, this Court also recorded three + + reasons for not admitting the statement without proof u/s + + 80 of Evidence Act. +

+ + + + +

9. + + In The Empress v. Samiruddin - (1882) 8 Cal. +

+

211, on Dec. 14, 1881, the Division Bench of Calcutta + + High Court held thus : +

+

"The piece of evidence to which this + + + + observation relates is the dying statement of + + + + + the deceased Baber Ali. This was recorded by + the Deputy Magistrate as a `deposition;' but + it does not appear that Baber Ali was + + + + + + examined in the presence of the accused + Samiruddin, and unless he were so examined + by the Deputy Magistrate exercising judicial + + + + + + jurisdiction the writing made by such + Magistrate could not be admitted to prove the + statement made by the deceased. This + statement must have been proved in the + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 ::: + 11 + + + + + + ordinary way by a person who heard it made. + If the Deputy Magistrate had been called to + + + + + + prove it, he might have refreshed his memory + with the writing made by himself at the time + + + + + + when the statement was made." +

+

10. In King-Emperor v. Mathura Thakur & ors. +

+

-(1902) 6 C.W.N. 72, the Division Bench held on the same + + + + + + line and Taylor J. +

igin his separate concurring judgment + + remarked : +

+
" With regard to the so-called dying-declaration + the witnesses should not have been allowed to + + + prove the document as if it was a substantial + piece of evidence in the case. The relevant fact to + + + + + be proved was the statement made by the + deceased person admissible under Sec.32 of the + + + + + + Evidence Act. That statement is not the + document made by the Magistrate but the verbal + statement made by the deceased person. The + + + + + + document made by the Magistrate does not + amount to a deposition or record of evidence. It + was not taken in the presence of the accused; + nor was it taken in their absence under the + provisions and conditions prescribed by Sec. +
+ + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 ::: + 12 + + + + + +
512, C.Cr.P. The only way of proving the + statement was therefore by the oral evidence of + + + + + + some witnesses who heard it made, the said + witness being at liberty to refresh his memory by + + + + + + referring to the note made by him or read over by + him at or about the time the statement was + made. I would lay stress upon this because in + + + + + + many cases irregularities of this nature have led + + to a miscarriage of justice or to great delay in the + trial of cases." +
+

11. In Gouridas Nomasudra v. Emperor- (1908) + + 36 Cal. 659, the written petition of complaint which + + + + contained the statement made by the deceased person as to + + + + + the cause of his death, was admitted in evidence on being + + proved by the mukhtear's mohurrir, who had prepared it + + + + + + under personal instructions and who deposed that the + + deceased made the statement to him which was correctly + + + + + + recorded in the petition. +

+

12. In Ghazi v. Crown (1911) 17 P.R. 1911 Cr., it + + was laid down that such statements must be proved and + + this would appear to show that if proved they are + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 ::: + 13 + + + + + + admissible. +

+

13. In re Karuppan Samban, reported in 31 IC + + + + + + 359 : [1915] 16 Cr.L.J. 759, the Division Bench of + + + + + + Madras High Court held thus : +

+
" But it is contended that Exh. D, the principal + + of these, has not been properly proved, because the + + + + + + + Magistrate who recorded it was not examined as a witness + + in the case. Reliance for this contention is placed on in the + + matter of the Petition of Samiruddin (1),Gouridas + + Nomasudra v. Emperor (2) and King-Emperor v. Mathura + + + + Thakur (3). A similar observation to that in the matter of + + + + + the petition of Samiruddin (1), to the effect that when the + + Magistrate who records the dying declaration is not the + + + + + + Committing Magistrate and it is taken in the absence of the + + accused, it is not admissible unless the recording officer is + + + + + + examined as a witness, occurs also in Panchu Das v. +
+
Emperor (4) The learned Judges have not stated their + + reasons for this position, nor have they explained on what + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 ::: + 14 + + + + + + sections of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence + + Act it is based. In Gouridas Nomasudra v. Emperor (2), it is + + + + + + conceded that an oral statement of a deceased person as to + + + + + + the cause of his death, if made in the absence of the + + accused, may be proved by any one who heard it made, as + + well as by the person who recorded it. That is sufficient for + + + + + + + the purpose of the case, as Exh.D has been proved by the + + Sub-Assistant Surgeon who heard the statement being + + made and signed it. With all the due deference, we are + + unable to follow the learned Judges who decided In the + + + + matter of the petition of Samiruddin (1) and King-Emperor + + + + + v. Mathura Thakur (3), when they say that the only way of + + proving such a statement is by calling a person who heard + + + + + + it made and permitting him to refresh the memory from the + + writing under section 159 of the Evidence Act. Whether + + + + + + they are treated as written statements of deceased persons + + or as written records of verbal statements, section 32(1) + + allows dying declarations which have been reduced to + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 ::: + 15 + + + + + + writing to be admitted as relevant facts. They thus become + + substantive evidence of the circumstances leading to the + + + + + + deceased person's death when the cause of the death is in + + + + + + question. A statement taken in the absence of the accused + + from a witness for the prosecution is described as a + + `deposition' in section 512, Criminal Procedure Code, but + + + + + + + sections 157 and 158, Evidence Act, show that, if it + + satisfies the conditions of section 32, it is nevertheless a + + `statement' and as such is relevant whether the absence of + + the witness is caused by death or by some other cause + + + + which makes him incapable of giving evidence in person." +
+ + + +

As to the presumption u/s 80 of Evidence Act, the Court + + stated thus : +

+ + + + +

"When, as here, the dying + declaration has appended to it a certificate + that it has been read over to the deponent and + + + + + + declared to be correct, and this is signed by + the Magistrate who recorded the statement, + section 80 of the Evidence Act creates a + presumption that the circumstances under + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 ::: + 16 + + + + + + which it is stated to have been taken are true, + the investigation by the Magistrate being a + + + + + + judicial proceedings. In this case, we have the + additional security that the Medical Officer + + + + + + was present when the statement was taken + and certified that the patient was in his senses + at the time." +

+ + + + +

14. Similarly, in Emperor v. Balaram Das - AIR + + 1922 Cal 382(2) the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court + + held that though Babu Surendra Nath Ghosh, a Magistrate + + who had recorded the Dying Declaration, had since died, + + + Asstt. Surgeon, P.W.6 who heard the same proved the + + + + + Dying declaration by his oral evidence. +

+

15. In Kaur Singh v. Emperor - AIR 1930 Lahore + + + + + + 450, the Division Bench on facts of that case observed + + thus: +

+
"In both these statements Mt. + + + + + + Dhannon had stated that she was wounded + + by the appellant with a tesha and in my + + opinion they are valuable corroboration of + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 ::: + 17 + + + + + + the testimony to the eye witnesses." +
+

16. In Krishnama Naicken & anr. v. Emperor + + + + + + reported in AIR 1931 Madras 430, speaking for the Bench, + + + + + + the Chief Justice Beasley said on page 434- + +

"We guard ourselves from + saying that when a dying declaration has + + + + + + been recorded and has been read over to + + the deponent and agreed to be correct it + can be put in by itself and treated as + + substantive evidence without calling + person who recorded it, as we are of the + opinion that the evidence of the person + + + + who recorded it or in his unavoidable + + + + + absence some other person who was + present and heard it correctly recorded + + + + + + should always be taken to make the + written record admissible." +

+

17. A Single Judge of Allahabad High Court in the + + + + + + case of Suraj Bali v. Emperor reported in AIR 1934 + + Allahabad 340, while disagreeing with the view taken by + + Bombay High Court observed thus on page 342 of the + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 ::: + 18 + + + + + + report - +

+
"He has produced no ruling in his favour with + + + + + + the exception of a very old ruling of the Bombay High Court + + + + + + reported in Reg. v. Fata Adaji (1). In that case the + + Government Prosecutor argued that the dying declaration + + before a Magistrate on solemn affirmation might be + + + + + + + admitted without proof under S.80, Evidence Act. One of + + the learned Judges observed : +
+
"The Magistrate was not the committing + Magistrate, and the prisoners were not + present, and had no opportunity of + + + cross-examining the dying man." +
+ + + +

Now, of these three reasons given not one + + reason would be altered if the Magistrate who recorded the + + + + + + dying deposition were called. That Magistrate would not + + become the Committing Magistrate by being called as a + + witness, nor would the defect of the accused having been + + + + + + absent and not having had an opportunity of cross- +

+

examination be in any way removed by the calling of the + + Magistrate who recorded the dying deposition. Further on + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 ::: + 19 + + + + + + the Court observed : +

+
"The law does not provide that the + + + + + + mere signature of a Magistrate shall be + a sufficient authentication of such a + document." +
+ + + + +

The only question before the Court was whether S.80 does + + or does not make that provision. The mere declaration that + + + + + + it does not is no reason." +

+

On Sec. 80, Evidence Act, the Court held that a dying + + declaration before a Magistrate and recorded by him is + + admissible in evidence without calling the Magistrate or + + + without proof under this Section. +

+ + + +

18. In Emperor v. Somra Bhuian reported in AIR + + 1938 Patna 52, the Division Bench held thus : +

+ + + + +
"The argument is that the witness in + + each case should have given his parol evidence in + + full as to each sentence of what Kudrat stated to + + + + + + him, and that the written record is not evidence + + of the statements. For this proposition reliance is + + placed on 8 Cal 211. In this case the dying + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 ::: + 20 + + + + + + statement of the deceased Baber Ali had been + + recorded by the Deputy Magistrate as a + + + + + + deposition but not apparently in the presence of + + + + + + the accused. It was held that unless the + + deponent had been so examined by the Deputy + + Magistrate exercising judicial jurisdiction, the + + + + + + + statement required to be proved in the ordinary + + way by a person who heard it made and could + + not be proved by the writing made by the + + Magistrate, though if the Deputy Magistrate had + + + + been called to prove the statement, he might have + + + + + refreshed his memory with the writing made by + + himself at the time when the statement was + + + + + + made. This decision appears to have been + + sometimes cited in support of more than the + + + + + + Judges intended to lay down. In my opinion the + + law is not that the written record cannot be used + + at all, but that it is not to be used without first + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 ::: + 21 + + + + + + examining as a witness the person who heard the + + statement made. This is the view taken in 49 + + + + + + Cal.358 - Emperor v. Balram Das." +
+ + + + +

We have carefully considered the judgments + + rendered by various High Courts as above. We record our + + reasons hereinafter. +

+ + + + +

19. + + The question which arises for our consideration + + is, whether a dying declaration is admissible without proof, + + under Section 80 of the Evidence Act? It would be useful + + to reproduce the said provision. +

+ + +
"80. Presumption as to documents produced + + + + + as record of evidence.- Whenever any document is + + produced before any Court, purporting to be a record or + + + + + + memorandum of the evidence, or of any part of the + + evidence, given by a witness in a judicial proceeding or + + + + + + before any officer authorized by law to take such evidence, + + or to be a statement or confession by any prisoner or + + accused person, taken in accordance with law, and + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 ::: + 22 + + + + + + purporting to be signed by any Judge or Magistrate, or by + + any such officer as aforesaid, the Court shall presume - +
+ + + + +
that the document is genuine; that any + statements as to the circumstances + + + + + + under which it was taken, purporting to + be made by the person signing it, are + true, and that such evidence, statement + + + + + + or confession was duly taken. +
+
Since there are a number of "and" and "or", in order to + + avoid any ambiguity, this Section can be separated in three + + parts to arrive at a plain interpretation. S.80 applies to - +
+ + +
(i) any document produced before any Court, + + + + + purporting to be a record or memoranda of evidence or of + + any part of the evidence given by a witness in a judicial + + + + + + proceedings, or + +
(ii) to a document purporting to be a record or + + + + + + memo of evidence given by a witness before any officer + + authorised to take such evidence, or + +
(iii) to a statement or confession by any prisoner + + or accused person taken in accordance with law and + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 ::: + 23 + + + + + + purporting to be signed by any Judge or Magistrate, or any + + such officer as aforesaid (i.e. authorised by law). To put it + + + + + + in another way, it would be - +
+ + + + +
             (a)      such document is memoranda                  of
+
+             evidence;
+
+             (b)      the evidence was given by a witness;
+
+
+
+
+                                     
+             and
+                         
+             (c)    it was given in a judicial proceedings, or
+                        
+
before an officer authorised by law to take it. +
+

20. The words "by any prisoner or accused person" +

+ + +
govern also the word "statement" because if they governed + + + + + only the word "confession" the word "statement" would be + + left all alone and would be too vague to make any sense. +
+ + + + +
Let us put to test the submission made on behalf of the + + State that dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate would + + + + + + fall under Section 80 of Evidence Act. S.80 of Evidence + + Act deals with presumptions to be attached to one + + important class of judicial documents viz. depositions of + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:33 ::: + 24 + + + + + + witnesses in a judicial proceedings or documents recorded + + by an officer necessarily means in some previous + + + + + + proceedings. The reason is, evidence recorded in open + + + + + + court in judicial proceedings or by an officer authorised to + + take evidence by observance of certain prescribed rules and + + formalities afford sufficient guarantee for the presumption + + + + + + that it was + + correctly done. The rule is, omnia + + praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta donec probetur in + + contrarium - everything is presumed to be rightly and duly + + performed until the contrary is shown; and that the records + + + + of a Court of justice have been correctly made. For + + + + + recording a dying declaration by a Magistrate, no particular + + procedure is prescribed by statutory law nor evidence of + + + + + + such a dying man is recorded in the presence of the + + accused, nor the accused had any opportunity of cross- +
+ + + + +
examining the dying man. The dying declaration is + + recorded either before investigation begins or after and, + + therefore, it cannot be said that the same even if treated as + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:33 ::: + 25 + + + + + + `evidence given by a witness' is not recorded during any + + previous judicial proceedings or any proceedings before an + + + + + + officer authorised by law to take such evidence. As Taylor + + + + + + J. in the case of King Emperor v. Mathura Thakur, supra, + + rightly observed that what is made admissible by S.32(1) of + + the Evidence Act is the verbal statement made by the dying + + + + + + + man to the Magistrate and not the document prepared by + + the Magistrate. The document made by the Magistrate does + + not amount to a deposition or record of evidence so as to + + attract the presumption under Section 80 of Evidence Act. +
+ + +
Therefore, what is admissible in evidence is the statement + + + + + made by the dying man as to who was responsible for + + causing his death and not the paper on which dying + + + + + + declaration is recorded. For these reasons therefore, S.80 + + of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked in respect of + + + + + + presumption to be drawn in respect of a dying declaration + + recorded by a Magistrate or even an officer authorised by + + law to take evidence. As a sequel to our finding about + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:33 ::: + 26 + + + + + + inapplicability of presumption under Sec.80 of Evidence + + Act, we further hold that the Magistrate or the person who + + + + + + records a dying declaration will have to testify and prove + + + + + + who was named as offender by the dying person before + + Court where trial proceedings against accused are held. +
+
In the case of Samiruddin, supra, the Calcutta High Court + + + + + + + held that the statement must have been proved in the + + ordinary way by a person who heard it made. If for any + + reason the Magistrate is not available, any other person + + who heard it when made can also testify and they being at + + + + liberty to refresh memory by referring to the document as + + + + + provided by Sections 159 and 160 of Evidence Act. +
+

21. Section 273 of Criminal Procedure Code reads + + + + + + thus : +

+
"Except as otherwise expressly provided, + + + + + + all evidence taken in the course of the + trial or other proceeding shall be taken + in the presence of the accused, or, when + his personal attendance is dispensed + with, in the presence of his pleader." +
+ + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:33 ::: + 27 + + + + + +

A dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate is not + + recorded in the presence of the accused. But Sec. 32(1) of + + + + + + the Evidence Act makes the same relevant and can be + + + + + + proved by evidence and sanctity given to it is embodied in + + the maxim nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire, i.e. a man + + will not meet his maker with lie in his mouth. That is why + + + + + + + tests of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with. +

+

But then relevancy in evidence and proof by evidence are + + different things. Where accused is called upon to defend a + + charge under Sec. 302 I.P.C., the burden of proof in the + + + + absence or presumption of law never shifts onto him. It + + + + + ever remains on the prosecution which has to prove the + + charge beyond all reasonable doubt. The said traditional + + + + + + legal concept remains unchanged even now. In such a + + case, the accused can wait till the prosecution evidence is + + + + + + over and then show that the prosecution has not proved + + particular material facts through its prosecution witnesses + + who failed to describe the names and role of the accused in + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:33 ::: + 28 + + + + + + the offence of murder as told by the dying man to such a + + witness or a Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration. +

+ + + + +

By merely exhibiting the document of dying declaration its + + + + + + contents and in particular the names of the offender/s and + + the role played by them in committing the offence of + + murder is not proved unless such witness or Magistrate + + + + + + + vouchsafes before the trial court as to whom did the dying + + person named offenders. In Narbada Devi Gupta v. +

+

Birendra Kumar - AIR 2004 SC 175, the apex court in + + paragraph 16 held thus : +

+ + +
"The legal position is not in dispute that + + + + + mere production and marking of a + document as exhibit by the Court cannot be + + + + + + held to be a due proof of its contents. Its + execution has to be proved by admissible + evidence that is by the `evidence of those + persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of + + + + + + the facts in issue'. The situation is, + however, different where the documents are + produced, they are admitted by the opposite + party, signatures on them are also admitted + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:33 ::: + 29 + + + + + + and they are marked thereafter as exhibits + by the Court." +
+ + + + +

In Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of A.P. - 199 All MR (Cri) + + 1784, supra, the apex court in para 3 held as under : +

+ + + + +
"There can be a presumption that testimony + + of a competent witness given on oath is true, + + + + + + as the opposite party can use the weapon of + + cross-examination, inter alia, for rebutting the + + presumption. But a dying declaration is not + + a deposition in Court. It is neither made on + + + + oath nor in the presence of an accused. Its + + + + + credence cannot be tested by cross- +
+
examination. Those inherent weaknesses + + + + + + attached to a dying declaration would not + + justify any initial presumption to be drawn + + + + + + that the dying declaration contains only the + + truth." +
+

We, therefore, respectfully agree with the Division Bench + + decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Reg. v. +

+ + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:33 ::: + 30 + + + + + +

Fata Adaje & ors. and Calcutta High Court in the case of + + the Emperor v. Samiruddin and King-Emperor v. Mathura + + + + + + Thakur & ors., cited supra. We do not agree with the + + + + + + decisions of other High Courts taking contrary view. We, + + therefore,answer question no.1 in the negative and question + + no.2 in the affirmative. +

+ + + + +

22. + + Having gone through the evidence on record, we + + find that the prosecution has relied upon only one piece of + + evidence to prove the charge against the appellants and the + + same is dying declaration (Ex.23) of deceased Sunita + + + + Bhanse. There is no other evidence relied on by the + + + + + prosecution in support of its case. Insofar the dying + + declaration (Ex.23) is concerned, the same was recorded by + + + + + + Wasudeo Mahore (P.W. 4)- the Special Judicial Magistrate + + on 6.7.2001. In his substantive evidence before the Court, + + + + + + Wasudeo (P.W.4) deposed that after getting deceased Sunita + + examined from the medical officer he was satisfied that she + + was physically and mentally fit to give the statement, he + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:33 ::: + 31 + + + + + + recorded her dying declaration. Thereafter he read over the + + said dying declaration to the patient who admitted the + + + + + + same to be correctly written as per her say. Accordingly he + + + + + + made an endorsement and again requested the medical + + officer to examine the patient about her mental and + + physical condition. It is note worthy that in his substantive + + + + + + + evidence before the Court he did not depose a single word + + as to who were the offenders who had poured kerosene on + + her person and set her on fire and in what manner. The + + witness is blissfully silent about the same and the + + + + prosecution preferred to rely upon the document of dying + + + + + declaration which was exhibited. We have held by + + answering both the questions in this judgment, that the + + + + + + document of dying declaration cannot be presumed to be + + correct under S.80 of Evidence Act, unless proved + + + + + + according to law. This is particularly so because no + + presumption under S. 80 is available in respect of the dying + + declaration. Since Wasudeo (P.W.4) did not depose a word + + + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:33 ::: + 32 + + + + + + about the name and the role of the appellants as told to + + him by the deceased Sunita, in view of the statement of law + + + + + + recorded by us in the foregoing part of the judgment, we + + + + + + hold that the prosecution failed to prove its case and did + + not discharge the initial burden of proof required to be + + discharged in a criminal case. For this reason therefore we + + + + + + + reject the sole piece of evidence in the form of dying + + declaration (Ex. 23) relied upon by the prosecution. There + + is no other evidence and consequently the finding of the + + trial Court about conviction on the basis of dying + + + + declaration will have to be reversed. Thus Criminal Appeal + + + + + No. 103/03 will have to be allowed. +

+

23. For the reasons aforesaid, the criminal appeal + + + + + + is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated + + 30.11.2002 made by II Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, + + + + + + Amravati, in S.T. No. 219 of 2001 is set aside. Both the + + appellants are acquitted of the offence punishable under + + Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. +

+ + + + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:33 ::: + 33 + + + + + +

Bail bonds of appellant no.1 shall stand cancelled. +

+

Appellant no.2, who is in jail, be set at liberty forthwith, if + + + + + + not required in any other crime. Fine amount, if paid, be + + + + + + refunded to the appellants. +

+ + +
                       JUDGE                           JUDGE
+
+
+
+
+                                   
+                       
+                      
+      
+
+
+    /TA/
+   
+
+
+
+
+
+
+                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:33 :::
+
+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_103285676.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_103285676.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ace55af240ca9270a85a852772943f3c8b178950 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_103285676.html @@ -0,0 +1,481 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Himanshu Jaswal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 30 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

2(iii). +

+

After withdrawal of bail petition from the Court of + + Learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, [as no FIR was + + + registered], the State Authorities have registered the FIR + + No.09/2024 on 22.03.2024 under Section 376 of IPC + + against the bail petitioner. +

+

2(iv). In the background of the above facts, it is + + + + + submitted by Mr. Ajay Sharma, Learned Senior Counsel + + + + + + assisted by Mr. Atharav Sharma, Advocate, that once the + + bail petitioner and the complainant were in consensual + + + + + + relationship, therefore, the present FIR, is an offshoot of + + strained relationship as the petitioner did not meet out + + her unwarranted design(s). +

+
+ +
+ +

In the background of the mandate of the law, + + as referred to above and on facts of the instant case, which + + is borne out from the status report including the statement + + of the complainant-victim (X) under Section 161 and 164 of + + Cr.P.C., this Court is of the prima facie view, at this + + + + stage, that the accusation of Section 376 IPC against the bail + + petitioner, is not made out, for the reason that the + + + + + complainant-victim (X) and the bail petitioner were having + + + + + + love affair with promise to marry each other, leading to + + + + + + mutual-consensual sexual relations since 2020 till + + 15/18.02.2024, as referred to above, but on 27/28.02.2024 + + and due to subsequent events, the mother of the bail + + petitioner refused to give effect or to accept the marriage + +

+
+ +
+ +

10(v). +

+

While dealing with a similar issue, in case of + + Ashok Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh i.e. + + + Cr.MP(M) No.190 of 2024, this Court has held as under :- +

+
"10(iii). The act of living together and + sexual relations between the prosecutrix + + + and the bail petitioner, since 2019 to 2022, + as referred to above, which was without + any objection at that relevant time [till the + + + + + objection was made 3-4 months ago, which + are levelled just to seek ulterior benefits], + + + + + + gives rise to irrebutable presumption, at + this stage, that the relations between them + + + + + + were consensual and, therefore, the alleged + offence-accusation under Sections 375 and + 376 of the Indian Penal Code, is prima facie, is + not made out against the bail petitioner. By + no stretch of imagination, this Court, at this + stage, can believe that a married woman + +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_103313874.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_103313874.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..97a64a3d847917b2d9025d92ac8dc646368003b9 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_103313874.html @@ -0,0 +1,403 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Mahesh Kalosiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 November, 2017 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
Shri A.K. Dawale, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Government Advocate for +the non-applicant/State. +
This is the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 +of Cr.P.C. of applicant/ Mahendra Singh apprehending his arrest +in connection with Crime No.434/2017 for the offence +punishable under Section 406 of IPC. No other bail application +has been either filed, decided or pending before the Sessions +Court or before this Court or before Hon'ble the Apex Court in +connection with the present case. +
+
+ +
+
List after two weeks. +
(Virender Singh) + Judge +Amit + +18/09/2017 :- +
Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri R. Sukhani, learned counsel for the +objector/complainant. +
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the non- +applicant/State. +
The applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail on the +ground that there are no ingredients or other evidence available +of Section 354 of IPC, other offence are bailable, the applicant is +a student of engineering and allegations made against the him +are vague, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted to him. +
+
+ +
+
(Virender Singh) + Judge +Amit + +18/09/2017 :- +
Shri R.S. Chabra, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the non- +applicant/State. +
Heard with the aid of case diary. + This is the first anticipatory bail application under Section +438 of Cr.P.C. of applicant/Jairamdas Tuteja apprehending his +arrest in connection with crime no.0178/2017 for the offence +punishable under Section 306 and 34 of IPC. No other bail +application has been either filed, decided or pending before the +Sessions Court or before this Court or before Hon'ble the Apex +Court in connection with the present case. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_1040443.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_1040443.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..61a841f99d506d3d0c6ce42b5470293c3b723cab --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_1040443.html @@ -0,0 +1,366 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Jeetu & 4 Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 3 February, 2010 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned +A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of +sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. +

The accused-appellants Pankaj Kumar Tewari and Rakesh +Kumar Tewari have been convicted in Sessions Trial No.82 of 2002 +(Case Crime No.383/2001) for the offence punishable under Section +323/34 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo one year's simple +imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment +of fine to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment and have +have been acquitted to the charge for the offence punishable under +Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C. Accused-appellants were on bail during +trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on +record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_104047967.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_104047967.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5a4607e7e5604537e0fd30e7239cb65d318f9319 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_104047967.html @@ -0,0 +1,555 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Jogendra Pandit @ Yogendra Pandit & Anr. vs The State Of Bihar on 3 April, 2012 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

A Division Bench of this Court in case of Upendra Singh @ + + Pappu Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., since reported in 2003(2) PLJR + + 327 has already settled the issue. It has been held in that case that for bail + + under Section 167(2) Cr. P.C., the gravity of the offence has to be seen with + + reference to the maximum sentence provided. +

+

Again, in yet another decision in case of Satyanarayan Singh + + vs. The State of Bihar & Another., since reported in 2004(4) PLJR 130, in + + + 4 / 13 + + + + + which, in similar circumstance, in a case under Section 304B IPC when bail + + was granted to an accused under Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. placing reliance on + + the decision in case of Sunil Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and others + + (Supra) by a Magistrate as charge sheet was not submitted within 60 days + + from the date of custody of the accused, an application under Section 439(2) + + Cr. P.C. was filed before this Court for cancellation of bail granted to the + + accused. A Bench of this Court considered the matter in detail and took note + + of the judgment of Sunil Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and others + + (Supra) and Upendra Singh @ Pappu Singh vs. The State of Bihar & + + Ors. (Supra) and held the order granting bail to the accused by the learned + + Magistrate to be bad and against the decision of the Division Bench of this + + Court which was binding on it. The application under Section 439(2) Cr. P.C. + + was allowed and the bail granted to the accused was cancelled. In this + + connection, I think it apt to quote here paragraph nos.4 & 6 of the said + + judgment which reads as follows:- +

+
+ +
+ +
"4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted + that the impugned order shows that learned Chief + Judicial Magistrate granted bail to opposite party no. 2 + under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. by relying on a decision of + Single Judge of Jharkhand High Court reported in + 2002(3) Criminal Law Journal 2507 by which it has + been held that in a case under Section 304B, I.P.C. if + chargesheet is not submitted within sixty days from the + date of custody of an accused, he will be entitled to bail + under Section 167(2)(a)(ii), Cr.P.C. He has further + argued that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, + Sitamarhi did not consider the decision of a Division + Bench of this Court reported in 2003(2) P.L.J.R. 327 by + which it has been held that for bail under Section + + + 5 / 13 + + + + + 167(2), Cr. P.C., the gravity of the offence has to be seen + with reference to the maximum sentence provided. In + this case, the decision of Supreme Court reported in + (2001) 5 S.C.C. 453 (Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State + of Maharashtra) which has also been reported in + 2001(1) J.L.J.R. 890 S.C. (Reported in 2001(2) PLJR + (SC) 182] relied upon by the Single Judge of Jharkhand + High Court has also been relied upon. In 2001 (1) + J.L.J.R. 890 S.C. the principle was laid down that when + investigation is not completed within the specified + period, an accused in custody gets an indefeasible right + to be released on bail if he is prepared to furnish bail + bond. It was further decided that if such an accused filed + a petition for bail under Section 167(2), Cr. P.C. before + submission of chargesheet and before any order on his + petition is passed, chargesheet is submitted, it cannot be + said that he has not availed of the right to be released on + bail. This was the case on the point of accruing an + indefeasible right by an accused in custody for his + release on bail under Section 167(2), Cr. P.C. in case of + non-completion of investigation within stipulated period + which may be ninety days. The learned counsel for the + petitioner submits that by ignoring the decision of + Division Bench of this Court, the learned Chief Judicial + Magistrate, Sitamarhi relied upon judgment of a Single + Judge of another High Court which is not proper. His + further argument is that in another judgment of a Single + Judge of Himachal Pradesh High Court reported in + 2003 Criminal Law Journal 1668, it has been held that + in case of Section 304B, I.P.C. since maximum term of + imprisonment being more than ten years of + imprisonment, period of ninety days would be applicable + for considering the question of release on bail under + Section 167(2), Cr. P.C. According to him on the same + + + 6 / 13 + + + + + point if there are divergent views expressed by different + Benches of Single Judge of different High Courts and + there is a decision of Division Bench of this High Court + covering directly the point in issue, it was not proper for + the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass any order + ignoring the decision of Division Bench of this Court to + which he is subordinate and to base his order on the + decision of a Bench of Single Judge of a different High + Court when on the said point different view has been + expressed by Bench of the Single Judge of another High + Court." +
+
+ +
+
"6. In the judgment of a Single Judge of Jharkhand + High Court on the basis of which opposite party no. 2 + has been granted bail, it has been observed that because + imprisonment under Section 304B, I.P.C. provides that it + will be of not less than seven years but it may extend to + imprisonment for life so it does not come within the + purview of Section 167(2)(a)(ii), Cr. P.C. in which only + those offences are mentioned in which imprisonment is + for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten + years. According to his Lordship imprisonment for life + and imprisonment which may extend to life are different + and cannot be equated with other. For the offence under + Section 304B, I.P.C., as discussed above, imprisonment + of not less than seven years or the imprisonment which + may extend to life is provided. It cannot be said that in + no case under Section 304B, I.P.C., imprisonment for + life can be granted and this will always be less than it. In + view of the decision of Division Bench of this Court, + referred to above, for the purpose of considering bail + under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C., maximum punishment + has to be considered. For an offence under Section + 304B, I.P.C., maximum imprisonment may extend for + life. I find that here for determining the question of bail + + + 7 / 13 + + + + + of accused in the present case was ninety days of the + period of custody and not sixty days period of custody. + For considering bail of accused on the ground of non + submission of chargesheet was ninety days and not sixty + days from the date from the date of remand of accused + in custody. The order granting bail to opposite party No. + 2 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot be said to + be a proper order which cannot pass order against the + decision of the Division Bench of this Court which was + binding on it." +
+
+ +
+

Thus, it is apparent that the decision relied upon on behalf of + + the accused before learned C.J.M., Jamui in case of Sunil Kumar Vs. State + + of Jharkhand and others (Supra) has expressly been overruled by the + + judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court way back in the year 2006. A Division + + Bench of this Court and a Bench of Single Judge of this High Court has + + already given a decision covering directly the point in issue after noticing the + + decision of a Single Bench of Jharkhand High Court and has held that the in a + + case under Section 304B IPC bail of accused on the ground of non- + + submission of charge sheet can be considered on expiry of 90 days and not 60 + + days from the date of remand of accused in custody. The learned C.J.M., + + Jamui has, thus, erred in law, inasmuch as he has relied upon an overruled + + judgment of another High Court ignoring the law laid down by the Apex + + Court, a Division Bench of this Court and a Bench of Single Judge of this + + Court directly on the point in issue. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_104393131.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_104393131.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f1b989ddac7d080bf03749777e8975a6c983af05 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_104393131.html @@ -0,0 +1,357 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Imran vs Union Of India & 3 Others on 19 February, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

21. The contents of paragraph no. 14 of the writ petition though not answered specifically with reference to the paragraphwise assertions, as the learned AGA would point out has been dealt with in paragraph no. 23 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Detaining Authority that reads thus: +

+
"23. That the order of detention has been passed by the deponent/District Magistrate by taking into consideration the entire facts, the impact of the incident on the society at large, the fear and terror created on account of the said incident and by also evaluating fact that the petitioner and his family members were making efforts for releasing the petitioner on bail. The deponent at the end of initial period of detention again sought further report from the police administration and recommended for further extension of the detention period. It is submitted that the deponent while passing the detention order took note of the fact that hectic efforts are being made from the side of the petitioner for getting him to be released on bail. The bail application was taken note by the deponent. It is humbly submitted that while forming the subjective satisfaction, what is to be seen, is the effort being made by the petitioner for setting him free. The safeguard as provided under the National Security Act has been duly followed by the deponent and on each and every step the petitioner has been informed about his rights and therefore the detention order is wholly in accordance with law and the resent habeas corpus petitioner filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. More so ever, the petitioner has been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court on 10.08.2017 in Case Crime No. 2 of 2017, under Sections 147, 323, 452, 427 and 395. In Case Crime NO. 1 of 2017 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 435, 436, 395, 397, 323, 504, 506, 332, 353, 427, 186, 336, 34, 452, 120 B of IPC section ¾ Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act and section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. Bail has been granted to the petitioner on 30.05.2017 by this Hon'ble Court. In Case Crime No. 3 of 2017, under sections 147, 148, 149, 435, 307, 352, 436, 397, 34 and 120-B of IPC bail has been granted tot he petitioner on 18.08.2017 by this Hon'ble Court and in Case Crime No. 4 of 2017, under sections 147, 323, 452, 395 and 427 of IPC bail has been granted to the petitioner by this Hon'ble Court on 18.09.2017." +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_104475518.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_104475518.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3375770926ad0bac4388d6f9e9afbc8f327654b6 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_104475518.html @@ -0,0 +1,1058 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ex C.O. Aley Hasan Khan vs State Of U.P. on 15 September, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 24, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Allahabad High Court

+

Ex C.O. Aley Hasan Khan vs State Of U.P. on 15 September, 2023

+ +

Author: Raj Beer Singh

+ +

Bench: Raj Beer Singh

+ +
+
+
+
+
+HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
+ 
+ 
+
+
+Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178214
+ 
+Reserved on 29.08.2023
+ 
+Delivered on 15.09.2023
+ 
+Court No. - 78
+ 
+
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26662 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Ex C.O. Aley Hasan Khan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Mohammad Khalid
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+Connected with 
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26601 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Ex C.O. Aley Hasan Khan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Khalid,Imran Ullah
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+& 
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26607 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Ex C.O. Aley Hasan Khan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Mohammad Khalid
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+&
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26609 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Ex C.O. Aley Hasan Khan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Mohammad Khalid
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+&
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26610 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Ex C.O. Aley Hasan Khan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Mohammad Khalid
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+&
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26614 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Ex C.O. Aley Hasan Khan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Khalid,Imran Ullah
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+&
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26619 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Ex C.O. Aley Hasan Khan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Mohammad Khalid
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+&
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26620 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Ex C.O. Aley Hasan Khan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Mohammad Khalid
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+&
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26622 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Ex. C.O. Aley Hasan Khan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Mohammad Khalid
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+&
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26626 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Ex C.O. Aley Hasan Khan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Mohammad Khalid
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+&
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26630 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Ex C.O. Aley Hasan Khan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Mohammad Khalid
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+&
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26633 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Ex C.O. Aley Hasan Khan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Mohammad Khalid
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+&
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26646 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Ex C.O Aley Hasan Khan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Khalid,Imran Ullah
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+&
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26647 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Aley Hasan Khan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Mohammad Khalid
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+&
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26649 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Ex C.O. Aley Hasan Khan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Mohammad Khalid
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+&
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26650 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Ex C.O. Aley Hasan Khan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Mohammad Khalid
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+&
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26651 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Ex C.O. Aley Hasan Khan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Mohammad Khalid
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+&
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26653 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Ex C.O. Aley Hasan Khan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Mohammad Khalid
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+&
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26655 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Ex C.O Aley Hasan Khan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Khalid,Imran Ullah
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+&
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26656 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Ex C.O. Aley Hasan Khan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Mohammad Khalid
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+&
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26657 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Ex C.O. Aley Hasan Khan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Mohammad Khalid
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+&
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26658 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Ex C.O. Aley Hasan Khan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Mohammad Khalid
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+&
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26659 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Ex C.O. Aley Hasan Khan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Mohammad Khalid
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+&
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26660 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Ex. C. O Aley Hasan Khan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Mohammad Khalid
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+&
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26672 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Ex C.O Aley Hasan Khkan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Khalid,Imran Ullah
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+&
+ 
+Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26677 of 2023
+ 
+Applicant :- Ex C.O Aley Hasan Khan
+ 
+Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
+ 
+Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Khalid,Imran Ullah
+ 
+Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
+ 
+Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
+ 
+

1. Heard Sri Imran Ullah learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P.K. Giri, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Jai Narain, learned A.G.A. for the State. +

+

2. All these bail applications have been moved by one and the same applicant-accused Ex C.O Aley Hasan Khan in separate above referred cases, wherein the allegations are more or less similar and all the cases are connected with each other, thus, all the above-stated bail applications are being decided by this common order. +

+

3. The bail application no. 26662 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No. 224 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The first information report of this case was lodged by the Revenue Inspector Manoj Kumar, area Khaud, tehsil Sadar, district Rampur, against the applicant and co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan, alleging that on inquiry it has been found that the tenure-holders of Gata Nos. 1239 area 0.114 hectare, Gata No. 1232 area 0.126 hectare, Gata No. 1415, area 0.089 hectare, Gata No. 1253/1 area 0.089 hectare, Gata No. 1319-kha area 1.294 hectare, have made applications and submitted affidavits to the effect that Ex. Cabinet Minister Azam Khan and C.O. City Aley Hasan Khan (hereinafter referred to the applicant) have threatened and pressurized the tenure-holders to execute sale-deed in favour of the Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar University (hereinafter referred as the 'University') and they have threatened to implicate them in false cases and they were also detained for in lock-up for one day and their lands were illegally taken over into the campus of the said university. When the said tenure-holders used to demand their possession over their lands, the accused persons used to threat them. It was also alleged that their lands have been illegally occupied by the accused persons. +

+

4. The bail application no. 26601 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant- accused in case crime No. 235 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 504, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The informant Haneef has lodged the first information report of this case against the applicant-accused and co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan, alleging that he is co-tenure holder of Gata No. 1232, situated at village Singan Khera, but at the time of construction of the said university, co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan and applicant-accused used to assault and pressurize him to transfer his land to the said university and he was kept confined in the lock-up and later on he was threatened by the accused persons that if he did not transfer his land in favour of the said university, he would be sent to jail by showing false recovery of some charas, opium etc. It was alleged that accused persons have forcibly taken over the possession of his land by taking the land inside the campus of the said university. +

+

5. The bail application no. 26607 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant- accused in case crime No. 227 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 504, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The informant Bande Ali has lodged the first information report of this case against the applicant-accused and co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan, alleging that he is co-tenure holder of Gata No. 1232 situated at village Singan Khera but about 15 years back, at the time of construction of the said university, co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan has forcibly taken over the possession over his land by taking it inside the campus of the said university. The applicant-accused kept him confined for one day in the lock-up and assaulted him and later on he was threatened by the accused persons that if he did not transfer his land in favour of the said university, he would be implicated in some false cases and the sale deed of his land was got executed. +

+

6. The bail application no. 26609 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No. 239 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 504, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The informant Nasir has lodged the first information report of this case against the applicant-accused and co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan, alleging that he is co-tenure-holder of Gata No. 1232 situated at village Singan Khera but at the time of construction of the said university, accused persons have pressurized him in order to take over the possession of his land and they have also assaulted him and he was kept confined for 18-19 hours in the lock-up by the applicant-accused and later on he was threatened by the applicant-accused that if he did not transfer his land in favour of the said university, he would be implicated in some cases of opium, charas etc. Accused persons have also tried to kill him. It was also alleged that accused persons have forcibly taken over the possession over his land by taking his land inside the campus of the said university. +

+

7. The bail application no. 26610 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No. 240 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The informant Nazim has lodged the first information report of this case against the applicant-accused and co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan, alleging that he is tenure-holder of Gata No. 1253/1 situated at village Singan Khera but at the time of construction of the said university, accused persons have pressurized and assaulted him to take over the possession of his land and he was kept confined for 14-17 hours in the lock-up by the applicant-accused and later on he was threatened by the applicant-accused that if he did not transfer his land in favour of the said university, he would be implicated in some cases of theft, charas and smack etc. It was also alleged that accused persons have forcibly taken over the possession of his land by taking the land inside the campus of the said university. +

+

8. The bail application no. 26614 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No. 252 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The informant Mohd. Yaseen has lodged the first information report of this case against the applicant-accused, co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan and SHO Kushalveer Singh, alleging that he is co-tenure-holder of Gata No. 1415 situated at village Singan Khera but at the time of construction of the said university, accused persons have pressurized and assaulted him and his family members to take over the possession of his land and he was kept confined for 2 hours in the lock-up by the applicant-accused and the SHO and later on he was threatened by the accused persons that if he did not transfer his land in favour of the said university, he would be implicated in cases of charas, smack and theft etc. Accused persons have also tried to kill him. It was also alleged that accused persons have forcibly taken over the possession of his land by taking the land inside the campus of the said university. +

+

9. The bail application no. 26619 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No. 250 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The informant Mohd. Haneef has lodged the first information report of this case against the applicant-accused, co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan and SHO Kushalveer Singh, alleging that he is co-tenure-holder of Gata No. 1415 situated at village Singan Khera but at the time of construction of the said university, accused persons have pressurized and assaulted him in order to take over the possession of his land. The informant was kept confined for 10-16 hours in the lock-up by the applicant-accused and the SHO and later on he was threatened by the accused persons that if he did not transfer his land in favour of the said university, he would be implicated in cases of charas, smack and opium etc. It was alleged that accused persons have forcibly taken over the possession of his land by taking the land inside the campus of the said university. +

+

10. The bail application no. 26620 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No. 249 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The informant Rafeeq has lodged the first information report of this case against the applicant-accused and co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan and SHO Kushalveer Singh, alleging that he is co-tenure-holder of Gata No. 1253/1 situated at village Singan Khera but at the time of construction of the said university, accused persons have pressurized and assaulted him in order to take over the possession of his land. He was kept confined for one day in the lock-up by the applicant-accused and the SHO and later on he was threatened by the accused persons that if he did not transfer his land in favour of the said university, he would be implicated in cases of smack, charas and theft etc. It was also alleged that accused persons have forcibly taken over the possession of his land by taking the land inside the campus of the said university. +

+

11. The bail application no. 26622 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No. 262 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The informant Noor Alam has lodged the first information report of this case against the applicant-accused, co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan and SHO Kushalveer Singh, alleging that he is tenure-holder of Gata No. 1319-Kha situated at village Singan Khera but at the time of construction of the said university, accused persons have pressurized and assaulted him in order to take over the possession of his land and he was kept confined for one day in the lock-up by the applicant-accused and the SHO and later on he was threatened by the accused persons that if he did not transfer his land in favour of the said university, he would be implicated in some cases of theft, charas, smack and Ganja etc. It was alleged that accused persons have forcibly taken over the possession of his land by taking the land in the campus of the said university. +

+

12. The bail application no. 26626 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No. 248 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 504, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The informant Mohd. Hasan has lodged the first information report of this case against the applicant-accused and co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan and SHO Kushalveer Singh, alleging that he is tenure-holder of Gata No. 1319-Kha situated at village Singan Khera but at the time of construction of the said university, the accused persons have pressurized and assaulted him as well as his family members in order to take over the possession of his land and he was kept confined for one day in the lock-up by the applicant-accused and the SHO and later on he was threatened by the accused persons that if he did not transfer his land in favour of the said university, he would be implicated in some cases of charas, smack etc. It was alleged that accused persons have forcibly taken over the possession of his land by taking his land inside the campus of the said university. +

+

13. The bail application no. 26630 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No. 237 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The informant Mohd. Mustaqeem has lodged the first information report of this case against the applicant-accused and co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan, alleging that he is tenure-holder of Gata No. 1415 situated at village Singan Khera but at the time of construction of the said university, accused persons have pressurized and assaulted him as well as his family members in order to take possession over his land and he was kept confined for 10-11 hours in the lock-up by the applicant-accused and later on he was threatened by the accused persons that if he did not transfer his land in favour of the said university, he would be implicated in cases of theft, Gangster, charas etc. Applicant-accused has also threatened to kill him. It was alleged that accused persons have forcibly taken over the possession over his land by taking the land inside the campus of the said university. +

+

14. The bail application no. 26633 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No. 260 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The informant Mohd. Alim has lodged the first information report of this case against the applicant-accused, co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan and SHO Kushalveer Singh, alleging that the informant is tenure-holder of Gata No. 1319-kha situated at village Singan Khera but at the time of construction of the said university, accused persons have assaulted him and they pressurised him to transfer his land. The applicant-accused and the co-accused Kushalveer Singh detained him in the lock-up for 20-24 hours. The informant has further alleged that he was threatened by the accused persons that in case he did not transfer his land in favour of the said university, he would be implicated in case of charas, smack and heroine etc. and when he did not execute the sale-deed, his land was forcibly taken inside the compound of the said university. +

+

15. The bail application no. 26646 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No. 241 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The informant Nabbu has lodged the first information report of this case against the applicant-accused and co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan, alleging that the informant is tenure-holder of Gata No. 1253/1 situated at village Singan Khera but at the time of construction of the said university, accused persons have assaulted him in order to take over his land and they used to pressurize him to transfer his land and he was lodged in lock-up for 10-12 hours by the applicant-accused and he was threatened that in case he did not transfer his land in favour of the said university, he would be implicated in some case of smack and charas etc. It was alleged that his land has been illegally taken over inside the university. +

+

16. The bail application no. 26647 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No. 238 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The informant Matloob has lodged the first information report of this case against the applicant and the co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan, alleging that the informant is co-tenure-holder of Gata No. 1319-Kha situated at village Singan Khera but at the time of construction of the said university, the applicant-accused and the co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan have assaulted him in order to take over his land and they pressurised him to transfer his land and he was confined in lock-up by the applicant-accused for two days. The informant was threatened that in case he did not transfer his land in favour of the said university, he would be implicated in some case of smack, charas, theft and heroine etc. and that accused persons have also tried to kill him. It was alleged that sale-deed of his land was got executed in favour of the said university by way of force and coercion. +

+

17. The bail application no. 26649 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No. 295 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The informant Asrar has lodged the first information report of this case against the applicant, the co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan, the SHO Kushalveer Singh, and one unknown person alleging that the informant is co-tenure-holder of Gata No. 1230 situated at village Singan Khera but during construction of the said university, co-accused Cabinet Minister Azam Khan coerced the informant to transfer his land to the said university and later on applicant-accused along with police officials lifted the informant from his house and threatened him that if he did not transfer his land in favour of the said university, they would send him to jail in case of charas, smack etc. and that he was kept confined for 15 hours in the lock-up. It was alleged that accused persons have forcibly taken over the possession of his land by taking the land inside the campus of the said university. +

+

18. The bail application no. 26650 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No. 255 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The informant Nazaqat has lodged the first information report of this case against the applicant-accused, co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan and SHO Kushalveer Singh, alleging that he is co-tenure holder of Gata No. 1230 situated at village Singan Khera but at the time of construction of the said university, accused persons have pressurized and assaulted him as well as his family members, in order to take over the possession over his land and he was kept confined for 27-28 hours in the lock-up by the applicant-accused and the SHO have threatened that if he did not transfer his land in favour of the said university, he would be implicated in some cases of charas, opium, theft etc. It was alleged that accused persons have forcibly taken over the possession of his land by taking his land inside the campus of the said university. +

+

19. The bail application no. 26651 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No. 236 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The informant Shareef Ahmad has lodged the first information report of this case against the applicant-accused and co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan, alleging that he is tenure holder of Gata No. 1230 situated at village Singan Khera but at the time of construction of the said university, accused persons have pressurized and assaulted him as well as his family members, in order to take over the possession of his land and he was kept confined for 14-18 hours in the lock-up by the applicant-accused and he was threatened by the accused persons that if he did not transfer his land in favour of the said university, he would be implicated in cases of charas, opium and smack etc. It was alleged that accused persons have forcibly taken over the possession of his land by taking the land inside the campus of the said university. +

+

20. The bail application no. 26653 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No. 228 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The informant Mohd. Ahmad has lodged the first information report of this case against the applicant-accused and co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan, alleging that he is co-tenure-holder of Gata No. 1232 situated at village Singan Khera. About 15 years back at the time of construction of the said university, accused persons have forcibly taken over the possession of his land by taking his land inside the campus of the said university. Applicant-accused has also kept him confined in the lock-up and harassed and he was threatened by the accused persons that if he did not transfer his land in favour of the said university, he would be implicated in some false cases. +

+

21. The bail application no. 26655 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No. 232 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The informant Kallan has lodged the first information report of this case against the applicant-accused and co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan, alleging that he is co-tenure holder of Gata No. 1230 situated at village Singan Khera. At the time of construction of the said university, accused persons have pressurized him and forcibly taken over the possession of his land by taking the land inside the campus of the said university and he was threatened by the accused persons that if he did not transfer his land in favour of the said university, he along with his family members, would be implicated in cases of charas and opium and he was kept confined in the lock-up for 10-15 hours. +

+

22. The bail application no. 26656 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No. 242 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The informant Jumma has lodged the first information report of this case against the applicant-accused and co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan, alleging that he is co-tenure holder of Gata No. 1230 situated at village Singan Khera. At the time of construction of the said university, accused persons have pressurized and assaulted him as well as his family members, in order to take over the possession of his land and he was kept confined for one day in the lock-up by the applicant-accused and he was threatened by the accused persons that if he did not transfer his land in favour of the said university, he would be implicated in some cases of charas, smack and theft etc. It was alleged that accused persons have forcibly taken over the possession of his land by taking the land inside the campus of the said university. +

+

23. The bail application no. 26657 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No. 251 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The informant Bhullan has lodged the first information report of this case against the applicant-accused, co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan and the SHO Kushalveer Singh, alleging that he is co-tenure-holder of Gata No. 1415 situated at village Singan Khera. At the time of construction of the said university, accused persons have pressurized and assaulted him as well as his family members, in order to take over the possession of his land and he was kept confined for 17-19 hours in the lock-up by the applicant-accused and threatened by the accused persons that if he did not transfer his land in favour of the said university, he would be implicated in cases of charas, gangster and theft etc. It was alleged that accused persons have forcibly taken over the possession of his land by taking his land inside the campus of the said university. +

+

24. The bail application no. 26658 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No. 257 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 504, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The informant Reshma has lodged the first information report of this case against the applicant-accused, co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan and the SHO Kushalveer Singh, alleging that she is co-tenure holder of Gata No. 1232 situated at village Singan Khera. At the time of construction of the said university, accused persons have pressurized and assaulted her, as well as her family members, in order to take over the possession of her land and she along with her family members was kept confined for 24-25 hours in the lock-up by the applicant-accused and threatened that if she did not transfer her land in favour of the said university, she and her family members would be implicated in some cases of charas, theft and smack etc. It was alleged that accused persons have forcibly taken over the possession of her land by taking her land inside the campus of the said university. +

+

25. The bail application no. 26659 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No. 261 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 504, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The informant Zakir has lodged the first information report of this case against the applicant-accused, co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan and the SHO Kushalveer Singh, alleging that he is co-tenure holder of Gata No. 1232 situated at village Singan Khera and at the time of construction of the said university, accused persons have pressurized and assaulted him in order to take over the possession of his land. The informant along with his family members was kept confined for 21-22 hours in the lock-up by the applicant-accused and threatened that if he did not transfer his land in favour of the said university, informant and his family members would be implicated in cases of charas, smack and opium etc. It was alleged that accused persons have forcibly taken over the possession of his land by taking the land inside the campus of the said university. +

+

26. The bail application no. 26660 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No. 254 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 504, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The informant Abrar has lodged the first information report of this case against the applicant-accused, co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan and the SHO Kushalveer Singh, alleging that he is co-tenure-holder of Gata No. 1230 situated at village Singan Khera and that at the time of construction of the said university, accused persons have pressurized and assaulted him in order to take over the possession of his land and he was kept confined for 21-30 hours in the lock-up by the applicant-accused and the SHO and threatened that if he did not transfer his land in favour of the said university, he would be implicated in cases of charas, smack and theft etc. It was alleged that accused persons have forcibly taken over the possession of his land by taking the land inside the campus of the said university. +

+

27. The bail application no. 26672 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No. 256 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The informant Ameer Alam has lodged the first information report of this case against the applicant-accused, co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan and the SHO Kushalveer Singh, alleging that he is co-tenure-holder of Gata No. 1319-Kha situated at village Singan Khera and that at the time of construction of the said university, accused persons have pressurized and assaulted him in order to take over the possession of his land and he was kept confined for 2 days in the lock-up by the applicant-accused and the SHO and he was threatened by the accused persons that if he did not transfer his land in favour of the said university, he would be implicated in cases of charas, smack and dacoity etc. It was alleged that accused persons have forcibly taken over the possession of his land by taking his land inside the campus of the said university. +

+

28. The bail application no. 26677 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant-accused in case crime No. 253 of 2019, under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 386, 389, 420, 447, 506 IPC, police station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

+

The informant Naame has lodged the first information report of this case against the applicant-accused, co-accused Ex. Minister Azam Khan and the SHO Kushalveer Singh, alleging that he is co-tenure-holder of Gata No. 1230 situated at village Singan Khera. At the time of construction of the said university, accused persons have pressurized and assaulted him and his family members, in order to take over the possession of his land and he was kept confined for 23-25 hours in the lock-up by the applicant-accused and the SHO and he was threatened by the accused persons that if he did not transfer his land in favour of the said university, he would be implicated in cases of charas, smack and dacoity etc. It was alleged that accused persons have forcibly taken over the possession of his land by taking the land inside the campus of the said university. +

+

29. The arguments of learned counsel for the applicant are substantially similar for all the above-stated cases. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police, having unblemished career of several years, and he has been falsely implicated in this case due to political vendetta. The first information reports of all the above-stated cases have been lodged with long and undue delay and no satisfactory explanation for such delay has been shown. The allegations made in most of the first information reports pertain to the period of establishment of the said university and the process of establishment was started since the year 2005-06 and thus, there is long delay of about 15 years in lodging of the first information reports. In the first information reports of the cases, even no date, time or place of the incidents was mentioned. During investigation, prosecution has tried to fill up the loopholes in the prosecution case and an attempt was made to mention the necessary details like dates and places of the incident through statements of witnesses but the veracity of the allegations is wholly doubtful. All the first information reports of the above-stated 26 cases were lodged within a span of two months by making similar allegations, which are quite vague and this clearly indicate that these reports were lodged with malafide intention. During investigation, the applicant-accused has filed a writ petition No. 21553 of 2019 before this Court, wherein an interim order dated 25.09.2019 was passed by this court to the effect that by the next date of listing, applicant shall not be arrested in all the above-referred cases. It was submitted that the allegations, made in the first information reports of the above-stated cases, are that the various pieces of land of the farmers/complainants were illegally occupied by the university and in that process applicant-accused used to threaten them to transfer their lands to the said university and that applicant used to confine the complainants in lock-up for some hours/one day/two days. The allegations are quite vague, absurd and inherently improbable. Except bald allegation, there is nothing to show that applicant-accused has lodged or confined any of the complainant in the lock-up of the police station. There is no satisfactory explanation that if such incidents have taken place, why the complainants did not make any complaint at that time. Further, most of the complainants / land owners have executed sale-deeds of their respective lands in favour of the said university with their own free will and by obtaining due amount as consideration. The Investigating Officer did not investigate the matters properly and in accordance with law and the charge-sheets were submitted under the influence and pressure of superior officers. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that at the most, only case which is made out, is regarding demarcation of lands of the complainants. Further, the complainants have already filed cases under Section 134 U.P. Revenue Code for ejectment. There is no such allegation that the applicant-accused is in possession of any piece of land pertaining to the complainants. No sale deed was executed in favour of the applicant-accused. +

+

30. It is further submitted that in above-referred all the cases, the prosecution version is that the lands of the complainants were illegally occupied by taking their lands inside the campus of the Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar University, which is being run by Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar Trust. The applicant-accused is neither a member of the said trust nor he is having any control in the affairs of the Trust or of university. No sale-deed has been executed in favour of the applicant-accused and thus, the applicant is not a beneficiary of the alleged incidents and he has absolutely no motive to grab the lands of the said complainants. The applicant has already retired from his services on 30.06.2017 and soon after his retirement, police have registered as many as 54 cases against him within a span of two months, under the influence of ruling party of the State. Earlier in three cases i.e. case crime no. 1200 of 2007, under Section 427, 452, 120-B IPC, police station Civil Lines, district Rampur, case crime no. 640 of 2016, under Section 395 IPC, police station Civil Lines, district Rampur and case crime no. 376 of 2016, under Section 323, 504, 506, 364, 342, 420 IPC, police station Civil Lines, district Rampur, the police have submitted final reports in favour of the applicant and applicant was exonerated. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that the ingredients of offence under Section 420 IPC are not made out against the applicant. Similarly, regarding prosecution of the accused-appellant for offence under Section 447 read with Section 441 IPC, no notice as prescribed under Section 441 IPC has been given and thus, the prosecution of applicant under Section 447 IPC is barred by law. In this connection, learned counsel has referred the amended provisions of Section 447 IPC, which were amended vide U.P. Act No. 31 of 1961. Similarly, regarding the allegations that the complainants were assaulted, there is no injury report of any of the complainant. +

+

31. It is further submitted that even according to prosecution version, the main beneficiary of alleged transfer or possession of the disputed lands of the complainants is co-accused Mohd. Azam Khan, who is founder of the said university and that criminal history of about 100 cases was shown against him and he has already been granted bail by the Special Judge (MP/MLA)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Rampur vide order dated 21.11.2020. It is further submitted that in one of the similar case, the applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 29.08.2019 in case crime no. 226/2019, under Sections 323, 342, 447, 384, 504, 506 IPC. +

+

32. It is further submitted that the investigation of all the cases is complete and charge-sheets have already been filed and thus, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence and the applicant is in jail since 07.05.2023 and thus, he has already undergone the detention of about four months. Referring to the above-stated facts, it was submitted that a case for bail in all the above-stated cases is made out. +

+

33. Sri P.K. Giri, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Jai Narain, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the above-stated bail applications and submitted that there are serious allegations against the applicant-accused. It was submitted that the applicant-accused was instrumental in obtaining the illegal possession of the lands of the complainants in the above-stated cases. The applicant-accused, being posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, took undue advantage of his official position and he used to pressurize and threaten the above-stated complainants to transfer their lands to the said university and in that process applicant-accused often used to pick-up the complainants and their family members by threatening them and he used to confine them in the lock-up of the police station. Referring to the first information reports and the statements of complainants and other witnesses, it was submitted that there are serious allegations against the applicant-accused and he has threatened and coerced the complainants to transfer their lands. The applicant-accused has played active role in the entire incident. The alleged sale-deeds are nothing but sham and no consideration amount was paid to the complainants. The investigation has been conducted properly and there is credible evidence against the applicant-accused. It was submitted that in case the applicant is granted bail, he may tamper with the evidence and he may try to threat/pressurize the complainants and witnesses. It is further submitted that even after his retirement, the applicant is working as Security Officer in the said university, which further goes to show that he was in hand and glove with co-accused persons in alleged acts of cheating, extortion, illegal occupation of lands and other misdeeds. It was submitted that when a police official indulges in such illegal acts and crimes, no leniency must be shown to such police official and in this connection, learned counsel has referred the case of Arun Kumar v. State of U.P. (criminal misc. bail application no. 4699 of 2021, decided on 22.05.2023). It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and evidence, no case for bail is made out. +

+

34. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. +

+

35. Before proceeding further it may be observed that in case of State through C.B.I vs. Amaramani Tripathi- [(2005) 8 SCC 21], the Apex Court held that a Court granting bail to an accused, must apply its mind and go into the merits and evidence on record and determine whether a prima-facie case was established against the accused. It was held that the seriousness and gravity of the crime was also a relevant consideration. The Hon'ble Apex Court has, in a catena of judgments, outlined the considerations on the basis of which discretion under Section 439 CrPC has to be exercised while granting bail. In landmark judgment of Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (1978) 1 SCC 118, the Apex Court has laid down various parameters which must be considered while granting bail. The Court held as follows: +

+
"24. ...Even so, the High Court or the Court of Session will have to exercise its judicial discretion in considering the question of granting of bail under Section 439(1) CrPC of the new Code. The overriding considerations in granting bail to which we adverted to earlier and which are common both in the case of Section 437(1) and Section 439(1) CrPC of the new Code are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood, of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out." +
+

36. It was held that above factors do not constitute an exhaustive list. The grant of bail requires the consideration of various factors which ultimately depends upon the specific facts and circumstances of the case before the Court. There is no strait jacket formula which can ever be prescribed as to what the relevant factors could be. However, certain important factors that are always considered, inter-alia, relate to prima facie involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the punishment, and the character, position and standing of the accused. +

+

37. It is also to be kept in view that at the stage of granting bail, the Court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence in the case. Such an exercise may be undertaken at the stage of trial. In case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, the Court held as under: +

+
"9. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: +
+
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; + +
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; +
+
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; + +
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; + +
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; + +
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; +
+
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and + +
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. + +

xxx xxx xxx + +

10. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it to be illegal.....".. +

+

38. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118, the court followed the observations made in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar (supra) and held as follows: +

+
"17. Where a court considering an application for bail fails to consider relevant factors, an appellate court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail. An appellate court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non-application of mind or is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. It is thus necessary for this Court to assess whether, on the basis of the evidentiary record, there existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the crime, also taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the severity of the punishment..." +
+

39. A three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in Jagjeet Singh & Ors. V. Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2022, has reiterated the factors that the Court must consider at the time of granting bail under Section 439 CrPC, as well as highlighted the circumstances where this Court may interfere when bail has been granted in violation of the requirements under the above-mentioned section. The Court observed as follows: +

+
"28. We may, at the outset, clarify that power to grant bail under Section 439 of CrPC, is one of wide amplitude. A High Court or a Sessions Court, as the case may be, are bestowed with considerable discretion while deciding an application for bail. But, as has been held by this Court on multiple occasions, this discretion is not unfettered. On the contrary, the High Court of the Sessions Court must grant bail after the application of a judicial mind, following well established principles, and not in a cryptic or mechanical manner." +
+

40. In case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr. - [(2004) 7 SCC 528], the Court held that although it is established that a Court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of the evidence and make an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, the Court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail. +

+

41. Keeping the aforesaid position position in view, in the instant matter it appears from the record that at the relevant time, the applicant-accused was working as Dy Superintendent of Police in police department. The allegations in all the above-stated cases are nearly similar and all the complainants have alleged that when the Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar University was established in the year 2006-2007, the applicant-accused and co-accused Mohd. Azam Khan used to pressurize and threaten the complainants in order to transfer their respective lands in favour of the said university. It was also alleged that accused persons have assaulted the complainants and that applicant-accused and co-accused Kushalveer Singh (SHO) used to confine the complainants in lock-up of the police station, in order to pressurise them. The first information reports of all the cases have been lodged after a delay of about 14-15 years. In the first information reports, no date, time or place of the alleged incidents have been mentioned. There is no injury report of any of the complainant. As per version of the complainants, their lands were forcibly taken inside the campus of the said university by constructing a four-wall. It was stated that many of the complainants have executed sale-deeds in favour of the said university after receiving due consideration. It was shown from the side of applicant-accused that some of the complainants were not even not entitled to transfer the alleged pieces of lands, regarding which they have lodged the cases, and that land of some of the complainants are outside the boundaries of the university. There is no such allegation that applicant is in possession of any of the disputed piece of land of any of complainant. No sale deed has been executed in favour of the applicant-accused. As per version of the complainants, their lands were forcibly taken inside the campus of the university, which is being run by Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar Trust. It was shown that applicant-accused is neither the founder nor the trustee or member of the said Trust. Copy of the revenue entries, attached with rejoinder affidavit, shows that most of the disputed lands were transferred in favour of the said university on the basis of sale-deeds and the name of the university was recorded in the revenue record. It was also shown that main co-accused Mohd. Azam Khan, who is founder / trustee of the said Trust, has already been granted bail. Applicant is languishing in jail since 07.05.2023 and that investigation of all the cases is complete and charge-sheets have already been submitted in the court. +

+

42. In view of above referred facts, nature of accusations and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the cases, the Court is of the considered view that a case for bail is made out. Hence, all the bail applications are hereby allowed. +

+

43. Let the accused-applicant Ex C.O. Aley Hasan Khan involved in the above-stated cases / crimes be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount in each case to the satisfaction of court concerned, subject to the following conditions: +

+
i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. +
+
ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. +
+
iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless his personal is exempted is exempted by the court concerned. +
+
iv. The applicant will not try to contact, threat or otherwise influence the complainant or any of the witness in the aforesaid cases. +
+

44. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant, in accordance with law. +

+

45. It is clarified that the applicant has to submit separate personal bonds and sureties in each of the above referred cases. +

+

Order Date :- 15.09.2023 + +Anand + + + + + + + + + + + +  + + +   + +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_104594632.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_104594632.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5d7d26ac6aeb45b7366923a16081a574828b8803 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_104594632.html @@ -0,0 +1,371 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Satinder Singh Bhasin vs State Of U.P. on 11 June, 2021 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
The aforesaid bail applications have been filed by accused applicant namely Satinder Singh Bhasin in following case crime nos. and have been heard together, thus, same are being decided by a common order. The details of the bail applications are given below : +
+
1. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4012 of 2021 in case crime no. 385 of 2019, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B, IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
2. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8209 of 2021 in case crime no. 353 of 2019, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
+ +
+ +

Let the applicant Satinder Singh Bhasin involved in Case Crime No. 385 of 2019, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4012 of 2021 and the applicant Satinder Singh Bhasin @ Montu involved in Case Crime No. 353 of 2019, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8209 of 2021 be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties in each cases in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions : +

+
+ +
+ +

Let the applicant Satinder Singh Bhasin involved in Case Crime No. 586 of 2019 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 323, 504, 506, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11654 of 2021, Case Crime No. 809 of 2019 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11655 of 2021, Case Crime No. 440 of 2019 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 506, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11820 of 2021, Case Crime No. 866 of 2019 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12101 of 2021, Case Crime No. 389 of 2019 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12180 of 2021, Case Crime No. 361 of 2018 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12455 of 2021, Case Crime No. 368 of 2019 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12460 of 2021, Case Crime No. 369 of 2019 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12473 of 2021, Case Crime No. 510 of 2019 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12555 of 2021, Case Crime No. 386 of 2019 under Sections 406, 420 IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13301 of 2021, Case Crime No. 697 of 2019 under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18142 of 2021 and Case Crime No. 592 of 2019 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21090 of 2021, be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two heavy sureties in each cases in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions : +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_104856801.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_104856801.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..540cc046b10bff2ac06e80f6b22b1689dc4155e3 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_104856801.html @@ -0,0 +1,408 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Dilip vs State on 29 December, 2011 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

9. Learned +senior advocate Mr. S.V. Raju for the complainant, strongly opposed +the bail application of the applicants and submitted that the bail +application is not required to be granted in favour of the +applicants considering the seriousness of the offence, in which they +have been involved. +

+

10. Learned +senior advocate Mr. Raju read the case of Gurucharansingh (Supra) and +argued that so far as provisions Sections 437 and 438 are concerned, +they deal with the cases where there appears to be reasonable ground +for believing that the accused has been guilty of an offence +punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, facts of +cited case are not applicable to the facts of present case. Mr. Raju, +learned senior advocate read para 21 of the said decision and +submitted that the principle laid down for the offence punishable +under Section 467 is made out prima facie against the applicants. He +also submitted that the charge-sheet is filed in the present case for +the said offence. He also read the decision in the case of +Chandraswami and Another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation +reported in (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases 751 and +submitted that in that case, the provisions of 7 years punishment is +prescribed under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He has read +one another decision in the case of Mohammad Ibrahim and others +Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2009 (8) SCC 751 and +submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the +provisions of Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code in that case. He +read the provisions of Section 464 (h) and submitted that the facts +of the said case is applicable to the facts of the present case. +He also submitted that when in the present case, the offence +punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code is made out +then no question for bail can arise as the offence is punishable with +sentence of life imprisonment. +

+
+ +
+ +
"Section +464 (h) : A sells and conveys an estate to Z.A. afterwards, in order +to defraud Z of estate, executes a conveyance of the same estate to B +dated six months earlier than the date of the conveyance to Z +intending it to be believed that he had conveyed the estate to B +before the conveyed it to Z. A has committed forgery. " +
+

11. Learned +Senior advocate Mr. Raju drew the attention to the case of Bharat +Hiralal Sheth and others Vs. Jaysin Amarsinh Sampat and another +reported decision in 1997 Cri. L.J. 2509 of Bombay High Court, +more particularly para 9 and submitted that prima facie the case of +forgery is made out against the applicants. He also submitted that +since both the applicants have committed the offence punishable under +Section 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code, bail is not required to +be granted. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_1053595.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_1053595.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a8eaea4f69634c0c2a794d7b765333bcc3cd9f10 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_1053595.html @@ -0,0 +1,366 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Dhivan vs State on 8 April, 2010 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

The Court made the following order:- +

+
Heard. +
+
Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police in connection with P.R.C.No.78 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Cuddalore for alleged offences U/s.323, 506(ii), 302 r/w 201 of IPC, the petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking anticipatory bail. +
+

2. Originally, this case was registered under Sections 323, 506(ii) and 201 of IPC. The petitioner, during investigation, was arrested and later on released on bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate. When final report was submitted, Section 302 of IPC was also added. On the basis of the said final report, according to the petitioner, he is again sought to be arrested by the respondent police not withstanding the fact that he has already been granted bail by the learned Magistrate. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner is before this court with this petition seeking anticipatory bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
"In the case in hand, the accused respondents could apply for bail afresh after the offence had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC. They deliberately did not do so and filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in order to circumvent the procedure whereunder they would have been required to surrender as the bail application could be entertained and heard only if the accused were in custody. It is important to note that no order adverse to the accused respondents had been passed by any Court nor there was any miscarriage of justice or any illegality. In such circumstances, the High Court committed manifest error of law in entertaining a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and issuing a direction to the Subordinate court to accept the sureties and bail bonds for the offence under Section 304 IPC. The effect of the order passed by the High Court is that the accused after getting bail in an offence under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC on the very day on which they were taken into custody, got an order of bail in their favour even after the injured had succumbed to his injuries and the case had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC without any Court examining the case on merits, as it stood after conversion of the offence. The procedure laid down for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., though available to the accused respondents, having not been availed of, the exercise of power by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is clearly illegal and the impugned order passed by it has to be set aside. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_105445830.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_105445830.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..02b5e20d3a98de30f305987c31c865f3060e0455 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_105445830.html @@ -0,0 +1,381 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Shambhu Prasad Singh vs State Of U.P. And 24 Others on 7 October, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

8. It is an admitted position that in these cases either the accused were granted bail (anticipatory/regular) or Court was pleased to direct that petitioner shall not be arrested till submission of the police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. +

+

9. It is submitted that another F.I.R. was lodged on 24.06.2019 at P.S. Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad against Veer Kapoor registering Case Crime No.1346 of 2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. in which Veer Kapoor was granted anticipatory bail by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad on 21.08.2019. Another F.I.R. was lodged on 12.07.2019 registering Case Crime No.1465 of 2019 under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. against the petitioner and Veer Kapoor. Petitioner was granted regular bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad. Thereafter, respondent no.20 lodged an F.I.R. at P.S. Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad registering Case Crime No.0574 of 2019 under Sections 420 and 467 I.P.C. In this case petitioner was granted regular bail by the Court of additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Ghaziabad. +

+
+ +
+ +

10. Respondent no.21 lodged F.I.R. on 06.08.2019 at P.S. Masuri District Ghaziabad registering Case Crime No.0543 of 2019 under Sections 467, 406 and 420 I.P.C. In this case also petitioner was granted regular bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Ghaziabad vide order dated 29.08.2019. +

+

11. Respondent no.22 lodged another F.I.R. dated 30.08.2019 at P.S. Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad against the petitioner, Veer Kapoor, Santosh and respondent no.24 registering Case Crime No.1346 of 2019 under Sections 471, 468, 467 and 420 I.P.C. in which petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Ghaziabad. +

+
+ +
+ +

14. Respondent no.24 lodged another F.I.R. dated 28.09.2019 against the daughter of the petitioner which was registered as Case Crime No.1928 of 2019 under Section 386 I.P.C. read with Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act. Daughter of the petitioner was granted bail in the aforesaid case. +

+

15. Respondent no.22 lodged F.I.R. dated 19.10.2019 at P.S. Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad regarding an undated incident against the wife and daughter of the petitioner and one Rahul which was registering as Case Crime No.2007 of 2019 under Sections 420 and 386 I.P.C. The daughter of the petitioner was granted bail from the district court, Ghaziabad. +

+
+ +
+ +

16. Respondent no.25 lodged F.I.R. dated 10.02.2020 at P.S. Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad against the petitioner registering as Case Crime No.0313 of 2019 under the provisions of Sections 471, 468, 467 and 420 I.P.C. Admittedly, petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Ghaziabad. +

+

17. Petitioner's contention is that respondents have formed of syndicate and targeting the petitioner with a view to harass him physically, mentally and economically. It is submitted that respondents have no regard and fear of law. Similarly, it is complained that petitioner's vehicle was in custody of respondent no.24 which was subject matter of F.I.R. dated 07.06.2019 (annxure-8) in which custody of the vehicle was handed over by the Court concerned in favour of respondent no.24. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_106310148.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_106310148.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..53ec8baf4cc67da0175e1232f0613598eab9a214 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_106310148.html @@ -0,0 +1,473 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Md. Mainul Hoque vs The State Of West Bengal on 18 September, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

16. In Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth (supra) the prosecutirx on 29th + +May, 2001 lodged a complaint alleging harassment by the appellant over a + +period of time. The allegations of rape, emotional blackmail and threats were + +leveled against the appellant. However, in her statement made on May 31, + +2001 to the police, allegations of rape were conspicuously missing, the FIR + +was registered and the charge under Section 506 Part II of the Penal Code, + +1860 (IPC) was framed in the year 2001 based on such statement. The + +appellant was admitted to bail in the said case. In the year 2010 the + +prosecutrix made an application for addition of charge under Section 376 + +IPC as well. On 31st March, 2012 the Metropolitan Magistrate directed the + +police to carry out a special investigation under Section 173 (8) of the Code + +of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Cr.P.C). The police filed a revised charge-sheet + + + +stating that a prima facie case under Section 376 IPC was made out. In view + +of addition of the charge under Section 376 IPC the Magistrate passed an + +order on 25th April, 2013 for committal of proceedings to the Session Court + +and taking the appellant into custody. However, execution of this order was + +stayed till 7th May, 2013. During this period the appellant moved the City + +Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail which was ultimately granted + +on 18th May, 2013. On an application of the prosecutrix the High Court + +cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the appellant. +

+
+ +
+

18. Then in paragraph 19 of the Apex Court noted the long + + inexplicable delay in applying for addition of new section. The paragraph + + is reproduced below: +

+
"In a matter like this where allegations of rape pertain to the + period which is almost 17 years ago and when no charge was + framed Under Section 376 Indian Penal Code in the year 2001, + and even the prosecutrix did not take any steps for almost 9 years + and the charge Under Section 376 Indian Penal Code is added + only in the year 2014, we see no reason why the Appellant should + not be given the benefit of anticipatory bail. Merely because the + charge Under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, which is a serious + charge, is now added, the benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be + denied when such a charge is added after a long period of time + and inaction of the prosecutrix is also a contributory factor." +
+
+ +
+ +

22. In Sayantan Chatterjee (supra) during investigation the + +investigating agency made a prayer for adding Section 304 IPC and also for + +cancellation of bail. The said prayer was allowed by the learned Magistrate + +on 4th December, 2015 and the petitioner was directed to appear before the + +court and pray for fresh bail under Section 437 of the Code. The accused + +petitioner challenged the said order in criminal revision no.4035 of 2015 + +before the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court. The said revisional + +application was disposed of with a modification of the impugned order to the + +effect that the petitioner is disentitled to bail granted by the learned + +Magistrate for the bailable offence as the Investigating Officer has already + +intimated the Court of the learned Magistrate of the involvement of the + +petitioner in, aggravated non-bailable offence under Section 304 Part II of + +the IPC, however, in paragraph 8 of the said order the following observation + +was made: +

+
+ +
+

25. The Hon'ble Division Bench accepted the submission on behalf + +of the accused that the observation of the learned Single Judge in CRR No + +4035 of 2015 that the petitioner would be at liberty to pray for bail for the + +offence under Section 304 of the IPC and since bail also includes + + + +anticipatory bail, which argument appears to have been conceded by the + +learned Public Prosecutor, the application for anticipatory bail was held to + +be maintainable. +

+

26. In a later decision in Pradeep Ram (supra) four issues have + +been raised and considered out of which issue no. (i) & (ii) may be relevant + +in view of the submission on behalf of the State: +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_106658315.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_106658315.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..70fc1b12431ccbacec8e3adbbb9ebccdefc1e5c5 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_106658315.html @@ -0,0 +1,460 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rajender Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 31 May, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

15. To substantiate plea to enlarge the petitioner on bail, + +learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon order dated + +5.7.2023 passed in Cr.MP (M) No. 1501 of 2023, titled as Ram Singh @ + +Kaka Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has + +been enlarged on bail on 5.7.2023 after remaining in jail for 3 years 2 + +months. +

+

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred order + +dated 16.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1494 of 2023, titled as + +Rampal @ Ramphal Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section + +302 IPC has been enlarged on bail after remaining in custody for 4 + +years 9 months by considering plea of the petitioner regarding delay + +in trial. +

+
+ +
+ +

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred order + +dated 20.10.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2481 of 2023, titled as + +Sanma Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has + +been released on bail after 3 years 3 months detention considering + +the fact that only 22 witnesses out of 30 witnesses were examined by + +that time. +

+

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on + +order dated 4.11.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2618 of 2023, titled + +as Jasbir Singh Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 + +IPC has been released on bail after 3 years 5 months detention + +considering the fact that only 16 witnesses out of 39 witnesses were + +examined by that time. +

+
+ +
+ +

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on + +order dated 6.10.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2461 of 2023, titled + +as Balwinder Singh @ Kadu Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under + +Section 302 IPC has been released on bail after 3 years 1 month + +detention considering the fact that only 12 witnesses out of 34 + +witnesses were examined by that time. +

+

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred + +order dated 21.8.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1942 of 2023, titled + +as Robin Patrwal Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 + +IPC has been released on bail after 2 years 2 months detention + +considering the fact that only 10 witnesses out of 51 witnesses were + +examined by that time. +

+
+ +
+ +

21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred + +order dated 1.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1216 of 2023, titled as + +Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 + +IPC has been released on bail after 4 years detention considering the + +fact that only 13 witnesses out of 47 witnesses were examined by + +that time. +

+

22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on + +order dated 24.7.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1217 of 2023, titled + +as Kulveer Singh Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 + +IPC has been released on bail after 1 year detention considering the + +fact that no witnesses out of 30 witnesses was examined by that + +time. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_106758606.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_106758606.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cfef2e4b4c5035d1d92dbf259570693500b0eab0 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_106758606.html @@ -0,0 +1,493 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Mayank Kumar Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 6 July, 2017 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Per contra Mr. Satyavrat Sharma and Mr. Vijay Kumar + +Sharma learned counsels appearing on behalf of respondent No. + +2- accused submitted that first of all application seeking + +cancellation of bail under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C., which was + +submitted by State of Rajasthan before learned Additional + +Sessions Judge No. 6, Jaipur Metro was rejected, cannot be + +challenged under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. before this Court. They + +submit that the only remedy available to petitioner- complainant is + + + +revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. They submit that when + +Investigating Officer found that only bailable offence is made out + +and on same set of evidence another Investigating Officer, if + +changes his opinion, as added in this Case from 323 IPC to 308 + +IPC, then the bail bonds cannot be cancelled while exercising + +powers under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C., rather at the time of filing + +charge-sheet, Trial Court may ask to accused for filing fresh bail + +bonds. They further submit that there is no ground for cancellation + +of bail, therefore, this cancellation of bail application may be + +dismissed. +

+
+ +
+ +

Learned counsels relied on Chandra Pal Singh + +Choudhary vs. Vijit Singh & Anr. reported in 2009 Cri.L.J. 3516, + +Vijendra vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1988 RCC 431, + +Ugrasen Singh vs. State of U.P. (1993) 30 All Criminal Case 531 + +which was considered in the matter of Banajeet Singh vs. State of + +U.P. reported in 2000 Cri.L.J. 3854. +

+

I have considered the submissions made at Bar. + + It is not disputed that when the respondent No. 2- + +accused was released on bail, the Investigating Officer was of the + +view that only offence punishable under Sections 323 and 341 IPC + +is made out which are bailable one, therefore, while exercising + +powers vested under Section 436 Cr.P.C., Investigating Officer + +released the accused on bail and attested the bail bonds. It is also + +not disputed that after that, subsequent Investigating Officer + +found that offence under Section 308 IPC is also made out and + +arrest of accused is required, therefore, State of Rajasthan has + +filed application seeking cancellation of bail, granted under Section + + + +436 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer to the accused and the + +same was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. + +6, Jaipur, against which the present application is preferred by the + +petitioner- complainant. State of Rajasthan also filed revision + +petition against the aforesaid impugned order. + +

+
+ +
+ +
" the applicant was granted bail for offence + under Section 304-A, I.P.C in which the applicant is + entitled to the bail as of right under Section 436, Cr. P.C + Therefore, where the offence alleged by the prosecution + is under Section 304-A, I.P.C, the accused is entitled to + the bail without consideration of the facts. Therefore, it + can be presumed that while granting bail under Section + 304-A, I.P.C. to the applicant, the facts were not + considered and he was granted the facility of the bail as + he was entitled to same as of right. The bail which was + granted without consideration of the facts cannot be + extended for offence under Section 302, I.P.C. which is + henious offence. Before granting the bail under Section + 302, I.P.C., therefore, the consideration of the facts is + necessary and the applicant cannot be permitted to file + fresh bail bonds. " +
+
+ +
+ +

In the matter of Ugrasen Singh vs. State of U.P. (1993) + + + +30 All Cri. Case 531 decided by Devision Bench of Hon'ble + +Allahabad High Court, the bail was granted considering the offence + +punishable under Sections 336, 504, 506, 323 and 427 IPC. + +Thereafter the case was converted under Section 308 IPC, the + +accused was permitted to file fresh bail bonds under Section 308 + +IPC by the Court and it was observed that :- +

+
" distinction between Section 323 and 308 IPC + can depend upon the allegations, the correctness, which + naturally could not be altered and are not on the basis of + the alteration vide the report of the police. It was further + observed that when a person is once granted bail in + respect of particular crime the subsequent change in the + matter of reference to the section under the offences + though it may be made by the police will remain subject + + of consideration by the Court." +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_107499296.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_107499296.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1cdf4d3237c504572137675d86f89d92007fc935 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_107499296.html @@ -0,0 +1,521 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Arshad Ahmed Age 24 Years S/O Mohd. ... vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir ... on 27 March, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

SHO Police Station, Udhampur + Through :- Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, GA. +

+

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN LAL, JUDGE + + OR D E R + 27.03.2023 +

1. Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 439 of + the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the, "Code") for + securing bail to him in FIR No. 640/2020 registered with Police Station + Udhampur for commission of offences under Sections 366, 109 & 376 RPC. It + is averred, that petitioner is a citizen of India and permanent resident of UT of + Jammu and Kashmir and is entitled to the enjoyment of all the fundamental + rights envisaged under part-III of the Constitution of India as well as the other + legal and statutory rights framed there under; that the learned Additional + Sessions Judge Udhampur has rejected the bail of the petitioner vide its order + dated 04.01.2023; that the petitioner and the complainant/prosecutrix being + major were having love affair with each other, which prompted them to marry + each other out of their free will and without any force and coercion, the + petitioner and the complainant/prosecutrix performed Nikah Nama with each + other on 01.12.2020 in accordance with the rights and rituals of Muslim law and + both of them declared themselves as legally wedded husband and wife, + whereafter they entered into marital relation with each other out of their own free + will and consent. It is further averred, that in pursuance to the said marriage, the + petitioner and the prosecutrix executed marriage agreement and affidavit dated + 02.12.2020 duly attested/registered by the public notary, petitioner and + prosecutrix/complainant started living as husband and wife in Village Jindrah + Jorgah Tehsil Dansal District Jammu, but on 04.12.2020 within few days, the + father and the relatives of the complainant/prosecutrix took away her forcibly + + + without the consent of the petitioner, whereby, petitioner was constrained to file + an application under Section 97 of the Code before the Court for issuance of + search warrants for recovery of his wife, who was produced before the Court at + Jammu, the father-in-law and other relatives instigated the wife of the petitioner + to lodge a false and frivolous FIR as the petitioner had made them party in the + said application under Section 97 of the Code before the Court of learned 2nd + Additional Munsiff Jammu. It is averred, that after registration of the FIR against + the petitioner, which was initially registered under Sections 366 and 109 of the + IPC by the complainant/prosecutrix, the petitioner was arrested on 22.12.2020 + and was granted bail by the Court on 28.12.2020, whereafter, on 01.01.2021, + respondent got the statement of the complainant/prosecutrix recorded under + Section 164 of the Code before the Court of learned Additional Special Mobile + Magistrate Udhampur, wherein, respondent registered the offence of rape under + Section 376 of the IPC against the petitioner, on 05.01.2021 respondent got + medical examination of the prosecutrix conducted, however, on 16.04.2021 + petitioner was again arrested by the police of police post Roun Udhampur in the + aforesaid FIR in view of the subsequent offence added under Section 376 of the + IPC against him, on which date petitioner was already on bail. It is moreso + averred, that on the re-arrest of petitioner on 16-04-2021 for the last almost 2 + years petitioner is languishing in District Jail Udhampur without any fault on his + part, prayer has been made for grant of bail. +

+
+ +
+ +

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused while supporting the case of + petitioner for bail has vehemently canvassed arguments, that the date of + occurrence pertains to 28.11.2020 whereas FIR was lodged on 18.12.2020 after + unexplained delay of 20 days for commission of offence of kidnapping under + Sections 366 & 109 IPC, whereafter the petitioner was arrested on 22.12.2020 + and was bailed out on 28.12.2020. It is argued, that the statement of the + prosecutrix was recorded u/s 164 Cr.pc by the I/O on 30.12.2020 after delay of + more than one month from the date of occurrence and after the delay of 26 days + from the date of 04.12.2020 when the prosecutrix got herself free from the + clutches of the petitioner/accused, the delay in recording the FIR as well as the + statement of the prosecutrix has remained unexplained which is seriously fatal + for the prosecution. It is also argued, that the petitioner was already on bail in the + impugned FIR for the allegations of commission of offences u/ss 366/109, IPC + by the Court of learned Munsiff Judicial Magistrate (Traffic) Udhampur, and + when the offence of rape under Section 376 of the IPC was added on 30.12.2020 + on the statement of the prosecutrix, the petitioner was re-arrested on 16.04.2021 + when he was already on bail, even the respondent/State did not apply for + cancellation of earlier bail and seeking the custody of the petitioner, the + petitioner was re-arrested simply without following due procedure of law by the + respondent No. 1 when the offence of rape under Section 376 of the IPC was + added. It is strenuously argued, that re-arrest of the petitioner/accused is in + violation of the provisions of Section 439(2) of the Code, as the State did not + apply for cancellation of the earlier bail, and during the said period of the + operation of earlier bail, petitioner/accused was re-arrested. To support his + arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the + Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal + (Crl.) No. 10179 of 2017 in C.R.L. WP No. 3582 of 2017 dated 07-05-2018 + [Manoj Suresh Jadhav and Ors.--Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra-- + Respondent]. +

+
+ +
+
cases lay down an invariable principle of law that the basic jurisprudence +relating to bail remains the same, inasmuch as, the "grant of bail is the rule" and +"refusal is an exception". It is apt to reiterate here, that the scanned record +depicts, that the petitioner/accused alongwith two co-accused namely Riaz +Ahmed and Mohd. Mansha has been bailed out in the impugned FIR. The +allegations as emerge out from the prosecution story against the petitioner are, +that he alongwith the co-accused abducted the prosecutrix/victim on 28.12.2020 +at 11.00 pm from their village and took her to Jammu. Initially, FIR was lodged +against the petitioner and other co-accused persons for commission of offences +u/ss 366/109 of IPC, wherein the petitioner and other two co-accused were +granted bail by the Court of learned Disrict Judicial Mobile Magistrate (Traffic) +Udhampur on 28.12.2020. On 04.12.2020, when as per the prosecution story, +the victim/prosecutrix managed to flee from the clutches of the +petitioner/accused, she got her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.pc +before I/O on 30.12.2020 after delay of 26 days and got added the offence of +rape u/s 376 of IPC against the petitioner who was re-arrested on 16.04.2021 for +addition of offence u/s 376 IPC, and for the last almost 2 years is lying in + + + incarceration in District Jail Udhampur. It is pertinent to mention here, that + alongwith the bail application, petitioner has annexed certified copies of the + Nikah Nama, marriage agreement and the Affidavits of himself and that of the + prosecutrix. It appears that the marriage agreement between the petitioner and + prosecutrix has been executed on 02.12.2020 at Jammu and duly attested by the + Public Notary and the same bears the signatures and thumb impression of the + petitioner and the prosecutrix. The affidavits sworn by the petitioner and the + prosecutrix also bear their signatures and thumb impression. Both the documents + of marriage agreement and the affidavits demonstrate/hint towards the fact of + love affair between the petitioner and the prosecutrix/victim, which love affair + severed into wrong side and landed the petitioner/accused in jail. +
+
+ +
+

6. In Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 10179 of 2017 in C.R.L. + WP No. 3582 of 2017 dated 07-05-2018 [Manoj Suresh Jadhav and Ors.-- + Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra--Respondent] relied by Ld. + Counsel for petitioner, Hon'ble Supreme Court while appreciating the provisions + of Section 439(2) of Cr.pc held, that when the accused is already on bail in FIR + and subsequently some offence is added, it is not permissible for the + respondent/state to simply re-arrest petitioner/accused by ignoring earlier bail + order which was in force at that time, therefore, the State/respondent is at liberty + to apply for cancellation of earlier bail and seek the custody of the accused in + regard to the offence added. Ratio of the judgment (Supra) squarely applies to + the facts of the case in hand. In the case in hand, in FIR No. 640/2020 + petitioner/accused was already granted regular bail on 28.12.2020 by the Court + of learned District Judicial Mobile Magistrate (Traffic) Udhampur for offences + u/ss 366/109 IPC. With the addition of offence u/s 376 IPC against the + petitioner/accused on the statement of prosecutrix recorded after a delay of about + 26 days, the earlier bail order dated 28.12.2020 was subsisting/continuing/was in + force, therefore, it was not permissible for respondent/investigating agency to + simply arrest petitioner/accused on 16-04-2021, therefore, in terms of provision + of section 439(2) Cr.pc, respondent/UT was at liberty to apply for cancellation of + earlier bail dated 28-12-2020 and seek the custody of petitioner/accused with + addition of offence of rape u/s 376 IPC against him. Scanned record submitted + by the court below does not depict that such a procedure has been strictly + complied by the respondent/UT, therefore, re-arrest of the petitioner/accused in + the same FIR with addition of offence of rape against him under Section 376 of + the IPC is not legally permissible. It is apt to reiterate here, for the last almost 2 + + + years petitioner is languishing in incarceration in District Jail Udhampur. Record + further demonstrates that in the FIR recorded at the earlier stage on 18.12.2020 + there is no whisper of the commission of offence of rape. On 04.12.2020, when + the prosecutrix got herself freed from the custody of the petitioner, she got her + statement recorded on 30.12.2020 after the delay of 26 days which has remained + unexplained. The marriage agreement and the affidavits sworn by the petitioner + and the victim/prosecutrix are evidence of the fact that the love affair existed + between them, moreso, the prosecutrix has herself admitted in her affidavit that + she is wife of the petitioner. The allegations of rape against the petitioner are to + be proved during the trial of the case. However, without commenting upon the + merits of the case, the petitioner has carved out a strong case of grant of bail in + his favour. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and petitioner/accused is + admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the Registrar + Judicial of this Court with a direction to furnish personal bond of like amount + before the Superintendent/Incharge District Jail Udhampur where he is presently + lodged. However, before parting, the following conditions are imposed upon the + petitioner:- +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_107861709.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_107861709.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..59e554452ce59769e6e4bfb4603d459c0617bce2 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_107861709.html @@ -0,0 +1,387 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + R.Natarajan vs State Rep By on 7 December, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

55.In the result, the criminal appeal in Crl.A.No.592 of 2001 is + + allowed. The conviction and sentence as against the appellant/ A2 in + + the judgment dated 13.06.2001 in C.C.No.89 of 1997 passed by the + + learned Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai, are set aside. + + The appellant/ A2 is acquitted from the charge under Sections 120B, + + 120B r/w 420 of IPC. The bail bonds executed by him, shall stand + + terminated/ discharged. +

+
+ +
+

58.The criminal appeal in Crl.A.No.645 of 2001 is allowed in + + respect of the second appellant/ A4. The conviction and sentence as +http://www.judis.nic.in + + + against the second appellant/ A4 in the judgment dated 13.06.2001 in + + C.C.No.89 of 1997 passed by the learned Additional Special Judge for + + CBI cases, Chennai, are set aside. The second appellant/ A4 is + + acquitted from the charge under Sections 120B, 120B r/w 420, 201 of + + IPC. The bail bonds executed by him, shall stand terminated/ + + discharged. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_107973750.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_107973750.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..76a85dde8903a4622b0be685cf85c6dc01ea40bc --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_107973750.html @@ -0,0 +1,379 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Nuzhat Perween vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 September, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
An application preferred by the detenue for his release on bail came to be accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh vide order dated 10th February, 2020. The order aforesaid reads as under:- +
+
"BAIL ORDER + +At the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Aligarh + + 10.02.2020 + + The accused Dr. Kafeel has submitted a bail application in the order of Case Crime No.-700/2019, Section 153A, 153B, 505(2), 109 IPC, P.S. Civil Line, stating that the applicant/accused is innocent and falsely implicated. There is no criminal history of the accused therefore bail has been sought. +
+
+ +
+ +
Due to the said speech by Dr. Kafeel and the disturbance caused to the public order has also been published in the national newspaper Dainik Jagran, Amar Ujala and Hindustan which depicts the fearful situation caused by the incident. The copies of the said newspapers have been attached herewith. +
+
He is currently detained in the Mathura District Jail for Case Crime No.700/19 u/s 153A, 153B, 109, 505(2) of IPC. The bail application presented by Dr. Kafeel has been accepted by the Hon'ble Court. There is a strong apprehension of the public order of District Aligarh being distorted again by Dr. Kafeel by provoking the students once he comes out of bail. If Dr. Kafeel comes out on bail he shall surely incite the students and disturb the peace and communal harmony in the Aligarh District. +
+
+ +
+ +
The incidents of violent protest due to your instigating speeches which have disturbed the public order in the district have been reported in national daily, Danik Jagaran, Amar Ujala and Hindustan which depicts terrible state of affairs. Due to this feeling of fear and insecurities have emerged in the people of the sensitive District of Aligarh. Photocopies of the aforesaid newspaper. +
+
Currently you are incarcerated at the District jail Mathura in connection with Case Crime No. 700/19 U/S 153A, 153B, 109, 505(2) IPC. The bail application preferred by you has been allowed by the Ld. Court. Through discrete inquiry by the district police and LIU Aligarh it has been brought to my knowledge that upon being relased on bail there is a strong and complete likelihood of your re-entering district Aligarh and further instigating the students by coming to AMU thereby posing a serious threat to the prevailing public order. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_108914852.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_108914852.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e834888c5858f1210828834a42d4e061fcb15cf6 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_108914852.html @@ -0,0 +1,455 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sushil Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The petitioner is in custody for about 4 years. + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 665 of 2023 + + The instant Revision is filed by CICL himself, + + challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order, + + dated 9th of August, 2023, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2023 + + by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum- + + Children's Court, Banka. The CICL was arrested in connection + + with Banduwa Kurawa P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023, corresponding + + to G.R. No. 1202 of 2023, for the offences punishable under + + Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 + + of the Arms Act. However, later on, Sections 34 of the IPC and + + Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section + + 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes + + (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added. Prayer for + + bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Appeal in + + exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Juvenile + + Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter + + referred to as 'said Act') vide order, dated 15th of June, 2023. + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 687 of 2023 + + The petitioner/CICL was arrested in connection + + with Fesar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, + + 325, 307, 34, 504, 506 and 379 of the IPC along with his father + + and uncle. The petitioner prayed for regular bail before the JJB, + + Aurangabad. In JJB Case No. 932 of 2023, prayer for bail was + + rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 41 + + of 2023 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children's Court, + + Aurangabad. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal + + and affirmed the order of the JJB. The petitioner has assailed the + + said order of the Appellate Court on various grounds, specially + + on the ground that the father and uncle of the petitioner have + + already been granted bail for the same offence. + +
+
+ +
+

Reg. Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2024 + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + The petitioner was booked along with other major + + accused persons in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 237 of + + 2022, dated 13th of August, 2022, under Section 302 and 34 of + + the IPC. The petitioner being a CICL prayed for bail before the + + Juvenile Justice Board, but his prayer for bail was rejected. He + + preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the said Act before the + + learned Special Judge, Children's Court and the said appeal was + + also dismissed and the order of rejection of bail passed by the + + JJB was affirmed. It is stated by the petitioner that the accused + + persons who are major, namely, Sushil Kumar Yadav and Anil + + Yadav were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on + + 26th of April, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 4091 of 2023. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_108975038.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_108975038.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f99159f0118d64397a1ca6d22b18ce7d7bfdb9c0 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_108975038.html @@ -0,0 +1,367 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Anish Qureshi vs State Of Nct Delhi on 18 December, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. By way of the present applications, the applicants seek regular bail in +FIR No. 75/2020 dated 28th February, 2020 under Sections +302/149/147/148/436/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) +registered at Police Station Dayalpur. BAIL APPLN. 958/2022 has been filed + + + + Digitally Signed By:DINESH + KUMAR + Signing Date:18.12.2023 +BAIL APPLN. 958/2022 & connected matter + + on behalf of Arif and BAIL APPLN. 1115/2023 has been filed on behalf of +Anish Qureshi. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_109067397.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_109067397.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5484d231b4eed9314d426cb7aee5f3205fa366a --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_109067397.html @@ -0,0 +1,422 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Binder @ Virender vs State Of Haryana on 15 December, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
Sr. no. Case/FIR Details Sections Status +
1. FIR No.23 dated 268, 285, 286, 379 On Bail + 22.01.2022, Sampla and 15/16 of the + (Rohtak) Petroleum Act +
2. FIR No.453/2022, 285, 34, 394, 511 On Bail + Police Station IPC, 3/4 of the + Asaudha (Jhajjar) Explosive Act +
3. FIR No.127/2021, PS 268, 285, 379, 34 On Bail + Machhrauli, District IPC, 15/16 of the + Jhajjar Petroleum Act, 3/4 + of the Explosive Act +
+
+ +
+
4. FIR No.470/2021, 285, 379, 34 IPC, On Bail + Police Station 3/4 of the Explosive + Kharkhoda, District Act, 3/4 of the + Sonepat PDPP Act +
5. FIR No.603/20.12.20 285, 379, 34, 427 On Bail + Police Station IPC, 15/16 of the + Kharkhoda, District Petroleum Act, 3/4 + Sonepat, Haryana of the Explosive + Act, 3/4 of PDPP + Act +
+
+ +
+
6. FIR No.92/2021 268, 285, 286, 379, On Bail + Police Station Badli, 511 IPC, 15/16 + (Jhajjar) Petroleum Act and + 3/4 of PDPP Act +
7. FIR No.590/2020, 285, 379, 34 IPC, On Bail + Police Station 15/16 of Petroleum + Kharkhoda, District Act and 3/4 of the + Sonipat PDPP Act + + + + +

6 of 9 + + Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161374 + + + + + 2023:PHHC:161374 + + +CRM-M-50738-2023 (O & M) ::7:: +

+
+ +
+ (223)

+

8. FIR No.162/2021, 268, 285, 286, 379 On Bail + Police Station IPC, 15/16 Petrol + Sampla (Rohtak) and Pipeline Act and + Section 23 of + Petroleum Act and + 3/4 PDPP Act and + 6/4 of Explosive Act +
9. FIR No.284/2021 379, 411, 117, 120- On Bail + Police Station B, 34 IPC, Sections + Rampura (Rewari) 15/16 of the + Petroleum Act, 3/4 + of PDPP Act +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_109249654.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_109249654.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c4377bac843aafb3e0ccd8b6798a41ec46df3097 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_109249654.html @@ -0,0 +1,413 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Girish Kumar Gandhi vs State Of Haryana on 30 October, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:138594 + + + + + CRM-M-15263-2023 #5# 2023:PHHC:138594 + +
3. FIR No.1028/2020 406, 420, 506 Petitioner is on + IPC P.S. Civil bail 22.07.2022 + Lines + Muradabad, U.P. +
4. FIR No.146/2020 420, 506, 120-B Petitioner is on + IPC P.S. bail vide order + Kotwali, dated 16.09.2022 + Jawalapur, + District + Haridwar +
+
+ +
+
5. FIR No.294/2022 420, 467, 468, Petitioner is on + 471, 504, 506, bail vide order + 406, 120-B IPC dated 02.11.2022 + P.S. Sipari + Bazar, District + Jhansi, U.P. +
6. FIR No.190/2020 406, 420, 467, Petitioner granted + 468, 471, 120-B bail on 24.08.2022 + IPC P.S. Kotgate + Distrit Bikaner, + Rajasthan +
+
+ +
+
7. FIR No.343/2020 406, 420, 506 Petitioner is + IPC P.S. granted bail vide + Kotwali, District order dated + Mathura 18.10.2022 +
8. FIR No.685/202 406, 420, 467, Petitioner is + 468, 471, 506 granted bail vide + IPC P.S. order dated + Vrindavan, 11.08.2022 + District Mathura, + U.P. +
+
+ +
+
9. FIR No.297/2020 406, 420 IPC Petitioner's bail + P.S. Kotwalia, petition is pending + Patiala, Punjab in this Court for + 07.11.2023 vide + CRM-M-41857- + +
10. FIR No.190/2020 420, 406, 120-B Petitioner is on + IPC P.S. Savina bail vide order + District Udaipur, dated 25.02.2022 + Rajasthan +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_109801351.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_109801351.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ce2f3ea70f6636ade26a236b7b3690d982183754 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_109801351.html @@ -0,0 +1,369 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Kalla @ Kalyan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 February, 2015 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Learned panel lawyer opposes the prayer. + Considering the facts and circumstances +of the case and the submissions made on +behalf of the parties by their counsel, but +without expressing any opinion on the merits +of the case, I am of the view that it is a good +case for grant of anticipatory bail to the +applicants. Accordingly, this application is +allowed. It is ordered that if the concerned +Court takes the applicants into custody in view +of the added offence under Section 326 of the + IPC, they be released on bail on each of them +furnishing a personal bond in the sum of +Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) +with one solvent surety in the like amount to +the satisfaction of the concerned Court. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_111548546.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_111548546.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9813ce521b9f88ab9469e56559437bbe9838801f --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_111548546.html @@ -0,0 +1,545 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Kamlesh Yadav vs State Of Up on 13 May, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

2. + +79/2023 u/s 406, 420 IPC + +Bail granted on 27.9.2023 + +

3. + +129/2023 u/s 120-B, 406, 420 IPC + +Bail granted on 12.2.2024 + +

4. + +77/2023 u/s 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC + +Bail granted on 11.10.2023 + +

5. + +75/2023 u/s 420, 406, 504, 120-B +Bail granted on 5,10,2023 + +

6. + +72/2023 u/s 406, 420, 410, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC + +Bail granted on 17.10.2023 + +

7. + +71/2023 u/s 406, 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, 120 B IPC + +Bail granted on 9.10.2023 + +

8. + +81/2923 u/s 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC + +Bail granted on 26.10.2023 + +

+
+ +
+

9. + +354/2022 u/s 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC + +Bail granted on 27.9.2023 + +

10. + +27/2023 u/s 410, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 406, 120-B IPC + +Bail granted on 28.8.2023 + +

11. + + + +133/2023 u/s 406, 420, 504, 506, 120-B IPC + +Bail granted on 13.3.2024 + +

12. + +162/2023 u/s 406, 420, 506 IPC + +Bail granted on 3,5,2024 + +

13. + +74/2023 u/s 406, 420 IPC + +Bail granted on 4.5.2024 + +

14. + +233/2023 u/s 406, 420 IPC + +Bail granted on 4.5.2024 + + + +185/2023 u/s 406, 420 IPC + +Bail granted on 7.5.2024 + +

+
+ +
+

16. + +367/2023 u/s 406, 506 IPC + +Bail granted on 7.5.2024 + +

17. + +193/2023 u/s 447, 506 IPC + +Bail granted on 8.5.2024 + +

18. + +268/2023 u/s 406, 420 IPC + +Bail granted on 14.5.2024 + +

19. + +247/2023 u/s 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC + +Bail granted on 16.5.2024 + +

20. + +164/2023 u/s 406, 420, 506 IPC + +Bail granted on 16.5.2024 + +

21. + +187/2023 u/s 406, 420, 506 IPC + +Bail granted on 21.5.2024 + +

22. + +168/2023 u/s 420, 406, 506 IPC + +Bail granted on 18.5.2024 + +

23. + +134/2023 u/s 406, 420, 120-B IPC + +Bail granted on 14.5.2024 + +

+
+ +
+

24. + +135/2023 u/s 406, 420, 120-B IPC + +Bail granted on 23.4.2024 + +

25. + +45/2024 u/s 406, 420, 506, 120B IPC + +Bail granted on 7.6.2024 + +26, + +145/2023 u/s 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC + +Bail granted on 10.6.2024 + +

27. + +188/2023 u/s 406, 420 IPC + +Bail granted on 11.6.2024 + +

28. + +64/2024 u/s 406, 420 IPC + +Bail granted on 11.6.2024 + +

29. + +260/2023 u/s 406, 420, 504, 506, 34 +Bail granted on 12.6.2024 + +

30. + +261/2023 u/s 406, 420, 504, 506, 34 IPC + +Bail granted on 12.6.2024 + +

31. + +189/2023 u/s 420, 406, 506, 34 IC + +Bail granted on 13.6.2024 + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_112025526.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_112025526.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..820c6437e620b19ddeb1585487fd253fb4c3b50d --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_112025526.html @@ -0,0 +1,708 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Parveen Bhatia And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 31 October, 2012 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

It is alleged by the petitioners that after the passing of the + +order dated 24.2.2003 (Annexure P-1) by the Supreme Court, the complainant + +got another police report (challan) filed before the learned Chief Judicial + +Magistrate, Jhansi and also got non-bailable warrants of the petitioners issued + +with some obvious motive which are reflected from the events. The petitioners + +then apprehending their arrest because of non-bailable warrants being issued + +filed Criminal Misc No. M-15001 of 2003 in this Court on 5.4.2003 for the + +grant of pre-arrest bail under the amended and altered/added Sections of FIR + +No.303 dated 13.11.2001 (Annexure P-3) registered at Police Station Kotwali + +Jhansi (U.P.). It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that their arrest had + +already been stayed by this Court vide order dated 8.1.2002 in FIR No.303 + +dated 13.11.2001 (Annexure P-3) under Sections 406, 468 and 471 IPC but + +later the offences had been changed to Sections 409, 467, 468 and 120 B IPC + +and they are again being threatened to be arrested. Notice of motion was issued + +vide order dated 8.4.2003 for 8.7.2003 and meanwhile, the arrest of the + +petitioners was stayed in respect of the newly added offence. The Complainant + Criminal Misc. No. M-71250 of 2005 (O&M) and + + +(respondent No.2) filed Criminal Misc No.20311 of 2003 in Criminal Misc + +No.M-15001 of 2003 for vacating the interim order dated 8.4.2003 passed by + +this Court whereby the arrest of the petitioners had been stayed. It was inter + +alia submitted that the prayer in the said petition gave an impression as if the + +petitioners had been earlier granted the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR + +No.303 dated 13.11.2001 (Annexure P3) registered at Police Station Kotwali + +Jhansi for the offences under Sections 406, 468 and 471 IPC and they were + +now seeking the concession to be extended only in view of the newly added + +Sections to the said FIR i.e. Sections 409, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC. Therefore, + +the petitioners had given false impression that they were earlier granted + +anticipatory bail. Notice in Criminal Misc No.20311 of 2003 was issued to the + +petitioners through their counsel on 13.5.2003 for the date already fixed i.e. + +8.7.2003. On 8.7.2003 the interim order was ordered to continue. Thereafter, + +it was adjourned from time to time. On 22.9.2003 this Court inter alia + +observed that stay had been granted to the petitioners in Criminal Misc No.M- + +823 of 2002 vide order dated 8.1.2002. The said petition was for quashing FIR + +No.303 dated 13.11.2001 (Annexure P3) registered at Police Station Kotwali, + +Jhansi (U.P.). Criminal Misc No. M-823 of 2002 was decided by this Court + +vide order dated 29.5.2002. The stay of arrest granted to the petitioners on + +8.1.2002 it is alleged became a part and parcel of the final order. + +

+
+ +
+

The petitioners filed Criminal Misc No. M-15001 of 2003 under + Criminal Misc. No. M-71250 of 2005 (O&M) and + +Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court vide its order dated + +8.4.2003 passed an order; "meanwhile arrest of the petitioners is also stayed + +under the newly added offences". The newly added offences in terms of order + +dated 8.4.2003 would be Sections 409, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC. Bail as per + +the said order had not been granted to the petitioners under Sections 468 and + +471 IPC. The case was adjourned to 26.9.2003. Thereafter, it was again + +adjourned from time to time. The case was then taken up on 20.7.2004 on + +which date none appeared for the petitioners. It was observed that on + +20.2.2004 no one was present on behalf of the petitioners and even on the said + +date i.e. 20.7.2004, no one was present on their behalf. The case was + +adjourned to 26.7.2004. The interim order dated 8.4.2003 was, however, + +vacated. On 26.7.2004 this Court observed that it was informed that + +proceedings in case FIR No.303 dated 13.11.2001 (Annexure P3) had since + +been transferred to Chandigarh vide order passed by the Supreme Court on + +24.2.2003 (Annexure P1). In view of the said position, notice of the petition + +for anticipatory bail was issued to the Standing Counsel for UT, Chandigarh for + +20.8.2004. At the said stage it was submitted by Counsel for the petitioners + +that due to his non-appearance on 20.7.2004, the interim order dated 8.4.2003 + +by which arrest of the petitioners was stayed had been vacated. He further + +contended that till then the petitioners were apprehending arrest. Therefore, + +their arrest may be stayed. In view of the said position, the arrest of the + Criminal Misc. No. M-71250 of 2005 (O&M) and + + +petitioners was ordered to be stayed till the next date of hearing. On 20.8.2004 + +on the request of the learned Counsel for UT Administration, Chandigarh, the + +case was adjourned to 1.10.2004 and interim order dated 26.7.2004 was + +ordered to continue. On 1.10.2004 learned Counsel for the respondent-UT + +Administration, Chandigarh submitted that case file had not been received + +from Jhansi. Therefore, without the police file he could not properly assist this + +Court and sought an adjournment to await the police file, which was likely to + +be received very soon by the department. The case was adjourned to + +2.11.2004. On the said date, the case was adjourned to 18.1.2005 and the + +interim order was ordered to continue. Thereafter, it was again adjourned for + +some dates. It was then taken up on 25.2.2005. On the said date, learned + +counsel appearing for the State of Punjab on instructions submitted that the + +custody of the petitioners was not required for the purposes of investigation. + +Learned counsel for the UT Administration Chandigarh also submitted that the + +custody of the petitioners was not required for the purposes of investigation. + +Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing + +for the Complainant were in agreement that the proceedings had been + +transferred from the Supreme Court of India vide order dated 24.2.2003 + +(Annexure P1) and that the challan in the case had been filed. They were also + +ad idem that the arrest of the petitioners was initially stayed by this Court on + +8.4.2003 and thereafter, it was continuing. Learned counsel for the + Criminal Misc. No. M-71250 of 2005 (O&M) and + + +Complainant, however, contended that the said order i.e. the order dated + +8.4.2003 had been obtained by misrepresentation. It was observed by this + +Court that keeping in view the fact that the custody of the petitioners was not + +required for the purposes of investigation, it would be just and expedient to + +extend the period of interim bail for a period of one month to enable the + +petitioners to approach the Court concerned to seek regular bail in terms of + +Section 439 CrPC in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme + +Court in Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar, (2005) 1 SCC 608. The petitioners + +were accordingly granted one month's time to apply for regular bail after + +surrendering before the Court concerned. In the circumstances, no opinion on + +the merits of the case was expressed and the Court concerned was ordered to + +deal with the application for regular bail in accordance with law. The Criminal + +Misc. petition was disposed of. In the order instead of mentioning the date as + +25.2.2005 it was inadvertently mentioned as 25.2.2004. Accordingly Criminal + +Misc. No. 16218-19 of 2005 was filed for correction of the date of order on the + +certified copy; besides, a further request was made to issue clarification + +regarding the concerned Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the + +case. In terms of order dated 24.3.2005, the date of the order was corrected to + +that of 25.2.2005 instead of 25.2.2004 being a clerical mistake. The Registry + +was asked to issue a fresh copy of the order. Besides, the petitioners were + +granted one month's more time from the date of preparation of the copy of the + Criminal Misc. No. M-71250 of 2005 (O&M) and + + +order to apply for regular bail after surrendering before the Court concerned. + +Insofar as the clarification regarding the Court concerned, this Court was of the + +view that no clarification was required. Criminal Misc. Nos.16218-19 of 2005 + +were disposed of accordingly. Another Criminal Misc. No.17517-18 of 2005 + +was filed by the Complainant also for correcting the date of order, which was + +also allowed on 25.4.2005. +

+
+ +
+

As regards the conduct of the petitioners, it may be noticed that + +they had filed Crl. Misc. petitions in pending petitions seeking stay of + Criminal Misc. No. M-71250 of 2005 (O&M) and + + +execution of non-bailable warrants or for grant of pre-arrest bail. Filing of Crl. + +Misc. petitions in an already disposed of matter are to be deprecated. The + +petitioners were liable to file fresh petitions. However, in this regard the + +petitioners by themselves cannot be faulted and it was for their counsel to take + +legal remedies as permissible under the law. The Complainant it may be + +noticed has alleged that the petitioners deliberately filed an application for + +regular bail in the Court of Sessions at Chandigarh instead of filing it in the + +Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. The learned Counsel for the + +Complainant has referred to the case of Ramji v. State of Punjab (Supra) to + +contend that a Magistrate trying an offence punishable with imprisonment for + +life is competent to grant bail to an accused under Section 437 CrPC. It was + +further held that Magistrate Ist Class will not, however, be competent to grant + +bail in an offence which is punishable alternatively with death or imprisonment + +for life. Learned counsel for the Complainant also referred to the case of + +Ashireddyeari Narasimhareddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Supra) wherein the + +Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a Magistrate has power to + +grant bail to an accused who is involved in an offence punishable with life + +imprisonment even if the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of + +Sessions. The prohibition it was held is where the sentence prescribed in the + +Act is either death alternatively imprisonment for life. In the said case, the + +accused was on anticipatory bail in respect of an offence under Section 307 + Criminal Misc. No. M-71250 of 2005 (O&M) and + +IPC which is punishable with life imprisonment. The chargesheet was + +submitted before the Magistrate and it was held that the Magistrate was + +competent to grant bail even if the case is exclusively triable by the Court of + +Sessions. A perusal of the said two judgments indeed show that the Magistrate + +is competent to grant bail in a case which is triable by it even if the same + +entails punishment for life imprisonment. However, this Court in Prithvi Raj + +v. State of Punjab, 1998 (3) RCR (Crl.) 104 observed that it was + +inappropriate for a Judicial Magistrate Ist Class to grant bail for an offence + +under Section 409 IPC punishable with imprisonment for life. The matter in + +the said case was referred to the Inspecting Judge for considering the propriety + +to initiate departmental action against the Judicial Magistrate who had granted + +anticipatory bail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prahlad Singh Bhati v. + +NCT, Delhi and another, (2001) 4 SCC 280 considered the powers of + +Magistrate while dealing with an application for grant of bail. It was held that + +these are regulated by the punishment prescribed for the offence in which the + +bail is sought. Generally speaking if punishment prescribed for imprisonment + +for life and death penalty and the offences exclusively triable by the Court of + +Sessions, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant bail unless the matter is + +covered by the proviso attached to Section 437 CrPC. Therefore, it was for the + +petitioners to urge before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh + +that a Chief Judicial Magistrate may not entertain an application for regular + Criminal Misc. No. M-71250 of 2005 (O&M) and + +bail as the offence under Section 409 IPC for which the petitioners had been + +challaned was punishable with imprisonment for life and the Magistrate may + +have declined to entertain such an application. In the circumstances, it cannot + +be said that the conduct of the petitioners in approaching the Sessions Judge, + +Chandigarh for the grant of regular bail being the Court concerned for grant of + +such bail was inappropriate. Therefore, nothing can be said as regards the + +conduct of the appellants insofar as their approaching the Sessions Court at + +Chandigarh for the grant of regular bail is concerned as that in fact may have + +been the concerned Court. This aspect is not now to be gone into as the + +anticipatory bail has been considered on merit and keeping in view the nature + +of accusation the evidence that is on record and the fact that even civil + +litigations are pending between parties for the same circumstances, it would be + +just and expedient to grant them pre-arrest bail. In Manjit Singh Arora v. + +U.T. Chandigarh, 1997 (3) RCR (Crl.) 475, this Court considered a case + +where allegations against the accused were that he cheated by + +misrepresentation. A civil suit was filed by the accused for adjudication of + +rights of the parties. It was held that filing of suit showed that the + +complainant's rights had been challanged and anticipatory bail was granted. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_113749327.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_113749327.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e5b52a7baefb9317e128caa6c31824986bf2597d --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_113749327.html @@ -0,0 +1,1695 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Intaj Mian @ Imtiyaj Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. ... on 7 December, 2021 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 47, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Jharkhand High Court

+

Intaj Mian @ Imtiyaj Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. ... on 7 December, 2021

+ +

Author: Subhash Chand

+ +

Bench: Subhash Chand

+ +
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
+                        B.A. No. 12462 of 2021
+
+          Intaj Mian @ Imtiyaj Ansari                        .....   ... Petitioner
+                                        Versus
+          The State of Jharkhand                             .... .... Opp. Party
+                              --------
+

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+          For the Petitioner    : Mr. Shahid Yunus, Advocate
+          For the State         : A.P.P.
+                             --------
+
+02/07.12.2021            So far as the defects, as pointed out by the office, are
+

concerned, learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to remove the + same within one week. +

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. + appearing for the State. +

This bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner Intaj + Mian @ Imtiyaj Ansari with a prayer to release him on bail in case crime + being Sonaraithari P.S. Case No. 58 of 2021 corresponding to POCSO + Case No. 36 of 2021 registered for the offence under Sections 376 of the + Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO. +

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the F.I.R of + this case was lodged by the victim herself in regard to committing rape + by the petitioner and on being alarmed; her aunt Halima Bibi attracted + there and saw the occurrence. It is further submitted that the petitioner + has been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity of previous + litigation. +

Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contention made by + the learned counsel for the applicant and contended that the victim has + lodged the F.I.R in regard to committing the rape against the petitioner + and she has supported the F.I.R in her statement under Section 164 of + the Cr.P.C. and her statement is corroborated with the statement of + Halima Bibi, who is the aunt of the victim. The victim is minor of 15 + years. +

In view of the submissions made above and considering the + materials available on record, this bail application deserves to be + rejected. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby + rejected. +

+

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 12463 of 2021 + Sunil Paswan ..... ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+         For the Petitioner          : Mr. Manoj Kr. Choubey, Advocate
+         For the State               : A.P.P.
+                                  --------
+02/07.12.2021         So far as the defects, as pointed out by the office, are
+

concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the + same may be ignored. +

Defects are hereby ignored. +

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. + appearing for the State. +

This bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner Sunil + Paswan with a prayer to release him on bail in case crime being Kandi + P.S. Case No. 45 of 2021 registered for the offence under Section 366 of + the Indian Penal Code. +

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the F.I.R of + this case was lodged by the mother-in-law of the victim in regard to + enticing away her daughter-in-law by the petitioner. The victim was + recovered and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the + Cr.P.C she has stated that she had left the house with the leave of her + husband and accompanied Sunil Paswan and no wrong was committed by + him to her. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been languishing in + jail since 22.05.2021 having no criminal antecedent. +

Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contention made by + the learned counsel for the applicant and contended that the victim + enticed away by the petitioner without the permission of the husband or + mother-in-law of victim. +

In view of the submissions made above and considering the + materials available on record, this bail application deserves to be allowed. + Accordingly, the petitioner, namely, Sunil Paswan be released on bail on + furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) with two + sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial + Magistrate 1st Class, Garhwa, in connection with Kandi P.S. Case No. 45 of + 2021. +

+

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 12464 of 2021 + Pankaj Kumar Das ..... ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+         For the Petitioner            : Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate
+         For the State                 : A.P.P.
+                                    --------
+02/07.12.2021         So far as the defects, as pointed out by the office, are concerned,
+

learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to remove the same in course of + day. +

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for + the State. +

This bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner Pankaj Kumar + Das with a prayer to release him on bail in case crime being Rajganj P.S. Case + No. 51 of 2021 corresponding to Special (P) Case No.113 of 2021 registered for + the offence under Sections 341,354 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 8 + and 12 of POCSO Act. +

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is + innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity. The + F.I.R of this case has been lodged against the petitioner in regard to forcing the + daughter of the informant to take ride of motorcycle after having offered to her + chocolate. It is further submitted that the petitioner used to stalk to his + daughter and the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 01.08.2021 + having no criminal antecedent as per information received by the pairvikar of + the petitioner. +

Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contention made by the + learned counsel for the applicant and contended that the F.I.R version is well + supported with the statement of victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C and + victim is minor girl of 16 years. +

In view of the submissions made above and considering the materials + available on record, this bail application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, + the petitioner, namely, Pankaj Kumar Das be released on bail on furnishing bail + bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount + each to the satisfaction of the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge- IXth +

-cum- Special Judge POCSO, Dhanbad, in connection with Rajganj P.S. Case + No. 51 of 2021 corresponding to Special (P) Case No.113 of 2021 , subject to + the condition that the petitioner will not threaten or tamper the witnesses and + he will cooperate in the investigation, trial and enquiry and he will not absent + himself on the date fixed in the trial court without any cogent reason and in + breach of any condition the court below will be at liberty to cancel the bail + bonds without any reference to this Court. +

+

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 12465 of 2021 + + Arbind Jaiswal @ Arbind Prasad Jaiswal ..... ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+          For the Petitioner         : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate
+          For the State              : A.P.P.
+                                  --------
+
+02/07.12.2021         So far as the defects, as pointed out by the office, are
+

concerned, learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to remove the + same within one week. +

Learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State prays for and is + granted two weeks' time to procure the case diary. +

List for hearing on 21.12.2021. +

+ + + +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 12466 of 2021 + Mantu Bhuiyan @ Mantu Bharti ..... ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+         For the Petitioner            : Mr. Anupam Anand, Advocate
+         For the State                 : A.P.P.
+                                    --------
+02/07.12.2021         So far as the defects, as pointed out by the office, are concerned,
+

learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the same may be ignored + except defect No. 9(iii) and also undertakes that the same may be removed + within one week. +

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for + the State. +

This bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner Mantu Bhuiyan + @ Mantu Bharti with a prayer to release him on bail in case crime being Kunda + P.S. Case No. 68 of 2020 registered for the offence under Sections 392,397 of + the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under section 25 (1-b) a, 26,35 of the Arms + Act. +

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the F.I.R of this + case was lodged against the owner of motorcycle being registration No. JH 13 F + 0424 and two unknown persons in regard to committing loot of cash and + jewelry on the pointing of gun. It is further submitted that the name of the + petitioner surfaced during investigation in the confessional statement of co- + accused Sudhir Kumar Bharti and nothing incriminating article has been + recovered from the possession of the petitioner and no T.I.P was conducted to + identify the complicity of the petitioner in commission of alleged offence. It is + also submitted that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 24.01.2021. + It is also submitted that co-accused Sudhir Kumar Bharti has been granted bail + by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No. 6874 of 2021 vide order dated + 02.08.2021. +

Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contention made by the + learned counsel for the applicant and contended that the petitioner is having + criminal antecedent in two cases. +

In view of the submissions made above and considering the materials + available on record, this bail application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, + the petitioner, namely, Mantu Bhuiyan @ Mantu Bharti be released on bail on + furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the + like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial + Magistrate, Chatra, in connection with Kunda P.S. Case No. 68 of 2020. +

+ + +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 12467 of 2021 + + Suresh Oraon @ Amit Oraon @ Amit ji ..... ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+          For the Petitioner        : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate
+          For the State             : A.P.P.
+                                 --------
+
+02/07.12.2021         So far as the defects, as pointed out by the office, are
+

concerned, learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to remove the + same within one week. +

Learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State prays for and is + granted two weeks' time to procure the case diary. +

List for hearing on 21.12.2021. +

+ + + +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 12468 of 2021 + Chhedu Oraon ..... ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+         For the Petitioner          : Mrs. Neeta Krishna, Advocate
+         For the State               : A.P.P.
+                                  --------
+02/07.12.2021         So far as the defect No. (ii), as pointed out by the office, are
+

concerned, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he has + already been removed and defect No. (i) undertakes to remove the same + within one week. +

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. + appearing for the State. +

This bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner Chhedu + Oraon with a prayer to release him on bail in case crime being Ghaghra + P.S. Case No. 162 of 2020 registered for the offence under Sections + 341,342,323,325,506,376 & 511 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 + of Witch Craft Practices Act. +

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the F.I.R of + this case was lodged by the victim herself in regard to having intruded in + the house of the informant made attempt to commit rape upon her and + also inflicted injuries to her on being resisted by the victim. It is further + submitted that the victim in her statement under Section 164 of the + Cr.P.C has developed the prosecution story and stated that she was raped + by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the F.I.R of this case was + lodged by the victim by two days delayed and there is no explanation of + the same and the statement of victim is also different from the F.I.R + version which lodged alleged by the victim herself. The petitioner has + been languishing in since 09.03.2021 having no criminal antecedent. +

Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contention made by + the learned counsel for the applicant. +

In view of the submissions made above and considering the + materials available on record, this bail application deserves to be allowed. + Accordingly, the petitioner, namely, Chhedu Oraon be released on bail on + furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) with two + sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub- + Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, in connection with Ghaghra P.S. + Case No. 162 of 2020. +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 12472 of 2021 + Parmendra Turi @ Shiwam ..... ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+          For the Petitioner          : Mr. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate
+          For the State               : A.P.P.
+                                   --------
+
+02/07.12.2021         So far as the defects, as pointed out by the office, are
+

concerned, learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to remove the + same during course of day. +

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. + appearing for the State. +

This bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner + Parmendra Turi @ Shiwam with a prayer to release him on bail in case + crime being Balumath P.S. Case No. 115 of 2021registered for the offence + Under Sections 399, 402, 386, 387, 120B, 34 of the I.P.C. read with + section 25(1-B)a/26/35 of Arms Act. +

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner + is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The one mobile is + alleged to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner and co- + accused Arjun Oraon who has already been granted bail by the co- + ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No. 12037 of 2021 vide order dated + 23.11.2021. The petitioner has been languishing in jail since 13.06.2021 + having no criminal antecedent. +

Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contention made by + the learned counsel for the applicant and conceded that on the point of + parity. +

In view of the submissions made above and considering the + materials available on record, this bail application deserves to be allowed. + Accordingly, the petitioner, namely, Parmendra Turi @ Shiwam be + released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen + Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of + the learned C.J.M., Latehar, in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No. + 115 of 2021. +

+ + +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 12475 of 2021 + Manoj Bhokta ..... ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+          For the Petitioner            : Mr. Binod Kr. Dubey, Advocate
+          For the State                 : A.P.P.
+                                      --------
+02/07.12.2021           So far as the defects, as pointed out by the office, are concerned,
+

learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to remove the same within one + week. +

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for + the State. +

This bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner Manoj Bhokta + with a prayer to release him on bail in case crime being Simaria P.S. Case No. 05 + of 2021 (S.T. No. 117 of 2021) registered for the offence under Sections 302, + 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17(i)(ii) + of the C.L.A. Act. +

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the F.I.R of this case + was lodged against Taleshwar Ganjhu @ Taleshwar Singh and three named + extremists along with 4 to 5 other member of extremists with the allegation to + commit the murder of brother of informant. It is further submitted that the name + of the petitioner does not figure of same and surfaced during investigation in the + confessional statement of main accused Taleshwar Ganjhu @ Taleshwar Singh who + has already been granted bail in B.A. No. 7053 of 2021 vide order dated + 11.08.2021. It is further submitted that recovery of the weapon is alleged to be + made on the joint of confessional statement the petitioner and other co-accused + which has been falsely implanted. The petitioner has been languishing in jail since + 01.04.2021. +

Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contention made by the learned + counsel for the applicant and contended that there is recovery of the weapon used + in commission of the murder of the deceased on the joint confessional statement + of the petitioner and co-accused and the petitioner is having criminal antecedent + of three cases. +

In view of the submissions made above and considering the materials + available on record, this bail application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the + petitioner, namely, Manoj Bhokta be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. + 30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the + satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Vth at Chatra , in connection + with Simaria P.S. Case No. 05 of 2021 (S.T. No. 117 of 2021). +

+

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 12476 of 2021 + + Sukhdeo Poddar @ Sukhdev Poddar ..... ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+          For the Petitioner        : Mr. A.K. Kashyap Sr. Advocate
+          For the State             : A.P.P.
+                                 --------
+
+02/07.12.2021         So far as the defects, as pointed out by the office, are
+

concerned, learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to remove the + same within one week. +

Learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State prays for and is + granted two weeks' time to procure the case diary and medical + examination report. +

List for hearing on 21.12.2021. +

+ + + +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 12477 of 2021 + Arjun Yadav ..... ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+          For the Petitioner           : Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, Advocate
+          For the State          : A.P.P.
+                                     --------
+02/07.12.2021           So far as the defects, as pointed out by the office, are concerned,
+

learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to remove the same within one + week. +

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for + the State. +

This bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner Arjun Yadav + with a prayer to release him on bail in case crime being Chhattarpur P.S. Case + No. 119 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. No. 1889 of 2021 registered for the + offence under Sections 302, 115 of the Indian Penal Code. +

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the F.I.R of this + case is alleged by the mother-in-law of the petitioner in regard to abatement of + committing murder of two daughters by Anita Devi wife of the petitioner. It is + further submitted that the petitioner used to torture to Anita Devi force her to + commit murder of the daughters consequently Anita Devi has committed + murder of two daughters. It is further submitted that the there is no evidence + against the petitioner in regard to commit the alleged offence. The petitioner + has been languishing in jail since 28.06.2021 + Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contention made by the + learned counsel for the applicant and contended that there is sufficient + evidence on record in regard to abating the petitioner to commit the murder of + two daughters by wife of the petitioner Anita Devi. +

In view of the submissions made above and considering the materials + available on record, this bail application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, + the petitioner, namely, Arjun Yadav be released on bail on furnishing bail bond + of Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to + the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palamau at + Daltonganj, in connection with Chhattarpur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2021, + corresponding to G.R. No. 1889 of 2021, subject to the condition that the + petitioner will not threaten or tamper the witnesses and he will cooperate in the + investigation, trial and enquiry and he will not absent himself on the date fixed + in the trial court without any cogent reason and in breach of any condition the + court below will be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds without any reference to + this Court. +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 12674 of 2021 + Surendra Yadav ..... ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+          For the Petitioner            : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
+          For the State                 : A.P.P.
+                                      --------
+02/07.12.2021            So far as the defects, as pointed out by the office, are concerned,
+

learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the same is hereby + ignored. +

Accordingly, the defects as pointed out by the office is hereby + ignored. +

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for + the State. +

This bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner Surendra + Yadav with a prayer to release him on bail in case crime being Baresand P.S. + Case No. 03 of 2019, corresponding to G.R. No. 641 of 2019 registered for the + offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 457, 323, 302, 504, 506, 120(B) of the + Indian Penal Code. +

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the F.I.R of this + case was lodged against the petitioner and other co-accused in regard to + committing the murder of father of the informant after having intruded in the + house of the informant. It is further submitted that role has been assigned to + all the accused persons is general and omnibus and no specific role has been + assigned to the petitioner. The co-accused Bhageshwar Yadav has already been + granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No. 3128 of 2020 vide + order dated 09.06.2020 and the role of the petitioner is identical to that + Bhageshwar Yadav. The petitioner has been languishing in jail since 22.07.2021 + Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contention made by the + learned counsel for the applicant and contended that there is evidence against + the petitioner and other co-accused in regard to committing the murder of + father of informant but conceded that no specific role has been assigned to the + petitioner by anyone on the eye witnesses Lilawati Devi and her mother and + also conceded that on the point of parity + In view of the submissions made above and considering the materials + available on record, this bail application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, + the petitioner, namely, Surendra Yadav be released on bail on furnishing bail + bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount + each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Latehar, in + connection with Baresand P.S. Case No. 03 of 2019, corresponding to G.R. No. + 641 of 2019. +

+ +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 12680 of 2021 + + Ajay Kujur @ Ajju ..... ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+          For the Petitioner    : Mr. Dr. S.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate
+          For the State         : A.P.P.
+                             --------
+
+02/07.12.2021        So far as the defects, as pointed out by the office, are
+

concerned, learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to remove the + same within one week. +

Learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State prays for and is + granted one week time to procure the case diary. +

List for hearing on 14.12.2021. +

+ + + +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 12690 of 2021 + + Rajesh Sardar ..... ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+          For the Petitioner    : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate
+          For the State         : A.P.P.
+                             --------
+
+02/07.12.2021         So far as the defects, as pointed out by the office, are
+

concerned, learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to remove the + same within one week. +

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. + appearing for the State. +

This bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner Rajesh + Sardar with a prayer to release him on bail in case crime being Gamharia + P.S. Case No. 65 of 2021 registered for the offence under Sections + 392,411,414 of the Indian Penal Code. +

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner + has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed the + alleged offence. The recovery of mobile from the possession of the + petitioner is not looted property as alleged in the F.I.R. It is also + submitted that recovered mobile was never identified by the informant + and the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 04.07.2021. +

Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contention made by + the learned counsel for the applicant and contended that the petitioner is + having criminal antecedent. +

In view of the submissions made above and considering the + materials available on record, this bail application deserves to be allowed. + Accordingly, the petitioner, namely, Rajesh Sardar be released on bail on + furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) with two sureties + of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M. at + Seraikella, in connection with Gamharia P.S. Case No. 65 of 2021. +

+ + +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 12461 of 2021 +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------ +

+

02/07.12.2021 Let the matter be placed on 14.12.2021. +

+ + +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 12700 of 2021 + + CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------ +

02/07.12.2021 Let the matter be placed on 14.12.2021. +

+ + +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 12678 of 2021 + + CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------ +

02/07.12.2021 Let the matter be placed on 14.12.2021. +

+ + +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 12678 of 2021 + + CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------ +

02/07.12.2021 Let the matter be placed on 14.12.2021. +

+ + +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 10963 of 2021 + + CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------ +

02/07.12.2021 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner on repeated calls. +

Learned A.P.P is present. +

Let the matter be placed on 14.12.2021. +

+ + +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 11995 of 2021 + + Pankaj Lala ..... ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+        For the Petitioner    : Mr. Raja Ravi Shekhar Singh, Advocate
+        For the State         : A.P.P.
+                           --------
+
+        05/07.12.2021            Learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State
+

prays for and is granted two weeks' time to procure the case diary. +

List for hearing on 21.12.2021. +

+ + + +

(Subhash Chand, J.) +Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 12704 of 2021 + +

1.Krishna Kumar @ Rahul +

2.Ram Vivek Kumar ..... ... Petitioners + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+         For the Petitioner            : Mr. Tarun Kumar No.1, Advocate
+         For the State                 : A.P.P.
+                                    --------
+02/07.12.2021         So far as the defects, as pointed out by the office, are concerned,
+

learned counsel for the applicants undertakes to remove the same during + course of day. +

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. appearing + for the State. +

This bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioners Krishna + Kumar @ Rahul and Ram Vivek Kumar with a prayer to release on bail in case + crime being Hirodih P.S. Case No. 49 of 2021 registered for the offence under + Sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code, subsequently added Section 411 of the + I.P.C. +

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that F.I.R of this case + was lodged against unknown persons in regard loot of Maruti Suzuki Baleno car + of the informant by two unknown persons who came by the black colour + scorpio car which was identified in C.C.T.V camera. It is further submitted that + nothing incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of these + petitioners and name of the petitioners surfaced during investigation in the + confessional statement of co-accused. It is also submitted that Maruti Suzuki + Baleno car was recovered and there is no other evidence against these + petitioners and petitioners have been languishing in jail since 06.07.2021. +

Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contention made by the + learned counsel for the applicants and contended that petitioners are having + criminal antecedent. +

In view of the submissions made above and considering the materials + available on record, this bail application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, + the petitioners, namely, Krishna Kumar @ Rahul and Ram Vivek Kumar be + released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) + each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned + Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, in connection with Hirodih P.S. Case No. 49 of 2021. +

+ + + +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 12705 of 2021 + + Md. Faiyaz ..... ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+         For the Petitioner            : Mr. Md. Yasir Arafat, Advocate
+         For the State                 : A.P.P.
+                                    --------
+02/07.12.2021         So far as the defects, as pointed out by the office, are concerned,
+

learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to remove the same within one + week. +

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for + the State. +

This bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner Md. Faiyaz + with a prayer to release him on bail in case crime being Sahibganj (M) P.S. Case + No. 73 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 413 of 2017 registered for the + offence under Sections 379, 402, 363 of the Indian Penal Code. +

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is + innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The F.I.R of this case was + lodged against Md. Tanveer and four unknown persons in regard to loot of + Scorpio after having wrongfully confined. It is further submitted that name of + the petitioner surfaced during investigation in the confessional statement of co- + accused Md. Tanveer @ Nd. Tanveer, who has already been granted bail by co- + ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No. 8570 of 2017 vide order dated + 06.12.2021. It is also submitted that nothing incriminating article has been + recovered from the possession of the petitioner and petitioner has been + languishing in jail since 04.08.2021 having no criminal antecedent and no T.I.P + was conducted to identify the petitioner. +

Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contention made by the + learned counsel for the applicant. +

In view of the submissions made above and considering the materials + available on record, this bail application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, + the petitioner, namely, Md. Faiyaz be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of + Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to + the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj, in + connection with Sahibganj (M) P.S. Case No. 73 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. + No. 413 of 2017. +

+ + + +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 9399 of 2021 + + Prakash Kumar Sah @ Sao ..... ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+         For the Petitioner         : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Dubey, Advocate
+         For the State              : A.P.P.
+                                 --------
+03/07.12.2021         Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.
+          appearing for the State.
+

This bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner Prakash + Kumar Sah @ Sao with a prayer to release him on bail in case crime + being Kadma P.S. Case No. 28 of 2021 registered for the offence under + Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. +

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner + has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that the + petitioner has not committed dowry death of the daughter of informant. + The deceased died natural death and the petitioner has been languishing + in jail since 12.03.2021 + Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contention made by + the learned counsel for the applicant and contended that the F.I.R was + lodged by the informant father of the deceased with allegation for + demand of dowry and for non fulfilment of the same the daughter of the + informant was subjected to cruelty and ultimately she was strangulated. + It is further submitted that the death of the deceased took in matrimonial + house and as per postmortem report the cause of death is asphyxia as a + result of antemortem hanging. +

Admittedly the death of deceased took place within seven years of + her marriage in her matrimonial house and there is also the evidence + collected by the I.O that she was subjected to cruelty for demand of + dowry. The death of the deceased unnatural and the petitioner is the + husband of the deceased. +

In view of the submissions made above and considering the + materials available on record, the bail application is fit to be dismissed. + Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. +

+ + +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 12469 of 2021 + + Rakesh Yadav @ Rakesh Kumar Yadav ..... ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------ +

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate + For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl..P.P. +

-------- +

02/07.12.2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. + appearing for the State. +

This bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner Rakesh Yadav + @ Rakesh Kumar Yadav with a prayer to release him on bail in case crime being + Bashistnagar P.S. Case No. 71 of 2021 registered for the offence under sections + 420,412 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and under sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 + of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic + Substances Act. +

Learned counsel for the12462 petitioner has submitted that the F.I.R of + this case was lodged against the petitioner and five other named persons and + one unknown persons. It is also submitted that the one magazine loaded with + five live cartridges and mobile was recovered from the possession of the + petitioner and 1Kg 800gm opium was recovered from the house of Punit Mahto + wherein all the other accused were also present. The police had apprehended + the petitioner and Vinay Kr. Gupta. It is also submitted that Vinay Kumar @ + Vinay Kr. Gupta has already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this + Court in B.A. No. 12003 of 2021 vide order dated 23.11.2021 and the case of + the petitioner is on similar footing as like of co-accused Vinay Kumar @ Vinay + Kr. Gupta. +

Learned Special P.P. has vehemently opposed the contention made by + the learned counsel for the applicant and conceded that 1Kg 800gm opium was + recovered from the house of Punit Kr. Mahto. +

In view of the submissions made above and considering the materials + available on record, this bail application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, + the petitioner, namely, Rakesh Yadav @ Rakesh Kumar Yadav be released on + bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) with two + sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Principal + Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, (NDPS), Chatra, in connection with + Bashistnagar P.S. Case No. 71 of 2021. +

+ + + +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 12470 of 2021 + Narayan Mahto ..... ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+         For the Petitioner          : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
+         For the State               : A.P.P.
+                                  --------
+02/07.12.2021         Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.
+          appearing for the State.
+

This bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner Narayan + Mahto with a prayer to release him on bail in case crime being Garhwa + P.S. Case No. 319 of 2021 registered for the offence under Sections + 341,323,504,34 of the Indian Penal Code and later on sections 324, + 325,307 of the Indian Penal Code was added. +

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the F.I.R of + this case was lodged against the petitioner and five other named persons + in regard to inflicting injuries having intruded in the house of the + informant and there are four persons sustained injuries. It is also + submitted that except the petitioner of all the co-accused have been + granted anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the + role has been assigned to all the accused persons as per the F.I.R and + also as per evidence recorded by the I.O is general and omnibus and no + specific role has been assigned to the petitioner, accordingly the + petitioner is also entitled to same parity. +

Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contention made by + the learned counsel for the applicant and contended that there are four + injured persons although the injuries are simple in nature and one of the + injured has sustained head injury which was on the vital part but + conceded that role has been assigned to all accused persons is general + and omnibus and no specific role has been assigned to the petitioner. +

In view of the submissions made above and considering the + materials available on record, this bail application deserves to be allowed. + Accordingly, the petitioner, namely, Narayan Mahto be released on bail on + furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) with two sureties + of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial + Magistrate, Garhwa, in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No. 319 of + 2021. +

+ + +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 12474 of 2021 + + Irfan Ansari ..... ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+         For the Petitioner          : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate
+         For the State               : A.P.P.
+                                  --------
+02/07.12.2021         Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.
+          appearing for the State.
+

This bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner Irfan Ansari + with a prayer to release him on bail in case crime being Bishrampur P.S. + Case No. 57 of 2021 corresponding to Special POCSO Case No. 63 of 2021 + registered for the offence under Sections 354(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code + and section 8/12 of POCSO Act. +

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the F.I.R of this + case was lodged against Naushad Ansari and the petitioner wherein allegation + are made by the informant that on the fateful day the 15 years daughter of the + informant and one Naushad Ansari had gone graze goats and cows near + Bhelwa river and Naushad Ansari made attempt to outrage the modesty of his + daughter and one Irfan Ansari who had concealed himself nearby place of + occurrence had clicked obscene photograph daughter of the informant which he + made in public. It is further submitted that there is no allegation in the F.I.R in + regard making in sexual assault against the petitioner and allegation is made in + the F.I.R are against co-accused Naushad Ansari only role of the petitioner is + clicked the photograph and making public of those photograph. +

Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contention made by the + learned counsel for the applicant. +

In view of the submissions made above and considering the materials + available on record, this bail application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, + the petitioner, namely, Irfan Ansari be released on bail on furnishing bail bond + of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to + the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special Judge, POCSO, Palamau in + connection with Bishrampur P.S. Case No. 57 of 2021 corresponding to Special + POCSO Case No. 63 of 2021 . +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. 12686 of 2021 + + Krishna Chakrabarty @ Kishan Chakrabarty @ Kishan Chakborty .. ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+          For the Petitioner            : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate
+          For the State                : A.P.P.
+                                     --------
+
+02/07.12.2021          Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.
+          appearing for the State.
+

This bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner Krishna + Chakrabarty @ Kishan Chakrabarty @ Kishan Chakborty with a prayer to release + him on bail in case crime being Chirkunda P.S. Case No. 133 of 2021, + corresponding to Spl. (POCSO) Case No. 100 of 2021 registered for the offence + under Sections 366A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. +

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the F.I.R of this + case has lodged by the father of the victim with the allegation that the + petitioner accused has abducted the minor daughter of the informant with + intent to illicit relation with her. During investigation the victim was recovered + and her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C in which she admitted that + she was having affairs with the petitioner and the petitioner also establish + physical relation with her against her will. It is also submitted that charge sheet + was filed under Section 366A, 376(1) and Section 4 of the POCSO Act on which + cognizance was taken by the court below. +

Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contention made by the + learned counsel for the applicant. +

In view of the submissions made above and considering the materials + available on record as the bail is only for the offence under Section 366A and + Section 8 of the POCSO Act, accordingly the same is allowed. Accordingly, the + petitioner, namely, Krishna Chakrabarty @ Kishan Chakrabarty @ Kishan + Chakborty be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty + Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of + the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-IX-Cum- Spl Judge-POCSO, + Dhanbad, in connection with Chirkunda P.S. Case No. 133 of 2021, + corresponding to Spl. (POCSO) Case No. 100 of 2021. +

+ + + +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. xxxxx + + xxxxxxxxx ..... ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+          For the Petitioner    : Mr. xxxxxx, Advocate
+          For the State         : A.P.P.
+                             --------
+
+xxx/07.12.2021          So far as the defects, as pointed out by the office, are
+

concerned, learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to remove the + same within one week. +

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. + appearing for the State. +

This bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner xxxxxxx + with a prayer to release him on bail in case crime being xxxxxxxx + registered for the offence under Sections xxxxxx of the Indian Penal + Code. +

xxxxxxxxxxxx + Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contention made by + the learned counsel for the applicant and contended that xxxxxxxxx + In view of the submissions made above and considering the + materials available on record, this bail application deserves to be allowed. + Accordingly, the petitioner, namely, xxxxxxx be released on bail on + furnishing bail bond of Rs. xxxxx/- (xxxxx Thousand) with two sureties of + the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned xxxxxx, in + connection with xxxxx. +

+ + +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. xxxxx + + xxxxxxxxx ..... ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+          For the Petitioner    : Mr. xxxxxx, Advocate
+          For the State         : A.P.P.
+                             --------
+
+xxx/07.12.2021          So far as the defects, as pointed out by the office, are
+

concerned, learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to remove the + same within one week. +

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. + appearing for the State. +

This bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner xxxxxxx + with a prayer to release him on bail in case crime being xxxxxxxx + registered for the offence under Sections xxxxxx of the Indian Penal + Code. +

xxxxxxxxxxxx + Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contention made by + the learned counsel for the applicant and contended that xxxxxxxxx + In view of the submissions made above and considering the + materials available on record, this bail application deserves to be allowed. + Accordingly, the petitioner, namely, xxxxxxx be released on bail on + furnishing bail bond of Rs. xxxxx/- (xxxxx Thousand) with two sureties of + the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned xxxxxx, in + connection with xxxxx. +

+ + +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. xxxxx + + xxxxxxxxx ..... ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+          For the Petitioner    : Mr. xxxxxx, Advocate
+          For the State         : A.P.P.
+                             --------
+
+xxx/07.12.2021          So far as the defects, as pointed out by the office, are
+

concerned, learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to remove the + same within one week. +

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. + appearing for the State. +

This bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner xxxxxxx + with a prayer to release him on bail in case crime being xxxxxxxx + registered for the offence under Sections xxxxxx of the Indian Penal + Code. +

xxxxxxxxxxxx + Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contention made by + the learned counsel for the applicant and contended that xxxxxxxxx + In view of the submissions made above and considering the + materials available on record, this bail application deserves to be allowed. + Accordingly, the petitioner, namely, xxxxxxx be released on bail on + furnishing bail bond of Rs. xxxxx/- (xxxxx Thousand) with two sureties of + the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned xxxxxx, in + connection with xxxxx. +

+ + +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. xxxxx + + xxxxxxxxx ..... ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+          For the Petitioner    : Mr. xxxxxx, Advocate
+          For the State         : A.P.P.
+                             --------
+
+xxx/07.12.2021          So far as the defects, as pointed out by the office, are
+

concerned, learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to remove the + same within one week. +

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. + appearing for the State. +

This bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner xxxxxxx + with a prayer to release him on bail in case crime being xxxxxxxx + registered for the offence under Sections xxxxxx of the Indian Penal + Code. +

xxxxxxxxxxxx + Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contention made by + the learned counsel for the applicant and contended that xxxxxxxxx + In view of the submissions made above and considering the + materials available on record, this bail application deserves to be allowed. + Accordingly, the petitioner, namely, xxxxxxx be released on bail on + furnishing bail bond of Rs. xxxxx/- (xxxxx Thousand) with two sureties of + the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned xxxxxx, in + connection with xxxxx. +

+ + +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. xxxxx + + xxxxxxxxx ..... ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+          For the Petitioner    : Mr. xxxxxx, Advocate
+          For the State         : A.P.P.
+                             --------
+
+xxx/07.12.2021          So far as the defects, as pointed out by the office, are
+

concerned, learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to remove the + same within one week. +

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. + appearing for the State. +

This bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner xxxxxxx + with a prayer to release him on bail in case crime being xxxxxxxx + registered for the offence under Sections xxxxxx of the Indian Penal + Code. +

xxxxxxxxxxxx + Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contention made by + the learned counsel for the applicant and contended that xxxxxxxxx + In view of the submissions made above and considering the + materials available on record, this bail application deserves to be allowed. + Accordingly, the petitioner, namely, xxxxxxx be released on bail on + furnishing bail bond of Rs. xxxxx/- (xxxxx Thousand) with two sureties of + the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned xxxxxx, in + connection with xxxxx. +

+ + +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B.A. No. xxxxx + + xxxxxxxxx ..... ... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party +

-------- +

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND +

------

+          For the Petitioner    : Mr. xxxxxx, Advocate
+          For the State         : A.P.P.
+                             --------
+
+xxx/07.12.2021          So far as the defects, as pointed out by the office, are
+

concerned, learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to remove the + same within one week. +

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. + appearing for the State. +

This bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner xxxxxxx + with a prayer to release him on bail in case crime being xxxxxxxx + registered for the offence under Sections xxxxxx of the Indian Penal + Code. +

xxxxxxxxxxxx + Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contention made by + the learned counsel for the applicant and contended that xxxxxxxxx + In view of the submissions made above and considering the + materials available on record, this bail application deserves to be allowed. + Accordingly, the petitioner, namely, xxxxxxx be released on bail on + furnishing bail bond of Rs. xxxxx/- (xxxxx Thousand) with two sureties of + the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned xxxxxx, in + connection with xxxxx. +

+ + +

(Subhash Chand, J.) + Bibha SK/ +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_113780774.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_113780774.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a43c2b11e6aee911ee344d4da47c52787324ff37 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_113780774.html @@ -0,0 +1,455 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Nikhil Kumar @ Nikhil Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The petitioner is in custody for about 4 years. + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 665 of 2023 + + The instant Revision is filed by CICL himself, + + challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order, + + dated 9th of August, 2023, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2023 + + by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum- + + Children's Court, Banka. The CICL was arrested in connection + + with Banduwa Kurawa P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023, corresponding + + to G.R. No. 1202 of 2023, for the offences punishable under + + Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 + + of the Arms Act. However, later on, Sections 34 of the IPC and + + Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section + + 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes + + (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added. Prayer for + + bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Appeal in + + exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Juvenile + + Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter + + referred to as 'said Act') vide order, dated 15th of June, 2023. + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 687 of 2023 + + The petitioner/CICL was arrested in connection + + with Fesar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, + + 325, 307, 34, 504, 506 and 379 of the IPC along with his father + + and uncle. The petitioner prayed for regular bail before the JJB, + + Aurangabad. In JJB Case No. 932 of 2023, prayer for bail was + + rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 41 + + of 2023 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children's Court, + + Aurangabad. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal + + and affirmed the order of the JJB. The petitioner has assailed the + + said order of the Appellate Court on various grounds, specially + + on the ground that the father and uncle of the petitioner have + + already been granted bail for the same offence. + +
+
+ +
+

Reg. Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2024 + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + The petitioner was booked along with other major + + accused persons in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 237 of + + 2022, dated 13th of August, 2022, under Section 302 and 34 of + + the IPC. The petitioner being a CICL prayed for bail before the + + Juvenile Justice Board, but his prayer for bail was rejected. He + + preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the said Act before the + + learned Special Judge, Children's Court and the said appeal was + + also dismissed and the order of rejection of bail passed by the + + JJB was affirmed. It is stated by the petitioner that the accused + + persons who are major, namely, Sushil Kumar Yadav and Anil + + Yadav were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on + + 26th of April, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 4091 of 2023. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_113855977.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_113855977.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c3e1cab0cf6249c587e9980b2ebb7aed3ad2cb64 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_113855977.html @@ -0,0 +1,419 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ranjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 21 August, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
2. 24 23.02.2021 406, 480, 34 IPC P.S. Not on bail + Division No.6, District + Jalandhar +
3. 20 19.02.2021 406, 420, 201, 34 IPC P.S. Not on bail + Division No.7, District + Jalandhar +
4. 21 06.03.2021 406, 420, 34 IPC P.S. Nava Not on bail + Baradari, District Jalandhar +
5. 29 19.02.2021 406, 420, 34 IPC P.S. Not on bail + Rama Mandi, District + Jalandhar +
+
+ +
+
6. 14 19.02.2021 406, 420, 34 IPC P.S. Not on bail + Division 1; No.4, District + Jalandhar +
7. 17 16.02.2021 406, 420, 34 IPC Not on bail + P.S.Division No.3, District + Jalandhar +
8. 37 17.04.2021 406, 420, 34 IPC P.S. Not on bail + Division No.1, District + Jalandhar +
+
+ +
+
9. 22 22.02.2021 406, 420, 120-B IPC P.S. Not on bail + Bhargo, District Jalandhar +
10. 21 20.02.2021 406, 420, 201/34 IPC P.S. Not on bail + Division No.7, District + Jalandhar +
11. 29 19.02.2021 406, 420, 34 IPC P.S. Basti Not on bail + + + 3 of 7 + + Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:107807 + + + + +CRM-M-39173 -2022(O&M) #4# 2023:PHHC:107807 + + Bawa Khel, District + Jalandhar +
+
+ +
+
12. 104 2021 406, 420, 120-B IPC P.S. Not on bail + Kuttubsher +
13. 30 20.02.2021 406, 420, 34 IPC P.S. Not on bail + Division No.5, District + Jalandhar +
14. 343 31.08.2020 406, 420 IPC P.S. City, + Jind +
15. 169 28.12.2021 406, 420 IPC and 21, 23 + and 24 Bargaining of + Unregulated Deposited + Scheme & 26 (1) the + Payment and Settlement + Act, Police Station, + Bhogpur, District + Jalandhar. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_11477424.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_11477424.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..abec6c17f4e9fd7e159e5b042f04e4816bed8b32 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_11477424.html @@ -0,0 +1,464 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ramesh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 6 March, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

15. To substantiate plea to enlarge the petitioner on bail, + +learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon order dated + +5.7.2023 passed in Cr.MP (M) No. 1501 of 2023, titled as Ram Singh + +@ Kaka Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has + +been enlarged on bail on 5.7.2023 after remaining in jail for 3 years 2 + +months. +

+

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred order + +dated 16.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1494 of 2023, titled as + +Rampal @ Ramphal Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section + +302 IPC has been enlarged on bail after remaining in custody for 4 + +years 9 months by considering plea of the petitioner regarding delay + +in trial. +

+
+ +
+ +

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred order + +dated 20.10.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2481 of 2023, titled as + +Sanma Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has + +been released on bail after 3 years 3 months detention considering + +the fact that only 22 witnesses out of 30 witnesses were examined by + +that time. +

+

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on + +order dated 4.11.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2618 of 2023, titled + + + + +as Jasbir Singh Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 + +IPC has been released on bail after 3 years 5 months detention + +considering the fact that only 16 witnesses out of 39 witnesses were + +examined by that time. +

+
+ +
+ +

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on + +order dated 6.10.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2461 of 2023, titled + +as Balwinder Singh @ Kadu Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under + +Section 302 IPC has been released on bail after 3 years 1 month + +detention considering the fact that only 12 witnesses out of 34 + +witnesses were examined by that time. +

+

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred + +order dated 21.8.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1942 of 2023, titled + +as Robin Patrwal Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 + +IPC has been released on bail after 2 years 2 months detention + +considering the fact that only 10 witnesses out of 51 witnesses were + +examined by that time. +

+
+ +
+ +

21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred + +order dated 1.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1216 of 2023, titled as + +Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 + +IPC has been released on bail after 4 years detention considering the + +fact that only 13 witnesses out of 47 witnesses were examined by + +that time. +

+

22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on + +order dated 24.7.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1217 of 2023, titled + +as Kulveer Singh Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section + +302 IPC has been released on bail after 1 year detention considering + +the fact that no witnesses out of 30 witnesses were examined by that + +time. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_115175156.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_115175156.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0adc64f1ada287e9b1e1e6acdce00768f6dd1b1d --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_115175156.html @@ -0,0 +1,389 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Pushpendra Singh vs State Of U.P. on 3 April, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
ii) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 39394 of 2020, Case Crime No. 361 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
iii) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 41587 of 2020, Case Crime No. 586 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
iv) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 41588 of 2020, Case Crime No. 353 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
+ +
+ +
v) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 46289 of 2020, Case Crime No. 410 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
vi) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 46295 of 2020, Case Crime No. 386 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
vii) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 5326 of 2021, Case Crime No. 369 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
+ +
+ +
viii) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 5339 of 2021, Case Crime No. 440 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 506, 120-B IPC, 58-B (4A) of RBI Act, 1934 and 58-A of Company Act, 1956, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
ix) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 5354 of 2021, Case Crime No. 372 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
x) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 5370 of 2021, Case Crime No. 602 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
+ +
+ +
xi) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 6581 of 2021, Case Crime No. 370 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
xii) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 6585 of 2021, Case Crime No. 371 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
xiii) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 6588 of 2021, Case Crime No. 368 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_115175459.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_115175459.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f65e6b26e29ed98156f212b13b14661e10333c7a --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_115175459.html @@ -0,0 +1,365 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Gabbar @ Satyendra Pal vs State Of U.P. on 25 September, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

5. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that at the time of consideration of bail application the denial of bail to an accused only on the ground of implication under Section 149 IPC is not justified. He has submitted that this Court in the case of Sanjeev @ Kallu Sethiya vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18458 of 2022, has held accordingly. +

+

6. Counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A have vehemently opposed the submission and has submitted that there is no ground for granting bail to the applicant at this stage. +

+
+ +
+ +

7. This Court after going through earlier bail rejection order of the applicant finds that bail application of the applicant was rejected solely on the ground of implication under Section 149 IPC. This Court in the case of Sanjeev @ Kallu Sethiya (supra) has considered the relevance of section 149 IPC at the time consideration of bail application. +

+
"37. Section 149 I.P.C is one of the most misused, misinterpreted and misleading provision of the present times so far as the investigation by the Investigating Officers of police or any other investigating agency of crime is concerned. The edifice of Section 149 I.P.C stands on substratum of Sections 141 I.P.C, 142 I.P.C and 143 I.P.C. Chapter VIII of the IPC provides for offences against the public tranquillity. Section 141 I.P.C defines unlawful assembly to be an assembly of five or more persons. They must have a common object, amongst others, to commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence. Section 142 I.P.C postulates that whoever being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful one, intentionally joins the same would be a member of the same. Section 143 provides for punishment of being a member of unlawful assembly. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_115597156.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_115597156.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e944618935b9191a6b5726672dfb2d8c83891c5b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_115597156.html @@ -0,0 +1,447 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Saroaja vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 28 February, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis + H.C.P.Nos.1333, 1644 and 1858 of 2022 + + +
(i) The main offence is Section 376 of 'IPC' and regular + + bail has been granted in several cases where the main offence is + + allegedly under Section 376 of 'IPC' and therefore the subjective + + satisfaction of the detaining authority cannot be found faulted + + with. +
+
+ +
+ +

+

10. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. + + + +

11. As regards the first point, we have no difficulty in accepting the + + contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that it is not as if no + + regular bail is granted in cases of alleged offences under Section 376 of 'IPC'. + + + + + + +https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis + H.C.P.Nos.1333, 1644 and 1858 of 2022 + + + A specific argument that charge sheet has been filed in the cases on hand + + and therefore default bail under Section 167(2) of 'Code of Criminal + + Procedure 1973' [hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.' for brevity] is not available does not + + hold water as regular bail is not/cannot be granted in cases of an alleged + + offence under Section 376 of 'IPC'. +

+
+ +
+ +

+

12. As regards similar case, as rightly pointed out by the learned + + Additional Public Prosecutor, except Section 392 of 'IPC' which deals with + + punishment for robbery, the main offence being Section 376 of 'IPC' is the + + same. There is another view of looking at this aspect of the matter. This + + aspect of the matter shows that this Court has granted bail, i.e., regular bail + + in a case of alleged offence under Section 376 of 'IPC'. Therefore, we cannot + + find fault with the detaining authority for arriving at the subjective + + satisfaction that there is a good chance for the petitioner to get regular bail. + + This also answers the first point. As regards the cases being dissimilar we + + have no difficulty in accepting the submission of the learned Additional + + Public Prosecutor that except Section 392 of 'IPC' the main offence under + + Section 376 of 'IPC' stays. We deem it appropriate to add that we have + + + + + +https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis + H.C.P.Nos.1333, 1644 and 1858 of 2022 + + + repeatedly held that this point has to be considered on a case to case basis + + and there cannot be a standard formula for such cases. We have examined + + this point on the basis of facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of + + alleged offences and we find that the comparison is good enough to arrive at + + a subjective satisfaction. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_116093779.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_116093779.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3fe48fcb5da8114829be56f4d5c113334ec514e7 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_116093779.html @@ -0,0 +1,446 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Noorudeen @ Rafi @ Ismail vs State Rep By on 10 February, 2022 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
Sl. Police Station Crime No. & Bail Stage of the + No. legal details case + provision +
1. R-1 Mambalam PS 1210/2007 - In bail Convicted on + Sec.420 IPC 14.3.2008 +
2. H-8 768/2009 - In bail Pending Trial + + + + +https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis + + + Sl. Police Station Crime No. & Bail Stage of the + No. legal details case + provision + Thiruvottriyur Sec.397 @ PRC + + 120B IPC (Fresh Summon + stage) +
+
+ +
+
3. CCB Chennai. 343/2010 - In bail Pending Trial + Sec.419, 420, CC + + 471 IPC (Fresh Summon + stage) +
4. Periyapalayam PS 370/2011 - In bail Pending Trial + +
5. CCB, Chennai 447/2012 - In bail Under + Team - 33A Sec.489(b)& investigation + (Forgery (c) IPC + Investigation + Wing) +
+
+ +
+
8. Seven Wells PS 1146/2013 - Acquittal Acquitted on + Sec.341, 336, 15.6.2015. +
                                                    427,      397,
+                                                    506(ii) IPC
+                      9.          CBCID CC Wing     2/2014       - In bail    Pending Trial
+                                                    Sec.489 B &               in
+
+                                                    r/w                       4 on the file
+                                                    25(1B)(A),                of   V   Addl.
+                                                    29(A), (B) of             Sessions
+                                                    Arms       Act            Court,
+                                                    1959,                     Chennai. (IO
+                                                    Sec.15(1)(A)              stage)
+
+
+
+
+https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
+
+
+                       Sl.         Police Station      Crime No. &       Bail    Stage of the
+                       No.                                legal        details       case
+                                                        provision
+                                                      (IIA)      r/w
+                                                      16(1)(B) and
+                                                      18,   20    of
+                                                      Unlawful
+                                                      Activities
+                                                      (Prevention)
+                                                      Act,     1967
+                                                      (Act   3    of
+                                                      2013)
+                      10.         B1    North   Beach 334/2019     - In bail     Under
+                                  PS                  Sec.448, 342,              investigation
+                                                      392,     397,
+                                                      506(ii)   IPC
+                                                      r/w 120B IPC
+                      11.         M8,     Sathangadu 2451/2020   -     Formal    Under
+                                  PS                 Sec.294(b),       arrest    investigation
+                                                     324, 506(ii)      and
+                                                     IPC               accused
+                                                                       in bail
+                      12.         G2 Periamet PS      81/2021     - In        Under
+                                                      Sec.392 IPC   statutory investigation
+                                                                    bail
+                      13.         G2 Periamet PS      151/2021    - In        Under
+                                                      Sec.294(b),   statutory investigation
+                                                      397, 506(ii) bail
+IPC (detained
+                                                      under Act 14
+                                                      of 1982)
+
+
+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_116096117.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_116096117.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9208fd5891214c6a5f950802dfde2ae164e3cf36 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_116096117.html @@ -0,0 +1,411 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Binder @ Virender vs State Of Haryana on 6 March, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
Sr. Case/FIR Details Sections Status + no. +
1. FIR No.23 dated 268, 285, 286, 379 and On Bail + 22.01.2022, Sampla 15/16 of the Petroleum + (Rohtak) Act +
2. FIR No.453/2022, 285, 34, 394, 511 IPC, On Bail + Police Station 3/4 of the Explosive + Asaudha (Jhajjar) Act +
3. FIR No.127/2021, PS 268, 285, 379, 34 IPC, On Bail + Machhrauli, District 15/16 of the Petroleum + Jhajjar Act, 3/4 of the + Explosive Act +
+
+ +
+
4. FIR No.470/2021, 285, 379, 34 IPC, 3/4 of On Bail + Police Station the Explosive Act, 3/4 + Kharkhoda, District of the PDPP Act + Sonepat +
5. FIR No.603/20.12.20 285, 379, 34, 427 IPC, On Bail + Police Station 15/16 of the Petroleum + Kharkhoda, District Act, 3/4 of the + Sonepat, Haryana Explosive Act, 3/4 of + PDPP Act +
+
+ +
+ (235)
+
8. FIR No.162/2021, 268, 285, 286, 379 IPC, On Bail + Police Station Sampla 15/16 Petrol and + (Rohtak) Pipeline Act and + Section 23 of + +PDPP Act and 6/4 of + Explosive Act +
9. FIR No.284/2021 379, 411, 117, 120-B, On Bail + Police Station 34 IPC, Sections 15/16 + Rampura (Rewari) of the Petroleum Act, + 3/4 of PDPP Act +
+
+ +
+
10. FIR No.264/2021 379, 413, 34, 117, 411, On Bail + Police Station 420, 467, 468, 471, + Rampura (Rewari) 120-B IPC, 15/16 of the + Petrleum Act, 3/4 of the + Explosive Act +
11. 496/2015, Police 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC On Bail + Station Kundli + (Sonipat) +
12. FIR No.112/2021 379, 411, 117, 120-B, Next date + 34 IPC, 15/16 of the of hearing + Petroleum Act, 3/4 of in Sessions + the Explosive Act Court on + 09.01.2024 +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_116389045.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_116389045.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..abddf67bd21c3fe7e36236fd6cc8cb8c2cf320e8 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_116389045.html @@ -0,0 +1,379 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Irfan Ahmed vs Union Territory Of J And K & Anr on 18 February, 2022 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

9. (i) In Ravi Singh Vs State of Punjab in CRR No. 43 of 2021, decided by + Punjab-Haryana High Court on 06.08.2021, relied by learned counsel for + petitioner, a juvenile was granted bail for commission of offence of rape + upon the victim age 5 years, (ii) in Criminal Revision Nos. 660 of 2021 + and 725 of 2021, decided by the Chhattisgarh High Court on 11.01.2022 + relied by learned counsel for petitioner, a juvenile age 15 years at the time + of incident was granted bail indicted for commission of offence + punishable under Section 302/147/148/149 IPC and Section 25 and 27 of + Arms Act, (iii) In Km. Fatma (minor) Vs State of U.P and another in + Criminal Revision No. 1639 of 2017, decided by Allahabad High Court + on 02.06.2017 relied by learned counsel for petitioner, the bail was + granted to juvenile indicted for commission of offences under Sections + 302/120-B/34 IPC, (iv) in Lovepreet Singh @ Lovedeep Singh vs State + of Punjab in Criminal Revision No. 3005 of 2016, decided by Punjab- + Haryana High Court on 04.10.2016 relied by learned counsel for the + petitioner, a juvenile was also granted bail indicted for commission of + offence under Sections 307/323/506/148/149 IPC and Section 25 of the + Arms Act, (v) in Amit Yadav alias Monu alias Bebo vs state of U.P and + another in Criminal Revision No. 1398 of 2015, decided by Allahabad + High Court on 22.01.2016 relied by learned counsel for the petitioner, a + juvenile involved in offences under Sections 395/997/412/307 IPC was + granted bail, and (vii) in Krishna Sah vs State of Bihar in Criminal + Revision No. 959 of 2017, decided by Patna High Court on 17.10.2017 + relied by learned counsel for the petitioner, a juvenile involved in offences + registered under Sections 302/201/120-B IPC was granted bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_117603138.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_117603138.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..716e1660c0fed1087655e3c7e7e44b395bbd65fb --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_117603138.html @@ -0,0 +1,370 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sunil Gandhi vs State on 6 February, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. BAIL APPLN.3975/2023 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking bail + in the event of arrest in FIR No.64/2016, dated 23.05.2016, registered at + Police Station Economic Offences Wing for offences under Sections + 406/409/420/120B IPC. +

2. BAIL APPLN.3977/2023 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking bail + in the event of arrest in FIR No.116/2016, dated 05.03.2016, registered at + Police Station Sarita Vihar for offences under Sections 406/420/34 IPC. +

+
+ +
+

3. BAIL APPLN.3986/2023 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking bail + in the event of arrest in FIR No.114/2016, dated 04.03.2016, registered at + Police Station Sarita Vihar for offences under Sections 420/34 IPC. +

4. Since all the three bail applications arises from a common set of facts, + with the consent of the parties, all the three bail applications are being + decided by this common order. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_118186484.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_118186484.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef80aca1a10f8b0248d53b4de6796997e5823e29 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_118186484.html @@ -0,0 +1,357 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Usharani vs The Secretary To The Government on 1 February, 2016 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention. +

+

3.According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the detenu has been in remand in the ground case in Crime No.315/2015 and in the 1st and 2nd adverse cases in Crime Nos.306/2015 and 309/2015 and the bail applications filed by him in the ground case and in the 1st and 2nd adverse cases before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri and before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur in C.MP.Nos.1752/2015, 1753/2015 and Crl.M.P. No.1733/2015 respectively were pending as on the date of passing of the detention order. However, the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said cases by relying upon similar cases viz. [1]registered at Sholavaram Police Station in Crime No.243/2015 under Sections 457 and 380 IPC wherein bail was granted to the accused Mani @ Kozhimanimaran by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri in C.M.P. No.6110 of 2015 on 05.09.2014, [2]registered at Manali Police Station in Crime No.522/2015 under Sections 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 307 and 506(ii) IPC wherein bail was granted to the accused Saghul Hameed and Arumugam @ Rafeeq by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur in Crl.M.P. No.596 of 2015 on 09.03.2015 and [3]registered at Thiruninravur Police Station in Crime No.20/2015 under Sections 294(b), 323, 392 and 506(ii) IPC wherein bail was granted to the accused Santhosh @ Jabaraj @ Jaba by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruvallur in C.M.P. No.46 of 2015 on 13.01.2015. The learned counsel would add that admittedly, in this case, the bail applications filed by the detenu in the ground case as well as in the 1st and 2nd adverse cases were pending and he is in remand in the said cases. When the bail applications are pending, there is no presumption that he would come out on bail. No cogent materials are available before the Detaining Authority to conclude / to apprehend that the detenu is likely to get bail in the said cases and there is no imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said cases. The apprehension entertained in the mind of the detaining authority that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail as the bail applications in the said cases are pending is not justifiable for the reason that he has pre-judged the matter. Concedingly he could not foresee the nature of the order that would be passed by the Court. By the reason of pendency of the applications, one could not easily come to the conclusion that the Court would certainly grant bail to the accused. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non-application of mind and the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail in the said cases is a mere ipse dixit without any cogent materials. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [a] 2006 [1] MLJ [Crl.] 539, [T.V.SARAVANAN @ S.A.R.PRASANNA VENKATACHARIAR CHATURVEDI V. STATE OF TAMILNADU THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER]; [b]2005 [1] CTC 577 [VELMURUGAN @ VELU Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE] ; [c] 2012 [7] SCC 181 [HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR] and [d] 2008 [3] MLJ (Crl.) 144 [S.ANDAL VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MADURAI DISTRICT, MADURAI AND ANOTHER]. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_118450384.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_118450384.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3e74f7d8f64e6759a2679db3ed3630892f82468e --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_118450384.html @@ -0,0 +1,374 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Shridhar Ramkrushna Fale vs The State Of Mah.Thr.Anti Corruption ... on 16 August, 2017 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

19. The judgment and order dated 28-2-2002 delivered by the + + learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Special Case 1/1990 is + + unsustainable in law and facts and is set aside. The accused is + + acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 5(1)(d) read with + + Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section + + + + 24 apeal152.02 + + + + + 161 of the Indian Penal Code. Bail bond of the accused stands + + discharged. Fine, if any, paid by the accused be refunded to him. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_118650588.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_118650588.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cba1b29aaeefdbbe0a92244fba5cd12575dc272c --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_118650588.html @@ -0,0 +1,455 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Divesh Kumar @ Rishav Raj vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The petitioner is in custody for about 4 years. + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 665 of 2023 + + The instant Revision is filed by CICL himself, + + challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order, + + dated 9th of August, 2023, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2023 + + by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum- + + Children's Court, Banka. The CICL was arrested in connection + + with Banduwa Kurawa P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023, corresponding + + to G.R. No. 1202 of 2023, for the offences punishable under + + Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 + + of the Arms Act. However, later on, Sections 34 of the IPC and + + Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section + + 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes + + (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added. Prayer for + + bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Appeal in + + exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Juvenile + + Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter + + referred to as 'said Act') vide order, dated 15th of June, 2023. + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 687 of 2023 + + The petitioner/CICL was arrested in connection + + with Fesar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, + + 325, 307, 34, 504, 506 and 379 of the IPC along with his father + + and uncle. The petitioner prayed for regular bail before the JJB, + + Aurangabad. In JJB Case No. 932 of 2023, prayer for bail was + + rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 41 + + of 2023 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children's Court, + + Aurangabad. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal + + and affirmed the order of the JJB. The petitioner has assailed the + + said order of the Appellate Court on various grounds, specially + + on the ground that the father and uncle of the petitioner have + + already been granted bail for the same offence. + +
+
+ +
+

Reg. Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2024 + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + The petitioner was booked along with other major + + accused persons in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 237 of + + 2022, dated 13th of August, 2022, under Section 302 and 34 of + + the IPC. The petitioner being a CICL prayed for bail before the + + Juvenile Justice Board, but his prayer for bail was rejected. He + + preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the said Act before the + + learned Special Judge, Children's Court and the said appeal was + + also dismissed and the order of rejection of bail passed by the + + JJB was affirmed. It is stated by the petitioner that the accused + + persons who are major, namely, Sushil Kumar Yadav and Anil + + Yadav were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on + + 26th of April, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 4091 of 2023. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_118912848.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_118912848.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..49722c391ce840f2d28bbde48115880a3e2e7eed --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_118912848.html @@ -0,0 +1,419 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Gagandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 21 August, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
2. 24 23.02.2021 406, 480, 34 IPC P.S. Not on bail + Division No.6, District + Jalandhar +
3. 20 19.02.2021 406, 420, 201, 34 IPC P.S. Not on bail + Division No.7, District + Jalandhar +
4. 21 20.02.2021 406, 420, 34 IPC P.S. Not on bail + Division No.7, Jalandhar, + District Jalandhar +
+
+ +
+
5. 29 19.02.2021 406, 420, 34 IPC P.S. Basti Not on bail + Bawa Khel, District + Jalandhar +
6. 14 20.02.2021 406, 420, 34 IPC P.S. Not on bail + Cantt. Jalandhar, District + Jalandhar +
7. 17 16.02.2021 406, 420, 34 IPC Not on bail + P.S.Division No.3, District + Jalandhar +
+
+ +
+
8. 37 17.04.2021 406, 420, 34 IPC P.S. Not on bail + Division No.1, District + Jalandhar +
9. 22 22.02.2021 406, 420, 120-B IPC P.S. Not on bail + Bhargo, District Jalandhar +
10. 21 06.03.2021 406, 420, 34 IPC P.S. Navi Not on bail + Baradari, District Jalandhar +
11. 29 19.02.2021 406, 420, 34 IPC P.S. Not on bail + Rama Mandi, District + Jalandhar + + + 3 of 7 + + Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:107808 + + + + +CRM-M-53630 -2022(O&M) #4# 2023:PHHC:107808 + +
+
+ +
+
12. 104 2021 406, 420, 120-B IPC P.S. Not on bail + Kuttubsher +
13. 30 20.02.2021 406, 420, 34 IPC P.S. Not on bail + Division No.5, District + Jalandhar +
14. 343 31.08.2020 406, 420 IPC P.S. City, + Jind +
15. 169 28.12.2021 406, 420 IPC and B21, 23 Not on bail + and 24 Bargaining of + Unregulated Deposited + Scheme & 26 (1) the + Payment and Settlement + Act, Police Station, + Bhogpur, District + Jalandhar. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_119303162.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_119303162.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..36620bbf6d3cf6f7b4a6978c1b5ebaceeebafe73 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_119303162.html @@ -0,0 +1,455 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Shashi Bhushan Kumar @ Shashi Bhushan ... vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The petitioner is in custody for about 4 years. + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 665 of 2023 + + The instant Revision is filed by CICL himself, + + challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order, + + dated 9th of August, 2023, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2023 + + by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum- + + Children's Court, Banka. The CICL was arrested in connection + + with Banduwa Kurawa P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023, corresponding + + to G.R. No. 1202 of 2023, for the offences punishable under + + Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 + + of the Arms Act. However, later on, Sections 34 of the IPC and + + Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section + + 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes + + (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added. Prayer for + + bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Appeal in + + exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Juvenile + + Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter + + referred to as 'said Act') vide order, dated 15th of June, 2023. + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 687 of 2023 + + The petitioner/CICL was arrested in connection + + with Fesar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, + + 325, 307, 34, 504, 506 and 379 of the IPC along with his father + + and uncle. The petitioner prayed for regular bail before the JJB, + + Aurangabad. In JJB Case No. 932 of 2023, prayer for bail was + + rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 41 + + of 2023 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children's Court, + + Aurangabad. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal + + and affirmed the order of the JJB. The petitioner has assailed the + + said order of the Appellate Court on various grounds, specially + + on the ground that the father and uncle of the petitioner have + + already been granted bail for the same offence. + +
+
+ +
+

Reg. Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2024 + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + The petitioner was booked along with other major + + accused persons in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 237 of + + 2022, dated 13th of August, 2022, under Section 302 and 34 of + + the IPC. The petitioner being a CICL prayed for bail before the + + Juvenile Justice Board, but his prayer for bail was rejected. He + + preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the said Act before the + + learned Special Judge, Children's Court and the said appeal was + + also dismissed and the order of rejection of bail passed by the + + JJB was affirmed. It is stated by the petitioner that the accused + + persons who are major, namely, Sushil Kumar Yadav and Anil + + Yadav were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on + + 26th of April, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 4091 of 2023. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_119382129.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_119382129.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3097b3f0d11bdbf126aad81c04290d595c8cc8d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_119382129.html @@ -0,0 +1,369 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Amar Bahadur Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 29 March, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. Learned counsel for the informant has placed before this Court the certified copy of bail rejection order of co-accused, Sanjay Kumar Yadav and submitted that since the bail application of one of the co-accused has been rejected, it is not a fit case of grant of bail to the applicant. +

+

After hearing rival contentions this Court finds that it is true that bail application of Sanjay Kumar Yadav has been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. From the injury reports of four injured persons, the only injury of fracture found on the head of the injured, Rajesh Kumar Pandey, was found to be fatal in nature. There is allegation against five accused persons in the FIR including the applicant of causing injuries to four persons. It is not known who is the author of the only injury on the head of one of the injured, Rajesh Kumar Pandey. There is no explanation of the injury suffered by the brother of the applicant, Sheshmani Yadav and why his motorcycle was broken. The cross report was lodged by the applicants side in the FIR and statement of witnesses, there is no mention of the injuries caused to Sheshmani Yadav nor the manner of incident, which resulted into injury to Sheshmani Yadav. Hence prosecution case lodged in the FIR does not seems to be correct. This Court in the case of Sanjeev @ Kallu Sethiya Vs. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18458 of 2022 discussed the ingredients for constituting the offence under Section 149 IPC and denying bail only on the basis of implication under Section aforesaid as follows:- +

+
+ +
+ +

46. This court has come across number of cases of bail where ingredients for constituting offence under Section 149 I.P.C were clearly made but accused was not implicated under Section 149 I.P.C. Conversely court has also come across cases where the allegation in the first information report and the statements of the witnesses clearly did not proved the presence of the necessary ingredients for constituting offence under Section 149 I.P.C but accused was implicated for the same. Court should be cautious of relying upon the Section 149 I.P.C while considering bail application. The investigating officer apply mostly section 149 I.P.C as it suits them. +

+
+ +
+ +

47. In view of the above factual position emerging from the record the applicant cannot be said to be rightly implicated under Section 149 I.P.C for the alleged offences. Two fire arm injuries were found on the body of the deceased, Once on abdomen and on on thigh of the deceased. The accused named are above five in numbers, therefore, only because they were more in numbers the offence alleged cannot be considered to be made out against them at this stage. It appears to be case of sudden provocation and all the members of the alleged unlawful assembly cannot be held liable for the offence committed by any one or two accused named in the first information report. More so because in this case also the investigating officer of police has not recorded the statement of a single witness from the accused side. All the statements recorded by the investigating officer are of the informant side for justifying the implication of all the accused. The version of accused side, as usual, is missing. Therefore, on the basis of one-sided and flawed investigation the implication of the applicant under Section 149 I.P.C cannot be justified. It could have been done after considering the versions of both sides by the investigating officer, which he was required to do as per law, but he has again miserably failed in performance of his legal duty. The three ingredients for constituting the offence under Section 149 I.P.C discussed in paragraph 12 of this judgement could have been ascertained only after considering the evidence of both sides by the investigating officer and not on the basis of one sided evidence collected by way of illegal investigation. In short, after considering the evidence lead before the trial court only definite opinion can be formed regarding commission of offence under Section 149 I.P.C. At the time of consideration of bail application of an accused, it would be unsafe to deny bail to an accused, implicated for committing offence under Section 149 I.P.C considering the state of investigation of crime by investigating agency in the state. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_120124394.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_120124394.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f488304b6d8cb0d473baf8a63ec6c2ac5792eb70 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_120124394.html @@ -0,0 +1,382 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Kalpana vs The Secretary To Government on 21 February, 2013 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

[c] The Detaining Authority, in the following Habeas Corpus Petitions has made specific statements in the respective Grounds in the impugned Detention Orders which are as follows:- +

HCP.No.2199/2012:- +
+
"4.I am aware that Thiru Varadharajan was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.II Hosur, on 10.08.2012 in Uthanapalli Police Station Cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act and was remanded to Judicial custody and lodged at the Central Prison, Salem, as a remand prisoner till 24.08.2012. His remand has been extended upto 07.09.2012. He has not filed any bail petition so far in the ground case. However, it is learnt from secret sources that some of his relatives of Thiru Varadharajan are taking efforts to move bail applications to take him on bail by filing a bail application in the ground case [ie] Uthanappalli Police Station cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, before appropriate Courts. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order............." +
+
+ +
+ +

HCP.No.2232/2012:- +

+
"4.I am aware that Thiru Purushothaman @ Purushothamareddy was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.II Hosur, on 16.07.2012 in Uthanapalli Police Station Cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act and was remanded to Judicial custody and lodged at the Central Prison, Salem, as a remand prisoner till 30.07.2012. His remand has been extended upto 05.09.2012. He has not filed any bail petition so far in the ground case. However, it is learnt from secret sources that some of his relatives of Thiru Purushothaman @ Purushothamareddy are taking efforts to move bail applications to take him on bail by filing a bail application in the ground case [ie] Uthanappalli Police Station cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, before appropriate Courts. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order............." +
+
+ +
+ +

HCP.No.2333/2012:- +

+
"4.I am aware that Thiru Pappanna was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.II Hosur, on 10.08.2012 in Uthanapalli Police Station Cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act and was remanded to Judicial custody and lodged at the Central Prison, Salem, as a remand prisoner till 24.08.2012. His remand has been extended upto 07.09.2012. He has not filed any bail petition so far in the ground case. However, it is learnt from secret sources that some of his relatives of Thiru Pappanna are taking efforts to move bail applications to take him on bail by filing a bail application in the ground case [ie] Uthanappalli Police Station cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, before appropriate Courts. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order............." +
+
+ +
+ +

HCP.No.2492/2012:- +

+
"4.I am aware that Thiru Veeramani was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.II Hosur, on 25.07.2012 in Uthanapalli Police Station Cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act and was remanded to Judicial custody and lodged at the Central Prison, Salem, as a remand prisoner till 08.08.2012. His remand has been extended upto 15.10.2012. He has not filed any bail petition so far in the ground case. However, it is learnt from secret sources that some of his relatives of Thiru Pappanna are taking efforts to move bail applications to take him on bail by filing a bail application in the ground case [ie] Uthanappalli Police Station cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, before appropriate Courts. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order............." +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_120927933.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_120927933.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4adf70f519ff79e6563e32104dcaafbf10c7992f --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_120927933.html @@ -0,0 +1,455 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + X vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The petitioner is in custody for about 4 years. + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 665 of 2023 + + The instant Revision is filed by CICL himself, + + challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order, + + dated 9th of August, 2023, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2023 + + by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum- + + Children's Court, Banka. The CICL was arrested in connection + + with Banduwa Kurawa P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023, corresponding + + to G.R. No. 1202 of 2023, for the offences punishable under + + Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 + + of the Arms Act. However, later on, Sections 34 of the IPC and + + Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section + + 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes + + (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added. Prayer for + + bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Appeal in + + exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Juvenile + + Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter + + referred to as 'said Act') vide order, dated 15th of June, 2023. + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 687 of 2023 + + The petitioner/CICL was arrested in connection + + with Fesar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, + + 325, 307, 34, 504, 506 and 379 of the IPC along with his father + + and uncle. The petitioner prayed for regular bail before the JJB, + + Aurangabad. In JJB Case No. 932 of 2023, prayer for bail was + + rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 41 + + of 2023 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children's Court, + + Aurangabad. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal + + and affirmed the order of the JJB. The petitioner has assailed the + + said order of the Appellate Court on various grounds, specially + + on the ground that the father and uncle of the petitioner have + + already been granted bail for the same offence. + +
+
+ +
+

Reg. Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2024 + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + The petitioner was booked along with other major + + accused persons in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 237 of + + 2022, dated 13th of August, 2022, under Section 302 and 34 of + + the IPC. The petitioner being a CICL prayed for bail before the + + Juvenile Justice Board, but his prayer for bail was rejected. He + + preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the said Act before the + + learned Special Judge, Children's Court and the said appeal was + + also dismissed and the order of rejection of bail passed by the + + JJB was affirmed. It is stated by the petitioner that the accused + + persons who are major, namely, Sushil Kumar Yadav and Anil + + Yadav were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on + + 26th of April, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 4091 of 2023. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_121023934.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_121023934.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..865f308952dfd3c7ba98859071aace52f9607db9 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_121023934.html @@ -0,0 +1,1297 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Guddu Kumar @ Guddu Ram @ Guddu Kumar Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opposite ... on 20 February, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 38, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Jharkhand High Court

+

Guddu Kumar @ Guddu Ram @ Guddu Kumar Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opposite ... on 20 February, 2023

+ +

Author: Rajesh Kumar

+ +

Bench: Rajesh Kumar

+ +
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
+                                    B. A. No. 11701 of 2022
+                                           ....
+

Guddu Kumar @ Guddu Ram @ Guddu Kumar Ram .... Petitioner + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party + .... +

              CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
+
+                For the Petitioner             : Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, Adv.
+                For the State                  : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P.
+                                               ....
+
+05/20.02.2023             The applicant who is in custody since 11.07.2022 has approached this
+

Court for grant of regular bail in connection with POCSO Case No.66/2022 arising + out of Panki P.S. Case No.69/2022, for the offence under Sections 376/ 34 of IPC + and Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act and cognizance has been taken under + Sections 363/ 376D of IPC and Section 6 read with section 5(g) of the POCSO Act. +

The applicant is an accused of committing rape. +

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant(s) that + complete set of F.I.R. alongwith its enclosure have been annexed with this bail + application and there is no suppression on his part. +

Innocence has been claimed and undertaking has been given for + participation in the trial. On above basis, prayer for bail has been made. +

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and + submitted that the victim girls have supported the allegation in their statements + recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. +

Considering the materials available on record, I am not inclined to + enlarge the applicant on bail, at this stage. Accordingly prayer for bail of the + applicant stands rejected. +

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) + Shahid/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B. A. No. 11727 of 2022 + .... +

             Albert Topno                                     ....    Petitioner
+                                           Versus
+             The State of Jharkhand                            .... Opposite Party
+                                           ....
+              CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
+
+                For the Petitioner             : Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, Adv.
+                For the State                  : Mr. S.K.Tiwari, A.P.P.
+                                               ....
+
+05/20.02.2023             The applicant, who is in custody since 21.06.2022, has approached this
+

Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Torpa P.S. Case No.62/2022, + corresponding to G.R. No.453/2022, for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)a/ + 25(6)/ 26/ 35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act. +

The applicant has been apprehended with one country made loaded pistol + and one mobile phone. +

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant(s) that + complete set of F.I.R. alongwith its enclosure have been annexed with this bail + application and there is no suppression on his/her part. +

Innocence of the applicant has been claimed and undertaking has been + given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the + applicant that this applicant has no criminal antecedent. On above basis, prayer for + bail has been made. +

Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. + Considering the period of custody and the fact that the applicant has no + criminal antecedent, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the + applicant is directed to be released on bail, on his furnishing bail bond of + Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the + satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Khunti in connection with Torpa P.S. Case + No.62/2022, corresponding to G.R. No.453/2022, on the condition that the + applicant will submit self-attested photocopy of his Aadhaar Card and also submit + his mobile number before the learned court below which he will always keep active + and will not change it during pendency of this case without prior permission of the + court. +

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) + Shahid/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B. A. No. 11730 of 2022 + ....

+             Shivu Munda @ Shibu Munda @ Shiba Munda          ....    Petitioner
+                                           Versus
+             The State of Jharkhand                            .... Opposite Party
+                                           ....
+              CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
+
+                For the Petitioner              : Mr. A.K.Chaturvedy, Adv.
+                For the State                   : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P.
+                                                ....
+
+05/20.02.2023             The applicant who is in custody since 24.05.2022 has approached this
+

Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Maranghada P.S. Case + No.29/2022, corresponding to N.D.P.S. Case No.48/2022, for the offence under + Sections 15(C)/ 22/ 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act. +

The applicant has been apprehended with 1473.7 kgs Doda. + It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant(s) that + complete set of F.I.R. alongwith its enclosure have been annexed with this bail + application and there is no suppression on his part. +

Innocence has been claimed and undertaking has been given for + participation in the trial. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant + that as per allegation he was loading the said narcotics and he is simple labourer + and he was not aware regarding the contents of the material. Further, the applicant + has no criminal antecedent. On above basis, prayer for bail has been made. +

Learned Spl. P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and + submitted that commercial quantity was being loaded for the purpose of + transportation and as such the applicant is not entitled for relief as per the mandate + of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act. +

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, + it appears that the applicant has been caught with commercial quantity of narcotics. +

Considering the mandate of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, I am not + inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail, at this stage. Accordingly prayer for bail + of the applicant stands rejected. +

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) + Shahid/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B. A. No. 11733 of 2022 + .... +

1. Raman Bhuiyan +

2. Sandip Kumar @ Sandip Bhiuyan @ Sandeep Kumar .... Petitioners + Versus + The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party + .... +

              CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
+
+                For the Petitioners            : Mr. B.K.Dubey, Adv.
+                For the State                  : Mrs. Mahua Palit, A.P.P.
+                                               ....
+
+03/20.02.2023             The applicants, who are in custody since 01.07.2022, have approached
+

this Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Mayurhand P.S. Case + No.41/2022, corresponding to G.R. No.2095/2022, for the offence under Sections + 302/34 of IPC. +

The applicants are accused of committing murder. + It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant(s) that + complete set of F.I.R. alongwith its enclosure have been annexed with this bail + application and there is no suppression on his/her part. +

Innocence of the applicants have been claimed and undertaking have + been given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted by learned counsel + for the applicants that as per the allegation, nine person have been made accused + for throwing bricks and stones and one stone has hit the deceased that is the cause + of her death. On above basis, prayer for bail has been made. +

Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicants. + Considering the narratives and period of custody, I am inclined to enlarge + the applicants on bail. Accordingly, the applicants are directed to be released on + bail, on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two + sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M.1st Class, Chatra + in connection with Mayurhand P.S. Case No.41/2022, corresponding to G.R. + No.2095/2022, on the condition that the applicants will submit self-attested + photocopy of their Aadhaar Card and also submit their mobile number before the + learned court below which they will always keep active and will not change it + during pendency of this case without prior permission of the court. +

+ +

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) + Shahid/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B. A. No. 11737 of 2022 + .... +

             Manish Chandravanshi                             ....    Petitioner
+                                           Versus
+             The State of Jharkhand                            .... Opposite Party
+                                           ....
+              CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
+
+                For the Petitioner               : Mr. A.K.Chaturvedi, Adv.
+                For the State                    : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.P.P.
+                                                 ....
+
+03/20.02.2023             The applicant who is in custody since 23.07.2022 has approached this
+

Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Rehla P.S. Case No.84/2022, + corresponding to G.R. Case No.1459/2022, for the offence under Section 376 of + IPC. +

The applicant is an accused of committing rape upon the victim and the + applicant is close relative to her. +

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant(s) that + complete set of F.I.R. alongwith its enclosure have been annexed with this bail + application and there is no suppression on his part. +

Innocence has been claimed and undertaking has been given for + participation in the trial. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant + that both the parties are major and there is no independent witness. Further, the + parties have settled their dispute also. On above basis, prayer for bail has been + made. +

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. + Considering the statement of the victim and the relationship between the + parties, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly prayer for + bail of the applicant stands rejected. +

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) + Shahid/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B. A. No. 11743 of 2022 + .... +

             Jitendra Biyar                                   ....    Petitioner
+                                           Versus
+             The State of Jharkhand                            .... Opposite Party
+                                           ....
+              CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
+
+                For the Petitioner               : Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv.
+                For the State                    : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
+                                                 ....
+
+03/20.02.2023             The applicant, who is in custody since 02.07.2022, has approached this
+

Court for grant of regular bail in connection with S.T. No.294/2021 arising out of + Ramna P.S. Case No.46/2021, for the offence under Sections 302/ 201/34 of IPC. +

The applicant is an accused of committing murder. + It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant(s) that + complete set of F.I.R. alongwith its enclosure have been annexed with this bail + application and there is no suppression on his/her part. +

Innocence of the applicant has been claimed and undertaking has been + given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the + applicant that F.I.R. is against unknown. He has been roped in on the confession of + the co-accused and subsequently, he has been arrested and self-confession has been + extracted. The co-accused facing the split-up trial has already been enlarged on + bail. On above basis, prayer for bail has been made. +

Learned Spl. P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. + Considering the fact that except confession, there is no material against + this applicant, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the + applicant is directed to be released on bail, on his furnishing bail bond of + Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the + satisfaction of learned Addl. District Judge, Nagar Untari, Garhwa in connection + with S.T. No.294/2021 arising out of Ramna P.S. Case No.46/2021, on the + condition that the applicant will submit self-attested photocopy of his Aadhaar Card + and also submit his mobile number before the learned court below which he will + always keep active and will not change it during pendency of this case without + prior permission of the court. +

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) + Shahid/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B. A. No.11797 of 2022 + ....

+             Deepak Kumar @ Bhikhan Ganjhu                    ....    Petitioner
+                                           Versus
+             The State of Jharkhand                            .... Opposite Party
+                                           ....
+              CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
+
+                For the Petitioner             : Mr. A.K.Chaturvedi, Adv.
+                For the State                  : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P.
+                                               ....
+
+03/20.02.2023             The applicant, who is in custody since 14.07.2022, has approached this
+

Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Piparwar P.S. Case No.38/2020, + for the offence under Sections 147/ 148/ 149/ 353/ 307/ 325 and 333 of IPC. +

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant(s) that + complete set of F.I.R. alongwith its enclosure have been annexed with this bail + application and there is no suppression on his/her part. +

Innocence of the applicant has been claimed and undertaking has been + given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the + applicant that this applicant has been roped in on the basis of confession of the co- + accused. Some of the co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail. On + above basis, prayer for bail has been made. +

Learned Spl. P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. + Considering the above fact, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. + Accordingly, the applicant is directed to be released on bail, on his furnishing bail + bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the + satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Chatra in connection with Piparwar P.S. Case + No.38/2020, on the condition that the applicant will submit self-attested photocopy + of his Aadhaar Card and also submit his mobile number before the learned court + below which he will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of + this case without prior permission of the court. +

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) + Shahid/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B. A. No.11808 of 2022 + .... +

             Ritesh Lugun @ Natwar                            ....    Petitioner
+                                           Versus
+             The State of Jharkhand                            .... Opposite Party
+                                           ....
+              CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
+
+                For the Petitioner             : Mr. Gaurav, Adv.
+                For the State                  : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.
+                                               ....
+
+03/20.02.2023             The applicant, who is in custody since 28.07.2022, has approached this
+

Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Arki P.S. Case No.14/2022, + corresponding to G.R. No.356/2022(A), for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)a/ + 25(6)/ 26 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act. +

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant(s) that + complete set of F.I.R. alongwith its enclosure have been annexed with this bail + application and there is no suppression on his/her part. +

Innocence of the applicant has been claimed and undertaking has been + given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the + applicant that this applicant has been roped in on the basis of confession of the + apprehended co-accused. The said apprehended co-accused has already been + enlarged on bail. On above basis, prayer for bail has been made. +

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. + Considering the above fact, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. + Accordingly, the applicant is directed to be released on bail, on his furnishing bail + bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the + satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Khunti in connection with Arki P.S. Case + No.14/2022, corresponding to G.R. No.356/2022(A), on the condition that the + applicant will submit self-attested photocopy of his Aadhaar Card and also submit + his mobile number before the learned court below which he will always keep active + and will not change it during pendency of this case without prior permission of the + court. +

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) + Shahid/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B. A. No.11814 of 2022 + .... +

             Pawan Kumar                                      ....    Petitioner
+                                           Versus
+             The State of Jharkhand                            .... Opposite Party
+                                           ....
+              CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
+
+                For the Petitioner               : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Adv.
+                For the State                    : Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P.
+                                                 ....
+
+03/20.02.2023                Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State.
+

The applicant, who is in custody since 21.05.2022, has approached this + Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Meharma P.S. Case No.125 of + 2019, corresponding to G.R. No.324 of 2022, registered for the offence under + Sections 417/ 406/ 468 & 420/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. +

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant(s) that + complete set of F.I.R. alongwith its enclosure have been annexed with this bail + application and there is no suppression on his/her part. +

It appears that the applicant has been made accused for taking money + from the complainant for providing job. It has been alleged that neither the job has + been provided nor the money has been returned to the complainant. +

Innocence of the applicant has been claimed and undertaking has been + given for participation in the trial. On above basis, prayer for bail has been made. +

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the + applicant. +

Considering the period of custody, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant + on bail. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to be released on bail, on his + furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like + amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda in + connection with Meharma P.S. Case No.125 of 2019, corresponding to G.R. + No.324 of 2022, on the condition that the applicant and the applicant will submit + self-attested photocopy of his Aadhaar Card and also submit his mobile number + before the learned court below which he will always keep active and will not + change it during pendency of this case without prior permission of the court. +

+ +

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) + Shahid/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B. A. No.11908 of 2022 + .... +

             Murshid Alam @ Lal Babu                          ....    Petitioner
+                                           Versus
+             The State of Jharkhand                            .... Opposite Party
+                                           ....
+              CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
+
+                For the Petitioner             : Mr. Yadu Nandan Mishra, Adv.
+                For the State                  : Mr. V.S.Sahay, A.P.P.
+                                               ....
+
+07/20.02.2023             The applicant, who is in custody since 05.05.2022, has approached this
+

Court for grant of regular bail in connection with S.T. Case No.397/2022 arising + out of Chauparan P.S. Case No.121/2022, corresponding to G.R. Case + No.1407/2022, registered for the offence under Section 328/ 302/ 120B & 34 of + IPC and charge sheet has been submitted under Section 306 of IPC. +

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant(s) that + complete set of F.I.R. alongwith its enclosure have been annexed with this bail + application and there is no suppression on his/her part. +

Innocence of the applicant has been claimed and undertaking has been + given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the + applicant that as per the medical report, it is a case of poisoning and no external + injury has been found. On above basis, prayer for bail has been made. +

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. + Considering the above fact, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. + Accordingly, the applicant is directed to be released on bail, on his furnishing bail + bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the + satisfaction of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribag in connection with S.T. + Case No.397/2022 arising out of Chauparan P.S. Case No.121/2022, corresponding + to G.R. Case No.1407/2022, on the condition that the applicant will submit self- + attested photocopy of his Aadhaar Card and also submit his mobile number before + the learned court below which he will always keep active and will not change it + during pendency of this case without prior permission of the court. +

+ +

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) + Shahid/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B. A. No. 11975 of 2022 + ....

+             Sunil Chouhan @ Sunil Kumar Chauhan @ Sunil Chauhan ....    Petitioner
+                                           Versus
+             The State of Jharkhand                               .... Opposite Party
+                                           ....
+              CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
+
+                For the Petitioner               : Mr. R.S.Mazumdar, Sr. Adv.
+                                                   Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Adv.
+                For the State                    : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P.
+                For the Informant                : Ms. Priyanka Agrawal, Adv.
+                                                 ....
+
+03/20.02.2023               The applicant who is in custody since 04.07.2022 has approached this
+

Court for grant of regular bail in connection with S.T. Case No.300/2022 arising + out of Kandi P.S. Case No.49/2022, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1374/2022, for + the offence under Sections 304-B/34 of IPC. +

It has been submitted by learned senior counsel for the applicant(s) that + complete set of F.I.R. alongwith its enclosure have been annexed with this bail + application and there is no suppression on his part. +

Innocence has been claimed and undertaking has been given for + participation in the trial. Referring to the case diary, it has been submitted by + learned senior counsel for the applicant that the witnesses have clearly stated that it + is a case of suicide. Further, no external injury has been found. On above basis, + prayer for bail has been made. +

Learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the + prayer for bail of the applicant and submitted that it is a case of unnatural death and + there was continuous demand of dowry and the death has taken within a year of the + marriage. +

Considering the above facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on + bail, at this stage. Accordingly prayer for bail of the applicant stands rejected. +

+ +

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) + Shahid/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B. A. No. 11978 of 2022 + .... +

             Rohit Murmu                                      ....    Petitioner
+                                           Versus
+             The State of Jharkhand                            .... Opposite Party
+                                           ....
+              CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
+
+                For the Petitioner              : Mr. Aman Shekhar, Adv.
+                For the State                   : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Mahto, A.P.P.
+                                                ....
+
+03/20.02.2023             The applicant who is in custody since 25.06.2022 has approached this
+

Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Borio P.S. Case No.154/2022, for + the offence under Sections 25(1-B)a/ 26 & 35 of the Arms Act. +

The applicant has been apprehended with three country made rifles and + one country made pistol. +

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant(s) that + complete set of F.I.R. alongwith its enclosure have been annexed with this bail + application and there is no suppression on his part. +

Innocence has been claimed and undertaking has been given for + participation in the trial. On above basis, prayer for bail has been made. +

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. + Considering the recovery, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on + bail, at this stage. Accordingly prayer for bail of the applicant stands rejected. +

+ +

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) + Shahid/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B. A. No.11979 of 2022 + ....

+             Md. Saddam Ansari @ Saddam Ansari                ....    Petitioner
+                                           Versus
+             The State of Jharkhand                            .... Opposite Party
+                                           ....
+              CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
+
+                For the Petitioner             : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv.
+                For the State                  : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.
+                                               ....
+
+03/20.02.2023             The applicant, who is in custody since 28.07.2022, has approached this
+

Court for grant of regular bail in connection with S.T. Case No.712/2022 arising + out of Jharia P.S. Case No.97/2022, corresponding to G.R. Case No.2118/2022, for + the offence under Sections 302/34 & 120-B of IPC and Sections 25(1-B)a/ 26/ 27 + & 35 of the Arms Act. +

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant(s) that + complete set of F.I.R. alongwith its enclosure have been annexed with this bail + application and there is no suppression on his/her part. +

Innocence of the applicant has been claimed and undertaking has been + given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the + applicant that F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown. Subsequently, this applicant + has been roped in on the confession and as per the prosecution story, this applicant + has given information regarding the movement of the deceased and for which he + has received Rs.30,000/- as reward. On above basis, prayer for bail has been made. +

Learned Spl. P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. + Considering the above facts, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on + bail. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to be released on bail, on his furnishing + bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each + to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VI, Dhanbad in connection with + S.T. Case No.712/2022 arising out of Jharia P.S. Case No.97/2022, corresponding + to G.R. Case No.2118/2022, on the condition that the applicant will submit self- + attested photocopy of his Aadhaar Card and also submit his mobile number before + the learned court below which he will always keep active and will not change it + during pendency of this case without prior permission of the court. +

+ +

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) + Shahid/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B. A. No.11980 of 2022 + .... +

             Krishna Ganjhu                                   ....    Petitioner
+                                           Versus
+             The State of Jharkhand                            .... Opposite Party
+                                           ....
+              CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
+
+                For the Petitioner             : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Adv.
+                For the State                  : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P.
+                                               ....
+
+04/20.02.2023             The applicant, who is in custody since 11.06.2021, has approached this
+

Court for grant of regular bail in connection with S.T. Case No.315/2019 arising + out of Basishth Nagar P.S. Case No.32/2010, for the offence under Sections 147/ + 148/ 149/ 341/ 342/ 323/ 325/ 307/ 302 of IPC and Sections 17(i)(ii) of the C.L.A. + Act. +

The applicant is an accused of committing murder. + It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant(s) that + complete set of F.I.R. alongwith its enclosure have been annexed with this bail + application and there is no suppression on his/her part. +

Innocence of the applicant has been claimed and undertaking has been + given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the + applicant that general and omnibus allegation has been made against several + persons. Further, the co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail which + has been brought on record. On above basis, prayer for bail has been made. +

Learned Spl. P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. + Considering the above facts and the period of custody, I am inclined to + enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to be released + on bail, on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties + of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Chatra + in connection with S.T. Case No.315/2019 arising out of Basishth Nagar P.S. Case + No.32/2010, on the condition that the applicant will submit self-attested photocopy + of his Aadhaar Card and also submit his mobile number before the learned court + below which he will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of + this case without prior permission of the court. +

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) + Shahid/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B. A. No.11987 of 2022 + ....

+            Daroga Yadav @ Daroga Singh Yadav                ....    Petitioner
+                                          Versus
+            The State of Jharkhand                            .... Opposite Party
+                                          ....
+             CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
+
+                For the Petitioner              : Mr. R.S.Mazumdar, Sr. Adv.
+                                                  Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Adv.
+                For the State                   : Mr. P.D.Agrawal, Spl. P.P.
+                                                ....
+
+05/20.02.2023             The applicant, who is in custody since 03.07.2022, has approached this
+

Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Garhwa Nagar P.S. Case + No.254/2022, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1333/2022, for the offence under + Sections 341/ 323/ 302/ 120-B and 506 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. +

It has been submitted by learned senior counsel for the applicant(s) that + complete set of F.I.R. alongwith its enclosure have been annexed with this bail + application and there is no suppression on his/her part. +

Innocence of the applicant has been claimed and undertaking has been + given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted by learned senior counsel + for the applicant that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged against eight named accused + including the applicant with the allegations that the husband of the informant Shiv + Singh Yadav was coming to his house from market by the motorcycle and at the + distance of 100 metres from the house of informant adjoining to the newly + constructed road Daroga Singh Yadav along with his two sons Pankaj @ Suraj and + Rahul and also along with his three daughters Vandna Devi, Tara Devi and Chanda + Devi and son-in-law Rakesh Yadav had already laid the way there. As the husband + of the informant reached there, Daroga Singh Yadav exhorted to all the other + accused to assault to the husband of the informant. All began to assault to the + husband of informant. Pankaj @ Suraj opened fire. Informant reached to intervene + there but she was intercepted by Tara Devi and Vandna Devi. Again son-in-law of + Daroga Singh Yadav further exhorted and further firearm was opened and the + Daroga Singh Yadav and his younger son Rahul both also verified whether the + husband of informant was alive or dead after opening fire. This F.I.R. was lodged + against all the named accused who had committed murder of the husband of + informant under a conspiracy. +

Learned senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that, as per F.I.R. + allegations, role of opening firearm is assigned to Pankaj @ Suraj though at the + exhortation of Daroga Singh Yadav. Only presence of the applicant is shown. On + above basis prayer for bail has been made. +

Learned Spl. P.P. has vehemently opposed the contentions made by the + learned senior counsel for the applicant and contended that the informant wife of + deceased is the eye-witness of the occurrence. As per F.I.R. allegations, she had + seen the occurrence at the distance of 100 metres and all the accused persons 2 had + assaulted the husband of informant. It was Pankaj @ Suraj who opened fire twice + to the husband of informant. The applicant was very much present there and he + actively participated in the occurrence. He along with his father also verified + whether the husband of the informant had died or not on opening fire. The conduct + of the applicant at the place of occurrence revealed that he shared common + intention along with Pankaj @ Suraj and others co-accused. Moreover, independent + eye-witness Marich Devi also corroborated the statement of informant. The post- + mortem report also supports the prosecution story as the cause of death was firearm + injury and there were two fire injuries on the body of deceased. +

In view of the submissions made and materials on record, I am not + inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail, at this stage. Accordingly prayer for bail + of the applicant stands rejected. +

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) +Shahid/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B. A. No. 11999 of 2022 + .... +

             Lalita Tirkey                                    ....    Petitioner
+                                           Versus
+             The State of Jharkhand                            .... Opposite Party
+                                           ....
+              CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
+
+                For the Petitioner              : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Adv.
+                                                  Mrs. Vani Kumari, Adv.
+                For the State                   : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P.
+                                                ....
+
+05/20.02.2023             The applicant who is in custody since 14.04.2019 has approached this
+

Court for grant of regular bail in connection with S.T. No.152/2019 arising out of + Simdega P.S. Case No.05/2019, corresponding to G.R. Case No.211/2019, + registered for the offence under Sections 376/ 302/ 201 of IPC and charge sheet has + been submitted under Sections 302/ 201 and 34 of IPC. +

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant(s) that + complete set of F.I.R. alongwith its enclosure have been annexed with this bail + application and there is no suppression on his part. +

Innocence has been claimed and undertaking has been given for + participation in the trial. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant + that out of nine charge sheeted witnesses, six witnesses have already been + examined. On that basis, prayer for bail has been made. +

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. + Considering the above facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on + bail, at this stage. Accordingly prayer for bail of the applicant stands rejected. +

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the + same within three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. +

+ +

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) + Shahid/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B. A. No. 12001 of 2022 + .... +

             Rajesh Banra                                     ....    Petitioner
+                                           Versus
+             The State of Jharkhand                            .... Opposite Party
+                                           ....
+              CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
+
+                For the Petitioner              : Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwary Adv.
+                For the State                   : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P.
+                                                ....
+
+03/20.02.2023              The applicant who is in custody since 20.06.2022 has approached this
+

Court for grant of regular bail in connection with S.T. No.277/2022 arising out of + Muffasil (Pandrasali O.P.) P.S. Case No.95/2022, for the offence under Sections + 302 of IPC. +

The applicant is an accused of committing murder of his own father. + It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant(s) that + complete set of F.I.R. alongwith its enclosure have been annexed with this bail + application and there is no suppression on his part. +

Innocence has been claimed and undertaking has been given for + participation in the trial. On above basis, prayer for bail has been made. +

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and + submitted that there is eye-witness to the incident, who is the mother of the accused + herself. +

Considering the above facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on + bail, at this stage. Accordingly prayer for bail of the applicant stands rejected. +

+ +

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) + Shahid/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B. A. No. 12017 of 2022 + .... +

             Ranjit Saw                                       ....    Petitioner
+                                           Versus
+             The State of Jharkhand                            .... Opposite Party
+                                           ....
+              CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
+
+                For the Petitioner             : Mr. D.K.Chakraverty, Adv.
+                For the State                  : Mr. V.K.Vashistha, Spl. P.P.
+                For the Informant              : Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Adv.
+                                               ....
+
+03/20.02.2023             The applicant, who is in custody since 02.08.2022, has approached this
+

Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Sonari P.S. Case No.111/2022, + for the offence under Sections 302/ 120-B/34 of IPC and Sections 25(1-B)a/ 26/ 27/ + 35 of the Arms Act. +

The applicant is an accused of committing murder. + It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant(s) that + complete set of F.I.R. alongwith its enclosure have been annexed with this bail + application and there is no suppression on his/her part. +

Innocence of the applicant has been claimed and undertaking has been + given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the + applicant that this applicant has been roped in as a conspirator. As per the + prosecution story, he has not played any active role. On above basis, prayer for bail + has been made. +

Learned Spl. P.P. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the + prayer for bail of the applicant and submitted that this applicant has several + criminal antecedents. +

Considering the above facts, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on + bail. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to be released on bail, on his furnishing + bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each + to the satisfaction of learned J.M.1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Sonari + P.S. Case No.111/2022, on the condition that the applicant will submit self-attested + photocopy of his Aadhaar Card and also submit his mobile number before the + learned court below which he will always keep active and will not change it during + pendency of this case without prior permission of the court. +

+ +

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) + Shahid/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B. A. No. 12710 of 2022 + .... +

             Taklu Lohar                                      ....    Petitioner
+                                           Versus
+             The State of Jharkhand                            .... Opposite Party
+                                           ....
+              CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
+
+                For the Petitioner              : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Adv.
+                For the State                   : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P.
+                For the Informant               : Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Adv.
+                                                ....
+
+03/20.02.2023             The applicant, who is in custody since 27.08.2022, has approached this
+

Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Sonari P.S. Case No.111/2022, + for the offence under Sections 302/ 120-B/34 of IPC and Sections 25(1-B)a/ 26/ 27/ + 35 of the Arms Act. +

The applicant is an accused of committing murder. + It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant(s) that + complete set of F.I.R. alongwith its enclosure have been annexed with this bail + application and there is no suppression on his/her part. +

Innocence of the applicant has been claimed and undertaking has been + given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the + applicant that as per the prosecution story, this applicant has played role as + conspirator. Save and except this fact, there is no other material against this + applicant. On above basis, prayer for bail has been made. +

Learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the + prayer for bail of the applicant and submitted that the fire arm which is used in the + crime has been recovered. +

Considering the recovery, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on + bail, at this stage. Accordingly prayer for bail of the applicant stands rejected. +

+ +

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) + Shahid/ + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + B. A. No. 14111 of 2022 + ....

+             Rahul Chabbra @ Vicky Chabbra                    ....    Petitioner
+                                           Versus
+             The State of Jharkhand                            .... Opposite Party
+                                           ....
+              CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
+
+                For the Petitioner              : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv.
+                                                  Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Adv.
+                For the State                   : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.P.P.
+                For the Informant               : Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Adv.
+                                                ....
+
+04/20.02.2023             The applicant, who is in custody since 05.11.2022, has approached this
+

Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Sonari P.S. Case No.111/2022, + for the offence under Sections 302/ 120-B/34 of IPC and Sections 25(1-B)a/ 26/ 27/ + 35 of the Arms Act. +

The applicant is an accused of committing murder. + It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant(s) that + complete set of F.I.R. alongwith its enclosure have been annexed with this bail + application and there is no suppression on his/her part. +

Innocence of the applicant has been claimed and undertaking has been + given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the + applicant that as per prosecution story, he has helped the accused after commission + of crime. Except that, there is no other material. On above basis, prayer for bail has + been made. +

Learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the + prayer for bail of the applicant. +

Considering the above facts, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on + bail. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to be released on bail, on his furnishing + bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each + to the satisfaction of learned J.M.1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Sonari + P.S. Case No.111/2022, on the condition that the applicant will submit self-attested + photocopy of his Aadhaar Card and also submit his mobile number before the + learned court below which he will always keep active and will not change it during + pendency of this case without prior permission of the court. +

+ +

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) + Shahid/ +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_121591680.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_121591680.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0b97323902e329aa7b72ccfeda70f00212b21ffa --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_121591680.html @@ -0,0 +1,2203 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Gudavalli Ratna Sudhakar Sudhakar vs The State Of A.P, on 6 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 34, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

+

Gudavalli Ratna Sudhakar Sudhakar vs The State Of A.P, on 6 January, 2025

+ +
        THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
+
+
+CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475,
+
+ 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839,
+
+                     5920 and 9083 of 2024
+
+
+COMMON ORDER:
+ + +

Crl.P.No.5197 of 2024 + + + This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A32 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

2

+ + + + +

2. Sri N. Harinadh, learned Counsel for petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, + +learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- + +State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.4896 of 2024 + + +

3. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A46 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

4. Sri Mukkamalla Rama Swamy, the learned counsel for + +petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + 3 + + + + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5230 of 2024 + + +

5. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A35 and A51 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

6. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + 4 + + + + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5256 of 2024 + + +

7. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A43 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

8. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + 5 + + + + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.5367 of 2024 + + +

9. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A4 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

10. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 6 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5475 of 2024 + + +

11. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A64 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

12. Sri Karanki Yaswanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, the learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

7

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5487 of 2024 + + +

13. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A47 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

14. Ms.P.Srilatha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 8 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5503 of 2024 + + +

15. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A19 and A20 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

16. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 9 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5550 of 2024 + + +

17. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A2, A16, A37 and A45 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

18. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

10

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5553 of 2024 + + +

19. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A7 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

20. Sri Peta Gnana Teja, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 11 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5585 of 2024 + + +

21. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A1 and A67 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

22. Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

12

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5652 of 2024 + + +

23. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A15 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

24. Sri Chalasani Venkat, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

13

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5718 of 2024 + + +

25. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A8, A22, A36 and A68 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

26. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 14 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5724 of 2024 + + +

27. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A3 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

28. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

15

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5752 of 2024 + + +

29. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A31, A53 and A65 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime + +No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna + +District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections + +143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) + +of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

30. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

16

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5839 of 2024 + + +

31. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A55 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

32. Sri B.V Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 17 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5920 of 2024 + + +

33. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A6, A13, A14, A17, A27, A28, A30, A39, A42, A52, + +A54, A56, A61 and A69 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

34. Ms.V.Devi Satya Sri, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

18

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.9083 of 2024 + + +

35. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A75 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

36. Sri G.L.Nageswar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor + +appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments. + + +

37. In all the above bail petitions, detailed counters were filed + +by the respondent-State. +

19

+ + + + +

38. All these criminal petitions pertain to Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station. By these petitions these + +accused pray for pre-arrest bail. All these petitions were heard + +together and by this common order they shall be disposed of. + +The crime incident allegedly occurred on 20.02.2023. Upon a + +written information dated 22.02.2023 F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was + +registered. The scene of offence was Telugu Desam Party office, + +Gannavaram. Sri Mudunuri Satyavardhan belonging to Madiga + +caste, which is a scheduled caste, was computer operator + +working in Telugu Desam Party office and living in the said office. + + +

39. During the time when this crime incident allegedly occurred + +the party in power was YSR Congress Party. Investigation + +commenced and went on for some time. Thereafter there were + +general elections and the then opposition party/Telugu Desam + +Party came into power. Thereafter investigation continued + +further. The allegations and counter allegations in this case + +disclosed the rift between both the political parties. Petitioners + +contend that this is a case falsely alleged against them out of + +political vendetta. According to State, for political reasons there + +was inadequate investigation soon after commission of the + +offence. By the time this crime incident occurred Sri Vallabhaneni + 20 + + + + +Vamsi Mohan was Member of Legislative Assembly for + +Gannavaram Assembly Constituency. He is one of the accused + +in the present crime. +

+

+

40. The version of the prosecution is that on 18.02.2023 during + +afternoon hours a press meet was held by Sri Vallabhaneni + +Vamsi Mohan wherein he allegedly made certain insulting + +remarks as against Sri N.Chandrababu Naidu, Sri Nara Lokesh + +and their family members and used indecent language. In + +response to it, certain leaders of Telugu Desam Party conducted + +a press meeting on 19.02.2023 in the morning hours and + +condemned the statements made by the opponent political party + +people. +

+

+

41. In the above backdrop of facts, the crime incident allegedly + +occurred. It is stated that on 20.02.2023 at about 5:00 P.M. + +Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan went to Telugu Desam Party + +office and on noticing followers of Telugu Desam Party he caused + +enquiries about Mr. Pattabhi of Telugu Desam Party and warned + +them that they would finish Telugu Desam Party and left the + +place. +

21

+ + + + +

42. In the next 30 minutes at about 5:30 P.M. about 100 + +persons belonging to YSR Congress Party came to Telugu + +Desam Party office wielding sticks, stones, petrol bottles and + +various other arms and while hailing Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi + +Mohan they attacked the party office. They threw stones, entered + +into the party office and destroyed the furniture, broke two + +computers and two televisions and caused tremendous panic + +among everyone available there. In the first information report + +the de facto complainant was able to mention the names of 44 + +accused. It also made a mention about four named accused who + +came upon him and abused him by his caste name. The further + +case of the prosecution is that these hooligans caused chaos and + +some of them using their sticks and cricket playing wickets + +seriously damaged three cars/AP 39 K 1999, AP 16 DJ 9499 and + +TS 10 EC 4099. It is also stated that one Mr. Rabbani poured + +petrol on the car bearing No.AP 16 DA 5555 and lit fire to it. The + +version of the de facto complainant is that there were police + +people at the Telugu Desam Party office and they remained mute + +spectators. During investigation it was found that some of the + +accused made attempts to burn the party office as walls in one + +room were found with charred marks. +

22

+ + + + +

43. Investigation has been in progress. Some of the accused + +were arrested and were remanded to judicial custody. According + +to prosecution, at least 44 accused were absconding. After + +gaining contact with about 28 accused they were questioned + +about their mobile phones and only seven out of them + +surrendered their mobile phones and 20 of the accused furnished + +false information with regard to the instruments they used and + +their mobile numbers. +

+

+

44. During the investigation, CCTV footage was collected. + +When the crime incident occurred, various people captured it on + +their mobile phones and all such material was collected. Based + +on these investigative efforts, allegations are made against all + +these petitioners by the prosecution that they are all involved in + +this crime incident. +

+

+

45. Broadly stated all these petitioners raised the following + +contentions: +

+

+

 That there was unexplained delay in registration of crime. + + The incident occurred on 20.02.2023 and F.I.R. was + + registered on 22.02.2023. That around the same time and + + place certain incidents occurred which resulted in + 23 + + + + + registration of multiple F.I.Rs. and many of which disclosed + + accusation of criminal acts of followers of Telugu Desam + + Party as against members of YSR Congress Party + + members and this case is in a way a counter blast to Crime + + Nos.132 of 2023 and 133 of 2023. +
+
+  F.I.R. does not contain any allegations of overt acts against + + these petitioners. +
+
+  After change in political party in power witnesses were + + planted and false evidence is created. +
+
+  The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. were bailable and + + many of these petitioners were served with Section 41A + + Cr.P.C. notice. However, after the change of political + + Government police have unlawfully brought additional + + penal provisions to nullify the rightful reliefs available to the + + petitioners. +
+
+

46. Plethora of precedent is cited on behalf of the petitioners + +and on behalf of some of the accused meticulous written + +arguments are filed leaving one to wonder that this to pronounce + +a judgment as if it is one after trial. +

24

+ + + + +

47. The following significant aspects are required to be noticed: + + +

F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was registered for the offences + +punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435 and 506 read with + +149 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989'). Since caste atrocity was one of + +the offences alleged, on the instructions of Superintendent of + +Police, Krishna, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gannavaram + +took up investigation. After recording the statements of about six + +witnesses, the investigation officer found that the provisions of the + +Act, 1989 were not applicable. Therefore, he applied to the + +Superintendent of Police to accord permission to delete those + +provisions. By proceedings dated 04.07.2023 the Superintendent + +of Police granted such permission. Investigation went further and + +scores of witnesses were examined. Thereafter by way of an + +alteration memo dated 07.08.2024 the investigation agency got + +added Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989. It + +also added Sections 436, 450 and 452 I.P.C. It is also to be + +noticed that in this case so far there are 71 accused. + 25 + + + + +

48. Since in the present crime incident not only offences under + +the Indian Penal Code but also offences under the Act, 1989 are + +alleged, the forceful argument raised by the State is that + +anticipatory bail petitions are not maintainable by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. The further argument is + +that the High Court does not now possess concurrent original + +jurisdiction for bails as well as anticipatory bails and it has only + +appellate jurisdiction by virtue of Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and + +therefore, these petitions are to be dismissed. In such + +circumstances, this Court on 13.11.2024 requested the learned + +counsels on both sides to address arguments in that regard since + +the jurisdictional bar has arisen. +

+

+

49. Valiant submissions are made by the learned counsels for + +petitioners wherein references are made to Sections 18 and 18A + +of the Act, 1989 and precedent is cited to show that if there is no + +prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989 is + +made out, anticipatory bail could be considered. It is also argued + +that this Court in these petitions during hearing granted interim + +protection and therefore, the same may be made absolute since + +these petitioners have not violated anything thereafter. + 26 + + + + +

50. The point that falls for consideration is: + + +

"What is the effect of Section 14A of the Scheduled + + Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the concurrent original + + jurisdiction of the High Court in considering bails + + and anticipatory bails where offences under the Act, + + 1989 are involved? +
+
+POINT: +
+
+

51. Offences under the Act, 1989 can be taken cognizance of + +and tried and be disposed of by Special Courts and Exclusive + +Special Courts as provided in Section 14 of the Act, 1989. Those + +Courts since now empowered to take cognizance hold power to + +take remand of the accused and consider bails. There is no + +provision in the Act, 1989 adverting to the aspects that are to be + +considered by those Courts when they entertain bail petitions. + +Therefore, those Courts draw their powers from the Code of + +Criminal Procedure. Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal + +Procedure is headed as provisions as to bail and bonds. It + +consists of Sections 436 to 450. They refer to bail in cases of + +bailable offences and bail in cases of non-bailable offences. + 27 + + + + +Section 438 Cr.P.C. is given heading direction for grant of bail to + +person apprehending arrest. To the extent the said provision is + +required alone is extracted here: +

+
"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending + arrest: +
+
(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be + arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- +

bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the + Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the + event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that + Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the + following factors, namely:- +

+
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; + +
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to + whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on + conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; + +
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and + +
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of + injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so + arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an + interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail: + +
Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, + the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order + under this sub-Section or has rejected the application for + grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer + 28 + + + + + incharge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the + applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in + such application." +
+

52. Thus, as per the above provision, those accused who + +anticipate their arrest may seek pre-arrest bail and they could + +move such applications either before this Court or before the + +Court of Sessions. It is in the light of such a provision the + +petitioners have straightaway moved this Court for their prayers + +for pre-arrest bail. +

+

+

53. The first submission of the State is that in cases of caste + +atrocities anticipatory bails cannot be maintained by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. Those provisions read as + +below: +

+

+

"18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons + committing an offence under the Act.-- Nothing in + section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case + involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of + having committed an offence under this Act. + + 18A. No enquiry or approval required.--(1) For the + purposes of this Act,-- (a) preliminary enquiry shall not be + required for registration of a First Information Report against + any person; or + 29 + + + + +
(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the + arrest, if necessary, of any person, + + against whom an accusation of having committed an + offence under this Act has been made and no procedure + other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall + apply. +
+
(2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply + to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or + order or direction of any Court." +
+

54. The crisp response from the learned counsels for the + +petitioners is that the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would + +apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist + +pointing towards the commission of an offence under the Act, + +1989. If the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under + +the Act, 1989 are not disclosed on the prima facie reading of the + +allegations levelled in the complaint or F.I.R. then in such + +circumstances, the bar of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would not + +apply and the Courts would not be absolutely precluded from + +granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons. In justification of + +this argument they cited ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + +India in Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala1. + +1 + 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601 + 30 + + + + +

55. If one goes by the contentions of the learned counsel for + +petitioners this Court is to take a view whether the allegations in + +the F.I.R./written information of the de facto complainant prima + +facie disclose caste atrocity or not. However, according to the + +State, even such a view cannot be taken by this Court by virtue of + +interdict contained in Section 14A of the Act, 1989. Therefore, it + +is required to notice what this provision says. The provision reads + +as below: +

+

+

"14A. Appeals:--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained + in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an + appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not + being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an + Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and + on law. +
+
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section + (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, + 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court + against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive + Special Court granting or refusing bail. + + (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for + the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall + be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of + the judgment, sentence or order appealed from: Provided + that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry + of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the + 31 + + + + + appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal + within the period of ninety days: Provided further that no + appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of + one hundred and eighty days. +
+
(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far + as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months + from the date of admission of the appeal." + +

56. As per Sub-Section (2) of Section 14Aof the Act, the + +petitions for bail are to be considered by the Special Court and in + +the event of their granting or refusing to grant such bails the + +aggrieved can prefer an appeal before this Court. Thus, the + +concurrent jurisdiction for consideration of anticipatory bails + +provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C. stood excluded. It is not as + +though the aggrieved is deprived of all the remedies. After + +inviting an order on the bail petition from the Special Court the + +aggrieved is entitled to prefer an appeal before this Court in terms + +of Section 14A of the Act, 1989. In the case at hand, the + +petitioners have moved bail petitions straightaway before this + +Court. At any rate, what is before this Court is not an appeal + +against an order passed by the Special Court with reference to + +bails. It shall be stated that on the same subject matter High + +Court could not be said to possess concurrent original jurisdiction + 32 + + + + +as well as appellate jurisdiction. If one is to state that a bail is + +different from anticipatory bail the result is that in anticipatory + +bails this Court holds original jurisdiction and in regular bails it + +holds only appellate jurisdiction. Assuming that in a case a + +petition for anticipatory bail being moved before the Special Court + +resulted in dismissal, then according to the logic applied by the + +petitioners the petitions would have to move only another bail + +petition before this Court and not an appeal. Such logic is in + +violation of what is clearly provided in Section 14A of the Act, + +1989. It is to be seen that the question of bail presupposes + +detention or custody of the person. In a case where a person is + +arrested he prays for a regular bail. In cases of anticipatory bail + +in the event of granting the relief, it has no effect unless and until + +the accused is arrested. In other words, the order of anticipatory + +bail comes into effect only after a person is arrested and not + +otherwise. In contrast to regular bail, in cases of anticipatory bail + +the order is obtained in advance. In regular bails it was obtained + +after arrest. The timing at which a prayer is made, and an order + +is granted, have no relevance when it comes to operation of + +those orders as in both the cases they come into operation only in + +those cases where a person is arrested. In such view of the + 33 + + + + +matter the word bail used in Section 14A of the Act, 1989 + +encompasses regular bail as well as anticipatory bail. Therefore, + +it must be stated that an application for bail or anticipatory bail + +can be filed only before the Special Court or the Exclusive + +Special Court as the case may be and not before the High Court. + +An order granting or refusing bail or anticipatory bail by the + +Special Court or Exclusive Special Court can be assailed before + +this Court invoking its appellate jurisdiction provided in Section + +14A of the Act, 1989. This Court had deliberated these aspects + +on earlier occasions when similar questions were raised and it + +reached to the same conclusions and reference can be made to + +the following: +

+

+

1. Nakka Nagireddy v. State of A.P.2 + + +
2. Deepak Kumar Tala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh3. + + +

57. Similar conclusions were reached at by other High Courts. + +Reference can be made to the following: +

+

+

1. K.M.Basheer v. Rajani K.T.4 + +2 + 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5322 Order dated 11.11.2024 +3 + Order dated 22.10.2024 in Criminal Petition No.6487 of 2024 +4 + 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 472 + 34 + + + + +
2. Lokesh v. State of Karnataka5 + + +
3. In re Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 v. Nil6 + + +
4. Atul Rajput v. The State of Madhya Pradesh7 + + +

58. At the bar, for petitioners, Abhishek Awasthi v. State of + +U.P.8 is cited. That is a case where other subsections of Section + +14A of the Act, 1989 fell for consideration and the powers of the + +High Court were considered under Section 482 of Code of + +Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings. + +Finally, it was held that with a view to prevent the misuse or + +abuse of the Court or law, the High Court holds inherent + +jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. + +Such question is not available before this Court. Even otherwise + +a brief reference to what was stated by their Lordships in Shajan + +Skaria's case9 would be sufficient here. At paragraph No.49 their + +Lordships stated that if the accused puts forward the case of + +malicious prosecution on account of political or private vendetta + +5 + 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15742 +6 + 2018 SCC OnLine ALL 2087 +7 + Order dated 10.04.2024 in Crl.A.No.3261 of 2024 of the High Court of +Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur +8 + MANU/UP/4595/2024 + 35 + + + + +such aspects can be considered only by the High Court in + +exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code or + +in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the + +Constitution of India. However, powers under Section 438 of the + +Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised once the + +contents of the complaint/F.I.R. disclose a prima facie case. In + +fact, in that case Section 14A of the Act, 1989 did not come up for + +consideration since the anticipatory bail petition was first moved + +before the trial Court and as against those orders appeal was + +preferred before the High Court. +

+

+

59. The plethora of precedent cited before this Court is not with + +reference to Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and therefore any + +reference to those cherished principles of those rulings is not + +required. This Court refrains from delving into other facts and the + +principles of law governing anticipatory bails since any such + +discussion may unnecessarily prejudice the contentions of both + +sides when appropriate applications are filed before appropriate + +Courts for the reliefs or when the maters come up before this + +Court in appeal. +

+

9 + Supra 1 + 36 + + + + +

60. Learned counsel for petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5920 + +of 2024 argued that this very Bench on earlier occasions + +considered and granted anticipatory bail and therefore, the same + +benefit can be extended to the present petitioners. The attention + +of this Court is brought to Sri Settipalli Raghurami Reddy v. + +The State of Andhra Pradesh10 and Julakanti Brahma Reddy + +@ Brahma Nanda Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 11. In + +both those matters the question about Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 was never raised by either side and therefore, there was no + +occasion for this Court to express itself on that aspect of the + +matter. After those orders it was in October and November 2024 + +only this Court had occasion to consider Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 and accordingly decided the earlier referred Nakka + +Nagireddy's case12 and Deepak Kumar Tala's case13. + +Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions of the learned + +counsel for the petitioners. +

+

+

61. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition + +No.5920 of 2024 further argued that the investigating agency is + +10 + Order dated 23.07.2024 in Criminal Petition No.3807 of 2024 +11 + Order dated 13.08.2024 in Criminal Petition No.10005 of 2023 +12 + supra 2 +13 + supra 3 + 37 + + + + +not entitled to add new penal provisions and cited State of + +Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde14. That was a case + +where on written information police registered a crime and + +investigating into it and filed charge sheet specifying certain penal + +provisions. At that stage the informant filed a petition to add + +Sections 364, 394 and 398 I.P.C. The question arose about the + +powers of the Magistrate at that stage as to whether he can + +incorporate those penal provisions as requested by the informant + +in a charge sheet filed by the police. Their Lordships stated that + +allowing incorporation of new provisions into the charge sheet as + +requested by the written informant at that stage is impermissible. + +However, the Court which is to try the case has to consider the + +first information report and all the other material collected and + +take a decision to frame appropriate charges under all the + +relevant penal provisions. Thus, the cited ruling has no relevance + +to the present case at hand. In the case at hand, the + +investigating police, exercising their right of investigation, have + +found it appropriate that the material on record do attract various + +provisions which were not originally mentioned in the F.I.R. Such + +power cannot be questioned. Informant would only put forth the + +14 + AIR 2014 SC 620 + 38 + + + + +facts before the registering officer and the Station House Officer + +on receiving such information using his own diligence + +incorporates the relevant penal provisions in the F.I.R. During + +investigation certain facts may be found incorrect and certain new + +facts may have been discovered and certain new accused may + +have been found having connection with the crime. There can be + +no legal hurdle in that regard since investigation is a voyage of + +truth. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsels for + +petitioners that provisions under the Act, 1989 were brought into + +effect during investigation and therefore have to be discarded is + +an argument that cannot be sustained. It may be recorded here + +that even to begin with in the case at hand the F.I.R. mentioned + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989. At the present also + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989 are alleged by the + +prosecution. Simply because at one stage such penal provisions + +were dropped does not mean that at a later stage they cannot be + +brought in. The argument that the new addition was not granted + +by the Superintendent of Police cannot be countenanced since + +the method of investigation is sole prerogative of the investigation + +officer. For the above reasons, the point is answered against the + +petitioners. +

39

+ + + + +

62. In the result, all these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. It is + +made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate + +petitions for appropriate reliefs before the appropriate Court. In + +the event such petitions are filed, the Court where they are filed is + +to consider the petitions on judicial side and dispose of them in + +accordance with law. Any observations made herein are confined + +to these petitions and they have no bearing on the merits or + +demerits of the case on either side. +

+

________________________ + Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J +Date: 06.01.2025 +Ivd + 40 + + + + + THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR + + + + +CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475, + 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839, + 5920 and 9083 of 2024 + + + + + Date: 06.01.2025 + + + +Ivd +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_122723352.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_122723352.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2c80289c8f13569acf58df204350a3a2543464c1 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_122723352.html @@ -0,0 +1,471 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Dipanshu Gagat vs State Of Himachal Pradesh R on 5 May, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

. +

5. Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned Senior Advocate + + + + + + representing the bail petitioners while refuting the aforesaid + + + + + + submission made by learned Additional Advocate General + + submits before this Court that there is no explanation + + + + + + rendered on record qua the inordinate delay in lodging the + + FIR. He submits that as per own statement of the + + + victim/prosecutrix, alleged offence punishable under Section + + 376 of IPC was committed by bail petitioner Dipanshu in the + + + year 2018, but there is no material suggestive of the fact that + + the victim/prosecutrix lodged complaint, if any, to the police or + + + + + her parents in the year, 2018 and as such, her version as + + + + + + recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C as well as under Section + + + + + + 154 Cr.P.C cannot be taken as gospel truth at this stage. +

+
+ +
+

petitioners under section 376 of IPC and as such they deserve + + + + + + to be enlarged on bail, especially when nothing remains to be + + + + + + recovered from them. +

+

6. Having heard learned counsel representing the + + + + + + parties and perused the material available on record, + + especially statements of prosecutrix recorded under Sections + + + 164 and 154 Cr.P.C., this Court finds that allegedly the + + offence, if any, punishable under Section 376 IPC by bail + + + petitioner Dipanshu Gagat was committed somewhere in the + + year 2018, but there is no plausible explanation rendered on + + + + + record by the victim/prosecutrix that why she kept mum for + + + + + + almost two years before lodging of the FIR at hand. Otherwise + + + + + + also, if the statements of the victim/prosecutrix under Sections + + 164 and 154 Cr.P.C are read in conjunction, there are material + + contradictions and variations. As per own statement of the + + prosecutrix, on the date of alleged incident she had gone to + + Thodo ground after having received telephonic call from a + + person namely Sumit, but it is not understood that how she + + came into contact with the bail petitioner, Dipanshu Gagat. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_122939867.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_122939867.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f695e45e5ca1d9ccd821d6f31a221ad1c6ab2f7e --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_122939867.html @@ -0,0 +1,441 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Yash Pal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 12 January, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

15. To substantiate plea to enlarge the petitioner on bail, learned + +counsel for the petitioner has relied upon order dated 5.7.2023 passed in + +Cr.MP (M) No. 1501 of 2023, titled as Ram Singh @ Kaka Vs. State of H.P., + +wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has been enlarged on bail on + +5.7.2023 after remaining in jail for 3 years 2 months. +

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred order dated + +16.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1494 of 2023, titled as Rampal @ + +Ramphal Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has + +been enlarged on bail after remaining in custody for 4 years 9 months by + +considering plea of the petitioner regarding delay in trial. +

+
+ +
+

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred order dated + +20.10.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2481 of 2023, titled as Sanma Vs. + +State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has been released + +on bail after 3 years 3 months detention considering the fact that only 22 + +witnesses out of 30 witnesses were examined by that time. +

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on order + +dated 4.11.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2618 of 2023, titled as Jasbir + +Singh Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has been + +released on bail after 3 years 5 months detention considering the fact that + +only 16 witnesses out of 39 witnesses were examined by that time. +

+
+ +
+

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on order + +dated 6.10.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2461 of 2023, titled as Balwinder + +Singh @ Kadu Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC + + + + +has been released on bail after 3 years 1 month detention considering the + +fact that only 12 witnesses out of 34 witnesses were examined by that time. +

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred order + +dated 21.8.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1942 of 2023, titled as Robin + +Patrwal Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has been + +released on bail after 2 years 2 months detention considering the fact that + +only 10 witnesses out of 51 witnesses were examined by that time. +

+
+ +
+

21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred order + +dated 1.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1216 of 2023, titled as Rakesh + +Kumar Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has been + +released on bail after 4 years detention considering the fact that only 13 + +witnesses out of 47 witnesses were examined by that time. +

22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on order + +dated 24.7.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1217 of 2023, titled as Kulveer + +Singh Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has been + +released on bail after 1 year detention considering the fact that no witnesses + +out of 30 witnesses were examined by that time. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_123464310.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_123464310.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4890f55bcc2dc104397586208b20b62c1887e44f --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_123464310.html @@ -0,0 +1,424 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Girdhar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:11536) on 7 March, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

4. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.69/2024) +

5. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.69/2024) +

6. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.69/2024) + + +

8. Concerned Police Station Shreekaranpur +

+
+ +
+

12. Date of passing of 21.10.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.14884/2023) + +

14. Concerned Police Station Kotwali Barmer +

15. District Barmer +

16. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 420 and 406 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.14885/2023) +

17. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.14885/2023) +

+
+ +
+

34. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.15296/2023) +

35. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.15296/2023) +

36. Date of passing of 22.11.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.15296/2023) + +

38. Concerned Police Station Pratap Nagar +

+
+ +
+

76. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.90/2024) +

77. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.90/2024) +

78. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.90/2024) + + +

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no + + case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his + + incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in + + the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the + + accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based + + on conjectures and surmises. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_124068448.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_124068448.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eec801c8fcf52c7ac8b098ab1aac31937f0fbf51 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_124068448.html @@ -0,0 +1,528 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Suresh Kumar Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 23 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

It is in this background that on the complaint the F.I.R + + + + was registered against the bail petitioner under Sections + + + + + 341, 354A, 354D, 506 (II) IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. +

+

During investigation, the statement of the + + complainant was recorded on 30.02.2024 under Section 161 + + + + + + Cr.P.C. Even statements of the complainant [X] and her sister + + [y] were recorded before the Learned jurisdictional Magistrate + + under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It has further been revealed in the + + Status Report that the petitioner had threatened the + + + + + + + + complainant [X] with pistol. It has also come in the Status + + Report that the petitioner had filed a bail application before + + the learned Trial Court i.e. learned Additional Sessions + + + + + . +

+
+ +
+ +

No. 108 of 2024 dated 06.04.2024, under Section 354, 354A, + + + + + 504, 506, 323 read with Section 34 IPC was registered + + + + + + against bail petitioner in Police Station Sadar Una. In the + + above background, the learned State Counsel has prayed + + + + + + for denying the bail in view of the p rima-facie accusation and + + also in view of subsequent events dated 06.04.2024 + + registration of another F.I.R.No. 108 of 2024 dated + + 06.04.2024, due to which, the bail petitioner is in + + + + + + + + custody as on day. +

+
+ +
+ +

offender, against whom, six F.I.Rs were registered, out of + + which, one case is still sub judice. The things will not + + stop here. Notably while on interim bail in these + + + + + . +

proceedings, the bail petitioner has involved himself + + + + + + in a fresh case i.e. F.I.R. No. 108 of 2024 dated + + + + + + 6.4.2024 under Sections 354, 354A, 504, 506, 323 read + + with Section 34 IPC in Police Station Sadar Una and + + the bail petitioner is in custody in the aforesaid matter. +

+
+ +
+
bail petitioner involves himself or abet the commission + + + + + + of any offence then, such involvement or abetting shall + + + + + + entail cancellation of pre-arrest bail and violation of + + any condition in the bail order was to entail cancellation + + of bail automatically. +
+
                     In    the above
+
+                                           to    background,
+
+
petition No. [Cr.MP(M) No. 285 of 2024] originates from + r once the instant + + F.I.R. No. 50 of 2024 dated 12.02.2024 registered + + under Sections 341, 354A, 354D, 506(II) of the Indian +Penal Code and Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms + + Act, but the bail petitioner has involved himself in + + + + + another offence in F.I.R No. 108 of 2024 dated + + + + + + 06.04.2024 registered under Sections 354, 354A, + + 504, 506, 323 read with Section 34 IPC in Police + + + + + + Station (Sadar) Una by violating the Bail Conditions (viii) + + and (ix) supra therefore, the violation of bail condition + + is sufficient, for this Court, to decline continuance + + or enlargement of the petitioner on bail any further. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_124685208.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_124685208.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d9c98d68f215bd1b1b76c79375331d394ae7ff5b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_124685208.html @@ -0,0 +1,1431 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Kosalai vs The Secretary To Government on 8 September, 2014 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 34, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Madras High Court

+

Kosalai vs The Secretary To Government on 8 September, 2014

+ +

Bench: S.Manikumar, V.S.Ravi

+ +
       
+
+  
+
+  
+
+ 
+ 
+ BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
+
+DATED : 08.09.2014
+
+CORAM
+THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
+and
+THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI
+
+H.C.P.(MD) No.630 of 2014
+
+Kosalai				  	..  Petitioner
+
+
+versus
+
+1. The Secretary to Government,
+    Prohibition and Excise Department,
+    Secretariat, Chennai.
+
+2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
+    Kanyakumari District
+    at Nagercoil.	    			..  Respondents
+
+	Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issuance
+of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the detention
+order passed by the 2nd respondent, vide P.D.No.3 of 2014, dated 03.04.2014
+and set aside the same and consequently, direct the respondents to produce
+the detenu, namely, Suthan, Son of Sundarsingh, aged about 24 years, before
+this Court, who is detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai and set him at
+liberty.
+
+!For petitioner 		:	Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar
+^For respondents		:	Mr.C.Ramesh
+					Addl. Public Prosecutor
+
+:ORDER
+
+

(Order of the Court was made by S. MANIKUMAR) + Mother of the detenu, Suthan, branded as Goonda, vide order in +P.D.No.3 of 2014, dated 03.04.2014, has filed the present Writ of Habeas +Corpus. +

+

2. The detenu has come to adverse notice in Kottar Police Cr.No.868 +of 2010, dated 07.07.2010, for the offences, under Sections 147, 148, 149, +120-B, 341, 294(b), 302, IPC r/w 3(1) of TNPP(D&L) Act 1982 @ 147, 148, +294(b), 341, 302, 120-B IPC & 3(1) of TNPP(D&L) Act. The date of occurrence +is 07.07.2010 at 18.30 Hours, in which, one Manikandan @ Iyappan has been +murdered. The detenu, Suthan, has been arrested and lateron, released on +bail on 13.10.2010, vide order in Crl.M.P.No.4377 of 2010. In the abovesaid +Crime, charge sheet has been filed on 02.04.2013 and is P.T in PRC.No.8 of +2013, in Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil. +

3. The detenu has come to adverse notice in Kottar Police Cr.No.85 +of 2012, dated 16.01.2012, for the offences, under Sections 147, 148, 342, +302 IPC @ 147, 148, 341, 342, 302 IPC r/w.149 IPC. The date of occurrence is +16.01.2012 at 15.30 Hours, in which, one Tr.Satheesh Kumar has been murdered. +The detenu, Suthan, has been arrested and lateron released on bail on +17.04.2012, vide order in Crl.M.P.No.1229 of 2012. In the abovesaid Crime, +charge sheet has been filed on 13.07.2012 and is P.T in PRC.No.7 of 2013, in +Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil. +

+

4. Again, the detenu is alleged to have involved in Suchindrum +Police Cr.No.729 of 2012, for the offences, under Sections 147, 148, 324, +307, 302 IPC @ 147, 148, 120-B, 109, 302, 307 IPC. The date of occurrence is +27.09.2012, about 7.30 P.M. In this case, one Chandra Mohan and a Bar +Servant, Ramar, have been murdered. Another person, who tried to save +Chandramohan, has been alleged to have been assaulted. In Crl.M.P.No.223 of +2013, the Principal Sessions Court, Nagercoil, has released the detenu on +conditional bail on 12.04.2013. Charge sheet has been filed on 29.05.2013 +and is P.T in PRC.No.10 of 2013, in Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil. +

+

5. The detenu is alleged to have involved in Cr.No.432 of 2012, +registered in Rajakkamangalam Police Station, for the offences, under +Sections 294(b), 387, 307, 506(ii) IPC @ 294(b), 394/397, 506(ii) IPC. In +this case, the date of occurrence is 02.10.2012 at 17.30 hrs. The allegation +is that the detenu, abused, threatened, assaulted one Suyambulingam with +Vettaruval and robbed Rs.100/- from him. Charge sheet has been filed on +16.11.2012 and is P.T. before the I Additional Sessions Court, Nagercoil, in +S.C.No.5/2013. The detenu, Suthan, has been arrested and released on +conditional bail on 15.04.2013, vide order in Crl.M.P.No.659 of 2013, on the +file of Principal Sessions Court, Nagercoil. +

+

6. The detenu has also come to another adverse case in Cr.No.29 of +2014, on the file of Kottar Police Station, for the offences, punishable +under Section 436 IPC. It is alleged that on the date of occurrence, ie., +12.01.2014 at 02.30 A.M., the detenu and his two associates, set ablaze a +vehicle, Tata Sumo, bearing Registration No.TN 21 Q 6946, belonging to one +Radhakrishnan and that the case is under investigation. +

+

7. When the matter stood thus, on 21.03.2014, around 01.30 P.M, one +Sathish, S/o.Ravi, was threatened and assaulted with knife, by the detenu, +while he was standing in Paruthivilai Bus Stop and robbed Rs.100/- from him. +On the basis of the complaint of Sathish, a case in Cr.No.132 of 2014, under +Sections 294(b), 387, 307, 506(ii) IPC was registered on 21.03.2014. The +detenu has been arrested on 21.03.2014 and based on the confessional +statement, weapon used by him, for the commission of offence, is stated to +have been recovered. +

+

8. Taking note of the antecedents of the detenu, the District +Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, has arrived at +the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is involved in notorious +activities, like, causing injuries, assaulting persons with deadly weapons, +damaging public properties, murder, attempt to murder and threatening the +local public, by showing deadly weapons with dire consequences and thus acted +in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and public +peace and recourse to normal law, would not have the desired result, and +clamped the detenu, branding him as a Goonda, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil +Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, +Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum +Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) (hereinafter +referred to as ?the Act?). Narration of antecedents, at Paragraphs 4, 5 and +6, extracted from the detention order, is as follows: +

?4. I am aware that Thiru.Suthan, was arrested on 21.03.2014 and duly +produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil on the same day at +

9.00 pm and remanded up to Judicial Custody upto 04.04.2014 and lodged in +District Jail, Nagercoil. So far no bail application was filed on his behalf +in this ground case. There is a real possibility of his coming out on bail +by filing a bail application before the said Court or Higher Court. If he +comes out on bail, he will indulge in such activities, which would be +prejudicial to the maintenance of the public peace and public order unless he +is detained as a ?GOONDA' under Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982. +

5) I am aware that Thiru. Suthan is a notorious rowdy element and he is +being watched as rowdy of Suchindraum P.S. Vide H.S.No.5/2010 and he has +involved himself in notorious activities, like rioting followed by causing +injuries, assaulting human persons with deadly weapons, damaging public +properties, murder, attempt to murder and threatening the local public, by +showing deadly weapons with dire consequences and there he had acted in a +manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and public peace. +

6) Hence, I am satisfied that Thiru.Suthan is committing grave crimes +and he is also acting in a manner jeopardizing public peace and public order +and as such Thiru.Suthan is a Goonda as contemplated under Section 2(f) of +the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. On the materials placed before me, I am +satisfied that Thiru.Suthan is a Goonda and there is compelling necessity to +detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are +prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and public order.? +

+

9. Though several grounds have been raised, Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar, +learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the detenu has not +filed any bail application, the opinion of the Detaining Authority, regarding +the real possibility of coming out of bail, is imaginary and amounts to non- +application of mind. He also submitted that there is no cogent material to +arrive at such a decision. +

10. In response to the same and inviting the attention of this Court +to the periodicity of the crimes committed by the detenu, bails being granted +within the period of three months and the recurrence of grave offences, like, +murder, attempt to murder, etc., Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public +Prosecutor, submitted that the detenu has obtained bail in four adverse cases +in Cr.Nos.868/2010, 85/2012, 729/2012 and 432/2012 and only in one adverse +case and ground case, he has not filed any bail application. He further +submitted that no sooner, the detenu is released in one adverse case, +involving even a serious offence, under Section 302 IPC, within a short span +of time, another murder has been committed by the detenu along with his +associates. Out of five adverse cases, two cases relate to murder and other +two, relate to attempt to murder and one to set ablaze a vehicle. +

+

11. Inviting the attention of this Court to the antecedents of the +detenu, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the detenu has +been indulging in the acts, prejudicial to the maintenance of the public +peace and public order and recourse to normal law, would not have the +desired result, in preventing him from indulging in such activities, and +therefore, the detention order has been passed. He therefore submitted that +though no bail application was filed in the ground case, the subjective +satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority, to brand the detenu as +goonda, cannot be said to be erroneous. Likelihood of bail considered by the +Detaining Authority, clearly indicates that after some time, there is +possibility of coming out on bail. Reliance has been placed on G.Reddeiah v. +Government of A.P., reported in 2012 (2) SCC 389. For the abovesaid reasons, +he prayed for dismissal of the petition. +

+

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the +materials available on record. +

+ +

12. The detenu, Suthan, has come to adverse notice in the following +cases: +

+
Sl. +
No. +Police Station Cr.No. +Section of Law. +
Gist of the case and present stage +1 +Kottar P.S.Cr.No.868/2010 u/s 147, 148, 149,. 120-B, 341, 294, 302, 341, +294(b), 302 IPC r/2 3(1) of TNPP(D&L) Act 1982 @ 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 302, +120-BM IPC & 391) of TNPP(D&L) Act +Dated 07.07.2010 + +On 07.07.2010 at about 18.30 hrs in front of Rajelekshmij Hospital, +Erulappapuram, when one Manikandan @ Iyappan, S/o.Gangadharan, Sivancoil St, +Erulappapuram was standing with the car, the accused Thiru.Suthan alogn with +his six close associates in a criminal conspiracy, formed themselves armed +with deadly weapon, wrong fully restrained, abysed filthy words and assaulted +him with Vettaruvals, brutally and caused his death and also damaged the car +driven by him to a tune of Rs.50,000/-. On seeing this incident, the public +moving along the road and the nearby shopkeepers went to secure the accused +but he threatened them showing the Vettaruval. On seeing their ferocious +activities, the public ran helter-skelter out of fear and panic. In the +midst, the accused went away with the weapons in the vehicle in which they +came. On the strength of the complaint Tr.Kutti @ Ramesh S/o.Kangadharan +Sivancoil St, Erulappapuram, a case in Kottar P.S. Cr.No.868/2010 u/s 147, +148, 149, 120-B, 341, 294(b), 302 IPC r/w 3(i) of TNPP(D&L) Act 1982 was +registered and investigated. The case was charge sheeted u/s 147, 148, +294(b), 341, 302, 120-B, IPC & 3(i) of TNPP(D&L) Act on 02.04.2013 and is +P.T. in PRC No.8/2013 before the J.M I, Nagercoil. He filed a bail petition +in Crl.M.P.No.4377/2010 before J.M.I. Court, Nagercoil and released on +condition bail on 13.10.2010 + + +
2. +Kottar P.S. Cr.No.85/12 +

U/s.147, 148, 342, 302 IPC @ 147, 148, 341, 342, 302 r/w. 149 IPC, +Dt. 16.1.2012 +On 16.01.2012 at 15.30 Hours one Sathiskumar (23), S/o.Sekar, Opp., to CSI +Church, Erulappapuram was proceeding infront of V.N.Colony, South +Erulappapuram, the accused Kannan with his close associates formed themselves +in to unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons brutally and murdered him. +On the strength of the complaint of Tr.Sekar, Erulappapuram, a case in Kottar +PS Cr.No.85/2012, U/s.147, 148, 342, 302 IPC @ 147, 148, 341, 342, 302 IPC +r/w.149 IPC, ws registered and investigated on behalf of the accused. A bail +petition has been filed in Crl.O.P.No.3293 of 2012 before Madurai Bench of +Madras High Court and released on condition bail on 17.04.2012. The case in +Kottar P.S. Cr.No.85 of 2012 was charge sheeted on 13.07.2012 and is P.T in +PRC.No.7 of 2013, in Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil. +

3. +Suchindrum P.S. Cr.No.729 of 2012 +U/s.147, 148, 324, 307, 302 IPC @ 147, 148, 120-B, 109, 302, 307 IPC, dated +27.09.2012 +On 27.09.2012 at about 7.30 P.M., in Thengampudhur TASMAC Bar, when one +Chandra Mohan, S/o.Muthu Nadar, Panikankudieruppu, Thengampudhur was sitting +in the bar, the accused Kannan and his 11 close associates formed themselves +in to unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons assaulted and killed him +and also killed Bar Servant Ramar who tied to save Chandra Mohan and +assaulted one Madhu with Vettaruval with the intention to kill him. On the +strength of the complaint TASMAC Bar Cashier Jayakumar a case in Suchindrum +PS Cr.No.729/2012 U/s.147, 148, 324, 307, 302 IPC @ 147, 148, 120-b, 109, +302, 307 IPC was registered and investigated. On behalf of the accused, a +bail petition has been filed in Crl.M.P.No.174 of 2013 in the District +Session Court, Nagercoil and released on condition bail on 09.01.2013. The +case in Suchindrum P.S. In Cr.No.729 of 2012 was charge sheeted on 29.05.2013 +and is P.T. In PRC.10/2014 in JM.III Court, Nagercoil. +

4. +Rajakkam,angalam PS Cr.No.432/2012 +U/s.294(b), 387, 307, 506(ii) @ 294(b) 394/397, 506(ii) IPC, dated 02/10/2012 +On 02.10.2012 at about 17.30 hrs one Suyambulingam S/o/.Thangamuthu, Santhi +Nilayam Road, Paruthivilai was standing at Ganapathipuram Junction with his +friend Thangasamy. The accused Thiru.Sutham came with deadly weapon and +demanded Rs.500/- for his expenses. But the above Suyambulingam was refused +to give it, so the accused Thiru.Suthan abused, threatened, assaulted him +with Vettaruval and robbed Rs.100/- from him. On the strength of the +complaint of Suyambulingam, a case in Rajakkamangalam P.S. Cr.No.432/2012 +under Sections 294(b), 387, 307, 506(ii) IPC was registered and investigated. +The case was charge sheeted under Section 294(b), 394/397, 506(ii) IPC was +registered and investigated. The case was charge sheeted u/s 294(b), 394, +397, 506(ii) IPC on 16.11.2012 and is P.T. before the I Additional Sessions +Court, Nagercoil, in SC.No.5/2013. He filed a bail petition before the +Principal Sessions Court, Nagercoil, in Crl.M.P.No.659/2013 and released on +conditional bail on 15.04.2013. +

5. +Kottur PS Cr.No.29/14 +U/s.436 IPC, dated 12.01.2014 +On 12.01.2014 at about 02.30 A.M., at Erulappapuram the accused Kannan and +his two associates set ablazed the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 21 Q +6946 TATA Sumo of one Radhakrishnan, S/o.Elayaperumal, Erulappapuram by using +Petrol. On the strength of the complaint of Radhakrishnan, S/o.Elayaperumal +of Erulappapuram a case in Kottar P.S. Cr.No.29/2014, U/s.436 IPC was +registered. Case is under investigation. +

+

13. Apart from the above, on 21.03.2014, around 01.30 P.M, the detenu +is alleged to have threatened one Sathish, S/o.Ravi and assaulted with knife, +at Paruthivilai Bus Stop and robbed Rs.1,00/- from him. Based on the +complaint from the said Sathish, a case in Cr.No.132 of 2014, under Sections +294(b), 387, 307, 506(ii) IPC, has been registered on 21.03.2014 and it is +pending. The detenu has been arrested on 21.03.2014 and remanded to judicial +custody upto 04.04.2014. +

+

14. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public +Prosecutor, for the first occurrence, that has taken place on 07.07.2010, the +detenu has been granted bail on 13.10.2010, in Crl.M.P.No.4377 of 2010, just +after three months, from the date of occurrence. In the abovesaid Crime, +charge sheet has been filed on 02.04.2012 in PRC.No.8 of 2013, on the file of +Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil. Again, on 16.01.2012, one +Tr.Sathiskumar is alleged to have been murdered by the detenu and his close +associates. In this regard, a case in Cr.No.85 of 2012, has been registered +in Kottar Police Station, for the offences, under Sections 147, 148, 342, 302 +IPC @ 147, 148, 341, 342, 302 r/w 149 IPC. This is the 2nd adverse case, +where a charge sheet has been filed on 13.07.2012 in PRC.No.7 of 2013, on the +file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil. Even before charge sheet has +been filed, the detenu has been granted bail on 17.04.2012 in Crl.M.P.No.1229 +of 2012, on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Nagercoil. +

+

15. On 27.09.2012, another occurrence has been taken place, in which, +two persons, viz., Chandramohan and Ramar have been killed. In this regard, +a case in Cr.No.729 of 2012, has been registered by Suchindrum Police +Station, for the offences, under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302 IPC @ 147, +148, 120-B, 109, 302, 307 IPC. +

+

16. Within five days, on 02.10.2012, the detenu has been alleged to +have involved in another crime, registered in Cr.No.432 of 2012, by +Rajakkamangalam Police Station, for the offences, under Sections 294(b), 387, +307, 506(ii) IPC @ 294(b), 394/397 and 506(ii) IPC. In Cr.No.729 of 2012, +the detenu has been released on bail on 12.04.2013, by the Principal Sessions +Court, Nagercoil, in Crl.M.P.No.223 of 2013. In Cr.No.432 of 2012, the +detenu has been released on conditional bail on 15.04.2013. Only in the last +adverse case and ground case, the detenu has not moved any bail application. +

+

17. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public +Prosecutor, proximity and potentiality of the detenu in committing offences, +which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, in quick +succession, one after another, whenever he is at large and that too, heinous +crimes like murder and other crimes, is clear. Track record of the detenu +and the periodicity, in which, he has been granted bail, would make any +reasonable man to think that when the detenu has been released, even in +cases, involving grave crimes, like murder, within a short period of custody, +there is always a possibility of likelihood of release on bail, after +sometime, if bail applications are filed. +

+

18. The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority +on this aspect, cannot be said to be unreasonable, or beyond the +comprehension of any reasonable person. Consideration of the bail orders +granted even in grave offences and the habituality and continuity of the +offences, even though recourse to normal law is taken, are cogent materials, +relevant to arrive at the subjective satisfaction of any reasonable man to +think that there is a possibility of coming out on bail, if bail applications +are filed. We have addressed this issue, in our recent judgment in Mariappan +vs. District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, +(HCP.No.244 of 2014, dated 18.08.2014) and the said decision, squarely +applies to this case also. Extract of some passages of the said decision +would be relevant for this case also. +

?83.One of the important factors to be considered by the detaining +authority, under the detention laws, is that, recourse to normal law, did not +have the desired result of preventing a person from committing acts +prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and such satisfaction should +be arrived at, on the basis of antecedents and in such circumstances, the +detaining authority should be aware, as to whether, the detenue is on bail or +in jail. If he is in custody, then there is a necessity to consider, as to +whether there is any likelihood of bail, and the subjective satisfaction +should be, as to whether, he would continue to act in a prejudicial manner, +in future, if he is allowed to remain at large. +

+

84.Merely because there was pending prosecution and the detenu is +already in jail, there is no impediment for his being detained, if the +detaining authority is satisfied that, if he is allowed to remain at large, +he would indulge in prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. While +testing the aspect of subjective satisfaction, arrived at, by the Detaining +Authority, Court has to examine, as to whether, the grounds, on which, the +Detaining Authority, has reached the subjective satisfaction, are reasonable. +

+

85.Thus while examining, as to whether, the subjective satisfaction, +arrived at, by the Detaining Authority, is proper, what is required to be +considered, by the Court is, whether, the subjective satisfaction, is based +on any pertinent material, existence of which are relevant, for any +reasonable person, to arrive at the conclusion, on the aspect of bail also. +

+

86.On the aspect of bail, when the Detaining Authority considers orders +of bail, granted in similar cases, then, the order of detention satisfies the +test, that the subjective satisfaction arrived at, by the detaining authority +is what a reasonable person, could possibly arrive at, on the basis of the +materials. Courts cannot substitute its opinion for that of the Detaining +Authority. Court can only consider, as to whether the requisite satisfaction +arrived at by the detaining authority, is reasonable. +

+

87.Reasonableness is the course, which reason dictates. It may be +construed as converse of unreasonableness, the mind of what an ordinary +prudent and reasonable man would reach, with regard to the materials. What +the Court feels reasonable, while considering an application for bail, either +to release a person or not, may not be the same, as what the executive +thinks. In the case of detention, the Detaining Authority, being an +executive authority, is not expected to test every material placed before +him, with a high degree of evidence, with judicial standards, not only on the +aspect of bail, but with respect to all materials placed before him, to +arrive at a subjective satisfaction. Purpose of relying on a material, is to +arrive at a conclusion, as to whether, the detenu would indulge in acts, +prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and if allowed to remain at +large, he would continue to do so. In that context, awareness of the +detaining authority, as to whether, the detenu is on bail or in custody, is +relevant. Conclusion of likelihood of release, on the basis of relevant +material, is a state of mind, as to what a reasonable man, would reach. His +satisfaction on the above aspect, should be reasonable, rational and just. +

+

88.If the detaining authority arrives at a satisfaction, on the aspect +of possibility of release, on such bona fide satisfaction, the court has to +examine as to whether there was any material to arrive at a legitimate and +reasonable conclusion. As regards satisfaction, it is only, if the material +considered by the detaining authority is that, no reasonable person could be +satisfied that the detenue is likely to be released, then, there can be an +inference that, irrelevant material has been considered. It is well settled +that the test applied to the word, ?reasonable?, in the context of detention +laws, should be reasonable satisfaction, with reference to all the materials +considered. Reasonable conclusion is arrived at on a definite fact, which is +sufficient in the mind of the detaining authority, and it should not be the +ipse dixit. +

+

89.Court has to consider, as to whether, the detaining authority has +relied on any, inchoate material, while arriving at the subjective +satisfaction. While examining as to whether subjective satisfaction has been +arrived at, on the basis of rationality, materials that existed, relevancy of +the same, can be tested only on the anvil of reasonableness. Propensity and +potentiality of the person to indulge in activities prejudicial to the +maintenance of public order in future, is the primary consideration, for +detaining a person under the detention laws. +

+

90.The conclusion of the Detaining Authority that if the detenu is +allowed to remain at large would continue to indulge in acts, prejudicial to +the maintenance of public order and recourse to normal law, did not have the +desired effect of preventing him from doing such acts, is the foundation of +basic facts and therefore, the Detaining Authority is obligated to consider +the possibility of the detenue, coming out on bail and continue to indulge in +such acts. Such a satisfaction is based on the materials considered. +

+

91.Proximity of the antecedent activities, effect on the detenue, when +recourse to normal law was taken and ultimately, the decision to prevent him +from doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order, is the +foundation. +

+

92.Courts can only examine the grounds disclosed by the detaining +authority, as to whether they are relevant to the object, for which, the +detention is made (i.e) to prevent him, in future from indulging prejudicial +activities. Satisfaction is subjective in nature, and such satisfaction, if +based on relevant grounds or facts, cannot be said to be irrational. When +detention is passed to prevent a person from indulging in prejudicial +activities, jail or bail, is certainly a factor, for arriving at the +subjective satisfaction. The subjective satisfaction mainly rests on the +antecedents and as to how recourse to penal law, did not have the desired +effect, for preventing him, in future from indulging prejudicial activities. +

+ +

93.At paragraph 40 in State of Maharashtra and others vs. Bhaurao +Punjabrao Gawande, reported in 2008 (3) SCC 613, the Supreme Court held that +an order of detention can be challenged on certain grounds, which is +reproduced hereunder:- +

?40. An order of detention can be challenged on certain grounds, such +as, the order is not passed by the competent authority; condition precedent +for the exercise of power does not exist; subjective satisfaction arrived at +by the detaining authority is irrational; the order is mala fide; there is +non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the +order; the grounds are, or one of the grounds is, vague, indefinite, +irrelevant, extraneous, non-existent or stale; the order is belated; the +person against whom an order is passed is already in jail; the order is +punitive in nature; the order is not approved by the State/Central Government +as required by law; failure to refer the case of the detenu to the Board +constituted under the statute; the order was quashed/revoked and again a +fresh order of detention was made without new facts, etc.? +
+

94.It is to be accepted that while arriving at the subjective +satisfaction of possibility of bail, there should be cogent material before +the detaining authority. Inference should be drawn from the available +material on record and it should not be the ipse dixit of the detaining +authority. Mere making a statement of likelihood of moving an application +for bail and thus, arriving at a satisfaction that there is a possibility of +bail, is certainly, different from considering some materials, when a bail +application is not filed, filed and pending or dismissed. In this regard, it +is the duty of the detaining authority, to apply his mind to the materials +considered, as to whether they are relevant, to arrive at the subjective +satisfaction. +

+

95.For arriving at the subjective satisfaction, antecedents and nature +of the activities carried out by the person, are required to be taken into +consideration and it is also well settled that an order of preventive +detention is founded on reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of the +person, based on his past conduct, judged in the light of the surrounding +circumstances. At the same time, the court is bound to protect the citizen's +personal liberty, which is guaranteed under the Constitution. +

+

96.Court is not to consider objectively, as to how imminent is the +likelihood of the detenu, in indulging in activities prejudicial to the +maintenance of the public order. It is the subjective satisfaction of the +Detaining Authority, to arrive at the conclusion. When the overall materials +are considered by the detaining authority, then, the Court has to consider, +as to whether, detention has been validly made. Whether the materials taken +into consideration by the detaining authority, are sufficient or not, to +arrive at the conclusion, is not for the court, to decide, by applying an +objective test, as it is a matter for subjective satisfaction of the +detaining authority. If an investigation is undertaken by the court to +examine the sufficiency of the material, for arriving at the subjective +satisfaction, then, in our humble view, it would be amounting to substitution +of satisfaction, arrived at by the detaining authority. What is required to +be considered by the courts is whether the subjective satisfaction, is duly +supported by any material. Relevancy can be tested. +

+

97.It is suffice that the detaining authority is satisfied about the +genuineness of the documents, relevant for the purpose of arriving at the +satisfaction. He should not consider extraneous matters, and that his +decision, should not be unlawful, mala fide, excess of jurisdiction and +contrary to the procedure established by law. Subjective satisfaction, +should be on the basis of materials, by which a person with a clear mind, +would arrive at a reasonable conclusion, as to whether a person should be +detained. +

+

98.Subjective satisfaction to prevent a person from indulging in future +prejudicial activities inferred from antecedents, is of higher degree, in the +matter of enforcement of preventive laws, and which is the basic foundation +and foremost requirement, to pass an order of detention. In that context, +bail or jail, is another factor to be considered, in relation to the above. +Aspect of bail, only supplements the paramount basic conclusion. +

+

99.When prevention laws are based on jurisdiction of suspicion, with +reference to the reasonability that is arrived at, on the basis of +antecedents, the detaining authority should be given a latitude to consider +the possibility of coming out on bail, on the basis of materials, which are +relevant. +

+

100.Purpose of considering bail orders, passed in similar cases, is +only to arrive at the conclusion, as to whether there is any possibility of +the person in custody, be released on bail. At this juncture, we are +conscious of the fact that there cannot be any absolute immunity, to the +order passed by the detaining authority, but we only to wish reiterate that +the limitations imposed, should be, to find out, as to whether, materials +considered by the Detaining Authority, are relevant or not. If the detaining +authority is precluded from considering the possibility of the person coming +out on bail, by taking note of the bail orders passed in similar cases (i.e) +in respect of similar offences, then we wish to state that, his wings would +be clipped. The question is not sufficiency or adequacy, of the material, but +relevancy. If relevancy has to be considered as, ?sufficiency or adequacy?, +by closer scrutiny, with judicial approach and by applying judicial +standards, when an application for bail is normally considered by Courts, +vis-a-vis, the detaining authority, who exercises executive functions, and in +exercise of judicial review, if the grounds of subjective satisfaction is +tested with judicial standards, then, in our humble view, it may lead to +substitution, which the Courts have consistently avoided. +

+

101.Subjective satisfaction should be based on the existing material, +relevant, to arrive at a satisfaction. If the Detaining Authority, with a +clear application of mind to the documents, without any mala fide intention, +without reference to any extraneous matters, takes into consideration +materials, which have a bearing and passes an order of detention, then the +materials considered by the detaining authority, cannot be wholly excluded. +

+

102.When preventive laws are based on ?jurisdiction of suspicion? and +when subjective satisfaction is arrived at, with reference to reasonability, +on the basis of antecedents and when the Detaining Authority has bonafidely +intended to prevent a person, from indulging in acts, prejudicial to the +maintenance of public order, then the detaining authority should be given a +latitude to consider the materials, which are relevant, to assess the +possibility of the detenue, coming out on bail. But such materials should +germane, relevant, not vague, extraneous, indefinite, and non-existent. The +jurisdiction to interfere with the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining +Authority, should be limited and it should not, in effect convert, +?relevancy of the material considered by him?, into ?sufficiency or +adequacy?. +

+

103.It is one thing to state that the detaining authority has +considered a material, which is totally irrelevant, and another, to observe +that the material considered by him, is not sufficient to arrive at the +conclusion. Material considered, may not be adequate or sufficient, but +still, it could be relevant. Court cannot predict, as to what material, the +detaining authority is expected to consider, as relevant. But that can be +tested. +

+

104.When the detaining authority has considered the issue, as to +whether there is a possibility of the detenue of release, by considering the +previous orders passed in similar cases, then, the same cannot be discarded, +by holding that the detaining authority has prejudged or predetermined the +issue, on bail. Detention order is the final outcome of considering all the +materials placed before the detaining authority and when the order is +questioned, then the limitation on the Court, should be with reference to the +reasonableness, real and genuine satisfaction. +

+

105.In a given case, if bail application is pending, there can also be +a contention that the said bail application can be opposed and therefore, +there is no need to pass an order of detention. +

+

106.In yet another case, even if bail is granted still, it could be +still argued that the Investigating Officer, may seek for cancellation of +bail, instead of invoking the preventive law. But the point to be considered +before detaining a person, is whether the detaining authority was aware, as +to whether, the person against whom detention order is passed, is in judicial +custody or not, whether the acts committed by him, are prejudicial to the +maintenance of public order and whether such a person, if allowed to be +remain at large would continue to commit such acts, in future, whether there +was any compelling necessity and therefore, he must be prevented. +

+

107.Therefore, the first and foremost consideration in the two parts of +the subjective satisfaction is, (1) prevention of crime, and (2) the +detaining authority should be aware, as to whether, the person against whom, +detention is passed, is in judicial custody or not. Power to pass an order, +stem from the satisfaction of the detaining authority, with respect to a +person, with a view to prevent him, from indulging in activities, prejudicial +to the maintenance of public order. Therefore, it is not for the Court to +sit in judgment over the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority +and to consider whether the materials are sufficient or adequate, for making +an order of detention. +

+

108.Scrutiny should be restricted, as to whether, material exists and +whether they are relevant, for a reasonable man, to take into consideration +and arrive at a reasonable conclusion. While examining the correctness of +the detention, the paramount consideration should be to test whether the +decision taken by the detaining authority is to achieve the object and that +the same should not be ignored, limiting the scrutiny only to the aspect of +bail. Likelihood for bail, without there being any material would certainly +be a sweeping bald statement, or in other words, a ipsi dixit statement. +When relevant materials are considered, then, in the humble opinion of this +Court, it cannot be said that, interference drawn by the detaining authority +is extraneous. When the object of the Act, being to prevent a person from +indulging in activities, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and +the authority, is only an executive, then, the standards applied to test +relevancy, should be limited only to subjective standards, to which a +reasonable man, could arrive at, on the basis of materials. +

+

109.A document can be said to be relevant and material in a given case, +when it is likely to bear an opinion on the detaining authority, in one way +or another. What is relevant is decided by logical and experience. +Standard and degree of test is different, if sufficiency has to be +considered. Relevant in detention laws, should be construed to mean, +logically connected and having a tendency in the mind of the detaining +authority to take into consideration, for invoking detention. That which +persuades a reasonable man to think about the probability or possibility or +both, as to whether the detenu would indulge in prejudicial activities, if he +is allowed to remain at large. Adequacy or sufficiency of reasons, are +distinct from relevancy. Relevancy must relate to the standards of belief of +a reasonable man. +

+

110.Determination on the aspect of bail, in our humble opinion, should +not, outweigh the subjective satisfaction on the possibility of recurrence of +crime, if the person is allowed to remain at large. Judicial review should +be restricted to consider, as to whether, there are relevant materials, to +support a decision. When preventive law is invoked, the test should be +reasonableness, and Courts have to address, as to whether, there is a +reasonable nexus, to the grounds, and the material considered, by the +detaining authority. An order of detention can be set aside, if there are no +materials, but if materials are considered, then the sufficiency or adequacy, +should not be gone into by the Court. If the subjective satisfaction arrived +at, by the detaining authority, satisfy rationality, logic, reasonableness, +nexus, to the ground and documents, then, in the light of the object, sought +to be achieved under the Preventive Laws, interference with the subjective +satisfaction, should be limited. +

+

111.The Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Masood Alam vs. Union of +India, reported in AIR 1973 SC 897 (Three Judges Bench), held that, if the +detaining authority is of the opinion on grounds, which are germane and +relevant that it is necessary to detain a person from acting prejudicially, +then, it is not for the Supreme Court to consider objectively, how imminent +is the likelihood of the detenu indulging in prejudicial activities. When +contentions were raised regarding detaining a person in custody, the Apex +Court held that it is without merit. The Larger Bench of the Apex Court +further observed that it has to be borne in mind, that it is always the past +conduct, activities or the antecedent history of a person, which the +detaining authority takes into account in making detention order. +

+

112.In Khudiram Das vs. The State of West Bengal and others, reported +in 1975 (2) SCC 81, (Four Judges Bench), the decision in Machindar vs. King, +reported in AIR 1950 SC 129, was considered and the Apex Court observed that +the grounds, on which, the satisfaction is based must be, such a rational +human being can consider with the fact, in respect of which, the satisfaction +is reached. They must be relevant to the subject matter of enquiry and must +not be extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute. After considering +the comparative scope of judicial review, on the grounds of satisfaction, in +America, England and India, the Apex Court observed that in England and +India, Courts Stop ? Short, at merely inquiring, whether the grounds, on +which, the detaining authority has reached the subjective satisfaction, are +such that any reasonable person could arrive at such satisfaction. In yet +another Three Judges Bench judgment, in Ram Bali Rajbhar vs. State of West +Bengal, reported in 1975 (4) SCC 47, the Apex Court, reiterated that the +courts have to carefully avoid, substituting our own view about what is +enough for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authorities, with +which, inference could be justified, only, if it is clear that no reasonable +person could possibly be, satisfied about the need to detain, on the grounds +given, in which case, the detention would be in excess of the power to +detain. +

+

113. In State of Orissa vs. Manilal Singhania, reported in 1976 (2) +SCC 808, a Three Judges Bench Judgement, the Apex Court held that the +limited jurisdiction possessed by the High Court was to examine whether the +subjective satisfaction reached by the District Magistrate was based on no +material at all, or was such no reasonable person would arrive at, on the +basis of the material placed before him. +

+

114.In State of Gujarat vs. Kasam Bhaya, reported in 1981 (4) SCC 216, +the Apex Court held that,?the High Court in its writ jurisdiction under +Article 226 of the Constitution is to see whether the order of detention has +been passed on any materials before it. If it is found that the order has +been based by the detaining authority on materials on record, then the Court +cannot go further and examine whether the material was adequate or not, which +is the function of an appellate authority or Court. It can examine the +material on record only for the purpose of seeing whether the order of +detention has been based on no material. The satisfaction mentioned in +Section 3 of the Act is the satisfaction of the detaining authority and not +of the Court.? +

+

115.In Additional Secretary to Government of India vs. Alka Subash +Gadia, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 496, at paragraphs 12 and 13, a Three +Judge Bench of the Apex Court, held as follows:- +

"12. This is not to say that the jurisdiction of the High Court and the +Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 32 respectively has no role to play once +the detention ? punitive or preventive ? is shown to have been made under the +law so made for the purpose. This is to point out the limitations which the +High Court and the Supreme Court have to observe while exercising their +respective jurisdiction in such cases. These limitations are normal and well +known, and are self-imposed as a matter of prudence, propriety, policy and +practice and are observed while dealing with cases under all laws. Though the +Constitution does not place any restriction on these powers, the judicial +decisions have evolved them over a period of years taking into consideration +the nature of the right infringed or threatened to be infringed, the scope +and object of the legislation or of the order or decision complained of, the +need to balance the rights and interests of the individual as against those +of the society, the circumstances under which and the persons by whom the +jurisdiction is invoked, the nature of relief sought etc. To illustrate these +limitations: (i) in the exercise of their discretionary jurisdiction the High +Court and the Supreme Court do not, as courts of appeal or revision, correct +mere errors of law or of facts; (ii) the resort to the said jurisdiction is +not permitted as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained by +suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Where it is open to the aggrieved +person to move another tribunal or even itself in another jurisdiction for +obtaining redress in the manner provided in the statute, the Court does not, +by exercising the writ jurisdiction, permit the machinery created by the +statute to be by-passed; (iii) it does not generally enter upon the +determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence +to establish the right to enforce which, the writ is claimed; (iv) it does +not interfere on the merits with the determination of the issues made by the +authority invested with statutory power, particularly when they relate to +matters calling for expertise, unless there are exceptional circumstances +calling for judicial intervention, such as, where the determination is mala +fide or is prompted by extraneous considerations or is made in contravention +of the principles of natural justice or any constitutional provision; (v) the +Court may also intervene where (a) the authority acting under the concerned +law does not have the requisite authority or the order which is purported to +have been passed under the law is not warranted or is in breach of the +provisions of the concerned law or the person against whom the action is +taken is not the person against whom the order is directed; or (b) where the +authority has exceeded its powers or jurisdiction or has failed or refused to +exercise jurisdiction vested in it; or (c) where the authority has not +applied its mind at all or has exercised its power dishonestly or for an +improper purpose; (vi) where the Court cannot grant a final relief, the Court +does not entertain petition only for giving interim relief. If the Court is +of opinion that there is no other convenient or efficacious remedy open to +the petitioner, it will proceed to investigate the case on its merits and if +the Court finds that there is an infringement of the petitioner?s legal +rights, it will grant final relief but will not dispose of the petition only +by granting interim relief; (vii) where the satisfaction of the authority is +subjective, the Court intervenes when the authority has acted under the +dictates of another body or when the conclusion is arrived at by the +application of a wrong test or misconstruction of a statute or it is not +based on material which is of a rationally probative value and relevant to +the subject matter in respect of which the authority is to satisfy itself. If +again the satisfaction is arrived at by taking into consideration material +which the authority properly could not, or by omitting to consider matters +which it ought to have, the Court interferes with the resultant order; (viii) +In proper cases the Court also intervenes when some legal or fundamental +right of the individual is seriously threatened, though not actually invaded. +
13. These limitations are not only equally observed by the High Court and +the Supreme Court while exercising their writ jurisdiction in preventive +detention matters, but in view of the object for which the detention law is +enacted and is permitted by the Constitution to be enacted, the courts are +more circumspect in observing them while exercising their said extraordinary +equitable and discretionary power in these cases. While explaining the nature +of the detention law and of the orders passed under it and the scope of the +powers of the Court in these matters, this Court has often emphasised the +distinction between the existence of its wide powers and the propriety and +desirability of using them." +
+

116.On the aspect of satisfaction, The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Krishna Iyer, +in Sadhu Roy vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 1975 (1) SCC 660, states +that the satisfaction though attenuated by ?subjectivity?, it must be real +and rational, not random, must flow from an advertence to relevant factors, +not be a mock recital or mechanical chant of statutorily sanctioned phrases. +His Lordship has further said that one test to check upon the colourable +nature or mindless mood of the alleged satisfaction of the authority is to +see, if the articulated grounds are too groundless to induce credence in any +reasonable man or too frivolous to be brushed aside as fictitious by a +responsible instrumentality. +

+ +

117.As regards judicial precedents, in Union of India v. +K.S.Subramanian, reported in AIR 1976 SC 2433, the Supreme Court, held as +follows: +

"The proper course for a High Court is to try to find out and follow +the opinions expressed by larger benches of the Supreme Court in reference to +those expressed by smaller benches of the Court. That is the practice +followed by the Supreme Court itself. The practice has now crystallized into +a rule of law declared by the Supreme Court." +
+

118.In The State of U.P., v. Ram Chandra Trivedi reported in 1976 (4) +SCC 52, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 22, held as follows: +

"It is also to be borne in mind that even in cases where a High Court +finds any conflict between the views expressed by larger and smaller benches +of this Court, it cannot disregard or skirt the views expressed by the larger +benches. The proper course for a High Court in such a case, as observed by +this Court in Union of India and Anr. v. K.S. Subramanian [(1977) I LLJ 5 +(SC)] to which one of us was a party, is to try to find out and follow the +opinion expressed by larger benches of this Court in preference to those +expressed by smaller benches of the Court which practice, hardened as it has +into a rule of law is followed by this Court itself." +
+ +

119.It is also to be noted that when the validity of detention orders +were tested in A.K.Gopalan vs. State of Madras, (Six Judges Bench Judgment) +reported in 1950 AIR (SC) 27, and Dr.N.B.Khare vs. State of Delhi, (Five +Judges Bench Judgment) reported in 1950 AIR (SC) 211, the Constitutional +Benches of the Apex Court tested the validity of the legislation and +detention orders, on the principles of reasonable restrictions and +reasonableness. In our humble opinion, the principle equally applies, when a +detention order is tested on the aspect of subjective satisfaction. +

+

120.In the light of the discussion and decisions considered, we are of +the humble opinion that the detaining authority cannot be found fault with, +if he had considered bail orders passed in similar cases, to arrive at the +subjective satisfaction. But the relevancy of the said orders can be +examined, on facts and circumstances of each case.? +

+

19. In G.Reddeiah v. Government of A.P., reported in 2012 (2) SCC 389 +[Decided on 09.09.2011], in a two Judges Bench judgment, the detenu therein +was involved in offences, under the Andra Pradesh Act, 1967, A.P. Sandal Wood +and Red Sanders Transit Rules, 1969 and Indian Penal Code. Recourse to +normal penal laws, did not have the desired effect. On 10.11.2010, he was +released on bail. Immediately, thereafter, he was arrested and detention +order was served on 12.11.2009, by the District Collector and District +Magistrate, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District under Sections 3(1) and 2 (a) and (b) of +the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, +Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers +Act, 1986 (in short "the 1986 Act") stating that the activities of the detenu +were dangerous to forest wealth and forest eco-system and thus, are +prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order of detention was +approved and later on, confirmed. Writ Petition for issuance of Habeas +Corpus was dismissed. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel +for the detenu, before the Supreme Court was that on even though the detenu +was arrested on 09.10.2010 and released on bail on 10.11.2010, the aspect +that the detenu was in custody till 10.11.2010 was neither specifically +adverted and considered in the detention order, nor the Sponsoring Authority, +placed any material, regarding the same. Adverting to the abovesaid +contention, the Apex Court considered the decision in Union of India v. Paul +Manickam and Another [2003 (8) SCC 342], wherein, at Paragraph 14, the Apex +Court, held as follows: +

?14.....Where detention orders are passed in relation to persons who +are already in jail under some other laws, the detaining authorities should +apply their mind and show their awareness in this regard in the grounds of +detention, the chances of release of such persons on bail. The necessity of +keeping such persons in detention under the preventive detention laws has to +be clearly indicated. Subsisting custody of the detenu by itself does not +invalidate an order of his preventive detention, and the decision in this +regard must depend on the facts of the particular case. Preventive detention +being necessary to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial +to the security of the State or to the maintenance of public order or +economic stability etc. ordinarily, it is not needed when the detenu is +already in custody. The detaining authority must show its awareness to the +fact of subsisting custody of the detenu and take that factor into account +while making the order. If the detaining authority is reasonably satisfied +with cogent materials that there is likelihood of his release and in view of +his antecedent activities which are proximate in point of time, he must be +detained in order to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial +activities, the detention order can be validly made. Where the detention +order in respect of a person already in custody does not indicate that the +detenu was likely to be released on bail, the order would be vitiated. The +point was gone into detail in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India [1991 (1) SCC +128]. The Principles were set out as follows: even in the case of a person +in custody, a detention order can be validly passed: (1) if the authority +passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; (2) if +he has a reason to believe on the basis of reliable material placed before +him (a) that there is a real possibility of his release on bail, and (b) that +on being released, he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial +activities; and (3) if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from +so doing. If an order is passed after recording satisfaction in that regard, +the order would be valid. In the case at hand the order of detention and +grounds of detention show an awareness of custody and/or a possibility of +release on bail." +
+

20. At Paragraph 17, in G.Reddeiah's case, on the facts and +circumstances, the Supreme Court, further held that it is clear that if the +Detaining Authority was aware of the relevant fact that the detenu was under +

the custody from 09.10.2010 and he would be released or likelihood of release +or as in this case, released on 10.11.2010 and if an order is passed, after +due satisfaction in this regard, undoubtedly, the order would be valid. +However, upon consideration of the material on record, the Apex Court +observed that the said contention was not raised anywhere. +
+

21. Antecedents make it abundantly clear that the detenu is +habitually committing heinous crimes, every time when is at large, despite +recourse to normal criminal law is taken. It is not a solitary incident +against the detenu, but continuity or habituality in committing the crimes, +is per se apparent on the face of record. As stated supra, the detenu has +come out on bail, even in a murder case, within the short period of time. +Therefore, having regard to the antecedents and the track record, the +subjective satisfaction of the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate +that the detenu has been involved in notorious activities, like rioting +followed by causing injuries, assaulting human persons with deadly weapons, +damaging public properties, murder, attempt to murder and threatening the +local public, by showing deadly weapons with dire consequences and thus had +acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and +public peace and that the recourse to normal law, would not have the desired +result, except clamping the detenu, branding him as a Goonda, cannot, at any +stretch of imagination, be said to be unreasonable or imaginary, as contended +by the petitioner. +

+

22. For the abovesaid reasons, we are of the view that there is no +error in passing the order of detention and hence, this Court is not inclined +to interfere with the same. +

+

23. In view of the above, this Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed. +No costs. +

+

To +

1. The Secretary to Government, + Prohibition and Excise Department, + Secretariat, Chennai. +

+

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, + Kanyakumari District + at Nagercoil. +



+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_125430456.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_125430456.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..300147701a6825fc0c7d74a82e22710c9986966e --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_125430456.html @@ -0,0 +1,516 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 24 May, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

- 15 - +

+

Section 307 IPC was inserted prior to it on 20.02.2024 + + and these bail applications were rejected by Learned + + Trial Court on 29.02.2024, on the ground, that the + + + + + . +

bail petitioners, have suppressed factum of insertion + + + + + + of Section 307 IPC in their bail applications ; coupled + + + + + + with the fact that the offence was grave/serious + + by deadly weapons and the fact that one of the + + + + + + weapon (Sword) has been recovered clearly points + + out, towards the intention of the bail petitioners to + + commit the offence and since the investigation was + + at nascent stage, therefore, grant of pre-arrest bail + + would have prejudiced the investigation, therefore, the + + + + Learned Trial Court dismissed the bail applications of + + the bail petitioners on 29.02.2024. +

+
+ +
+ +

ANALYSIS OF ORDER DATED 29.02.2024 + [Annexure P-2] PASSED BY LEARNED TRIAL + COURT-REJECTING BAIL APPLICATIONS: +

+

10. Though + + originally the FIR + + dated 20.1.2024 was registered under Sections 147, + + + 148, 149, 323 and 506 IPC, but keeping in view + + the medical opinion, gravity of offence, the nature of + + + injuries which were grievous in nature and dangerous + + to life, Section 307 IPC was inserted/added to the + + + + + aforesaid FIR on 20.02.2024, yet the bail petitioners + + + + + + filed the bail applications before Learned Trial Court + + + + + + i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, on 21.02.2024 + + without disclosing factum of Section 307 IPC having + + been inserted/added to the aforesaid FIR. All six bail + + application(s) were rejected by the Learned Trial Court + + + + + +

+
+ +
+
12 The most disturbing feature in this bail + + + + + application is that the bail applicant has + + + + + + misled this court while obtaining pre + arrest. Police report suggests that Section + 307 IPC had already been invoked against + + + + + + bail applicant and others on 20.02.2024 + and this application was admittedly + moved on 21.02.2024 and bail applicant + did not mention this fact in this application. + Thus, they are not entitled to relief from this + court on this count as well. +
+
+ +
+ +

19(ii). Mr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, Learned Senior + + Counsel, contends that another FIR No. 161 of 2022, + + dated 01.06.2022, was registered by one of the bail + + petitioners, namely, Satish Kumar, under Sections 341, + + + + 323 and 506 IPC, cannot be of any avail to the bail + + petitioners when, the aforesaid FIR, nowhere indicates + + + + + that the alleged offences were against or in the context + + + + + + of the complainant [Sandeep Kumar] and two friends, + + + + + + Neema and Kulbir, as in the instant case. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_127688972.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_127688972.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5f669b1dc862da7c5df0d8a3e1d6753ced840e70 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_127688972.html @@ -0,0 +1,371 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Mohd. Khalid vs State Of Up on 27 March, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

3. Learned Special Judge, E.C. Act, Lucknow vide order dated 09.03.2016 rejected the bail application No. 578 of 2016 moved on behalf of Mohd. Khalid. +

+

4. Bail Application moved by Allwyn Bruce Lecil D'sa was rejected by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Lucknow vide order dated 17.06.2013 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1543 of 2013 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Section 3/5/25/30 Arms Act and under Sections 121A, 122 I.P.C. bail application has been rejected vide order dated 11.07.2013 by Sessions Judge, Lucknow. +

+
+ +
+ +

32. Likewise, this Court vide order dated 30.09.2013 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 4820 (B) of 2013 granted bail to co-accused Gurcharan Singh Bhalla, father of co-accused Amit Pal Singh. The State Government again preferred SLP No. 5193 of 2014 before Hon'ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 08.10.2014 bail granted to co-accused Gurcharan Singh Bhalla was cancelled by Hon'ble Supreme Court. This Court vide order dated 24.07.2014 passed in C.M.C. No. 3080 of 2014 has denied bail to co-accused Kallu Sharma for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 121, 122 I.P.C. and Arms Act, whereas bail was granted to Kallu Sharma by trial Court in Crime No. 01 of 2013. Accused Kallu Sharma filed SLP before Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed with the observation that trial Court may conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. +

+
+ +
+ +

93. It is further submitted that Bail Application No. 4652 of 2014 was moved on behalf of accused on the basis of FIR of Crime No. 01/2013 for the offences mentioned in it and after addition of offences punishable under Section 121-A and 122 IPC, he moved Bail Application No. 5982 of 2015. His bail applications are pending for about three years. On the basis of period of his detention for five years he should be released on bail in the interest of justice. +

+

94. Accused Mantoo Sharma @ Sanjay Singh moved applications personally on 28.01.2017 and on 04.01.2018, which are being considered along with his above mentioned two bail applications moved by his counsel. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_127775745.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_127775745.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f744823bf203415b3bd6c11937fa9c6e16d89739 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_127775745.html @@ -0,0 +1,439 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + R D Patil @ Rudragouda vs The State on 13 December, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Criminal Petition No.201625/2023 is filed by the + +petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.295/2023 registered by + +University Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 34, 37 of + +IPC and Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2008 + +(for short, hereinafter referred to as 'IT Act') + + +

2. Criminal Petition No.201627/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner who is accused No.1 under Section 438 of + +Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.267/2023 + +registered by Afzalpur Police Station, Kalaburagi District, for + +the offences punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, + +420, 34, 36, 37, 149 of IPC. +

+
+ +
+ +

+

3. Criminal Petition No.201738/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + + + + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.144/2023 registered by + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

4. Criminal Petition No.201736/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.145/2023 registered by + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

+
+ +
+

5. Criminal Petition No.201735/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.146/2023 registered by + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

6. Criminal Petition No.201734/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.147/2023 registered by + + + + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_12811501.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_12811501.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7b1da48bdad39a472f4b321fd8d2962581ca3af7 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_12811501.html @@ -0,0 +1,383 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Uday Sarup vs State Of Up And Another on 2 May, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

4.3-Thereafter, on 23.07.2013, investigation of the said case was transferred to C.B.I. and on 27.7.2013, CBI registered the FIR bearing RC No. 7(S)2013/CBI/SCIII/ND. +

+

4.4- By order dated 10.02.2014, applicant was granted bail under Sections 302, 376 r/w 511 I.P.C. by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2357 of 2013 and on 14.02.2014, he was released from jail. +

+

4.5-During investigation by C.B.I., Rohit Yadav denied to be an eye witness of the incident, therefore C.B.I. dropped his name and after completing the investigation relying upon the CDFD Report dated 09.07.2014, submitted supplementary charge sheet under Section 173 (8) dated 31.12.2015 under Section 302, 376 and 201 IPC against the applicant. +

+
+ +
+ +

4.11-On 2.6.2020, applicant has preferred the aforesaid second bail application No. 13278 of 2020 before this Court under Sections 376, 201 I.P.C. and after rejection of bail application of the applicant under Section 376A I.P.C. on 12.04.2024 by the trial Court, he preferred first Bail Application No. 16011 of 2024 under Sections 376A I.P.C. +

+

5-Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been in jail for a total period of more than 8 and half years and after taking into custody in newly added section he is in jail since 12.5.2016, but till date his trial has not been completed. It is also pointed out that till date from the side of the applicant only five adjournments have been taken in last eight and a half years. Earlier from 12.02.2014 to 11.05.2016, the applicant was on bail and he did not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit, therefore, considering the long detention of the applicant, he may be enlarged on bail. Much emphasis has been given by contending that in case applicant is not released on bail he will be deprived of leading his defence evidence in his favour. Lastly, it is submitted that the passport of the applicant has already been deposited in the Court. Now there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process. Since all the prosecution witnesses have been examined, therefore now there is no occasion of tampering with the prosecution evidence and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the early disposal of the trial. +

+
+ +
+ +

8.3-In Chintan Vidyasagar Upadhyay (Supra), the petitioner is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 302, 396, 201, 109 and 120B read with 34 of the IPC. The application for bail filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court on 21.12.2020. Aggrieved thereby, he filed Special Leave Petition. The Supreme Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the record, while granting bail to the accused, held that the petitioner is in custody for nearly 6 years, the trial is proceedings and 28 witnesses have been examined and 12 witnesses are yet to be examined. +

+
+ +
+ +
(v) After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet under Sections 302, 376 and 511 I.P.C. Thereafter C.B.I. submitted supplementary charge sheet under Section 302, 376 and 201 IPC. Subsequently during trial Section 376A IPC has also been added against the applicant by the trial Court. +
+
(vi) The applicant is already on bail under Section 302 IPC vide order dated 10.02.2014 of the High Court and the said order has not been cancelled or set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. +
+
(vii) The prosecution case is mainly based on CDFD report dated 09.07.2014 and as per DNA report following two evidences have come on record against the applicant. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_128274054.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_128274054.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..16d28599caf0b5564fe0103be701ae2cde0eb96c --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_128274054.html @@ -0,0 +1,385 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + A.Kamala vs The State on 9 August, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

27. The detenu is in remand in CCB, CCD-I Crime No.158 of 2024 + + and he has moved Bail Application in the above case before the Court of + + Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB and CBCID. Cases in Sl.No.608 of 2024 + + and the bail petition were pending on the date of passing the Detention + + Order. Since in the similar case in CCB Crime No.66 of 2023 under Sections + + + +https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis + + + 420 IPC @ 406, 420, 465, 468, read with 120(B) of IPC, bail was granted to + + the accused concerned in a similar case, the Detaining Authority has inferred + + that it is very likely of the detenu will be released on bail in the ground case + + at the time of disposal of pending bail application. The bail order in a similar + + case has been considered and discussed on the grounds of detention only + + with a view to justifying the possibility of the detenu being released on bail + + in the ground case at the time of disposal of the pending bail application. + + Hence, the Detaining Authority has raised his apprehension on the grounds + + of detention. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_128366366.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_128366366.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dcd13c8ca9ab907e687dedd0c9f37a074731a337 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_128366366.html @@ -0,0 +1,1514 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ramu vs State Of U.P. on 7 August, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
Sr. No. + +Case Title + +Particulars of Case + +Under Sections + +In Jail Since + +Date of rejection of bail by trial court + +Date of filing of bail before the High Court + +Date of grant of bail by the High Court + +
1. + +

Krishna Kumar@ K.K. Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29984 of 2018 + +Sections 302, 201, 377 IPC + +02.11.2011 + +25.07.2012 + +07.08.2018 + +20.12.2023 + + + + + +Akil Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31440 of 2023 + +Sections 147, 148,149, 452, 302,307, 34, 120B IPC + +19.04.2012 + +13.07.2022 + +10.07.2023 + +Interim bail on 26.07.2023 + + + +Bail on + +20.12.2023 + + + + + +Kanhaiya Pal Vs State of UP + +Cri. Misc. Bail Application No. 47521 of 2023 + +Section 302 IPC + +06.12.2013 + +05.03.2014 + +31.10.2023 + +25.01.2024 + +Sr. No. + +Case Title + +Particulars of Case + +Under Sections + +In Jail Since + +Date of rejection of bail by trial court + +Date of filing of bail before the High Court + +Date of grant of bail by the High Court + + + +Vinesh vs State of U.P. + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17643 of 2024 + +Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B IPC + +30.04.2014 + +10.10.2022 + +30.04.2024 + +Interim Bail 18.07.2024 + +Bail on 07.08.2024 + + +Mukesh Vs. State of U.P. + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12832 of 2024 + +Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 506, 504, 120B IPC + +02.01.2016 + +17.03.2021 + +11.03.2024 + +09.07.2024 + + + +Ramandeep Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Revision Defective No. 848 of 2023 + +Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC + +As per custody report, applicant is in jail for 5 years, 5 months and 3 days + +Appeal was dismissed on 22.09.2022 + +03.01.2023 + +14.06.2023 + + + +Ramandeep Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Revision Defective No. 849 of 2023 + +Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC + +As per custody report, applicant is in jail for 5 years, 10 months and 24 days + +Appeal was dismissed on 23.09.2022 + +02.06.2023 + +14.06.2023 + + + +Ramandeep Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Revision Defective No. 850 of 2023 + +Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC + +As per custody report, applicant is in jail for 4 years, 9 months + +Appeal was dismissed on 23.09.2022 + +02.06.2023 + +14.06.2023 + + + +Mintu vs State of U.P. + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6287 of 2024 + +Sections 302, 307, 394, 411, 34 IPC + +03.05.2016 + +29.11.2023. +

+
+ +
+ +

13.02.2024 + +Interim Bail on 24.7.2024 + +Bail on 07.08.2024 + + + +Daya Ram Vs. State of U.P. + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13523 of 2024 + +Sections 302, 34 IPC + +28.08.2016 + +31.10.2023 + +02.01.2024 + +15.07.2024 + + + +Akash Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38204 of 2022 + +Section 307 IPC + +05.10.2016 + +22.07.2022 + +05.08.2022 + +11.01.2023 + + + +Sunil Kumar Alias Chuhi Alias Sandeep Kumar + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19701 of 2024 + +Sections 394, 302, 412 IPC + +10.10.2016 + +23.12.2022 + +23.04.2024 + +Interim Bail on + +19.07.2024 + +Bail on 07.08.2024 + + + +Sanjeev Joshi Vs. State of U.P. + +Criminal Mic. Bail Application No. 22230 of 2024 + +Sections 302, 120B, 506 IPC + +25.12.2016 + +17.10.2022 + +02.05.2024 + +16.07.2024 + + + +Irshad vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail App. 15389 of 2024 + +Sections 302, 452, 506, 34 IPC + +06.02.2017 + +04.05.2023 + +16.04.2024 + + 15.07.2024 + + + + + + + +Sr. No. + +Case Title + +Particulars of Case + +Under Sections + +In Jail Since + +Date of rejection of bail by trial court + +Date of filing of bail before the High Court + +Date of grant of bail by the High Court + + + +Titu vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail App. 18960 of 2024 + +Sections 302, 201 IPC + +10.08.2017 + +01.02.2024 + +01.05.2024 + +Interim Bail on 19.07.2024 + +Bail on 07.08.2024 + + + +Ashik Vs. State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12175 of 2024 + +Sections 302, 34, 504, 506 + +18.10.2017 + +06.01.2018 + +20.03.2024 + +15.07.2024 + + + + + + + + + +Rehan @ Rihan vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20315 of 2024 + +Sections 302, 201 IPC + +29.12.2017 + +29.04.2024 + +16.05.2024 + +08.07.2024 + + + +Matthu Kahar vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24262 of 2024 + +Sections 376D, 506 IPC, Section 3(2) 5 S.C./S.T. Act and Section 5/6 POCSO Act + +31.01.2018 + +22.04.2024 + +24.06.2024 + +30.07.2024 + + + +Arjun Nishad Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2187 of 2024 + +Section 302 IPC + +22.05.2018 + +16.11.2023 + +17.01.2024 + +23.02.2024 + + + +Anand alias Lakkad vs State of U.P. + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22386 of 2024 + +Section 341,307,302,34 and 504 IPC + +04.12.2018 + +25.03.2019 + +28.05.2024 + + 19.07.2024 + + + +Sanjeev Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42220 of 2022 + +Section 498A, 304B, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act + +10.06.2018. +

+
+ +
+ +

04.01.2019 + +15.09.2022 + +Interim bail on 11.07.2023 + +bail on + + + +20.12.2023 + + + +Sachin Vs. State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17484 of 2024 + +Sections 302, 120B, 34 IPC + +22.09.2018 + +08.01.2024 + +26.04.2024 + +15.07.2024 + + + +Farookh @ Montu Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17291 of 2024 + +Sections 376(a)(b) IPC and 5/6 of POCSO Act + +01.11.2018 + +21.02.2024 + +26.04.2024 + +30.05.2024 + + + +Ravi Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53329 of 2023 + +Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B, 34 IPC + +02.11.2018 + +09.10.2023 + +06.12.2023 + +16.07.2024 + + + +Munna @ Jaheer Ansari Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1464 of 2023 + +Section 394 IPC + +19.11.2018 + +16.11.2022 + +03.01.2023 + +17.01.2023 + + + +Bhawani Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29480 of 2023 + +Sections 363, 376 IPC and S. ¾ POCSO Act + +28.11.2018 + +18.01.2023 + +28.06.2023 + +Interim bail 13.07.2023 + +Bail on + +20.12.2023 + + + +Bijendra Singh Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 51651 of 2022 + +Section 8/22 of NDPS Act + +17.12.2018 + +26.05.2022 + +09.11.2022 + +05.01.2023 + +Sr. No. + +Case Title + +Particulars of Case + +Under Sections + +In Jail Since + +Date of rejection of bail by trial court + +Date of filing of bail before the High Court + +Date of grant of bail by the High Court + + + +Sunita Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18902 of 2024 + +Sections 302, 201 IPC + +29.12.2018 + +22.02.2023 + +08.05.2024 + +09.07.2024 + + + +Pramod Kumar vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17888 of 2024 + +Sections 498-A, 304, 302 IPC + +25.01.2019 + +16.02.2024 + +03.05.2024 + +Interim bail on 19.07.2024 + +Bail on 07.08.2024 + + + +Amarpal Vs. State of U.P. + +Criminal Misc, Bail Application No. 21189 of 2024 + +Sections 498A, 302 IPC + +20.03.2019 + +10.05.2024 + +20.05.2024 + +26.07.2024 + + + +Sanni Kumar Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14467 of 2024 + +Sections 323, 376, 506, 354A, 394, 411, 511 IPC + +20.03.2019 + +23.02.2024 + +04.04.2024 + +22.05.2024 + + + +Kamlesh Prajapati Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10153 of 2024 + +Sections 363, 366, 376, 368, 109 IPC and S.3 / 4 POCSO Act and S.3(2)(v) SC/ST Act + +01.05.2019 + +26.02.2020 + +04.03.2024 + +01.05.2024 + + + +Nurulhuda Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7583 of 2024 + +Sections 363, 366, 376D IPC and S. 5/6 of the POCSO Act + +24.06.2019 + +21.11.2023 + +05.01.2024 + +21.05.2024 + + + +Rupa Choursiya Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16716 of 2024 + +Sections 302, 201, 120B IPC + +26.07.2019 + +22.09.2019 + +25.04.2024 + +09.07.2024 + + + +Mohit @ Nemu + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 252 of 2024 + +Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC + +12.12.2019 + +27.09.2021 + +03.01.2024 + +23.07.2024 + + + +Dhanush Jogi Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17390 of 2021 + +Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 201 IPC and 10/14 DAA Act + +13.02.2020 + +20.03.2020 + +20.03.2021 + +Interim bail on 03.07.2023 + +Bail + +20.12.2023 + + + +Pintu @ Pankaj Yadav Vs. State of U.P. + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 297 of 2024 + +Sections 323, 504, 506, 308, 304 + +27.07.2020 + +29.11.2023 + +03.01.2024 + +23.07.2024 + + + +Smt. Aneeta Vs. State of U.P. + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12100 of 2024 + +Sections 302, 34 IPC + +17.09.2020 + +19.02.2024 + +07.03.2024 + +23.07.2024 + + + +Kirshan vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail App. 17810 of 2024 + +Sections 302, 34 IPC + +24.08.2020 + +10.11.2020 + +01.05.2024 + +08.07.2024 + + + +Laxman vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail App. 25159 of 2024 + +Sections 323, 504, 506, 325, 304 IPC + +16.02.2021 + +23.01.2024 + +01.07.2024 + +30.07.2024 + + + +Indrajeet @ Bhole Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 741 of 2024 + +Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and S. ¾ POCSOAct + +09.03.2021 + +04.04.2023 + +03.01.2024 + +27.05.2024 + +Sr. No. + +Case Title + +Particulars of Case + +Under Sections + +In Jail Since + +Date of rejection of bail by trial court + +Date of filing of bail before the High Court + +Date of grant of bail by the High Court + + + +Usha Devi vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail App. 20387 of 2024 + +Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC + +25.08.2021 + +02.03.2023 + +13.05.2024 + +08.07.2024 + + + +Ram Kishun Yadav @ Chaku @ Sanjay Yadav Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18349 of 2024 + +Sections 302, 201, 120B IPC + +25.08.2021 + +15.03.2024 + +03.05.2024 + +02.07.2024 + + + +Laxman Harijan Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13442 of 2024 + +Sections 376AB, 506 IPC and S. 5M/6 of POCSO Act + +08.11.2021 + +18.02.2022 + +28.03.2024 + +28.05.2024 + + + +Shiv karan Verma @ SikannaVs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35903 of 2022 + +Sections 354Kha, 504, 506 IPC and S. 9/10 of POCSO Act + +15.01.2022 + +07.04.2022 + +08.08.2022 + +28.01.2023 + + + +Jyoti Prasad urf Daroga Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12316 of 2024 + +Sections 363, 376 IPC and S. ¾ of POCSO Act + +02.03.2022 + +17.05.2022 + +21.03.2024 + +24.04.2024 + + + +Mohammad Wasim Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26321 of 2023 + +Sections 363, 366, 376, 323 IPC and S.3/4 POCSO Act + +08.06.2022 + +02.11.2022 + +06.06.2023 + +12.06.2023 + + Second bail or subsequent bails filed before this Court + +Sr. No. + +Case Title + +Particulars of Case + +Under Sections + +In Jail Since + +Date of rejection of bail by High Court + +Date of filing of bail before the High Court + +Date of grant of bail by the High Court + + + +Saleem @ Chhukali Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21823 of 2024 + +Sections 302, 323, 504 IPC + +20.06.2012 + +08.07.2022 + +28.05.2024 + +Interim bail on 01/08/2024 + +Bail on + +07.08.2024 + + + +Mumtaz vs State of U.P. + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14084 of 2024 + +Sections 302, 201 IPC + +06.05.2015 + +09.02.2017 + +22-03-2024 + +Interim Bail on 18.07.2024 + +Bail on + +07.08.2024 + + + +Gaurav @ Shilpi Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 54898 of 2022 + +Section 302 IPC + +07.10.2015 + +08.11.2022 + + + +24.11.2022 + +13.07.2023 + + + +Deepak Tiwari Vs. State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21468 of 2024 + + Section 302 IPC + +26.05.2016 + +18.11.2019 + +20.05.2024 + +05.08.2024 + + + +Jabbar Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2533 of 2023 + +Sections 363,366,328, 342,506,376-D IPC&5/6 + +POCSO Act + +08.08.2016 + +28.11.2017 + + + +12.01.2023 + +19.01.2024 + + + +Muneesh alias Khajanchi vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14678 of 2024 + +Sections 302, 120-B + +26.09.2016 + +20.07.2021 + +01.04.2024 + +Interim bail on 18.07.2024 + +Bail on 07.08.2024 + +Sr. No. + +Case Title + +Particulars of Case + +Under Sections + +In Jail Since + +Date of rejection of bail by trial court + +Date of filing of bail before the High Court + +Date of grant of bail by the High Court + + + +Abhimanyu Kol vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail App. 17144 of 2024 + +Sections 302, 504, 506, 34 IPC + +24.01.2017 + +08.07.2022 + + + +29.04.2024 + +08.07.2024 + + + +Lavkush Kol vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail App. 35716 of 2023 + +Sections 302, 504, 506, 34 IPC + +31.01.2017 + +12.01.2021 + + + +26.07.2023 + +21.2.2024 + + + +Lalit V. State of U.P. + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20268 of 2024 + +Sections 302 307, 147, 148, 149 IPC + +09.06.2018 + +28.07.2021 + +13.05.2024 + +16.07.2024 + + + +Gullan Alias Ajay vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail App. 16618 of 2024 + +Sections 302, 504, 120-B IPC + +21.01.2019 + +14.07.2022 + + + +16.04.2024 + +09.07.2024 + + + +Monu Kumar Jatav vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6880 of 2024 + +Section 304 IPC + +01.03.2019 + +21.07.2022 + +17-02-2024 + + + + 02.08.2024 + + + +Kamil Vs. State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16379 of 2024 + +Sections 364, 302, 201 IPC + +12.04.2019 + +16.07.2021 + +19.03.2024 + + 07.08.2024 + + + +Shivchandra Vs State of UP + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16606 of 2024 + +Sections 323, 324, 504, 304 IPC + +02.04.2020 + +01.09.2021 + + + +23.04.2024 + +09.07.2024 + + + + + +IV A. Right to seek bail and scope of bail jurisdiction + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_1307522.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_1307522.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cf936cef56ec0327e11789cb63cffe962748f9cb --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_1307522.html @@ -0,0 +1,377 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + K. Ram Reddy vs State Of A.P. & Anr. on 24 November, 1997 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
14. My enquiries revealed that, keeping in mind the above procedure and the method in making over the bail applications to the Additional Sessions Courts, some of the Advocates have resorted to certain types of malpractices to get their bail applications made over to any of the Additional District Courts of their choice. +
+
15. The Modus Operandi is - the Advocate files a bail application falsely mentioning that the offence alleged against the accused is one under Section 307 I.P.C. After it was made over to any of the Additional District Courts, the figures '307' are altered to 302 in the bail application/s wherever the figures '307' occur. In case of offence u/s. 376 IPC, they file bail applications initially mentioning that the offence committed in one u/s. 354 IPC. After it was made over to any of the Addl. District Courts, the figures '354' are altered to '376' in the application/s. +
+
+ +
+ +
In pursuance of their criminal conspiracy suppressing the earlier three bail applications, which were dismissed by the complainant earlier, A1 once again filed another bail application on behalf of A4 in Cr.M.P. No. 1086/96 on 21-5-1996 mentioning the Cr.No. as 91/96 falsely, instead of Cr.No. 97/96 u/s. 302. IPC, knowing that the said information is false and the earlier three bail application were dismissed, giving the + +impression that the bail application is filed for the first time. +
+
A4, the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 1086/96 is not an accused either in Cr.No.91/96 or Cr.No.96/96 of Karimnagar, II-Town Police Station. +
+
+ +
+ +
In pursuance of their conspiracy A5 and the I-Addl. Session Judge, who was in charge of the II-Addl. Sessions Judge helped Al, A2 and A4 by willfully and + +intentionally ignoring the dismissal of earlier three bail applications and the alterations in the bail application and the said Judge granted bail to A4 on 27-5-1996. By using as genuine a tampered and forged bail application the petitioner (A4) has been granted bail and thus benefited." +
+

The wrong mentioning of the Crime Nos. and Sections in IPC and their subsequent correction arc verifiable from the records. The non-mentioning of the earlier bail applications is also a verifiable fact. In some of the cases, it is seen that corrections of the Crime Nos. and Section in IPC were not carried out fully, and even then without full verification bails were granted. For instance in Calendar Case No. 4 of 1997, it is noticed that in Cr.M.P. No. 1724/96 filed for anticipatory bail, corrections were made only in the cause title and the prayer portion. The accused in that bail petition was actually involved in Crime No. 125/96 under Section 306 IPC but Crime No. 112/96 under Section 354 IPC was mentioned. Earlier the same accused who filed bail application in Cr.M.P. No. 1724/96, preferred Cr.M.P. No. 169 8/96. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_131299278.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_131299278.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..830404cccd6716d06cb0f4459eab37d58803db81 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_131299278.html @@ -0,0 +1,424 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Girdhar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:11536) on 7 March, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

4. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.69/2024) +

5. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.69/2024) +

6. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.69/2024) + + +

8. Concerned Police Station Shreekaranpur +

+
+ +
+

12. Date of passing of 21.10.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.14884/2023) + +

14. Concerned Police Station Kotwali Barmer +

15. District Barmer +

16. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 420 and 406 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.14885/2023) +

17. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.14885/2023) +

+
+ +
+

34. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.15296/2023) +

35. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.15296/2023) +

36. Date of passing of 22.11.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.15296/2023) + +

38. Concerned Police Station Pratap Nagar +

+
+ +
+

76. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.90/2024) +

77. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.90/2024) +

78. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.90/2024) + + +

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no + + case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his + + incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in + + the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the + + accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based + + on conjectures and surmises. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_131327486.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_131327486.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed8994fc3feb3a617fb102895b5881fa56b5123a --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_131327486.html @@ -0,0 +1,395 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ___________________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 19 June, 2017 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

- 11 - +

+

+ statement vis-à-vis medial evidence led on record in support of + + injuries caused on the person of PW-2. +

+

16. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion above, the + + + + + . +

+

revision petition is allowed. judgment passed by learned Sessions + + Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala (HP) on 13.2.2009 in Cr. Appeal No. + + + + + + 10-G/X/2006, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 9.1.2006, + + recorded by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, + + + + + + District Kangra, in Crl. Case No. 105-II/2001 is set aside. Petitioner + + Pawan Kumar is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections + + 451, 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC. Bail bonds furnished by + + + him are discharged. Fine amount, if any deposited by the petitioner + + Pawan Kumar is ordered to be refunded to him. Pending + + applications, if any, are disposed of. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_131337361.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_131337361.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cf9e1c5151579857e4fe354fa3624e3503d69cff --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_131337361.html @@ -0,0 +1,516 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 24 May, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

- 15 - +

+

Section 307 IPC was inserted prior to it on 20.02.2024 + + and these bail applications were rejected by Learned + + Trial Court on 29.02.2024, on the ground, that the + + + + + . +

bail petitioners, have suppressed factum of insertion + + + + + + of Section 307 IPC in their bail applications ; coupled + + + + + + with the fact that the offence was grave/serious + + by deadly weapons and the fact that one of the + + + + + + weapon (Sword) has been recovered clearly points + + out, towards the intention of the bail petitioners to + + commit the offence and since the investigation was + + at nascent stage, therefore, grant of pre-arrest bail + + would have prejudiced the investigation, therefore, the + + + + Learned Trial Court dismissed the bail applications of + + the bail petitioners on 29.02.2024. +

+
+ +
+ +

ANALYSIS OF ORDER DATED 29.02.2024 + [Annexure P-2] PASSED BY LEARNED TRIAL + COURT-REJECTING BAIL APPLICATIONS: +

+

10. Though + + originally the FIR + + dated 20.1.2024 was registered under Sections 147, + + + 148, 149, 323 and 506 IPC, but keeping in view + + the medical opinion, gravity of offence, the nature of + + + injuries which were grievous in nature and dangerous + + to life, Section 307 IPC was inserted/added to the + + + + + aforesaid FIR on 20.02.2024, yet the bail petitioners + + + + + + filed the bail applications before Learned Trial Court + + + + + + i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, on 21.02.2024 + + without disclosing factum of Section 307 IPC having + + been inserted/added to the aforesaid FIR. All six bail + + application(s) were rejected by the Learned Trial Court + + + + + +

+
+ +
+
12 The most disturbing feature in this bail + + + + + application is that the bail applicant has + + + + + + misled this court while obtaining pre + arrest. Police report suggests that Section + 307 IPC had already been invoked against + + + + + + bail applicant and others on 20.02.2024 + and this application was admittedly + moved on 21.02.2024 and bail applicant + did not mention this fact in this application. + Thus, they are not entitled to relief from this + court on this count as well. +
+
+ +
+ +

19(ii). Mr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, Learned Senior + + Counsel, contends that another FIR No. 161 of 2022, + + dated 01.06.2022, was registered by one of the bail + + petitioners, namely, Satish Kumar, under Sections 341, + + + + 323 and 506 IPC, cannot be of any avail to the bail + + petitioners when, the aforesaid FIR, nowhere indicates + + + + + that the alleged offences were against or in the context + + + + + + of the complainant [Sandeep Kumar] and two friends, + + + + + + Neema and Kulbir, as in the instant case. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_131610325.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_131610325.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fc81055e880750e7c168bfdf5a56f5dcd7f7aeee --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_131610325.html @@ -0,0 +1,366 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sri Harish @ Kale vs State By on 25 November, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

17. POINT No.3: In view of my findings point No.1 +and 2 and reasons stated there, 1 proceed to pass the +following: +

ORDER + + Acting under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. accused No.1- +Prakash @ Dabbal, accused No.3-Samiulla Khan, accused +No.4-Somashekara @ Soma @ Lambu Soma, accused +No.5-Nadeem @ Nadeem Khan are acquitted for the +offences punishable under Sec.399 and 402 of IPC. Bail +bonds of A1, A2 & AS stands cancelled here in. +
As the case against accused No.2 is splitted, no +order as to disposal of MO.1 to 5." +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_131789770.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_131789770.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e27a932d71a8e395637d9ced4a44449a0a3b7e69 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_131789770.html @@ -0,0 +1,455 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sundram Sarthi @ Sonadhari Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The petitioner is in custody for about 4 years. + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 665 of 2023 + + The instant Revision is filed by CICL himself, + + challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order, + + dated 9th of August, 2023, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2023 + + by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum- + + Children's Court, Banka. The CICL was arrested in connection + + with Banduwa Kurawa P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023, corresponding + + to G.R. No. 1202 of 2023, for the offences punishable under + + Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 + + of the Arms Act. However, later on, Sections 34 of the IPC and + + Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section + + 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes + + (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added. Prayer for + + bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Appeal in + + exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Juvenile + + Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter + + referred to as 'said Act') vide order, dated 15th of June, 2023. + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 687 of 2023 + + The petitioner/CICL was arrested in connection + + with Fesar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, + + 325, 307, 34, 504, 506 and 379 of the IPC along with his father + + and uncle. The petitioner prayed for regular bail before the JJB, + + Aurangabad. In JJB Case No. 932 of 2023, prayer for bail was + + rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 41 + + of 2023 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children's Court, + + Aurangabad. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal + + and affirmed the order of the JJB. The petitioner has assailed the + + said order of the Appellate Court on various grounds, specially + + on the ground that the father and uncle of the petitioner have + + already been granted bail for the same offence. + +
+
+ +
+

Reg. Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2024 + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + The petitioner was booked along with other major + + accused persons in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 237 of + + 2022, dated 13th of August, 2022, under Section 302 and 34 of + + the IPC. The petitioner being a CICL prayed for bail before the + + Juvenile Justice Board, but his prayer for bail was rejected. He + + preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the said Act before the + + learned Special Judge, Children's Court and the said appeal was + + also dismissed and the order of rejection of bail passed by the + + JJB was affirmed. It is stated by the petitioner that the accused + + persons who are major, namely, Sushil Kumar Yadav and Anil + + Yadav were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on + + 26th of April, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 4091 of 2023. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_1327304.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_1327304.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aa71d39f2700caf8b78b2d4612ee8c6c0584a1b2 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_1327304.html @@ -0,0 +1,366 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ujagar vs State Of U.P. on 29 January, 2010 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned +A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of +sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. +

The accused-appellants Pankaj Kumar Tewari and Rakesh +Kumar Tewari have been convicted in Sessions Trial No.82 of 2002 +(Case Crime No.383/2001) for the offence punishable under Section +323/34 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo one year's simple +imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment +of fine to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment and have +have been acquitted to the charge for the offence punishable under +Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C. Accused-appellants were on bail during +trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on +record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_132789945.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_132789945.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..92eb6bedb84aefe657bebf5d1a1e0302f3d8e425 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_132789945.html @@ -0,0 +1,424 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Girdhar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:11536) on 7 March, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

4. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.69/2024) +

5. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.69/2024) +

6. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.69/2024) + + +

8. Concerned Police Station Shreekaranpur +

+
+ +
+

12. Date of passing of 21.10.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.14884/2023) + +

14. Concerned Police Station Kotwali Barmer +

15. District Barmer +

16. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 420 and 406 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.14885/2023) +

17. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.14885/2023) +

+
+ +
+

34. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.15296/2023) +

35. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.15296/2023) +

36. Date of passing of 22.11.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.15296/2023) + +

38. Concerned Police Station Pratap Nagar +

+
+ +
+

76. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.90/2024) +

77. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.90/2024) +

78. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.90/2024) + + +

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no + + case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his + + incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in + + the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the + + accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based + + on conjectures and surmises. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_133031388.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_133031388.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..54a26b5a9140e48089df0bd0ee9c5e891c17c358 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_133031388.html @@ -0,0 +1,364 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Nitesh Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 April, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

2. Applicant Nitesh Kumar Singh has filed Criminal Misc. Bail cancellation application Nos. 302 of 2021, 188 of 2022 and 207 of 2022 under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail granted to opposite parties namely Shabal Singh @ Amritesh Singh, Hari Singh and Raj Narayan Pandey in Case Crime No. 167 of 2021 u/s 302, 120B IPC relating to Police Station Bairiya, District Ballia. +

+

3. Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 255 of 2022 is filed by the State of U.P. seeking cancellation of bail granted to opposite party/ accused Shabal Singh @ Amritesh Singh by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Ballia vide its order dated 05.08.2021 in the above noted case passed in Bail Application No. 1426/2021. +

+
+ +
+ +

21. In another case, he was falsely implicated which was registered as S.T. No. 133 of 2012 arising out of Crime No.49/2011, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 307, 342, 506 of IPC, Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi. In this case, he has been acquitted vide judgement and order dated 22.11.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Varanasi. +

+

22. So far as the criminal history of opposite party Hari Singh is concerned, in two cases, Case Crime No.167/2021 is the present case, and in Case Crime No.207/2021 under Section 506, 507 IPC he has already been granted bail. In the third case, Crime No. 128/2010 under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 427 IPC, Police Station Dokati, District Ballia, he is discharged by the court concerned. In the fourth case having Crime No.179/2006, under Sections 307, 302, 120B of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Bairiya Distirct Ballia, he is acquitted by the trial Court. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_133191469.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_133191469.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9fba822449d0d7dbe2cae85577bbc4d19525f7b5 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_133191469.html @@ -0,0 +1,387 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Amit vs State Of U.P. on 7 August, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail. +

+

The bail application of applicant Jaivinder Sharma in Case Crime No. 977 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Kankarkheda District Meerut, is rejected accordingly.? +

+

(ii). Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15926 of 2020 (Jaivindra Sharma Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 17.01.2023. +

+
+ +
+ +

?1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. +

+

2. Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. +

+

3. This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant with a prayed to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 977 of 2018, U/S 147, 148, 149, 324, 307, 302, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Kankarkhera, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial. His first bail application was rejected by Hon'ble Mr. (Retd.) Justice Harsh Kumar vide order dated 22.01.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1928 of 2019. +

+
+ +
+ +
"1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. +
+
2. Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. +
+
3. This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant with a prayed to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 977 of 2018, U/S 147, 148, 149, 324, 307, 302, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Kankarkhera, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial. His first bail application was rejected by Hon'ble Mr. (Retd.) Justice Harsh Kumar vide order dated 22.01.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1928 of 2019. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A I.P.C.. +
+
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_13367135.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_13367135.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed64a862a492bfa6266ed5e2b078c0f47729c209 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_13367135.html @@ -0,0 +1,2203 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Mohammad Gouse, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 34, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

+

Mohammad Gouse, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025

+ +
        THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
+
+
+CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475,
+
+ 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839,
+
+                     5920 and 9083 of 2024
+
+
+COMMON ORDER:
+ + +

Crl.P.No.5197 of 2024 + + + This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A32 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

2

+ + + + +

2. Sri N. Harinadh, learned Counsel for petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, + +learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- + +State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.4896 of 2024 + + +

3. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A46 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

4. Sri Mukkamalla Rama Swamy, the learned counsel for + +petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + 3 + + + + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5230 of 2024 + + +

5. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A35 and A51 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

6. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + 4 + + + + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5256 of 2024 + + +

7. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A43 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

8. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + 5 + + + + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.5367 of 2024 + + +

9. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A4 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

10. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 6 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5475 of 2024 + + +

11. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A64 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

12. Sri Karanki Yaswanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, the learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

7

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5487 of 2024 + + +

13. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A47 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

14. Ms.P.Srilatha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 8 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5503 of 2024 + + +

15. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A19 and A20 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

16. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 9 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5550 of 2024 + + +

17. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A2, A16, A37 and A45 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

18. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

10

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5553 of 2024 + + +

19. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A7 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

20. Sri Peta Gnana Teja, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 11 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5585 of 2024 + + +

21. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A1 and A67 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

22. Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

12

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5652 of 2024 + + +

23. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A15 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

24. Sri Chalasani Venkat, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

13

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5718 of 2024 + + +

25. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A8, A22, A36 and A68 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

26. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 14 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5724 of 2024 + + +

27. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A3 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

28. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

15

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5752 of 2024 + + +

29. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A31, A53 and A65 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime + +No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna + +District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections + +143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) + +of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

30. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

16

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5839 of 2024 + + +

31. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A55 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

32. Sri B.V Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 17 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5920 of 2024 + + +

33. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A6, A13, A14, A17, A27, A28, A30, A39, A42, A52, + +A54, A56, A61 and A69 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

34. Ms.V.Devi Satya Sri, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

18

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.9083 of 2024 + + +

35. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A75 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

36. Sri G.L.Nageswar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor + +appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments. + + +

37. In all the above bail petitions, detailed counters were filed + +by the respondent-State. +

19

+ + + + +

38. All these criminal petitions pertain to Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station. By these petitions these + +accused pray for pre-arrest bail. All these petitions were heard + +together and by this common order they shall be disposed of. + +The crime incident allegedly occurred on 20.02.2023. Upon a + +written information dated 22.02.2023 F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was + +registered. The scene of offence was Telugu Desam Party office, + +Gannavaram. Sri Mudunuri Satyavardhan belonging to Madiga + +caste, which is a scheduled caste, was computer operator + +working in Telugu Desam Party office and living in the said office. + + +

39. During the time when this crime incident allegedly occurred + +the party in power was YSR Congress Party. Investigation + +commenced and went on for some time. Thereafter there were + +general elections and the then opposition party/Telugu Desam + +Party came into power. Thereafter investigation continued + +further. The allegations and counter allegations in this case + +disclosed the rift between both the political parties. Petitioners + +contend that this is a case falsely alleged against them out of + +political vendetta. According to State, for political reasons there + +was inadequate investigation soon after commission of the + +offence. By the time this crime incident occurred Sri Vallabhaneni + 20 + + + + +Vamsi Mohan was Member of Legislative Assembly for + +Gannavaram Assembly Constituency. He is one of the accused + +in the present crime. +

+

+

40. The version of the prosecution is that on 18.02.2023 during + +afternoon hours a press meet was held by Sri Vallabhaneni + +Vamsi Mohan wherein he allegedly made certain insulting + +remarks as against Sri N.Chandrababu Naidu, Sri Nara Lokesh + +and their family members and used indecent language. In + +response to it, certain leaders of Telugu Desam Party conducted + +a press meeting on 19.02.2023 in the morning hours and + +condemned the statements made by the opponent political party + +people. +

+

+

41. In the above backdrop of facts, the crime incident allegedly + +occurred. It is stated that on 20.02.2023 at about 5:00 P.M. + +Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan went to Telugu Desam Party + +office and on noticing followers of Telugu Desam Party he caused + +enquiries about Mr. Pattabhi of Telugu Desam Party and warned + +them that they would finish Telugu Desam Party and left the + +place. +

21

+ + + + +

42. In the next 30 minutes at about 5:30 P.M. about 100 + +persons belonging to YSR Congress Party came to Telugu + +Desam Party office wielding sticks, stones, petrol bottles and + +various other arms and while hailing Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi + +Mohan they attacked the party office. They threw stones, entered + +into the party office and destroyed the furniture, broke two + +computers and two televisions and caused tremendous panic + +among everyone available there. In the first information report + +the de facto complainant was able to mention the names of 44 + +accused. It also made a mention about four named accused who + +came upon him and abused him by his caste name. The further + +case of the prosecution is that these hooligans caused chaos and + +some of them using their sticks and cricket playing wickets + +seriously damaged three cars/AP 39 K 1999, AP 16 DJ 9499 and + +TS 10 EC 4099. It is also stated that one Mr. Rabbani poured + +petrol on the car bearing No.AP 16 DA 5555 and lit fire to it. The + +version of the de facto complainant is that there were police + +people at the Telugu Desam Party office and they remained mute + +spectators. During investigation it was found that some of the + +accused made attempts to burn the party office as walls in one + +room were found with charred marks. +

22

+ + + + +

43. Investigation has been in progress. Some of the accused + +were arrested and were remanded to judicial custody. According + +to prosecution, at least 44 accused were absconding. After + +gaining contact with about 28 accused they were questioned + +about their mobile phones and only seven out of them + +surrendered their mobile phones and 20 of the accused furnished + +false information with regard to the instruments they used and + +their mobile numbers. +

+

+

44. During the investigation, CCTV footage was collected. + +When the crime incident occurred, various people captured it on + +their mobile phones and all such material was collected. Based + +on these investigative efforts, allegations are made against all + +these petitioners by the prosecution that they are all involved in + +this crime incident. +

+

+

45. Broadly stated all these petitioners raised the following + +contentions: +

+

+

 That there was unexplained delay in registration of crime. + + The incident occurred on 20.02.2023 and F.I.R. was + + registered on 22.02.2023. That around the same time and + + place certain incidents occurred which resulted in + 23 + + + + + registration of multiple F.I.Rs. and many of which disclosed + + accusation of criminal acts of followers of Telugu Desam + + Party as against members of YSR Congress Party + + members and this case is in a way a counter blast to Crime + + Nos.132 of 2023 and 133 of 2023. +
+
+  F.I.R. does not contain any allegations of overt acts against + + these petitioners. +
+
+  After change in political party in power witnesses were + + planted and false evidence is created. +
+
+  The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. were bailable and + + many of these petitioners were served with Section 41A + + Cr.P.C. notice. However, after the change of political + + Government police have unlawfully brought additional + + penal provisions to nullify the rightful reliefs available to the + + petitioners. +
+
+

46. Plethora of precedent is cited on behalf of the petitioners + +and on behalf of some of the accused meticulous written + +arguments are filed leaving one to wonder that this to pronounce + +a judgment as if it is one after trial. +

24

+ + + + +

47. The following significant aspects are required to be noticed: + + +

F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was registered for the offences + +punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435 and 506 read with + +149 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989'). Since caste atrocity was one of + +the offences alleged, on the instructions of Superintendent of + +Police, Krishna, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gannavaram + +took up investigation. After recording the statements of about six + +witnesses, the investigation officer found that the provisions of the + +Act, 1989 were not applicable. Therefore, he applied to the + +Superintendent of Police to accord permission to delete those + +provisions. By proceedings dated 04.07.2023 the Superintendent + +of Police granted such permission. Investigation went further and + +scores of witnesses were examined. Thereafter by way of an + +alteration memo dated 07.08.2024 the investigation agency got + +added Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989. It + +also added Sections 436, 450 and 452 I.P.C. It is also to be + +noticed that in this case so far there are 71 accused. + 25 + + + + +

48. Since in the present crime incident not only offences under + +the Indian Penal Code but also offences under the Act, 1989 are + +alleged, the forceful argument raised by the State is that + +anticipatory bail petitions are not maintainable by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. The further argument is + +that the High Court does not now possess concurrent original + +jurisdiction for bails as well as anticipatory bails and it has only + +appellate jurisdiction by virtue of Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and + +therefore, these petitions are to be dismissed. In such + +circumstances, this Court on 13.11.2024 requested the learned + +counsels on both sides to address arguments in that regard since + +the jurisdictional bar has arisen. +

+

+

49. Valiant submissions are made by the learned counsels for + +petitioners wherein references are made to Sections 18 and 18A + +of the Act, 1989 and precedent is cited to show that if there is no + +prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989 is + +made out, anticipatory bail could be considered. It is also argued + +that this Court in these petitions during hearing granted interim + +protection and therefore, the same may be made absolute since + +these petitioners have not violated anything thereafter. + 26 + + + + +

50. The point that falls for consideration is: + + +

"What is the effect of Section 14A of the Scheduled + + Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the concurrent original + + jurisdiction of the High Court in considering bails + + and anticipatory bails where offences under the Act, + + 1989 are involved? +
+
+POINT: +
+
+

51. Offences under the Act, 1989 can be taken cognizance of + +and tried and be disposed of by Special Courts and Exclusive + +Special Courts as provided in Section 14 of the Act, 1989. Those + +Courts since now empowered to take cognizance hold power to + +take remand of the accused and consider bails. There is no + +provision in the Act, 1989 adverting to the aspects that are to be + +considered by those Courts when they entertain bail petitions. + +Therefore, those Courts draw their powers from the Code of + +Criminal Procedure. Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal + +Procedure is headed as provisions as to bail and bonds. It + +consists of Sections 436 to 450. They refer to bail in cases of + +bailable offences and bail in cases of non-bailable offences. + 27 + + + + +Section 438 Cr.P.C. is given heading direction for grant of bail to + +person apprehending arrest. To the extent the said provision is + +required alone is extracted here: +

+
"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending + arrest: +
+
(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be + arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- +

bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the + Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the + event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that + Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the + following factors, namely:- +

+
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; + +
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to + whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on + conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; + +
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and + +
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of + injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so + arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an + interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail: + +
Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, + the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order + under this sub-Section or has rejected the application for + grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer + 28 + + + + + incharge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the + applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in + such application." +
+

52. Thus, as per the above provision, those accused who + +anticipate their arrest may seek pre-arrest bail and they could + +move such applications either before this Court or before the + +Court of Sessions. It is in the light of such a provision the + +petitioners have straightaway moved this Court for their prayers + +for pre-arrest bail. +

+

+

53. The first submission of the State is that in cases of caste + +atrocities anticipatory bails cannot be maintained by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. Those provisions read as + +below: +

+

+

"18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons + committing an offence under the Act.-- Nothing in + section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case + involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of + having committed an offence under this Act. + + 18A. No enquiry or approval required.--(1) For the + purposes of this Act,-- (a) preliminary enquiry shall not be + required for registration of a First Information Report against + any person; or + 29 + + + + +
(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the + arrest, if necessary, of any person, + + against whom an accusation of having committed an + offence under this Act has been made and no procedure + other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall + apply. +
+
(2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply + to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or + order or direction of any Court." +
+

54. The crisp response from the learned counsels for the + +petitioners is that the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would + +apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist + +pointing towards the commission of an offence under the Act, + +1989. If the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under + +the Act, 1989 are not disclosed on the prima facie reading of the + +allegations levelled in the complaint or F.I.R. then in such + +circumstances, the bar of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would not + +apply and the Courts would not be absolutely precluded from + +granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons. In justification of + +this argument they cited ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + +India in Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala1. + +1 + 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601 + 30 + + + + +

55. If one goes by the contentions of the learned counsel for + +petitioners this Court is to take a view whether the allegations in + +the F.I.R./written information of the de facto complainant prima + +facie disclose caste atrocity or not. However, according to the + +State, even such a view cannot be taken by this Court by virtue of + +interdict contained in Section 14A of the Act, 1989. Therefore, it + +is required to notice what this provision says. The provision reads + +as below: +

+

+

"14A. Appeals:--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained + in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an + appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not + being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an + Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and + on law. +
+
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section + (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, + 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court + against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive + Special Court granting or refusing bail. + + (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for + the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall + be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of + the judgment, sentence or order appealed from: Provided + that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry + of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the + 31 + + + + + appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal + within the period of ninety days: Provided further that no + appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of + one hundred and eighty days. +
+
(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far + as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months + from the date of admission of the appeal." + +

56. As per Sub-Section (2) of Section 14Aof the Act, the + +petitions for bail are to be considered by the Special Court and in + +the event of their granting or refusing to grant such bails the + +aggrieved can prefer an appeal before this Court. Thus, the + +concurrent jurisdiction for consideration of anticipatory bails + +provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C. stood excluded. It is not as + +though the aggrieved is deprived of all the remedies. After + +inviting an order on the bail petition from the Special Court the + +aggrieved is entitled to prefer an appeal before this Court in terms + +of Section 14A of the Act, 1989. In the case at hand, the + +petitioners have moved bail petitions straightaway before this + +Court. At any rate, what is before this Court is not an appeal + +against an order passed by the Special Court with reference to + +bails. It shall be stated that on the same subject matter High + +Court could not be said to possess concurrent original jurisdiction + 32 + + + + +as well as appellate jurisdiction. If one is to state that a bail is + +different from anticipatory bail the result is that in anticipatory + +bails this Court holds original jurisdiction and in regular bails it + +holds only appellate jurisdiction. Assuming that in a case a + +petition for anticipatory bail being moved before the Special Court + +resulted in dismissal, then according to the logic applied by the + +petitioners the petitions would have to move only another bail + +petition before this Court and not an appeal. Such logic is in + +violation of what is clearly provided in Section 14A of the Act, + +1989. It is to be seen that the question of bail presupposes + +detention or custody of the person. In a case where a person is + +arrested he prays for a regular bail. In cases of anticipatory bail + +in the event of granting the relief, it has no effect unless and until + +the accused is arrested. In other words, the order of anticipatory + +bail comes into effect only after a person is arrested and not + +otherwise. In contrast to regular bail, in cases of anticipatory bail + +the order is obtained in advance. In regular bails it was obtained + +after arrest. The timing at which a prayer is made, and an order + +is granted, have no relevance when it comes to operation of + +those orders as in both the cases they come into operation only in + +those cases where a person is arrested. In such view of the + 33 + + + + +matter the word bail used in Section 14A of the Act, 1989 + +encompasses regular bail as well as anticipatory bail. Therefore, + +it must be stated that an application for bail or anticipatory bail + +can be filed only before the Special Court or the Exclusive + +Special Court as the case may be and not before the High Court. + +An order granting or refusing bail or anticipatory bail by the + +Special Court or Exclusive Special Court can be assailed before + +this Court invoking its appellate jurisdiction provided in Section + +14A of the Act, 1989. This Court had deliberated these aspects + +on earlier occasions when similar questions were raised and it + +reached to the same conclusions and reference can be made to + +the following: +

+

+

1. Nakka Nagireddy v. State of A.P.2 + + +
2. Deepak Kumar Tala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh3. + + +

57. Similar conclusions were reached at by other High Courts. + +Reference can be made to the following: +

+

+

1. K.M.Basheer v. Rajani K.T.4 + +2 + 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5322 Order dated 11.11.2024 +3 + Order dated 22.10.2024 in Criminal Petition No.6487 of 2024 +4 + 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 472 + 34 + + + + +
2. Lokesh v. State of Karnataka5 + + +
3. In re Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 v. Nil6 + + +
4. Atul Rajput v. The State of Madhya Pradesh7 + + +

58. At the bar, for petitioners, Abhishek Awasthi v. State of + +U.P.8 is cited. That is a case where other subsections of Section + +14A of the Act, 1989 fell for consideration and the powers of the + +High Court were considered under Section 482 of Code of + +Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings. + +Finally, it was held that with a view to prevent the misuse or + +abuse of the Court or law, the High Court holds inherent + +jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. + +Such question is not available before this Court. Even otherwise + +a brief reference to what was stated by their Lordships in Shajan + +Skaria's case9 would be sufficient here. At paragraph No.49 their + +Lordships stated that if the accused puts forward the case of + +malicious prosecution on account of political or private vendetta + +5 + 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15742 +6 + 2018 SCC OnLine ALL 2087 +7 + Order dated 10.04.2024 in Crl.A.No.3261 of 2024 of the High Court of +Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur +8 + MANU/UP/4595/2024 + 35 + + + + +such aspects can be considered only by the High Court in + +exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code or + +in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the + +Constitution of India. However, powers under Section 438 of the + +Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised once the + +contents of the complaint/F.I.R. disclose a prima facie case. In + +fact, in that case Section 14A of the Act, 1989 did not come up for + +consideration since the anticipatory bail petition was first moved + +before the trial Court and as against those orders appeal was + +preferred before the High Court. +

+

+

59. The plethora of precedent cited before this Court is not with + +reference to Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and therefore any + +reference to those cherished principles of those rulings is not + +required. This Court refrains from delving into other facts and the + +principles of law governing anticipatory bails since any such + +discussion may unnecessarily prejudice the contentions of both + +sides when appropriate applications are filed before appropriate + +Courts for the reliefs or when the maters come up before this + +Court in appeal. +

+

9 + Supra 1 + 36 + + + + +

60. Learned counsel for petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5920 + +of 2024 argued that this very Bench on earlier occasions + +considered and granted anticipatory bail and therefore, the same + +benefit can be extended to the present petitioners. The attention + +of this Court is brought to Sri Settipalli Raghurami Reddy v. + +The State of Andhra Pradesh10 and Julakanti Brahma Reddy + +@ Brahma Nanda Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 11. In + +both those matters the question about Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 was never raised by either side and therefore, there was no + +occasion for this Court to express itself on that aspect of the + +matter. After those orders it was in October and November 2024 + +only this Court had occasion to consider Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 and accordingly decided the earlier referred Nakka + +Nagireddy's case12 and Deepak Kumar Tala's case13. + +Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions of the learned + +counsel for the petitioners. +

+

+

61. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition + +No.5920 of 2024 further argued that the investigating agency is + +10 + Order dated 23.07.2024 in Criminal Petition No.3807 of 2024 +11 + Order dated 13.08.2024 in Criminal Petition No.10005 of 2023 +12 + supra 2 +13 + supra 3 + 37 + + + + +not entitled to add new penal provisions and cited State of + +Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde14. That was a case + +where on written information police registered a crime and + +investigating into it and filed charge sheet specifying certain penal + +provisions. At that stage the informant filed a petition to add + +Sections 364, 394 and 398 I.P.C. The question arose about the + +powers of the Magistrate at that stage as to whether he can + +incorporate those penal provisions as requested by the informant + +in a charge sheet filed by the police. Their Lordships stated that + +allowing incorporation of new provisions into the charge sheet as + +requested by the written informant at that stage is impermissible. + +However, the Court which is to try the case has to consider the + +first information report and all the other material collected and + +take a decision to frame appropriate charges under all the + +relevant penal provisions. Thus, the cited ruling has no relevance + +to the present case at hand. In the case at hand, the + +investigating police, exercising their right of investigation, have + +found it appropriate that the material on record do attract various + +provisions which were not originally mentioned in the F.I.R. Such + +power cannot be questioned. Informant would only put forth the + +14 + AIR 2014 SC 620 + 38 + + + + +facts before the registering officer and the Station House Officer + +on receiving such information using his own diligence + +incorporates the relevant penal provisions in the F.I.R. During + +investigation certain facts may be found incorrect and certain new + +facts may have been discovered and certain new accused may + +have been found having connection with the crime. There can be + +no legal hurdle in that regard since investigation is a voyage of + +truth. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsels for + +petitioners that provisions under the Act, 1989 were brought into + +effect during investigation and therefore have to be discarded is + +an argument that cannot be sustained. It may be recorded here + +that even to begin with in the case at hand the F.I.R. mentioned + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989. At the present also + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989 are alleged by the + +prosecution. Simply because at one stage such penal provisions + +were dropped does not mean that at a later stage they cannot be + +brought in. The argument that the new addition was not granted + +by the Superintendent of Police cannot be countenanced since + +the method of investigation is sole prerogative of the investigation + +officer. For the above reasons, the point is answered against the + +petitioners. +

39

+ + + + +

62. In the result, all these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. It is + +made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate + +petitions for appropriate reliefs before the appropriate Court. In + +the event such petitions are filed, the Court where they are filed is + +to consider the petitions on judicial side and dispose of them in + +accordance with law. Any observations made herein are confined + +to these petitions and they have no bearing on the merits or + +demerits of the case on either side. +

+

________________________ + Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J +Date: 06.01.2025 +Ivd + 40 + + + + + THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR + + + + +CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475, + 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839, + 5920 and 9083 of 2024 + + + + + Date: 06.01.2025 + + + +Ivd +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_134568401.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_134568401.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..db07466318aed5fbaeb87c245379d273b79e9334 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_134568401.html @@ -0,0 +1,541 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Arvind Rajak vs State Of U.P. on 18 April, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

10. + +190/2018, u/s 380, 457, 411, 413, 414 IPC +Bail granted on 14.2.2020. +

+

11. + + + +281/2018, u/s 457, 380, 411, 413,414 IPC +Bail granted on 20.2.2019 + + + +

12. + +375/2018, u/s 457, 380, 411 IPC +Bail granted on 28.11.2018 + +

13. + +552/2018, u/s 457, 380, 411 IPC +Bail granted on 19.11.2018 + +

14. + +567/2018, u/s 380, 411 IPC +Bail granted on 19.11.2018 + + + +552/2018 u/s 457,380,411 IPC + + + +Bail granted on 19.11.18 + + + +

16. + +525/2018 u/s 457, 380, 411 IPC + +Bail granted on 29.11.2018 + +

+
+ +
+

17. + +283/2018, u/s 457, 380, 411 IPC +Bail granted on 05.02.2019 + +

18. + +515/2018, u/s 457, 380, 411 IPC +Bail granted on 28.11.2018 + +

19. + +777/2021 u/s 457, 389 IPC + +Bail granted. +

+

20. + +21/2018, U/S 457, 380, 411, 413, 414 IPC +Bail granted on 29.11.2018 + +

21. + +85/2018, u/s 457, 380, 411, 413, 414 IPC +Bail granted on 28.11.2018 + +

22. + +330/2018, u/s 392, 411 IPC +Bail granted on 07.03.2019. +

+

23. + +41/2018, u/s 457, 380, 411 IPC +Bail granted on 23.07.2019 + +

24. + +367/2018, u/s 41, 411, 413, 414 IPC +Bail granted on 19.06.2023 + +

+
+ +
+

33. + +154/2018, u/s 457, 380, 411, 413 IPC +Bail granted on 17.6.2023 + +

34. + +116/2017, u/s 457, 380, 411, 413 IPC +Bail granted on 19.6.2023 + +

35. + +502/2018, U/S 457, 380, 411 IPC +Bail granted on 23.8.2018 + +

36. + +316/2018, u/s 380, 411 IPC +Bail granted on 23.8.2018 + +

37. + +368/2021, u/s 457, 380 IPC +Bail granted on 12.10.2022 + +

38. + +270/2018, u/s 457, 380, 411, 413 IPC +Bail granted on 17.5.2023 + +

39. + +131/2018, u/s 457, 380, 411, 413 IPC +Bail granted on 19.6.2023 + +

40. + +360/2018, u/s 65, 67 IT Act & 124A, 501 IPC +Bail granted on 23.06.2018 + +

+
+ +
+

50. + +322/2018, u/s 380, 467 IPC +Bail granted + +

51. + +362/2018, u/s 25, 3 Arms Act +Bail granted + +

52. + +366/2018, u/s 41, 411, 413, 414 IPC +Bail granted + +

53. + +359/2018, u/s, 380 IPC +Bail granted + +

54. + +68/2018, u/s 380 IPC +Bail granted + +

55. + +428/2021, u/s 380, 497 IPC +Bail granted + +

56. + +313/2021, u/s 380, 457 IPC +Bail granted + +

57. + +407/2021, u/s 380, 457 IPC +Bail granted + +

58. + +410/2021, u/s 380, 457 IPC +Bail granted + +

59. + +444/2021, u/s 380, 457 IPC +Bail granted + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_134600448.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_134600448.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7596559cf36907500235c1d8c3979bf26626df76 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_134600448.html @@ -0,0 +1,376 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ashish Bhalla vs State on 6 February, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. BAIL APPLN.1004/2019 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking bail + in FIR No.116/2016, dated 05.03.2016, registered at Police Station Sarita + Vihar for offences under Sections 406/420/34 IPC. +

2. BAIL APPLN.1005/2019 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking bail + in FIR No.114/2016, dated 04.03.2016, registered at Police Station Sarita + Vihar for offences under Sections 420/34 IPC. +

+
+ +
+

3. BAIL APPLN.1007/2019 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking bail + in FIR No.64/2016, dated 23.05.2016, registered at Police Station Economic + Offences Wing for offences under Sections 406/409/420/120B IPC. +

4. Since all the three bail applications arise from a common set of facts, + with the consent of the parties, all the three bail applications are being + + + + + + + + decided by this common order. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_135190823.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_135190823.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..47b562fe970b8647e7522a8cad5d1e5d692bf0df --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_135190823.html @@ -0,0 +1,552 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Uttamkumar S/O. Chandrakant Wagh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 26 September, 2012 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

5. Adv. Mr. V.D. Salunke appearing for the applicants canvassed + that there are no cogent and overwhelming circumstances to cancel the + bail which was granted to the applicants earlier only because of inclusion + + + + + + of Section 420 of IPC in the FIR subsequently. It is also submitted that + there is no grievance of the respondent that the applicants misused the + liberty granted to them. It is further submitted that there is no question of + exercise of discretion while granting bail to the applicants earlier since the + offences alleged against them under Sections 4 and 5 of Bombay + + + + + + (5) Cri. Application No. 3622 / 2012 + + Prevention of Gambling Act are bailable. Moreover, it is further + contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants that even there is no + + + + + + change in circumstance which require the accused to be in custody except + inclusion of Section 420 of IPC in the FIR although there is no change in + + + + + + the contents of the FIR for the said inclusion. According to the learned + Counsel for the applicants, once bail is granted to the applicants, as + + + + + + mentioned herein above, same cannot be cancelled abruptly only on the + count of inclusion of Section 420 of IPC in the FIR. Learned Counsel for + the applicants strenuously contended that ingredients of Section 420 of + + + + + + IPC are not attracted in the matter and both the impugned orders passed by + + the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), and the revision court, respectively, + are erroneous. Accordingly, he urged that present application be allowed + + and the impugned orders be quashed and set aside. +

+
+ +
+ +
"4. Now, Section 437(1)(i) restrains the Court other + + + + + + (14) Cri. Application No. 3622 / 2012 + + than High Court or Court of Session (i.e. the + Magistrate) from granting bail only in those cases + where a reasonable ground appears for believing that a + + + + + + person is guilty of an offence punishable with death or + imprisonment for life. In this view of the matter, there + + + + + + is no fetter on the Magistrate's right to grant bail in this + case and the decision of the Apex Court in Pralhad + Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi (AIR 2001 SC 1444 : 2001 + Cri. LJ 1730) does not come in the way of this Court + + + + + + permitting the revisionists to continue on the earlier + bail granted to them by the Magistrate. Accordingly, + this revision is allowed to this extent and the + revisionists are permitted to continue to remain on bail + + + + + + also under Section 307 IPC, provided they furnish + fresh bail bonds with sureties to the satisfaction of the + + Court concerned. " +
+
+ +
+ +

14. I am also fortified for the said view by the judgment of + learned Single Judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court, in the case of Sonu + alias Rinku alias Lambu Vs. State of Punjab (supra), and the said learned + + + + Single Judge has taken similar view to the view taken by the learned + + + + + Single Judge of Allahabad High Court, in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. State + of U.P. (supra), as mentioned herein above. +

+

15. In the circumstances, present Application deserves to be + allowed to that extent and the impugned judgment and order dated + 25-7-2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Court No.5, + + + + + + Latur, in C.R. No. 3015/12, and the consequent order dated 4-8-2012, + passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Latur, in + Criminal Revision No. 58/2012, deserve to be quashed and set aside and + the applicants herein are required to be directed to furnish fresh bail bonds + and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate in respect of + + + + + + (15) Cri. Application No. 3622 / 2012 + + newly added Section 420 of IPC, and on furnishing such fresh bonds, they + shall be required to be directed to continue on the same bail, but + + + + + + simultaneously they are required to be directed to give attendance before + in-charge of concerned Police Station as and when required to facilitate + + + + + + further investigation in respect of add Section 420 of IPC. +

+
+ +
+ +

16. In the result, present Application is allowed and the impugned + order dated 25-7-2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), + Court No.5, Latur, in CR No. 3015/2012, registered at MIDC Police + + + + + + Station, Latur, cancelling bail of the applicants, and the consequent + + judgment and order dated 4-8-2012, passed by the learned Ad hoc + Additional Sessions Judge-1, Latur, in Criminal Revision No. 58/2012, + + dismissing the revision preferred by the applicants, stand quashed and set + aside, and the applicants herein are directed to furnish fresh bail bonds and + surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, for the newly + + + + added Section i.e. Section 420 of IPC in the said CR, and on furnishing + + + + + such fresh bonds, they shall continue on the same bail. However, + applicants are directed to give attendance before the concerned + investigator as and when required and to cooperate in the investigation for + + + + + + the newly added section i.e. Section 420 of IPC for a period of eight weeks + from today, and the present petition is disposed of accordingly. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_1357458.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_1357458.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..14147b0ce89b94b7e2c3ea32d8391befddb5b1a0 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_1357458.html @@ -0,0 +1,370 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sunil Gandhi vs State on 6 February, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. BAIL APPLN.3975/2023 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking bail + in the event of arrest in FIR No.64/2016, dated 23.05.2016, registered at + Police Station Economic Offences Wing for offences under Sections + 406/409/420/120B IPC. +

2. BAIL APPLN.3977/2023 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking bail + in the event of arrest in FIR No.116/2016, dated 05.03.2016, registered at + Police Station Sarita Vihar for offences under Sections 406/420/34 IPC. +

+
+ +
+

3. BAIL APPLN.3986/2023 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking bail + in the event of arrest in FIR No.114/2016, dated 04.03.2016, registered at + Police Station Sarita Vihar for offences under Sections 420/34 IPC. +

4. Since all the three bail applications arises from a common set of facts, + with the consent of the parties, all the three bail applications are being + decided by this common order. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_135874136.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_135874136.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cde17bed7509611296fcaa80aaaa57c848dead90 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_135874136.html @@ -0,0 +1,373 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sureshpal And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 13 December, 2019 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

16. We may also notice a pertinent observation made by this Court in Prahlad Singh Bhati (supra). In the above case, a case was registered under Sections 306 and 498-A I.P.C. Application for anticipatory bail was dismissed, however, while dismissing the application, the Additional Sessions Judge had observed that if on facts a case under Section 302 is made out against the accused, State shall be at liberty to arrest the accused. After investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 302, 406 and 498-A. The accused was directed to appear before the Magistrate since he did not appear, non-bailable warrants were issued. The accused had filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the High Court. Subsequently, the accused appeared before the Magistrate, he was admitted on bail even in a case under Section 302 IPC. The revision petition was dismissed by the High Court against the order releasing the accused on bail. The complainant had approached this Court. In paragraph Nos. 4 and 9, following observations have been made by this Court:- +

+
+ +
+ +

22. One of the judgments, which needs to be noticed in the above reference is Hamida Vs. Rashid alias Rasheed (supra). In the above case, the accused was granted bail for offences under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC. The victim succumbed to his injuries in the night intervening 16.06.2005 and 17.06.2005. The offence thereafter was converted into Section 304 IPC. An application was filed in the High Court by the accused to permit them to remain on same bail even after conversion of the offence into one under Section 304 IPC, which was allowed by the High Court. The complainant filed an appeal by special leave in this Court against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. This Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and directed the accused to be taken into custody with liberty to apply for bail for the offences for which he was charged before proper Court in accordance with law. This Court further held that accused could apply for bail afresh after the offence had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC. This Court laid down following in paragraph Nos. 10, 11 and 12:- +

+
+ +
+ +
"10. In the case in hand, the respondents-accused could apply for bail afresh after the offence had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC. They deliberately did not do so and filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC in order to circumvent the procedure whereunder they would have been required to surrender as the bail application could be entertained and heard only if the accused were in custody. It is important to note that no order adverse to the respondents-accused had been passed by any court nor was there any miscarriage of justice or any illegality. In such circumstances, the High Court committed manifest error of law in entertaining a petition under Section 482 CrPC and issuing a direction to the subordinate court to accept the sureties and bail bonds for the offence under Section 304 IPC. The effect of the order passed by the High Court is that the accused after getting bail in an offence under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC on the very day on which they were taken into custody, got an order of bail in their favour even after the injured had succumbed to his injuries and the case had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC without any court examining the case on merits, as it stood after conversion of the offence. The procedure laid down for grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC, though available to the respondents-accused, having not been availed of, the exercise of power by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is clearly illegal and the impugned order passed by it has to be set aside. +
+
+ +
+ +
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that charge under Section 302 IPC has been framed against the respondents-accused by the trial court and some subsequent orders were passed by the High Court by which the accused were ordered to remain on bail for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC on furnishing fresh sureties and bail bonds only on the ground that they were on bail in the offence under Section 304 IPC. These orders also deserve to be set aside on the same ground." +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_136784528.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_136784528.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..76e8a8e97651fa6d70610bdd854ec17246747b04 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_136784528.html @@ -0,0 +1,439 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + R D Patil @ Rudragouda vs The State on 13 December, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Criminal Petition No.201625/2023 is filed by the + +petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.295/2023 registered by + +University Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 34, 37 of + +IPC and Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2008 + +(for short, hereinafter referred to as 'IT Act') + + +

2. Criminal Petition No.201627/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner who is accused No.1 under Section 438 of + +Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.267/2023 + +registered by Afzalpur Police Station, Kalaburagi District, for + +the offences punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, + +420, 34, 36, 37, 149 of IPC. +

+
+ +
+ +

+

3. Criminal Petition No.201738/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + + + + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.144/2023 registered by + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

4. Criminal Petition No.201736/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.145/2023 registered by + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

+
+ +
+

5. Criminal Petition No.201735/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.146/2023 registered by + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

6. Criminal Petition No.201734/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.147/2023 registered by + + + + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_137028848.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_137028848.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..edb4ab3d50b9f0c41e2f8110fc50c653330483d3 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_137028848.html @@ -0,0 +1,438 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Priyanka vs State & Anr on 20 May, 2015 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

4. On 19.04.2014, there was no order from any Court regarding stay of +arrest of accused Bhanwar Pal and Anmol nor were they on bail. An +incorrect statement was made by the Investigating Officer on that day. On +26.04.2014, respondent no.2 appeared along with his counsel. However, +the remaining two accused Bhanwar Pal and Anmol did not appear and +were granted exemption from personal appearance. Without filing a bail +application by respondent no.2 and without notice to the State, by +completely ignoring the bar u/s 437(1)(i) Cr.P.C, the Metropolitan + + + Magistrate, Delhi granted regular court bail to respondent no.2 for offences +punishable u/s 354/376/506/34 IPC. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate +did not even deem it proper to impose any condition on respondent no.2 +while admitting him on regular bail nor recorded any reasons for granting +regular bail. On 01.05.2014, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate also +granted regular bail to accused Bhanwar and Anmol without filing any bail +application. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate thereafter committed the +matter to the Sessions Court as offence is exclusively triable by the +Sessions Court. +

+
+ +
+ +

10. When the matter came up for hearing before the Hon'ble Supreme +Court on 03.07.2014, counsel for respondent no.2 made a statement that + + + + + respondent no.2 has already been granted regular bail by the Competent +Court, as such the SLP was dismissed as infructuous. +

+

11. The sole question for consideration is whether the learned +Metropolitan Magistrate was competent to grant bail in a case u/s 376 IPC +which entails minimum sentence of 7 years which may extend to +imprisonment for life and if so, whether while passing the order for release +on bail, provisions of Section 437 Cr.P.C were complied with or not. +Before proceeding further, it will be advantageous to reproduce Section +437 Cr.P.C which provides for "when bail may be taken in case of non- +bailable offence." It reads as under:- +

+
+ +
+

bailable offence and before judgment is delivered, the Court is of opinion that + there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of any + such offence, it shall release the accused, if he is in custody, on the execution + + + + by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance to hear judgment + delivered." +

+

12. In Prahlad Singh (supra), similar question arose. In that case, +respondent no.2 who was alleged to have murdered his wife and against +whom the FIR u/s 302 of the IPC was registered, was released on bail by +the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. The revision filed against the +said order was dismissed by the High Court. The matter went to Hon'ble +Supreme Court. The relevant observations made by Hon'ble Supreme +Court which has a material bearing in the present case are reproduced as +under:- +

+
+ +
+ +

14. Hanuman(supra) was a case where the respondent was arrested in +connection with an attempt to murder u/s 307 IPC. On the same day, when +the bail application was filed, the respondents were ordered to be enlarged +on bail by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate even though APP was not +available in the Court. The victim died and, therefore, Section 302 IPC +was attracted and charge sheet was filed u/s 302 IPC. Son of the deceased +moved application for cancellation of bail. The Mumbai High Court +observed that in respect of offence for which the maximum sentence +prescribed is life imprisonment but alternatively lesser punishment is +provided for instance ten years, the bar of Section 437 would operate and +such person cannot be released on bail by the Magistrate as the magistrate +has no jurisdiction to grant bail to such person u/s 437(1) Cr.P.C. The +Magistrate without giving opportunity to the prosecution, in a hasty +manner granted bail to the respondent on the same date, as such it was +observed that the Magistrate had acted in an arbitrary and capricious +manner while dealing with the matter and hastily granted bail to the +respondent, accordingly the bail was cancelled. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_137690135.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_137690135.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f17a02e21f3ff395fb36fed62b342d22fb4068aa --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_137690135.html @@ -0,0 +1,365 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Robin Bansal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 22 August, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, then Court below, in order to secure his presence, can issue proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and if the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_138217965.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_138217965.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a00d52610a23e7e259432ebe306d2fa668601921 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_138217965.html @@ -0,0 +1,371 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Havaldar Nursing Sahayat Jitendra ... vs State Of U.P. on 5 July, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

4. The first bail application of applicant-under Sections 419, 420, 114 IPC and Sections 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Cantt., District-Ayodhya was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 14.06.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53317 of 2022 (under Sections 419, 420, 114 IPC and Sections 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Cantt., District-Ayodhya Vs. State of U.P.) along with other connected bail applications. For ready reference, the order dated 14.06.2023 is reproduced herein under:- +

+
+ +
+ +
2. The present bail application under Section 439 CrPC has been filed seeking bail in Case Crime No.354 of 2022 under Section 419, 420, 114 IPC and Section 8 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Cantt District Ayodhya. +
+
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused appellant and other co-accused demanded and accepted Rs.50,000/- from Ex-Army Personnel for their recruitment in Defence Service Code. Having received this information, inquiries were made. Rs. 17 lacs were recovered from co-accused. This Rs.1 lacs was allegedly given to the accused applicant who is an Ex- Hawaldar in Indian Army. During interrogation, the accused applicant confessed that he had earlier collected Rs.34 lacs from 68 such Ex-Army personnel for securing their recruitment in DSC. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_138578456.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_138578456.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..68e3d5166fdd77a6b287777e99dfd587109962cd --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_138578456.html @@ -0,0 +1,354 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Malliga vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 August, 2014 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
"4.I am aware that Thiru Sarath @ Sarathkumar is in remand in T.11 Thirunindravur Police Station Crime Nos.1347/2013, 1351/2013 and 1362/2013. He has not moved any bail application for T.11 Thirunindravur Police Station Crime Nos.1347/2013, 1351/2013 and 1362/2013 so far. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru Sarath @ Sarathkumar is taking action to take him out on bail by filing bail application for T.11 Thirunindravur Police Station Crime Nos.1347/2013, 1351/2013 and 1362/2013 before the appropriate court. Similarly, in a case registered at R-7 K.K.Nagar Police Station Crime No.301/2009 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted in Crl.O.P.No.13843/2009 by the Hon'ble High Court, Madras. It is pertinent to note that in a similar case registered at T-1 Ambattur Police Station Cr.No.464/2012 under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge at Thiruvallur in Crl.M.P.No.712/2012. Hence, I infer that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail applications for T.11 Thirunindravur Police Station Crime Nos.1347/2013, 1351/2013 and 1362/2013 before the appropriate court since in similarly placed cases bails are granted by courts after a lapse of time. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order................" +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_139147560.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_139147560.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9971efdd09d43ac7acc48b67ef0c0b61971ea70e --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_139147560.html @@ -0,0 +1,429 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ramesh vs State on 5 November, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Order + +05/11/2020 + All the above mentioned bail applications shall stand decided + +by this common order as they arise out of same FIR. + +

The present bail applications have been filed under Section + +439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners who are in custody in + +connection with F.I.R. No.252/2020, Police Station Dovada, District + +Dungarpur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, + +394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B of I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12431/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 436, 394, + +384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of + +the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.11515/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, + +384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B of the I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.11861/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 384, + +284, 269, 270, 283 & 336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of + +P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11865/2020), + +under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 436, 394, 284, 269, 270, 283, + +336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11867/2020), under Sections + + (5 of 7) [CRLMB-12431/2020 + a/w connected nmatters] + + +147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, 384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336, + +120-B of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12205/2020), under Sections + +147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B + +of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. + +Bail Application No.12207/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, + +341, 394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 383, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and + +under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail + +Application No.12210/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, + +394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12433/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, + +284, 269, 270, 283, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 + +of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12436/2020). +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_139377967.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_139377967.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5ca54ef5d3ba998bc1f179fed035bafd844f156c --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_139377967.html @@ -0,0 +1,363 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Page No.# 1/2 vs The State Of Assam on 4 April, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

40. As such, the accused/petitioners are acquitted for the offence punishable under +Section 325 of IPC. Bail bonds so furnished by the petitioners stand cancelled and +surety discharged. +

+

Return the Trial Court Records. +

+

JUDGE + + +Comparing Assistant +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_139464096.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_139464096.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..81cbb57b606abadced0915ba090b2520d21c7216 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_139464096.html @@ -0,0 +1,429 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Bheru Lal vs State on 5 November, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Order + +05/11/2020 + All the above mentioned bail applications shall stand decided + +by this common order as they arise out of same FIR. + +

The present bail applications have been filed under Section + +439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners who are in custody in + +connection with F.I.R. No.252/2020, Police Station Dovada, District + +Dungarpur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, + +394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B of I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12431/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 436, 394, + +384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of + +the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.11515/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, + +384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B of the I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.11861/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 384, + +284, 269, 270, 283 & 336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of + +P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11865/2020), + +under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 436, 394, 284, 269, 270, 283, + +336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11867/2020), under Sections + + (5 of 7) [CRLMB-12431/2020 + a/w connected nmatters] + + +147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, 384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336, + +120-B of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12205/2020), under Sections + +147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B + +of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. + +Bail Application No.12207/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, + +341, 394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 383, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and + +under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail + +Application No.12210/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, + +394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12433/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, + +284, 269, 270, 283, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 + +of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12436/2020). +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_139657730.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_139657730.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8f04e31bec81efda0fd87260ca2b6226dcecf391 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_139657730.html @@ -0,0 +1,402 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Thangapalam vs The Secretary To Government on 8 September, 2014 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
?4. I am aware that Thiru.Kannan, was arrested on 21.03.2014 and duly +produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil on the same day and +remanded to Judicial Custody upto 04.04.2014 and was lodged in District Jail, +Nagercoil as remand prisoner extend upto 16.04.2014, I am aware that the +accused Tr.Kannan, aged 24, S/o.Enasoora Perumal, 7/422, N.G.O. Colony, +Manikattipottal, Madusoothanapuram Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, +Kanniyakumari District, is involved in Kottar Police Station in +Cr.No.246/2014, under Section 397 IPC. There is a so far no bail application +was filed on his behalf real possibility that he may come out on bail by +filing a bail application before the appropriate Court or higher Court if he +comes out on bail, he will indulge in such activities, which would be +prejudicial to the maintenance of the public peace and public order. Further +the recourse to normal criminal law will not have the desired effect of +effective by preventing him from indulging in such activities hence he is +detained as a Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1984. +
+
+ +
+

2. +Suchindrum P.S. Cr.No.363 of 2012 +U/s.302 IPC @ 342, 302 r/w.34 IPC, dt. 28.04.2012 +On 27.04.2012 between 05.30 P.M., and 05.00 A.M., on 28.04.2012 one Suresh +aged 44/12, S/o.Lekshmanan, Mukilanvilai was murdered by the accused Kannan +with his close associates at Cocunut form of Iyyapalam at Kunjanvilai due to +enmity over money transaction. On the strength of the complaint of +Tmt.Sarmila, W/o.Suresh a case in Suchindrum P.S.Cr.No.363/2012, under +Section 302 IPC @ 342, 302 r/w. 34 IPC was registered and on behalf of the +accused a bail petition has been filed in Crl.M.P.No.4310/2012 JM.III Court, +Nagercoil and released on condition bail on 10.08.2012. The case in +Suchindrum P.S.Cr.No.363/2012 was charge sheeted on 31.08.2012 and is PT in +PRC.No.5/2014 in J.M.No.III Court, Nagercoil. +

+
+ +
+

4. +Suchindrum P.S. Cr.No.741 of 2012 +U/s.294(b), 307 IPC, dated 02/10/2012 +On 02/10/2012 at about 02.00 P.M., when the complaint Natarajan, S/o.Samykan +Nadar, Panikkankudiyiruppu and his friend were standing at Kovilvilai +Junction, the accused Kannan came to him and demanded Rs.500/- for his +expenses but the complainant refused to give it. So the accused Kannan used +filthy words on him assaulted him with knife and tried to murder him. On the +strength of the complaint of Tr.Natarajan, S/o.Samykan Nadar, Panikan +Kudieruppu a case in Suchindrum PS Cr.No.741/2012, U/s.294(b), 307 IPC was +registered. He filed a bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.1023/2013, District +Sessions Court, Nagercoil and released on condition bail on 02.04.2013. Case +is under investigation. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_140423700.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_140423700.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..17a55c2cb48d38412f3ad30c6b598b1e87820b5e --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_140423700.html @@ -0,0 +1,354 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Manoj @ Manojkumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 August, 2014 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
"4.I am also aware that Thiru.Manoj @ Manojkumar who is in remand in Thudiyalur Police Station Crime No.614/2013 u/s.392 Indian Penal Code Crime No.580/2013 u/s.457, 380 IPC and Crime No.609/2013 u/s.379 IPC and he has not filed any bail petition so far in these cases. In a similar case registered at Mettupalayam Police Station Crime No.2768/2011 u/s. 392 r/w 397 IPC, bail was granted to the accused Thiru.Abdul Sathar by the Honourable Principle District and Sessions Judge of Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No.217/2012 on 24.01.2012 and hence, there is a real possibility of his Thiru.Manoj @ Manojkumar coming out on bail by filing a bail application for the Thudiyalur Police Station Crime No.614/2013 case before the appropriate court. In similar case registered in the Thudiyalur Police Station Crime No.1650/2011 u/s. 457, 380 IPC bail was granted to the accused Tamilselvan by the Honourable Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No.4757/2011 on 01.12.2011. Hence there is a real possibility of Thiru.Manoj @ Manojkumar coming out on bail by filing a bail application for the Thudiyalur Police Station Crime No.580/2013 u/s.457, 380 IPC. In a similar case registered in the Thudiyalur Police Station Crime No.888/2012 u/s.379 IPC bail was granted to the accused Thiru.Gobi by the Honourable Judicial Magistrate Court No-1, Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No.1856/2013 on 10.05.2013. Hence there is a real possibility of Thiru Manoj @ Manojkumar coming out on bail by filing bail application for the Thudiyalur Police Station Crime No.609/2013 u/s.379 IPC. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in such further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further, recourse to the normal criminal law will not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On the materials placed before me, I am fully satisfied that the said Thiru.Manoj @ Manojkumar is a Goonda and there is compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.." +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_140633976.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_140633976.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..27696441152796f4b23b519cc945c8c34e81899a --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_140633976.html @@ -0,0 +1,469 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Amit Rathi vs State Of Haryana on 4 August, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
2. 76 dated 186/332/353 City, Pending Trial + 15.02.2019 IPC Sonipat (On bail) +
3. 676 dated 323/506/34 IPC City, Pending Trial + 24.10.2017 Sonipat +
4. 171 dated 323/506 IPC City, Pending Trial + 11.02.2020 Sonipat (On bail) +

5. 499 dated 323/506/34 IPC City, Pending Trial + 11.07.2020 Sonipat (On bail) +

+
+ +
+

10. 747 dated 272/328/420/46 City, Pending Trial + 05.11.2020 7/ 468/471 IPC Sonipat (On bail) + and 61/72-A + Excise + Act +

11. 748 dated 269/273/467/46 City, Pending Trial + 06.11.2020 8/ 471/120-B Sonipat (On bail) + IPC and + 61/4/2020 + Excise Act +

12. 749 dated 304/328/420/27 City, Pending Trial + 06.11.2020 2/ IPC and 72- Sonipat (On bail) + A/4/2020 + Excise Act +

+
+ +
+

13. 752 dated 328/272/420/46 City, Pending Trial + 06.11.2020 7/468/471 IPC Sonipat (On bail) + and + 72-A/4/2020 + Excise Act +

14. 760 dated 304/272/328/42 City, Pending Trial + 11.11.2020 0 IPC and 72- Sonipat (On bail) + A/4/2020 + Excise Act +

15. 804 of 2020 304/328/272/42 City, Pending Trial + 0/ Sonipat BA Dismissed by + 467/468/180/20 ASJ & Not Applied + 1/ 120-B IPC in HC + and 72-A + Excise Act +

+
+ +
+

16. 291 dated 323/506/34 IPC City Pending Trial + 5.6.2019 Sonipat (On bail) +

17. 735 dated 148/149/323/32 City Acquitted + 10.12.2015 4/ 307/506 IPC Sonipat +

18. 510 dated 457/380/411 City, Acquitted + 27.12.2013 IPC Sonipat +

19. 462 dated 457/380/411 City Already + 23.11.2013 IPC Sonipat Undergone + + + He contends that the allegations against the petitioner are + +extremely serious. The instant FIR came to be registered when he was + +present along with his co-accused in a car belonging to his mother from + +which illicit liquor was initially recovered. Looking at the criminal + +antecedents of the petitioner, there was every possibility that he would + +tamper with the prosecution case by intimidating and influencing the + +witnesses and he was also likely to abscond from justice. In fact as many as + + + 4 of 6 + + Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100942 + + + + + CRM-M-6346-2023 #5# 2023:PHHC:100942 + +31 persons had died in district Sonipat and 10 persons had died in district + +Panipat along with a number of persons who had lost their vision after + +consuming spurious liquor regarding which 10 FIRs had been registered + +and in 03 of the said FIRs the petitioner is an accused. Therefore, the + +petitioner was not entitled to the concession of regular bail even though his + +co-accused have been granted the similar concession because the petitioner + +is not only the mastermind but also had 19 other cases registered against + +him. He contends that the judgment in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi case + +(supra) would not apply to the case of the petitioner because firstly in the + +said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a petition for + +cancellation of bail granted to the accused and it had observed that the + +accused therein was a member of parliament who had been acquitted in most + +of the cases which had been registered against him. He contends that in the + +instant case, the petitioner was an accused in 19 cases and had been + +acquitted only in 03 of those. He therefore contends that keeping in view + +the attending facts and circumstances, the petitioner was not entitled to the + +grant of bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_140890600.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_140890600.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5217c61177302c8ec8b8a09d1306a0a57b00d2d --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_140890600.html @@ -0,0 +1,371 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sahid Husen @ Chhakkan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 28 April, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

5.Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the present has already been granted bail under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.01.2021, passed in Bail No.10120 of 2020. His further submission is that vide impugned order dated 29.09.2021, the learned trial Court framed the charges against the present applicant under Sections 498A, 304B, 316 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act in a mechanical manner and without applying its judicial mind. The learned trial court did not take care of the fact that no ingredients, which constitute offences under Sections 498A, 304B, 316 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P., are made out against the present applicant. +

+
+ +
+ +

8. In the aforesaid view of the matter, learned A.G.A. submits that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 29.09.2021, thus, no interference with the same is warranted in exercise of power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +

+

9. Having heard learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of the record, it transpires that initially a first information report came to be lodged against the present applicant under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act. Upon conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet came to be laid against the applicant under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act. The present has already been granted bail under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.01.2021, passed in Bail No.10120 of 2020. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 29.09.2021, charges came to be framed against the present applicant under Sections 498A, 304B, 316 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act. +

+
+ +
+ +

13. However, it is needless to mention that if the applicant applies for grant of bail, the court below shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antill Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 825 and having regard to the fact that the present applicant has already been granted bail under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act. +

+

14. With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is finally disposed of. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_142018932.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_142018932.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1a0012c9d35dd110e85c10fb84070324a714a48f --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_142018932.html @@ -0,0 +1,373 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Narendra Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 November, 2019 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C +for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.224/2010, +registered at Police Station-Barotha, District-Dewas concerning +offence under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC. +

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that earlier the +applicant was granted bail by this Court vide order dated +08/03/2011 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 1674/2011 and thereafter, he is +regularly marking his presence before the trial Court, however, on +one date of hearing he failed to mark his presence before the trial +Court, therefore, the trial Court has issued non-bailable warrant +against the applicant and in compliance of the aforesaid order, the +applicant has been arrested by the police on 17/09/2019 and till +then he is in custody. It is also submitted by the learned counsel +for the applicant that the applicant is working as soldier in Indian +Army and he assured that in future the applicant will regularly +mark his presence before the trial Court on each and every date +fixed by the trial Court in this behalf. Under these circumstances, +learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the +applicant. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_142302422.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_142302422.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7a3d29a37e3d589c8bfbc9a4c1cdd2acdcdee3fa --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_142302422.html @@ -0,0 +1,421 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + State Of Karnataka vs Manjunatha G L on 16 February, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

(iv) Accused No.2 is held guilty of the + + offence punishable under section + + 323 of IPC. +

+

Bail bonds of accused 1 and 2 are cancelled. + + + + +

Sd/- +

JUDGE + + + + Sd/- +

JUDGE + + + +CKL +

- 30 - +

NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB + + + + + +SHKJ & VAPJ: +

22.02.2024 + + + ORDER ON SENTENCE + + Both accused No.1 and 2 are present before + +the court. We have heard them on sentence. + +
+
+ +
+ +

So far as accused No.2 is concerned, she has + +stood convicted for the offence under Section 323 + +of IPC. She obtained anticipatory bail. Section + +323 of IPC provides for imprisonment upto one + +year or with fine up to Rs.1,000/-. Since accused + +No.2 is a woman, and there is a unmarried + +daughter in the house, we do not find it feasible to +

- 32 - +

NC: 2024:KHC:6623-DB + + + + + +subject her to imprisonment. It is enough if fine is + +levied. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_142608751.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_142608751.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aaf54dcc75ae2e68c6ffdad51b27622d530fcf1b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_142608751.html @@ -0,0 +1,380 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + _______________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 16 July, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla in Criminal Appeal + + + + + + No. 32-S/10 of 2004/2003 and judgment/order of conviction + + dated 19.12.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st + + + + + + Class, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P. in Case No. 9-II of 2002 are + + quashed and set aside. Petitioner-accused is acquitted of the + + + + + + offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A + + IPC. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioner are discharged. +

+

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_14464240.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_14464240.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4415a905e867d93d6b7e272d7a8bc0a32d885da6 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_14464240.html @@ -0,0 +1,375 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sabi @ Shiv Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 4 October, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

5. First bail application of applicant was rejected by a detailed order dated 16.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37216 of 2021 (Sabi @ Shiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P.) For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under: +

+
" Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for State. learned Counsel for the informant and perused the material available on record. +
+
Accused-applicant- Sabi @ Shiv Kumar, involved in Case Crime No. 520 of 2020, under Sections 147/148/149/302/364/506/120-B IPC, Police Station Tappal, District Aligarh, applied for bail. +
+
+ +
+ +
Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submit that it is admitted fact that there was enmity due to panchayat election, brutal murder has been committed and as per post mortem report, ten injuries have been found. Informant approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court against grant of bail of co-accused Vedpal in which notice has been issued to the accused and bail application of Sabi @ Shiv Kumar has been rejected by this Court. As per page no.38 of the counter affidavit, Inspector Dharmendra Pawar and Sub-Inspector Satendra Sharma has been found guilty in the enquiry having contact with the accused persons and departmental proceeding is going on. Deceased was taken by the witness Ved Talan to the hospital at that time he stated that applicant and co-accused beat him badly by lathi danda. Ramveer and Udham by shooting and throwing him fled away. In the statement of Anand, Bantu and Ved Talan, there is no contradictioin. He further submits that there is specific allegation of firing against the applicant and Ramveer and country-made pistol used in the incident has also been recovered on his pointing out. Gaurav Kumar has stated that near the main gate of Vedpal in the varandah, some persons were sitting, he saw and heard that Vedpal, Ramveer, Udham, Chinki, Sabi, Kaluwa, Jagatpal and Dinesh son of Vedpal were sitting and talking that Chinki has been beaten very badly in Jewar and revenge of it is necessary, thereafter, incident has been caused. Thus, there is evidence of conspiracy against the applicant. It is further submitted that recovery of country-made pistol has been made from the possession of the applicant on the pointing out of the applicant but this fact has been concealed and recovery memo has not been annexed by the applicant along with bail application. He further submits that as per para 13 of the bail application, there was no enmity but as per page no.53 of the counter affidavit, an FIR has been lodged by Thakur @ Chinki (real brother of the applicant) against seven persons including the deceased, i.e., Case Crime No.416 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 IPC, therefore, the averment is false. As per para 20 of the bail application, according to opinion of panches, deceased died due to taking poison but as per F.I.R. deceased has died due to injuries and application for cancellation of bail is pending before the Supreme Court and bail application of co-accused has been rejected and witnesses are being threatened, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail. +
+
+ +
+ +
Let the applicants Ved Pal and Krishna Kumar? involved in Case Crime No. 520 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 364, 506, 120-B IPC, P.S. Tappal, District - Aligarh be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. +
+
1. The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. +
+
2. The applicants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_144820722.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_144820722.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ab68081429c352caff36c30d7a236fd86f404b85 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_144820722.html @@ -0,0 +1,2203 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Shaik Mohammad Moulana Abdul Kalam Sk Mm ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 34, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

+

Shaik Mohammad Moulana Abdul Kalam Sk Mm ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025

+ +
        THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
+
+
+CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475,
+
+ 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839,
+
+                     5920 and 9083 of 2024
+
+
+COMMON ORDER:
+ + +

Crl.P.No.5197 of 2024 + + + This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A32 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

2

+ + + + +

2. Sri N. Harinadh, learned Counsel for petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, + +learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- + +State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.4896 of 2024 + + +

3. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A46 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

4. Sri Mukkamalla Rama Swamy, the learned counsel for + +petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + 3 + + + + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5230 of 2024 + + +

5. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A35 and A51 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

6. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + 4 + + + + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5256 of 2024 + + +

7. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A43 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

8. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + 5 + + + + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.5367 of 2024 + + +

9. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A4 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

10. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 6 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5475 of 2024 + + +

11. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A64 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

12. Sri Karanki Yaswanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, the learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

7

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5487 of 2024 + + +

13. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A47 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

14. Ms.P.Srilatha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 8 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5503 of 2024 + + +

15. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A19 and A20 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

16. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 9 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5550 of 2024 + + +

17. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A2, A16, A37 and A45 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

18. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

10

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5553 of 2024 + + +

19. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A7 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

20. Sri Peta Gnana Teja, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 11 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5585 of 2024 + + +

21. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A1 and A67 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

22. Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

12

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5652 of 2024 + + +

23. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A15 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

24. Sri Chalasani Venkat, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

13

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5718 of 2024 + + +

25. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A8, A22, A36 and A68 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

26. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 14 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5724 of 2024 + + +

27. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A3 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

28. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

15

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5752 of 2024 + + +

29. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A31, A53 and A65 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime + +No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna + +District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections + +143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) + +of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

30. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

16

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5839 of 2024 + + +

31. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A55 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

32. Sri B.V Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 17 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5920 of 2024 + + +

33. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A6, A13, A14, A17, A27, A28, A30, A39, A42, A52, + +A54, A56, A61 and A69 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

34. Ms.V.Devi Satya Sri, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

18

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.9083 of 2024 + + +

35. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A75 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

36. Sri G.L.Nageswar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor + +appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments. + + +

37. In all the above bail petitions, detailed counters were filed + +by the respondent-State. +

19

+ + + + +

38. All these criminal petitions pertain to Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station. By these petitions these + +accused pray for pre-arrest bail. All these petitions were heard + +together and by this common order they shall be disposed of. + +The crime incident allegedly occurred on 20.02.2023. Upon a + +written information dated 22.02.2023 F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was + +registered. The scene of offence was Telugu Desam Party office, + +Gannavaram. Sri Mudunuri Satyavardhan belonging to Madiga + +caste, which is a scheduled caste, was computer operator + +working in Telugu Desam Party office and living in the said office. + + +

39. During the time when this crime incident allegedly occurred + +the party in power was YSR Congress Party. Investigation + +commenced and went on for some time. Thereafter there were + +general elections and the then opposition party/Telugu Desam + +Party came into power. Thereafter investigation continued + +further. The allegations and counter allegations in this case + +disclosed the rift between both the political parties. Petitioners + +contend that this is a case falsely alleged against them out of + +political vendetta. According to State, for political reasons there + +was inadequate investigation soon after commission of the + +offence. By the time this crime incident occurred Sri Vallabhaneni + 20 + + + + +Vamsi Mohan was Member of Legislative Assembly for + +Gannavaram Assembly Constituency. He is one of the accused + +in the present crime. +

+

+

40. The version of the prosecution is that on 18.02.2023 during + +afternoon hours a press meet was held by Sri Vallabhaneni + +Vamsi Mohan wherein he allegedly made certain insulting + +remarks as against Sri N.Chandrababu Naidu, Sri Nara Lokesh + +and their family members and used indecent language. In + +response to it, certain leaders of Telugu Desam Party conducted + +a press meeting on 19.02.2023 in the morning hours and + +condemned the statements made by the opponent political party + +people. +

+

+

41. In the above backdrop of facts, the crime incident allegedly + +occurred. It is stated that on 20.02.2023 at about 5:00 P.M. + +Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan went to Telugu Desam Party + +office and on noticing followers of Telugu Desam Party he caused + +enquiries about Mr. Pattabhi of Telugu Desam Party and warned + +them that they would finish Telugu Desam Party and left the + +place. +

21

+ + + + +

42. In the next 30 minutes at about 5:30 P.M. about 100 + +persons belonging to YSR Congress Party came to Telugu + +Desam Party office wielding sticks, stones, petrol bottles and + +various other arms and while hailing Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi + +Mohan they attacked the party office. They threw stones, entered + +into the party office and destroyed the furniture, broke two + +computers and two televisions and caused tremendous panic + +among everyone available there. In the first information report + +the de facto complainant was able to mention the names of 44 + +accused. It also made a mention about four named accused who + +came upon him and abused him by his caste name. The further + +case of the prosecution is that these hooligans caused chaos and + +some of them using their sticks and cricket playing wickets + +seriously damaged three cars/AP 39 K 1999, AP 16 DJ 9499 and + +TS 10 EC 4099. It is also stated that one Mr. Rabbani poured + +petrol on the car bearing No.AP 16 DA 5555 and lit fire to it. The + +version of the de facto complainant is that there were police + +people at the Telugu Desam Party office and they remained mute + +spectators. During investigation it was found that some of the + +accused made attempts to burn the party office as walls in one + +room were found with charred marks. +

22

+ + + + +

43. Investigation has been in progress. Some of the accused + +were arrested and were remanded to judicial custody. According + +to prosecution, at least 44 accused were absconding. After + +gaining contact with about 28 accused they were questioned + +about their mobile phones and only seven out of them + +surrendered their mobile phones and 20 of the accused furnished + +false information with regard to the instruments they used and + +their mobile numbers. +

+

+

44. During the investigation, CCTV footage was collected. + +When the crime incident occurred, various people captured it on + +their mobile phones and all such material was collected. Based + +on these investigative efforts, allegations are made against all + +these petitioners by the prosecution that they are all involved in + +this crime incident. +

+

+

45. Broadly stated all these petitioners raised the following + +contentions: +

+

+

 That there was unexplained delay in registration of crime. + + The incident occurred on 20.02.2023 and F.I.R. was + + registered on 22.02.2023. That around the same time and + + place certain incidents occurred which resulted in + 23 + + + + + registration of multiple F.I.Rs. and many of which disclosed + + accusation of criminal acts of followers of Telugu Desam + + Party as against members of YSR Congress Party + + members and this case is in a way a counter blast to Crime + + Nos.132 of 2023 and 133 of 2023. +
+
+  F.I.R. does not contain any allegations of overt acts against + + these petitioners. +
+
+  After change in political party in power witnesses were + + planted and false evidence is created. +
+
+  The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. were bailable and + + many of these petitioners were served with Section 41A + + Cr.P.C. notice. However, after the change of political + + Government police have unlawfully brought additional + + penal provisions to nullify the rightful reliefs available to the + + petitioners. +
+
+

46. Plethora of precedent is cited on behalf of the petitioners + +and on behalf of some of the accused meticulous written + +arguments are filed leaving one to wonder that this to pronounce + +a judgment as if it is one after trial. +

24

+ + + + +

47. The following significant aspects are required to be noticed: + + +

F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was registered for the offences + +punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435 and 506 read with + +149 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989'). Since caste atrocity was one of + +the offences alleged, on the instructions of Superintendent of + +Police, Krishna, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gannavaram + +took up investigation. After recording the statements of about six + +witnesses, the investigation officer found that the provisions of the + +Act, 1989 were not applicable. Therefore, he applied to the + +Superintendent of Police to accord permission to delete those + +provisions. By proceedings dated 04.07.2023 the Superintendent + +of Police granted such permission. Investigation went further and + +scores of witnesses were examined. Thereafter by way of an + +alteration memo dated 07.08.2024 the investigation agency got + +added Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989. It + +also added Sections 436, 450 and 452 I.P.C. It is also to be + +noticed that in this case so far there are 71 accused. + 25 + + + + +

48. Since in the present crime incident not only offences under + +the Indian Penal Code but also offences under the Act, 1989 are + +alleged, the forceful argument raised by the State is that + +anticipatory bail petitions are not maintainable by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. The further argument is + +that the High Court does not now possess concurrent original + +jurisdiction for bails as well as anticipatory bails and it has only + +appellate jurisdiction by virtue of Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and + +therefore, these petitions are to be dismissed. In such + +circumstances, this Court on 13.11.2024 requested the learned + +counsels on both sides to address arguments in that regard since + +the jurisdictional bar has arisen. +

+

+

49. Valiant submissions are made by the learned counsels for + +petitioners wherein references are made to Sections 18 and 18A + +of the Act, 1989 and precedent is cited to show that if there is no + +prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989 is + +made out, anticipatory bail could be considered. It is also argued + +that this Court in these petitions during hearing granted interim + +protection and therefore, the same may be made absolute since + +these petitioners have not violated anything thereafter. + 26 + + + + +

50. The point that falls for consideration is: + + +

"What is the effect of Section 14A of the Scheduled + + Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the concurrent original + + jurisdiction of the High Court in considering bails + + and anticipatory bails where offences under the Act, + + 1989 are involved? +
+
+POINT: +
+
+

51. Offences under the Act, 1989 can be taken cognizance of + +and tried and be disposed of by Special Courts and Exclusive + +Special Courts as provided in Section 14 of the Act, 1989. Those + +Courts since now empowered to take cognizance hold power to + +take remand of the accused and consider bails. There is no + +provision in the Act, 1989 adverting to the aspects that are to be + +considered by those Courts when they entertain bail petitions. + +Therefore, those Courts draw their powers from the Code of + +Criminal Procedure. Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal + +Procedure is headed as provisions as to bail and bonds. It + +consists of Sections 436 to 450. They refer to bail in cases of + +bailable offences and bail in cases of non-bailable offences. + 27 + + + + +Section 438 Cr.P.C. is given heading direction for grant of bail to + +person apprehending arrest. To the extent the said provision is + +required alone is extracted here: +

+
"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending + arrest: +
+
(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be + arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- +

bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the + Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the + event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that + Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the + following factors, namely:- +

+
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; + +
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to + whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on + conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; + +
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and + +
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of + injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so + arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an + interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail: + +
Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, + the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order + under this sub-Section or has rejected the application for + grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer + 28 + + + + + incharge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the + applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in + such application." +
+

52. Thus, as per the above provision, those accused who + +anticipate their arrest may seek pre-arrest bail and they could + +move such applications either before this Court or before the + +Court of Sessions. It is in the light of such a provision the + +petitioners have straightaway moved this Court for their prayers + +for pre-arrest bail. +

+

+

53. The first submission of the State is that in cases of caste + +atrocities anticipatory bails cannot be maintained by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. Those provisions read as + +below: +

+

+

"18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons + committing an offence under the Act.-- Nothing in + section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case + involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of + having committed an offence under this Act. + + 18A. No enquiry or approval required.--(1) For the + purposes of this Act,-- (a) preliminary enquiry shall not be + required for registration of a First Information Report against + any person; or + 29 + + + + +
(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the + arrest, if necessary, of any person, + + against whom an accusation of having committed an + offence under this Act has been made and no procedure + other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall + apply. +
+
(2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply + to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or + order or direction of any Court." +
+

54. The crisp response from the learned counsels for the + +petitioners is that the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would + +apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist + +pointing towards the commission of an offence under the Act, + +1989. If the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under + +the Act, 1989 are not disclosed on the prima facie reading of the + +allegations levelled in the complaint or F.I.R. then in such + +circumstances, the bar of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would not + +apply and the Courts would not be absolutely precluded from + +granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons. In justification of + +this argument they cited ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + +India in Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala1. + +1 + 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601 + 30 + + + + +

55. If one goes by the contentions of the learned counsel for + +petitioners this Court is to take a view whether the allegations in + +the F.I.R./written information of the de facto complainant prima + +facie disclose caste atrocity or not. However, according to the + +State, even such a view cannot be taken by this Court by virtue of + +interdict contained in Section 14A of the Act, 1989. Therefore, it + +is required to notice what this provision says. The provision reads + +as below: +

+

+

"14A. Appeals:--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained + in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an + appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not + being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an + Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and + on law. +
+
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section + (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, + 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court + against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive + Special Court granting or refusing bail. + + (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for + the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall + be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of + the judgment, sentence or order appealed from: Provided + that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry + of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the + 31 + + + + + appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal + within the period of ninety days: Provided further that no + appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of + one hundred and eighty days. +
+
(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far + as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months + from the date of admission of the appeal." + +

56. As per Sub-Section (2) of Section 14Aof the Act, the + +petitions for bail are to be considered by the Special Court and in + +the event of their granting or refusing to grant such bails the + +aggrieved can prefer an appeal before this Court. Thus, the + +concurrent jurisdiction for consideration of anticipatory bails + +provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C. stood excluded. It is not as + +though the aggrieved is deprived of all the remedies. After + +inviting an order on the bail petition from the Special Court the + +aggrieved is entitled to prefer an appeal before this Court in terms + +of Section 14A of the Act, 1989. In the case at hand, the + +petitioners have moved bail petitions straightaway before this + +Court. At any rate, what is before this Court is not an appeal + +against an order passed by the Special Court with reference to + +bails. It shall be stated that on the same subject matter High + +Court could not be said to possess concurrent original jurisdiction + 32 + + + + +as well as appellate jurisdiction. If one is to state that a bail is + +different from anticipatory bail the result is that in anticipatory + +bails this Court holds original jurisdiction and in regular bails it + +holds only appellate jurisdiction. Assuming that in a case a + +petition for anticipatory bail being moved before the Special Court + +resulted in dismissal, then according to the logic applied by the + +petitioners the petitions would have to move only another bail + +petition before this Court and not an appeal. Such logic is in + +violation of what is clearly provided in Section 14A of the Act, + +1989. It is to be seen that the question of bail presupposes + +detention or custody of the person. In a case where a person is + +arrested he prays for a regular bail. In cases of anticipatory bail + +in the event of granting the relief, it has no effect unless and until + +the accused is arrested. In other words, the order of anticipatory + +bail comes into effect only after a person is arrested and not + +otherwise. In contrast to regular bail, in cases of anticipatory bail + +the order is obtained in advance. In regular bails it was obtained + +after arrest. The timing at which a prayer is made, and an order + +is granted, have no relevance when it comes to operation of + +those orders as in both the cases they come into operation only in + +those cases where a person is arrested. In such view of the + 33 + + + + +matter the word bail used in Section 14A of the Act, 1989 + +encompasses regular bail as well as anticipatory bail. Therefore, + +it must be stated that an application for bail or anticipatory bail + +can be filed only before the Special Court or the Exclusive + +Special Court as the case may be and not before the High Court. + +An order granting or refusing bail or anticipatory bail by the + +Special Court or Exclusive Special Court can be assailed before + +this Court invoking its appellate jurisdiction provided in Section + +14A of the Act, 1989. This Court had deliberated these aspects + +on earlier occasions when similar questions were raised and it + +reached to the same conclusions and reference can be made to + +the following: +

+

+

1. Nakka Nagireddy v. State of A.P.2 + + +
2. Deepak Kumar Tala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh3. + + +

57. Similar conclusions were reached at by other High Courts. + +Reference can be made to the following: +

+

+

1. K.M.Basheer v. Rajani K.T.4 + +2 + 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5322 Order dated 11.11.2024 +3 + Order dated 22.10.2024 in Criminal Petition No.6487 of 2024 +4 + 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 472 + 34 + + + + +
2. Lokesh v. State of Karnataka5 + + +
3. In re Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 v. Nil6 + + +
4. Atul Rajput v. The State of Madhya Pradesh7 + + +

58. At the bar, for petitioners, Abhishek Awasthi v. State of + +U.P.8 is cited. That is a case where other subsections of Section + +14A of the Act, 1989 fell for consideration and the powers of the + +High Court were considered under Section 482 of Code of + +Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings. + +Finally, it was held that with a view to prevent the misuse or + +abuse of the Court or law, the High Court holds inherent + +jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. + +Such question is not available before this Court. Even otherwise + +a brief reference to what was stated by their Lordships in Shajan + +Skaria's case9 would be sufficient here. At paragraph No.49 their + +Lordships stated that if the accused puts forward the case of + +malicious prosecution on account of political or private vendetta + +5 + 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15742 +6 + 2018 SCC OnLine ALL 2087 +7 + Order dated 10.04.2024 in Crl.A.No.3261 of 2024 of the High Court of +Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur +8 + MANU/UP/4595/2024 + 35 + + + + +such aspects can be considered only by the High Court in + +exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code or + +in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the + +Constitution of India. However, powers under Section 438 of the + +Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised once the + +contents of the complaint/F.I.R. disclose a prima facie case. In + +fact, in that case Section 14A of the Act, 1989 did not come up for + +consideration since the anticipatory bail petition was first moved + +before the trial Court and as against those orders appeal was + +preferred before the High Court. +

+

+

59. The plethora of precedent cited before this Court is not with + +reference to Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and therefore any + +reference to those cherished principles of those rulings is not + +required. This Court refrains from delving into other facts and the + +principles of law governing anticipatory bails since any such + +discussion may unnecessarily prejudice the contentions of both + +sides when appropriate applications are filed before appropriate + +Courts for the reliefs or when the maters come up before this + +Court in appeal. +

+

9 + Supra 1 + 36 + + + + +

60. Learned counsel for petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5920 + +of 2024 argued that this very Bench on earlier occasions + +considered and granted anticipatory bail and therefore, the same + +benefit can be extended to the present petitioners. The attention + +of this Court is brought to Sri Settipalli Raghurami Reddy v. + +The State of Andhra Pradesh10 and Julakanti Brahma Reddy + +@ Brahma Nanda Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 11. In + +both those matters the question about Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 was never raised by either side and therefore, there was no + +occasion for this Court to express itself on that aspect of the + +matter. After those orders it was in October and November 2024 + +only this Court had occasion to consider Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 and accordingly decided the earlier referred Nakka + +Nagireddy's case12 and Deepak Kumar Tala's case13. + +Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions of the learned + +counsel for the petitioners. +

+

+

61. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition + +No.5920 of 2024 further argued that the investigating agency is + +10 + Order dated 23.07.2024 in Criminal Petition No.3807 of 2024 +11 + Order dated 13.08.2024 in Criminal Petition No.10005 of 2023 +12 + supra 2 +13 + supra 3 + 37 + + + + +not entitled to add new penal provisions and cited State of + +Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde14. That was a case + +where on written information police registered a crime and + +investigating into it and filed charge sheet specifying certain penal + +provisions. At that stage the informant filed a petition to add + +Sections 364, 394 and 398 I.P.C. The question arose about the + +powers of the Magistrate at that stage as to whether he can + +incorporate those penal provisions as requested by the informant + +in a charge sheet filed by the police. Their Lordships stated that + +allowing incorporation of new provisions into the charge sheet as + +requested by the written informant at that stage is impermissible. + +However, the Court which is to try the case has to consider the + +first information report and all the other material collected and + +take a decision to frame appropriate charges under all the + +relevant penal provisions. Thus, the cited ruling has no relevance + +to the present case at hand. In the case at hand, the + +investigating police, exercising their right of investigation, have + +found it appropriate that the material on record do attract various + +provisions which were not originally mentioned in the F.I.R. Such + +power cannot be questioned. Informant would only put forth the + +14 + AIR 2014 SC 620 + 38 + + + + +facts before the registering officer and the Station House Officer + +on receiving such information using his own diligence + +incorporates the relevant penal provisions in the F.I.R. During + +investigation certain facts may be found incorrect and certain new + +facts may have been discovered and certain new accused may + +have been found having connection with the crime. There can be + +no legal hurdle in that regard since investigation is a voyage of + +truth. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsels for + +petitioners that provisions under the Act, 1989 were brought into + +effect during investigation and therefore have to be discarded is + +an argument that cannot be sustained. It may be recorded here + +that even to begin with in the case at hand the F.I.R. mentioned + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989. At the present also + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989 are alleged by the + +prosecution. Simply because at one stage such penal provisions + +were dropped does not mean that at a later stage they cannot be + +brought in. The argument that the new addition was not granted + +by the Superintendent of Police cannot be countenanced since + +the method of investigation is sole prerogative of the investigation + +officer. For the above reasons, the point is answered against the + +petitioners. +

39

+ + + + +

62. In the result, all these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. It is + +made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate + +petitions for appropriate reliefs before the appropriate Court. In + +the event such petitions are filed, the Court where they are filed is + +to consider the petitions on judicial side and dispose of them in + +accordance with law. Any observations made herein are confined + +to these petitions and they have no bearing on the merits or + +demerits of the case on either side. +

+

________________________ + Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J +Date: 06.01.2025 +Ivd + 40 + + + + + THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR + + + + +CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475, + 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839, + 5920 and 9083 of 2024 + + + + + Date: 06.01.2025 + + + +Ivd +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_145137483.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_145137483.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f25852296dfd686a61b1c7f2e55d5f076f765577 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_145137483.html @@ -0,0 +1,381 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ashok Srivastava vs State Of U.P. on 11 December, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A I.P.C. +
+
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A I.P.C. +
+
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_147198016.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_147198016.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e0f1ec101622488d9c4bf7d513790bac12eba2ec --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_147198016.html @@ -0,0 +1,455 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Raushan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The petitioner is in custody for about 4 years. + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 665 of 2023 + + The instant Revision is filed by CICL himself, + + challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order, + + dated 9th of August, 2023, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2023 + + by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum- + + Children's Court, Banka. The CICL was arrested in connection + + with Banduwa Kurawa P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023, corresponding + + to G.R. No. 1202 of 2023, for the offences punishable under + + Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 + + of the Arms Act. However, later on, Sections 34 of the IPC and + + Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section + + 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes + + (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added. Prayer for + + bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Appeal in + + exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Juvenile + + Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter + + referred to as 'said Act') vide order, dated 15th of June, 2023. + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 687 of 2023 + + The petitioner/CICL was arrested in connection + + with Fesar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, + + 325, 307, 34, 504, 506 and 379 of the IPC along with his father + + and uncle. The petitioner prayed for regular bail before the JJB, + + Aurangabad. In JJB Case No. 932 of 2023, prayer for bail was + + rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 41 + + of 2023 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children's Court, + + Aurangabad. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal + + and affirmed the order of the JJB. The petitioner has assailed the + + said order of the Appellate Court on various grounds, specially + + on the ground that the father and uncle of the petitioner have + + already been granted bail for the same offence. + +
+
+ +
+

Reg. Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2024 + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + The petitioner was booked along with other major + + accused persons in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 237 of + + 2022, dated 13th of August, 2022, under Section 302 and 34 of + + the IPC. The petitioner being a CICL prayed for bail before the + + Juvenile Justice Board, but his prayer for bail was rejected. He + + preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the said Act before the + + learned Special Judge, Children's Court and the said appeal was + + also dismissed and the order of rejection of bail passed by the + + JJB was affirmed. It is stated by the petitioner that the accused + + persons who are major, namely, Sushil Kumar Yadav and Anil + + Yadav were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on + + 26th of April, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 4091 of 2023. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_147306708.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_147306708.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4c776e0a341648de9e3f43e1fa0515735e5fa24b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_147306708.html @@ -0,0 +1,403 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rajendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 November, 2017 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
Shri A.K. Dawale, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Government Advocate for +the non-applicant/State. +
This is the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 +of Cr.P.C. of applicant/ Mahendra Singh apprehending his arrest +in connection with Crime No.434/2017 for the offence +punishable under Section 406 of IPC. No other bail application +has been either filed, decided or pending before the Sessions +Court or before this Court or before Hon'ble the Apex Court in +connection with the present case. +
+
+ +
+
List after two weeks. +
(Virender Singh) + Judge +Amit + +18/09/2017 :- +
Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri R. Sukhani, learned counsel for the +objector/complainant. +
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the non- +applicant/State. +
The applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail on the +ground that there are no ingredients or other evidence available +of Section 354 of IPC, other offence are bailable, the applicant is +a student of engineering and allegations made against the him +are vague, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted to him. +
+
+ +
+
(Virender Singh) + Judge +Amit + +18/09/2017 :- +
Shri R.S. Chabra, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the non- +applicant/State. +
Heard with the aid of case diary. + This is the first anticipatory bail application under Section +438 of Cr.P.C. of applicant/Jairamdas Tuteja apprehending his +arrest in connection with crime no.0178/2017 for the offence +punishable under Section 306 and 34 of IPC. No other bail +application has been either filed, decided or pending before the +Sessions Court or before this Court or before Hon'ble the Apex +Court in connection with the present case. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_147488367.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_147488367.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f5655fce72b997ab7e2047e208f7c31bcc86493d --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_147488367.html @@ -0,0 +1,424 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Girdhar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:11536) on 7 March, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

4. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.69/2024) +

5. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.69/2024) +

6. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.69/2024) + + +

8. Concerned Police Station Shreekaranpur +

+
+ +
+

12. Date of passing of 21.10.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.14884/2023) + +

14. Concerned Police Station Kotwali Barmer +

15. District Barmer +

16. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 420 and 406 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.14885/2023) +

17. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.14885/2023) +

+
+ +
+

34. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.15296/2023) +

35. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.15296/2023) +

36. Date of passing of 22.11.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.15296/2023) + +

38. Concerned Police Station Pratap Nagar +

+
+ +
+

76. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.90/2024) +

77. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.90/2024) +

78. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.90/2024) + + +

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no + + case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his + + incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in + + the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the + + accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based + + on conjectures and surmises. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_147688726.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_147688726.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7dac46ec3b1e2d611abf46ff6c605e744f0b7200 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_147688726.html @@ -0,0 +1,385 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Karan Kapoor vs State Of Punjab on 24 August, 2022 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up +before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail. +

+

2. In paragraph 17 of the bail application, the accused declares the following +criminal antecedents: +

+
 Sr. No.   FIR No.        Date       Offences                   Police Station Status
+ 1         187            22.08.2012 406, 420 IPC, 24           Phase-1 SAS On bail
+                                      of Immigration            Nagar (Mohali)
+                                            Act
+ 2         332            08.10.2014 406, 420 IPC               Tripri  Town On bail
+                                                                Patiala
+ 3         3              04.01.2018  406, 420 IPC, 24          Phasie-1 SAS On bail
+                                      of Immigration            Nagar (Mohali)
+                                            Act
+ 4         34             23.02.2018 406, 420, 34 IPC           Model Town       On bail
+                                                                Hoshiarpur
+ 5         66             06.04.2018  406, 420 IPC, 24          City    Kharar   On bail
+                                      of Immigration            SAS      Nagar
+                                            Act                 (Mohali)
+ 6         84             26.12.2019 420, 120-B IPC             Purana Shalla,   On bail
+                                                                Gurdaspur
+ 7         99             26.06.2020     406, 420 IPC, 24       Phase-1 SAS      On bail
+                                         of Immigration         Nagar (Mohali)
+                                               Act
+
+
+
+
+                                           1 of 7
+
+
+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_14810184.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_14810184.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d8cec52c0096bfa241935cd0fc8b95dd86529e30 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_14810184.html @@ -0,0 +1,2203 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Gondi Parandhamaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 34, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

+

Gondi Parandhamaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025

+ +
        THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
+
+
+CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475,
+
+ 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839,
+
+                     5920 and 9083 of 2024
+
+
+COMMON ORDER:
+ + +

Crl.P.No.5197 of 2024 + + + This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A32 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

2

+ + + + +

2. Sri N. Harinadh, learned Counsel for petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, + +learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- + +State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.4896 of 2024 + + +

3. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A46 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

4. Sri Mukkamalla Rama Swamy, the learned counsel for + +petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + 3 + + + + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5230 of 2024 + + +

5. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A35 and A51 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

6. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + 4 + + + + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5256 of 2024 + + +

7. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A43 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

8. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + 5 + + + + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.5367 of 2024 + + +

9. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A4 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

10. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 6 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5475 of 2024 + + +

11. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A64 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

12. Sri Karanki Yaswanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, the learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

7

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5487 of 2024 + + +

13. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A47 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

14. Ms.P.Srilatha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 8 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5503 of 2024 + + +

15. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A19 and A20 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

16. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 9 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5550 of 2024 + + +

17. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A2, A16, A37 and A45 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

18. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

10

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5553 of 2024 + + +

19. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A7 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

20. Sri Peta Gnana Teja, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 11 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5585 of 2024 + + +

21. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A1 and A67 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

22. Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

12

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5652 of 2024 + + +

23. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A15 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

24. Sri Chalasani Venkat, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

13

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5718 of 2024 + + +

25. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A8, A22, A36 and A68 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

26. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 14 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5724 of 2024 + + +

27. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A3 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

28. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

15

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5752 of 2024 + + +

29. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A31, A53 and A65 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime + +No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna + +District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections + +143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) + +of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

30. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

16

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5839 of 2024 + + +

31. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A55 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

32. Sri B.V Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 17 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5920 of 2024 + + +

33. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A6, A13, A14, A17, A27, A28, A30, A39, A42, A52, + +A54, A56, A61 and A69 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

34. Ms.V.Devi Satya Sri, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

18

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.9083 of 2024 + + +

35. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A75 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

36. Sri G.L.Nageswar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor + +appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments. + + +

37. In all the above bail petitions, detailed counters were filed + +by the respondent-State. +

19

+ + + + +

38. All these criminal petitions pertain to Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station. By these petitions these + +accused pray for pre-arrest bail. All these petitions were heard + +together and by this common order they shall be disposed of. + +The crime incident allegedly occurred on 20.02.2023. Upon a + +written information dated 22.02.2023 F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was + +registered. The scene of offence was Telugu Desam Party office, + +Gannavaram. Sri Mudunuri Satyavardhan belonging to Madiga + +caste, which is a scheduled caste, was computer operator + +working in Telugu Desam Party office and living in the said office. + + +

39. During the time when this crime incident allegedly occurred + +the party in power was YSR Congress Party. Investigation + +commenced and went on for some time. Thereafter there were + +general elections and the then opposition party/Telugu Desam + +Party came into power. Thereafter investigation continued + +further. The allegations and counter allegations in this case + +disclosed the rift between both the political parties. Petitioners + +contend that this is a case falsely alleged against them out of + +political vendetta. According to State, for political reasons there + +was inadequate investigation soon after commission of the + +offence. By the time this crime incident occurred Sri Vallabhaneni + 20 + + + + +Vamsi Mohan was Member of Legislative Assembly for + +Gannavaram Assembly Constituency. He is one of the accused + +in the present crime. +

+

+

40. The version of the prosecution is that on 18.02.2023 during + +afternoon hours a press meet was held by Sri Vallabhaneni + +Vamsi Mohan wherein he allegedly made certain insulting + +remarks as against Sri N.Chandrababu Naidu, Sri Nara Lokesh + +and their family members and used indecent language. In + +response to it, certain leaders of Telugu Desam Party conducted + +a press meeting on 19.02.2023 in the morning hours and + +condemned the statements made by the opponent political party + +people. +

+

+

41. In the above backdrop of facts, the crime incident allegedly + +occurred. It is stated that on 20.02.2023 at about 5:00 P.M. + +Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan went to Telugu Desam Party + +office and on noticing followers of Telugu Desam Party he caused + +enquiries about Mr. Pattabhi of Telugu Desam Party and warned + +them that they would finish Telugu Desam Party and left the + +place. +

21

+ + + + +

42. In the next 30 minutes at about 5:30 P.M. about 100 + +persons belonging to YSR Congress Party came to Telugu + +Desam Party office wielding sticks, stones, petrol bottles and + +various other arms and while hailing Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi + +Mohan they attacked the party office. They threw stones, entered + +into the party office and destroyed the furniture, broke two + +computers and two televisions and caused tremendous panic + +among everyone available there. In the first information report + +the de facto complainant was able to mention the names of 44 + +accused. It also made a mention about four named accused who + +came upon him and abused him by his caste name. The further + +case of the prosecution is that these hooligans caused chaos and + +some of them using their sticks and cricket playing wickets + +seriously damaged three cars/AP 39 K 1999, AP 16 DJ 9499 and + +TS 10 EC 4099. It is also stated that one Mr. Rabbani poured + +petrol on the car bearing No.AP 16 DA 5555 and lit fire to it. The + +version of the de facto complainant is that there were police + +people at the Telugu Desam Party office and they remained mute + +spectators. During investigation it was found that some of the + +accused made attempts to burn the party office as walls in one + +room were found with charred marks. +

22

+ + + + +

43. Investigation has been in progress. Some of the accused + +were arrested and were remanded to judicial custody. According + +to prosecution, at least 44 accused were absconding. After + +gaining contact with about 28 accused they were questioned + +about their mobile phones and only seven out of them + +surrendered their mobile phones and 20 of the accused furnished + +false information with regard to the instruments they used and + +their mobile numbers. +

+

+

44. During the investigation, CCTV footage was collected. + +When the crime incident occurred, various people captured it on + +their mobile phones and all such material was collected. Based + +on these investigative efforts, allegations are made against all + +these petitioners by the prosecution that they are all involved in + +this crime incident. +

+

+

45. Broadly stated all these petitioners raised the following + +contentions: +

+

+

 That there was unexplained delay in registration of crime. + + The incident occurred on 20.02.2023 and F.I.R. was + + registered on 22.02.2023. That around the same time and + + place certain incidents occurred which resulted in + 23 + + + + + registration of multiple F.I.Rs. and many of which disclosed + + accusation of criminal acts of followers of Telugu Desam + + Party as against members of YSR Congress Party + + members and this case is in a way a counter blast to Crime + + Nos.132 of 2023 and 133 of 2023. +
+
+  F.I.R. does not contain any allegations of overt acts against + + these petitioners. +
+
+  After change in political party in power witnesses were + + planted and false evidence is created. +
+
+  The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. were bailable and + + many of these petitioners were served with Section 41A + + Cr.P.C. notice. However, after the change of political + + Government police have unlawfully brought additional + + penal provisions to nullify the rightful reliefs available to the + + petitioners. +
+
+

46. Plethora of precedent is cited on behalf of the petitioners + +and on behalf of some of the accused meticulous written + +arguments are filed leaving one to wonder that this to pronounce + +a judgment as if it is one after trial. +

24

+ + + + +

47. The following significant aspects are required to be noticed: + + +

F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was registered for the offences + +punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435 and 506 read with + +149 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989'). Since caste atrocity was one of + +the offences alleged, on the instructions of Superintendent of + +Police, Krishna, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gannavaram + +took up investigation. After recording the statements of about six + +witnesses, the investigation officer found that the provisions of the + +Act, 1989 were not applicable. Therefore, he applied to the + +Superintendent of Police to accord permission to delete those + +provisions. By proceedings dated 04.07.2023 the Superintendent + +of Police granted such permission. Investigation went further and + +scores of witnesses were examined. Thereafter by way of an + +alteration memo dated 07.08.2024 the investigation agency got + +added Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989. It + +also added Sections 436, 450 and 452 I.P.C. It is also to be + +noticed that in this case so far there are 71 accused. + 25 + + + + +

48. Since in the present crime incident not only offences under + +the Indian Penal Code but also offences under the Act, 1989 are + +alleged, the forceful argument raised by the State is that + +anticipatory bail petitions are not maintainable by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. The further argument is + +that the High Court does not now possess concurrent original + +jurisdiction for bails as well as anticipatory bails and it has only + +appellate jurisdiction by virtue of Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and + +therefore, these petitions are to be dismissed. In such + +circumstances, this Court on 13.11.2024 requested the learned + +counsels on both sides to address arguments in that regard since + +the jurisdictional bar has arisen. +

+

+

49. Valiant submissions are made by the learned counsels for + +petitioners wherein references are made to Sections 18 and 18A + +of the Act, 1989 and precedent is cited to show that if there is no + +prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989 is + +made out, anticipatory bail could be considered. It is also argued + +that this Court in these petitions during hearing granted interim + +protection and therefore, the same may be made absolute since + +these petitioners have not violated anything thereafter. + 26 + + + + +

50. The point that falls for consideration is: + + +

"What is the effect of Section 14A of the Scheduled + + Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the concurrent original + + jurisdiction of the High Court in considering bails + + and anticipatory bails where offences under the Act, + + 1989 are involved? +
+
+POINT: +
+
+

51. Offences under the Act, 1989 can be taken cognizance of + +and tried and be disposed of by Special Courts and Exclusive + +Special Courts as provided in Section 14 of the Act, 1989. Those + +Courts since now empowered to take cognizance hold power to + +take remand of the accused and consider bails. There is no + +provision in the Act, 1989 adverting to the aspects that are to be + +considered by those Courts when they entertain bail petitions. + +Therefore, those Courts draw their powers from the Code of + +Criminal Procedure. Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal + +Procedure is headed as provisions as to bail and bonds. It + +consists of Sections 436 to 450. They refer to bail in cases of + +bailable offences and bail in cases of non-bailable offences. + 27 + + + + +Section 438 Cr.P.C. is given heading direction for grant of bail to + +person apprehending arrest. To the extent the said provision is + +required alone is extracted here: +

+
"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending + arrest: +
+
(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be + arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- +

bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the + Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the + event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that + Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the + following factors, namely:- +

+
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; + +
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to + whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on + conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; + +
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and + +
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of + injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so + arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an + interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail: + +
Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, + the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order + under this sub-Section or has rejected the application for + grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer + 28 + + + + + incharge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the + applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in + such application." +
+

52. Thus, as per the above provision, those accused who + +anticipate their arrest may seek pre-arrest bail and they could + +move such applications either before this Court or before the + +Court of Sessions. It is in the light of such a provision the + +petitioners have straightaway moved this Court for their prayers + +for pre-arrest bail. +

+

+

53. The first submission of the State is that in cases of caste + +atrocities anticipatory bails cannot be maintained by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. Those provisions read as + +below: +

+

+

"18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons + committing an offence under the Act.-- Nothing in + section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case + involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of + having committed an offence under this Act. + + 18A. No enquiry or approval required.--(1) For the + purposes of this Act,-- (a) preliminary enquiry shall not be + required for registration of a First Information Report against + any person; or + 29 + + + + +
(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the + arrest, if necessary, of any person, + + against whom an accusation of having committed an + offence under this Act has been made and no procedure + other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall + apply. +
+
(2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply + to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or + order or direction of any Court." +
+

54. The crisp response from the learned counsels for the + +petitioners is that the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would + +apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist + +pointing towards the commission of an offence under the Act, + +1989. If the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under + +the Act, 1989 are not disclosed on the prima facie reading of the + +allegations levelled in the complaint or F.I.R. then in such + +circumstances, the bar of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would not + +apply and the Courts would not be absolutely precluded from + +granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons. In justification of + +this argument they cited ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + +India in Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala1. + +1 + 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601 + 30 + + + + +

55. If one goes by the contentions of the learned counsel for + +petitioners this Court is to take a view whether the allegations in + +the F.I.R./written information of the de facto complainant prima + +facie disclose caste atrocity or not. However, according to the + +State, even such a view cannot be taken by this Court by virtue of + +interdict contained in Section 14A of the Act, 1989. Therefore, it + +is required to notice what this provision says. The provision reads + +as below: +

+

+

"14A. Appeals:--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained + in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an + appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not + being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an + Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and + on law. +
+
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section + (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, + 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court + against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive + Special Court granting or refusing bail. + + (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for + the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall + be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of + the judgment, sentence or order appealed from: Provided + that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry + of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the + 31 + + + + + appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal + within the period of ninety days: Provided further that no + appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of + one hundred and eighty days. +
+
(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far + as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months + from the date of admission of the appeal." + +

56. As per Sub-Section (2) of Section 14Aof the Act, the + +petitions for bail are to be considered by the Special Court and in + +the event of their granting or refusing to grant such bails the + +aggrieved can prefer an appeal before this Court. Thus, the + +concurrent jurisdiction for consideration of anticipatory bails + +provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C. stood excluded. It is not as + +though the aggrieved is deprived of all the remedies. After + +inviting an order on the bail petition from the Special Court the + +aggrieved is entitled to prefer an appeal before this Court in terms + +of Section 14A of the Act, 1989. In the case at hand, the + +petitioners have moved bail petitions straightaway before this + +Court. At any rate, what is before this Court is not an appeal + +against an order passed by the Special Court with reference to + +bails. It shall be stated that on the same subject matter High + +Court could not be said to possess concurrent original jurisdiction + 32 + + + + +as well as appellate jurisdiction. If one is to state that a bail is + +different from anticipatory bail the result is that in anticipatory + +bails this Court holds original jurisdiction and in regular bails it + +holds only appellate jurisdiction. Assuming that in a case a + +petition for anticipatory bail being moved before the Special Court + +resulted in dismissal, then according to the logic applied by the + +petitioners the petitions would have to move only another bail + +petition before this Court and not an appeal. Such logic is in + +violation of what is clearly provided in Section 14A of the Act, + +1989. It is to be seen that the question of bail presupposes + +detention or custody of the person. In a case where a person is + +arrested he prays for a regular bail. In cases of anticipatory bail + +in the event of granting the relief, it has no effect unless and until + +the accused is arrested. In other words, the order of anticipatory + +bail comes into effect only after a person is arrested and not + +otherwise. In contrast to regular bail, in cases of anticipatory bail + +the order is obtained in advance. In regular bails it was obtained + +after arrest. The timing at which a prayer is made, and an order + +is granted, have no relevance when it comes to operation of + +those orders as in both the cases they come into operation only in + +those cases where a person is arrested. In such view of the + 33 + + + + +matter the word bail used in Section 14A of the Act, 1989 + +encompasses regular bail as well as anticipatory bail. Therefore, + +it must be stated that an application for bail or anticipatory bail + +can be filed only before the Special Court or the Exclusive + +Special Court as the case may be and not before the High Court. + +An order granting or refusing bail or anticipatory bail by the + +Special Court or Exclusive Special Court can be assailed before + +this Court invoking its appellate jurisdiction provided in Section + +14A of the Act, 1989. This Court had deliberated these aspects + +on earlier occasions when similar questions were raised and it + +reached to the same conclusions and reference can be made to + +the following: +

+

+

1. Nakka Nagireddy v. State of A.P.2 + + +
2. Deepak Kumar Tala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh3. + + +

57. Similar conclusions were reached at by other High Courts. + +Reference can be made to the following: +

+

+

1. K.M.Basheer v. Rajani K.T.4 + +2 + 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5322 Order dated 11.11.2024 +3 + Order dated 22.10.2024 in Criminal Petition No.6487 of 2024 +4 + 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 472 + 34 + + + + +
2. Lokesh v. State of Karnataka5 + + +
3. In re Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 v. Nil6 + + +
4. Atul Rajput v. The State of Madhya Pradesh7 + + +

58. At the bar, for petitioners, Abhishek Awasthi v. State of + +U.P.8 is cited. That is a case where other subsections of Section + +14A of the Act, 1989 fell for consideration and the powers of the + +High Court were considered under Section 482 of Code of + +Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings. + +Finally, it was held that with a view to prevent the misuse or + +abuse of the Court or law, the High Court holds inherent + +jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. + +Such question is not available before this Court. Even otherwise + +a brief reference to what was stated by their Lordships in Shajan + +Skaria's case9 would be sufficient here. At paragraph No.49 their + +Lordships stated that if the accused puts forward the case of + +malicious prosecution on account of political or private vendetta + +5 + 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15742 +6 + 2018 SCC OnLine ALL 2087 +7 + Order dated 10.04.2024 in Crl.A.No.3261 of 2024 of the High Court of +Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur +8 + MANU/UP/4595/2024 + 35 + + + + +such aspects can be considered only by the High Court in + +exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code or + +in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the + +Constitution of India. However, powers under Section 438 of the + +Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised once the + +contents of the complaint/F.I.R. disclose a prima facie case. In + +fact, in that case Section 14A of the Act, 1989 did not come up for + +consideration since the anticipatory bail petition was first moved + +before the trial Court and as against those orders appeal was + +preferred before the High Court. +

+

+

59. The plethora of precedent cited before this Court is not with + +reference to Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and therefore any + +reference to those cherished principles of those rulings is not + +required. This Court refrains from delving into other facts and the + +principles of law governing anticipatory bails since any such + +discussion may unnecessarily prejudice the contentions of both + +sides when appropriate applications are filed before appropriate + +Courts for the reliefs or when the maters come up before this + +Court in appeal. +

+

9 + Supra 1 + 36 + + + + +

60. Learned counsel for petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5920 + +of 2024 argued that this very Bench on earlier occasions + +considered and granted anticipatory bail and therefore, the same + +benefit can be extended to the present petitioners. The attention + +of this Court is brought to Sri Settipalli Raghurami Reddy v. + +The State of Andhra Pradesh10 and Julakanti Brahma Reddy + +@ Brahma Nanda Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 11. In + +both those matters the question about Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 was never raised by either side and therefore, there was no + +occasion for this Court to express itself on that aspect of the + +matter. After those orders it was in October and November 2024 + +only this Court had occasion to consider Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 and accordingly decided the earlier referred Nakka + +Nagireddy's case12 and Deepak Kumar Tala's case13. + +Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions of the learned + +counsel for the petitioners. +

+

+

61. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition + +No.5920 of 2024 further argued that the investigating agency is + +10 + Order dated 23.07.2024 in Criminal Petition No.3807 of 2024 +11 + Order dated 13.08.2024 in Criminal Petition No.10005 of 2023 +12 + supra 2 +13 + supra 3 + 37 + + + + +not entitled to add new penal provisions and cited State of + +Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde14. That was a case + +where on written information police registered a crime and + +investigating into it and filed charge sheet specifying certain penal + +provisions. At that stage the informant filed a petition to add + +Sections 364, 394 and 398 I.P.C. The question arose about the + +powers of the Magistrate at that stage as to whether he can + +incorporate those penal provisions as requested by the informant + +in a charge sheet filed by the police. Their Lordships stated that + +allowing incorporation of new provisions into the charge sheet as + +requested by the written informant at that stage is impermissible. + +However, the Court which is to try the case has to consider the + +first information report and all the other material collected and + +take a decision to frame appropriate charges under all the + +relevant penal provisions. Thus, the cited ruling has no relevance + +to the present case at hand. In the case at hand, the + +investigating police, exercising their right of investigation, have + +found it appropriate that the material on record do attract various + +provisions which were not originally mentioned in the F.I.R. Such + +power cannot be questioned. Informant would only put forth the + +14 + AIR 2014 SC 620 + 38 + + + + +facts before the registering officer and the Station House Officer + +on receiving such information using his own diligence + +incorporates the relevant penal provisions in the F.I.R. During + +investigation certain facts may be found incorrect and certain new + +facts may have been discovered and certain new accused may + +have been found having connection with the crime. There can be + +no legal hurdle in that regard since investigation is a voyage of + +truth. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsels for + +petitioners that provisions under the Act, 1989 were brought into + +effect during investigation and therefore have to be discarded is + +an argument that cannot be sustained. It may be recorded here + +that even to begin with in the case at hand the F.I.R. mentioned + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989. At the present also + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989 are alleged by the + +prosecution. Simply because at one stage such penal provisions + +were dropped does not mean that at a later stage they cannot be + +brought in. The argument that the new addition was not granted + +by the Superintendent of Police cannot be countenanced since + +the method of investigation is sole prerogative of the investigation + +officer. For the above reasons, the point is answered against the + +petitioners. +

39

+ + + + +

62. In the result, all these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. It is + +made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate + +petitions for appropriate reliefs before the appropriate Court. In + +the event such petitions are filed, the Court where they are filed is + +to consider the petitions on judicial side and dispose of them in + +accordance with law. Any observations made herein are confined + +to these petitions and they have no bearing on the merits or + +demerits of the case on either side. +

+

________________________ + Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J +Date: 06.01.2025 +Ivd + 40 + + + + + THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR + + + + +CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475, + 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839, + 5920 and 9083 of 2024 + + + + + Date: 06.01.2025 + + + +Ivd +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_1482456.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_1482456.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d94f8729823d836c0843eda5e81e5b38897ef34e --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_1482456.html @@ -0,0 +1,369 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Dinesh Tiwari S/O Ganga Prasad Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And Mahendra Prasad Tiwari ... on 11 December, 2007 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

3. Investigation was started by the police of the offence. But afterwards the investigation was transferred to CBCID by the order of the Government. CBCID submitted charge sheet against Sadhu Saran Yadav co-accused for the offence under Section 302, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. And the CJM took the cognizance of the offence vide order dated 8.5.2006, and it was mentioned in the charge sheet that investigation shall continue against rest of the accused persons. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions of Sadhu Saran Yadav registered at S.T. No. 149 of 2006 State v. Sadhu Saran Yadav and Mahendra Prasad Tiwari was examined by trial court as P.W. I against Sadhu Saran Yadav. Afterwards CBCID submitted the charge sheet against Ram Vijai Yadav for the offence under Section 302, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. But the charge sheet was submitted against the applicant for the offence under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The charge sheet was not submitted against the applicant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The cognizance was taken by CJM on charge sheet No. 5A of 2006 on 23.1.2007. Bail was granted to the applicant for the offence under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the CJM after taking cognizance and the charge was framed against the applicant also along with 302 IPC according lo applicant and on the application of the complainant order was passed for taking the applicant into custody for the offence under Section 302 IPC. +

+
+ +
+ +

11. Learned Counsel for the applicant also argued that learned Sessions Judge after framing the charge under Section 302 IPC has gone beyond that. Application of the complainant was allowed. The complainant moved an application that a charge has been framed against the applicant for the offence under Section 302 IPC then he must be taken into custody as he was granted bail only for the offence under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC. Learned Counsel for the applicant argued at length that as the applicant was granted bail earlier in this crime hence there was no justification for the Sessions Judge for passing the order for taking him into custody for the offence under Section 302 IPC. I have perused the order of learned Sessions Judge dated 5.10.2007 and learned Sessions Judge has passed the detailed and speaking order in this connection and in passing the order he placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court and also this court. It has been alleged by the Sessions Judge that as the charge was framed for the offence under Section 302 IPC hence the applicant must be taken into custody for the offence because he was granted bail earlier in a very minor offence under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The offence under Section 302 IPC is a major offence whereas the offence under Section 323, 506 and 504 IPC is a very minor offence and triable by Magistrate only and this order of Sessions Judge is perfectly justified after framing the charge under Section 302 IPC Applicant must be taken into custody and he must seek bail. +

+
+ +
+ +

12. In the circumstances of the case applicant also cannot be permitted to remain on the already furnished bail bonds or require the applicant to furnish fresh bail bonds for the offence under Section 302 IPC without taking him into custody. This will be a mockery of the system. There are serious allegations against the applicant of the offence under Section 302 IPC and for this offence he must be taken into custody and he must move for fresh bail for the offence. +

+

13. For the aforesaid reason I have arrived at the definite conclusion that the order of learned sessions Judge is perfectly justified. There appeals no illegality or irregularity or procedural error in the order of Sessions Judge and the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed at this stage. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_148512276.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_148512276.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8d5f2d14358fa83afed7566df1a00c886c78d1bc --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_148512276.html @@ -0,0 +1,2203 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Shaik Sardar Johny vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 34, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

+

Shaik Sardar Johny vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025

+ +
        THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
+
+
+CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475,
+
+ 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839,
+
+                     5920 and 9083 of 2024
+
+
+COMMON ORDER:
+ + +

Crl.P.No.5197 of 2024 + + + This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A32 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

2

+ + + + +

2. Sri N. Harinadh, learned Counsel for petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, + +learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- + +State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.4896 of 2024 + + +

3. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A46 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

4. Sri Mukkamalla Rama Swamy, the learned counsel for + +petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + 3 + + + + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5230 of 2024 + + +

5. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A35 and A51 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

6. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + 4 + + + + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5256 of 2024 + + +

7. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A43 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

8. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + 5 + + + + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.5367 of 2024 + + +

9. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A4 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

10. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 6 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5475 of 2024 + + +

11. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A64 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

12. Sri Karanki Yaswanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, the learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

7

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5487 of 2024 + + +

13. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A47 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

14. Ms.P.Srilatha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 8 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5503 of 2024 + + +

15. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A19 and A20 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

16. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 9 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5550 of 2024 + + +

17. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A2, A16, A37 and A45 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

18. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

10

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5553 of 2024 + + +

19. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A7 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

20. Sri Peta Gnana Teja, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 11 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5585 of 2024 + + +

21. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A1 and A67 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

22. Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

12

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5652 of 2024 + + +

23. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A15 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

24. Sri Chalasani Venkat, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

13

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5718 of 2024 + + +

25. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A8, A22, A36 and A68 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

26. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 14 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5724 of 2024 + + +

27. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A3 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

28. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

15

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5752 of 2024 + + +

29. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A31, A53 and A65 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime + +No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna + +District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections + +143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) + +of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

30. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

16

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5839 of 2024 + + +

31. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A55 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

32. Sri B.V Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 17 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5920 of 2024 + + +

33. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A6, A13, A14, A17, A27, A28, A30, A39, A42, A52, + +A54, A56, A61 and A69 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

34. Ms.V.Devi Satya Sri, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

18

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.9083 of 2024 + + +

35. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A75 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

36. Sri G.L.Nageswar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor + +appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments. + + +

37. In all the above bail petitions, detailed counters were filed + +by the respondent-State. +

19

+ + + + +

38. All these criminal petitions pertain to Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station. By these petitions these + +accused pray for pre-arrest bail. All these petitions were heard + +together and by this common order they shall be disposed of. + +The crime incident allegedly occurred on 20.02.2023. Upon a + +written information dated 22.02.2023 F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was + +registered. The scene of offence was Telugu Desam Party office, + +Gannavaram. Sri Mudunuri Satyavardhan belonging to Madiga + +caste, which is a scheduled caste, was computer operator + +working in Telugu Desam Party office and living in the said office. + + +

39. During the time when this crime incident allegedly occurred + +the party in power was YSR Congress Party. Investigation + +commenced and went on for some time. Thereafter there were + +general elections and the then opposition party/Telugu Desam + +Party came into power. Thereafter investigation continued + +further. The allegations and counter allegations in this case + +disclosed the rift between both the political parties. Petitioners + +contend that this is a case falsely alleged against them out of + +political vendetta. According to State, for political reasons there + +was inadequate investigation soon after commission of the + +offence. By the time this crime incident occurred Sri Vallabhaneni + 20 + + + + +Vamsi Mohan was Member of Legislative Assembly for + +Gannavaram Assembly Constituency. He is one of the accused + +in the present crime. +

+

+

40. The version of the prosecution is that on 18.02.2023 during + +afternoon hours a press meet was held by Sri Vallabhaneni + +Vamsi Mohan wherein he allegedly made certain insulting + +remarks as against Sri N.Chandrababu Naidu, Sri Nara Lokesh + +and their family members and used indecent language. In + +response to it, certain leaders of Telugu Desam Party conducted + +a press meeting on 19.02.2023 in the morning hours and + +condemned the statements made by the opponent political party + +people. +

+

+

41. In the above backdrop of facts, the crime incident allegedly + +occurred. It is stated that on 20.02.2023 at about 5:00 P.M. + +Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan went to Telugu Desam Party + +office and on noticing followers of Telugu Desam Party he caused + +enquiries about Mr. Pattabhi of Telugu Desam Party and warned + +them that they would finish Telugu Desam Party and left the + +place. +

21

+ + + + +

42. In the next 30 minutes at about 5:30 P.M. about 100 + +persons belonging to YSR Congress Party came to Telugu + +Desam Party office wielding sticks, stones, petrol bottles and + +various other arms and while hailing Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi + +Mohan they attacked the party office. They threw stones, entered + +into the party office and destroyed the furniture, broke two + +computers and two televisions and caused tremendous panic + +among everyone available there. In the first information report + +the de facto complainant was able to mention the names of 44 + +accused. It also made a mention about four named accused who + +came upon him and abused him by his caste name. The further + +case of the prosecution is that these hooligans caused chaos and + +some of them using their sticks and cricket playing wickets + +seriously damaged three cars/AP 39 K 1999, AP 16 DJ 9499 and + +TS 10 EC 4099. It is also stated that one Mr. Rabbani poured + +petrol on the car bearing No.AP 16 DA 5555 and lit fire to it. The + +version of the de facto complainant is that there were police + +people at the Telugu Desam Party office and they remained mute + +spectators. During investigation it was found that some of the + +accused made attempts to burn the party office as walls in one + +room were found with charred marks. +

22

+ + + + +

43. Investigation has been in progress. Some of the accused + +were arrested and were remanded to judicial custody. According + +to prosecution, at least 44 accused were absconding. After + +gaining contact with about 28 accused they were questioned + +about their mobile phones and only seven out of them + +surrendered their mobile phones and 20 of the accused furnished + +false information with regard to the instruments they used and + +their mobile numbers. +

+

+

44. During the investigation, CCTV footage was collected. + +When the crime incident occurred, various people captured it on + +their mobile phones and all such material was collected. Based + +on these investigative efforts, allegations are made against all + +these petitioners by the prosecution that they are all involved in + +this crime incident. +

+

+

45. Broadly stated all these petitioners raised the following + +contentions: +

+

+

 That there was unexplained delay in registration of crime. + + The incident occurred on 20.02.2023 and F.I.R. was + + registered on 22.02.2023. That around the same time and + + place certain incidents occurred which resulted in + 23 + + + + + registration of multiple F.I.Rs. and many of which disclosed + + accusation of criminal acts of followers of Telugu Desam + + Party as against members of YSR Congress Party + + members and this case is in a way a counter blast to Crime + + Nos.132 of 2023 and 133 of 2023. +
+
+  F.I.R. does not contain any allegations of overt acts against + + these petitioners. +
+
+  After change in political party in power witnesses were + + planted and false evidence is created. +
+
+  The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. were bailable and + + many of these petitioners were served with Section 41A + + Cr.P.C. notice. However, after the change of political + + Government police have unlawfully brought additional + + penal provisions to nullify the rightful reliefs available to the + + petitioners. +
+
+

46. Plethora of precedent is cited on behalf of the petitioners + +and on behalf of some of the accused meticulous written + +arguments are filed leaving one to wonder that this to pronounce + +a judgment as if it is one after trial. +

24

+ + + + +

47. The following significant aspects are required to be noticed: + + +

F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was registered for the offences + +punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435 and 506 read with + +149 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989'). Since caste atrocity was one of + +the offences alleged, on the instructions of Superintendent of + +Police, Krishna, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gannavaram + +took up investigation. After recording the statements of about six + +witnesses, the investigation officer found that the provisions of the + +Act, 1989 were not applicable. Therefore, he applied to the + +Superintendent of Police to accord permission to delete those + +provisions. By proceedings dated 04.07.2023 the Superintendent + +of Police granted such permission. Investigation went further and + +scores of witnesses were examined. Thereafter by way of an + +alteration memo dated 07.08.2024 the investigation agency got + +added Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989. It + +also added Sections 436, 450 and 452 I.P.C. It is also to be + +noticed that in this case so far there are 71 accused. + 25 + + + + +

48. Since in the present crime incident not only offences under + +the Indian Penal Code but also offences under the Act, 1989 are + +alleged, the forceful argument raised by the State is that + +anticipatory bail petitions are not maintainable by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. The further argument is + +that the High Court does not now possess concurrent original + +jurisdiction for bails as well as anticipatory bails and it has only + +appellate jurisdiction by virtue of Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and + +therefore, these petitions are to be dismissed. In such + +circumstances, this Court on 13.11.2024 requested the learned + +counsels on both sides to address arguments in that regard since + +the jurisdictional bar has arisen. +

+

+

49. Valiant submissions are made by the learned counsels for + +petitioners wherein references are made to Sections 18 and 18A + +of the Act, 1989 and precedent is cited to show that if there is no + +prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989 is + +made out, anticipatory bail could be considered. It is also argued + +that this Court in these petitions during hearing granted interim + +protection and therefore, the same may be made absolute since + +these petitioners have not violated anything thereafter. + 26 + + + + +

50. The point that falls for consideration is: + + +

"What is the effect of Section 14A of the Scheduled + + Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the concurrent original + + jurisdiction of the High Court in considering bails + + and anticipatory bails where offences under the Act, + + 1989 are involved? +
+
+POINT: +
+
+

51. Offences under the Act, 1989 can be taken cognizance of + +and tried and be disposed of by Special Courts and Exclusive + +Special Courts as provided in Section 14 of the Act, 1989. Those + +Courts since now empowered to take cognizance hold power to + +take remand of the accused and consider bails. There is no + +provision in the Act, 1989 adverting to the aspects that are to be + +considered by those Courts when they entertain bail petitions. + +Therefore, those Courts draw their powers from the Code of + +Criminal Procedure. Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal + +Procedure is headed as provisions as to bail and bonds. It + +consists of Sections 436 to 450. They refer to bail in cases of + +bailable offences and bail in cases of non-bailable offences. + 27 + + + + +Section 438 Cr.P.C. is given heading direction for grant of bail to + +person apprehending arrest. To the extent the said provision is + +required alone is extracted here: +

+
"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending + arrest: +
+
(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be + arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- +

bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the + Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the + event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that + Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the + following factors, namely:- +

+
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; + +
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to + whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on + conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; + +
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and + +
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of + injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so + arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an + interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail: + +
Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, + the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order + under this sub-Section or has rejected the application for + grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer + 28 + + + + + incharge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the + applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in + such application." +
+

52. Thus, as per the above provision, those accused who + +anticipate their arrest may seek pre-arrest bail and they could + +move such applications either before this Court or before the + +Court of Sessions. It is in the light of such a provision the + +petitioners have straightaway moved this Court for their prayers + +for pre-arrest bail. +

+

+

53. The first submission of the State is that in cases of caste + +atrocities anticipatory bails cannot be maintained by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. Those provisions read as + +below: +

+

+

"18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons + committing an offence under the Act.-- Nothing in + section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case + involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of + having committed an offence under this Act. + + 18A. No enquiry or approval required.--(1) For the + purposes of this Act,-- (a) preliminary enquiry shall not be + required for registration of a First Information Report against + any person; or + 29 + + + + +
(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the + arrest, if necessary, of any person, + + against whom an accusation of having committed an + offence under this Act has been made and no procedure + other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall + apply. +
+
(2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply + to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or + order or direction of any Court." +
+

54. The crisp response from the learned counsels for the + +petitioners is that the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would + +apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist + +pointing towards the commission of an offence under the Act, + +1989. If the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under + +the Act, 1989 are not disclosed on the prima facie reading of the + +allegations levelled in the complaint or F.I.R. then in such + +circumstances, the bar of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would not + +apply and the Courts would not be absolutely precluded from + +granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons. In justification of + +this argument they cited ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + +India in Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala1. + +1 + 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601 + 30 + + + + +

55. If one goes by the contentions of the learned counsel for + +petitioners this Court is to take a view whether the allegations in + +the F.I.R./written information of the de facto complainant prima + +facie disclose caste atrocity or not. However, according to the + +State, even such a view cannot be taken by this Court by virtue of + +interdict contained in Section 14A of the Act, 1989. Therefore, it + +is required to notice what this provision says. The provision reads + +as below: +

+

+

"14A. Appeals:--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained + in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an + appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not + being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an + Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and + on law. +
+
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section + (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, + 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court + against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive + Special Court granting or refusing bail. + + (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for + the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall + be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of + the judgment, sentence or order appealed from: Provided + that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry + of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the + 31 + + + + + appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal + within the period of ninety days: Provided further that no + appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of + one hundred and eighty days. +
+
(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far + as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months + from the date of admission of the appeal." + +

56. As per Sub-Section (2) of Section 14Aof the Act, the + +petitions for bail are to be considered by the Special Court and in + +the event of their granting or refusing to grant such bails the + +aggrieved can prefer an appeal before this Court. Thus, the + +concurrent jurisdiction for consideration of anticipatory bails + +provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C. stood excluded. It is not as + +though the aggrieved is deprived of all the remedies. After + +inviting an order on the bail petition from the Special Court the + +aggrieved is entitled to prefer an appeal before this Court in terms + +of Section 14A of the Act, 1989. In the case at hand, the + +petitioners have moved bail petitions straightaway before this + +Court. At any rate, what is before this Court is not an appeal + +against an order passed by the Special Court with reference to + +bails. It shall be stated that on the same subject matter High + +Court could not be said to possess concurrent original jurisdiction + 32 + + + + +as well as appellate jurisdiction. If one is to state that a bail is + +different from anticipatory bail the result is that in anticipatory + +bails this Court holds original jurisdiction and in regular bails it + +holds only appellate jurisdiction. Assuming that in a case a + +petition for anticipatory bail being moved before the Special Court + +resulted in dismissal, then according to the logic applied by the + +petitioners the petitions would have to move only another bail + +petition before this Court and not an appeal. Such logic is in + +violation of what is clearly provided in Section 14A of the Act, + +1989. It is to be seen that the question of bail presupposes + +detention or custody of the person. In a case where a person is + +arrested he prays for a regular bail. In cases of anticipatory bail + +in the event of granting the relief, it has no effect unless and until + +the accused is arrested. In other words, the order of anticipatory + +bail comes into effect only after a person is arrested and not + +otherwise. In contrast to regular bail, in cases of anticipatory bail + +the order is obtained in advance. In regular bails it was obtained + +after arrest. The timing at which a prayer is made, and an order + +is granted, have no relevance when it comes to operation of + +those orders as in both the cases they come into operation only in + +those cases where a person is arrested. In such view of the + 33 + + + + +matter the word bail used in Section 14A of the Act, 1989 + +encompasses regular bail as well as anticipatory bail. Therefore, + +it must be stated that an application for bail or anticipatory bail + +can be filed only before the Special Court or the Exclusive + +Special Court as the case may be and not before the High Court. + +An order granting or refusing bail or anticipatory bail by the + +Special Court or Exclusive Special Court can be assailed before + +this Court invoking its appellate jurisdiction provided in Section + +14A of the Act, 1989. This Court had deliberated these aspects + +on earlier occasions when similar questions were raised and it + +reached to the same conclusions and reference can be made to + +the following: +

+

+

1. Nakka Nagireddy v. State of A.P.2 + + +
2. Deepak Kumar Tala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh3. + + +

57. Similar conclusions were reached at by other High Courts. + +Reference can be made to the following: +

+

+

1. K.M.Basheer v. Rajani K.T.4 + +2 + 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5322 Order dated 11.11.2024 +3 + Order dated 22.10.2024 in Criminal Petition No.6487 of 2024 +4 + 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 472 + 34 + + + + +
2. Lokesh v. State of Karnataka5 + + +
3. In re Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 v. Nil6 + + +
4. Atul Rajput v. The State of Madhya Pradesh7 + + +

58. At the bar, for petitioners, Abhishek Awasthi v. State of + +U.P.8 is cited. That is a case where other subsections of Section + +14A of the Act, 1989 fell for consideration and the powers of the + +High Court were considered under Section 482 of Code of + +Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings. + +Finally, it was held that with a view to prevent the misuse or + +abuse of the Court or law, the High Court holds inherent + +jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. + +Such question is not available before this Court. Even otherwise + +a brief reference to what was stated by their Lordships in Shajan + +Skaria's case9 would be sufficient here. At paragraph No.49 their + +Lordships stated that if the accused puts forward the case of + +malicious prosecution on account of political or private vendetta + +5 + 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15742 +6 + 2018 SCC OnLine ALL 2087 +7 + Order dated 10.04.2024 in Crl.A.No.3261 of 2024 of the High Court of +Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur +8 + MANU/UP/4595/2024 + 35 + + + + +such aspects can be considered only by the High Court in + +exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code or + +in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the + +Constitution of India. However, powers under Section 438 of the + +Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised once the + +contents of the complaint/F.I.R. disclose a prima facie case. In + +fact, in that case Section 14A of the Act, 1989 did not come up for + +consideration since the anticipatory bail petition was first moved + +before the trial Court and as against those orders appeal was + +preferred before the High Court. +

+

+

59. The plethora of precedent cited before this Court is not with + +reference to Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and therefore any + +reference to those cherished principles of those rulings is not + +required. This Court refrains from delving into other facts and the + +principles of law governing anticipatory bails since any such + +discussion may unnecessarily prejudice the contentions of both + +sides when appropriate applications are filed before appropriate + +Courts for the reliefs or when the maters come up before this + +Court in appeal. +

+

9 + Supra 1 + 36 + + + + +

60. Learned counsel for petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5920 + +of 2024 argued that this very Bench on earlier occasions + +considered and granted anticipatory bail and therefore, the same + +benefit can be extended to the present petitioners. The attention + +of this Court is brought to Sri Settipalli Raghurami Reddy v. + +The State of Andhra Pradesh10 and Julakanti Brahma Reddy + +@ Brahma Nanda Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 11. In + +both those matters the question about Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 was never raised by either side and therefore, there was no + +occasion for this Court to express itself on that aspect of the + +matter. After those orders it was in October and November 2024 + +only this Court had occasion to consider Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 and accordingly decided the earlier referred Nakka + +Nagireddy's case12 and Deepak Kumar Tala's case13. + +Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions of the learned + +counsel for the petitioners. +

+

+

61. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition + +No.5920 of 2024 further argued that the investigating agency is + +10 + Order dated 23.07.2024 in Criminal Petition No.3807 of 2024 +11 + Order dated 13.08.2024 in Criminal Petition No.10005 of 2023 +12 + supra 2 +13 + supra 3 + 37 + + + + +not entitled to add new penal provisions and cited State of + +Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde14. That was a case + +where on written information police registered a crime and + +investigating into it and filed charge sheet specifying certain penal + +provisions. At that stage the informant filed a petition to add + +Sections 364, 394 and 398 I.P.C. The question arose about the + +powers of the Magistrate at that stage as to whether he can + +incorporate those penal provisions as requested by the informant + +in a charge sheet filed by the police. Their Lordships stated that + +allowing incorporation of new provisions into the charge sheet as + +requested by the written informant at that stage is impermissible. + +However, the Court which is to try the case has to consider the + +first information report and all the other material collected and + +take a decision to frame appropriate charges under all the + +relevant penal provisions. Thus, the cited ruling has no relevance + +to the present case at hand. In the case at hand, the + +investigating police, exercising their right of investigation, have + +found it appropriate that the material on record do attract various + +provisions which were not originally mentioned in the F.I.R. Such + +power cannot be questioned. Informant would only put forth the + +14 + AIR 2014 SC 620 + 38 + + + + +facts before the registering officer and the Station House Officer + +on receiving such information using his own diligence + +incorporates the relevant penal provisions in the F.I.R. During + +investigation certain facts may be found incorrect and certain new + +facts may have been discovered and certain new accused may + +have been found having connection with the crime. There can be + +no legal hurdle in that regard since investigation is a voyage of + +truth. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsels for + +petitioners that provisions under the Act, 1989 were brought into + +effect during investigation and therefore have to be discarded is + +an argument that cannot be sustained. It may be recorded here + +that even to begin with in the case at hand the F.I.R. mentioned + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989. At the present also + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989 are alleged by the + +prosecution. Simply because at one stage such penal provisions + +were dropped does not mean that at a later stage they cannot be + +brought in. The argument that the new addition was not granted + +by the Superintendent of Police cannot be countenanced since + +the method of investigation is sole prerogative of the investigation + +officer. For the above reasons, the point is answered against the + +petitioners. +

39

+ + + + +

62. In the result, all these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. It is + +made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate + +petitions for appropriate reliefs before the appropriate Court. In + +the event such petitions are filed, the Court where they are filed is + +to consider the petitions on judicial side and dispose of them in + +accordance with law. Any observations made herein are confined + +to these petitions and they have no bearing on the merits or + +demerits of the case on either side. +

+

________________________ + Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J +Date: 06.01.2025 +Ivd + 40 + + + + + THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR + + + + +CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475, + 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839, + 5920 and 9083 of 2024 + + + + + Date: 06.01.2025 + + + +Ivd +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_148577320.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_148577320.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dbbfa93aee8e986c1b6ac055955b3bc0ad27637b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_148577320.html @@ -0,0 +1,485 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Mohit And Others vs State Of Haryana on 1 December, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present + +case an FIR was lodged against the petitioner under Sections 325, 341, 427, 506 + +IPC on 12.05.2020 and it was a case of cross version. All the petitioners were + +arrested and were released on bail by the learned Magistrate on 15.05.2020. + +Thereafter, during the investigation process, an offence under Section 325 IPC was + +added on 21.05.2020 and thereafter, on the receipt of the medical opinion report + +which indicated injury on the head of one Baljeet which was declared to be + +dangerous to life, an offence under Section 307 IPC was added on 08.07.2020. + +Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are already on + +bail and now since Section 307 IPC has been added, they have filed present + +petition for grant of anticipatory bail. +

+
+ +
+ +

On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted by referring to + +an affidavit filed by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, District + +Rewari that the present FIR was registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 188 IPC + +and subsequently upon investigation Sections 341, 506, 427 IPC were added and + +thereafter, petitioners were arrested and produced before the Court of learned Area + +Magistrate on 15.05.2020 and were released on bail. Thereafter, during + +investigation offence punishable under Section 325 IPC was added on 21.05.2020 + +and on 08.7.2020 consequent upon the receipt of medical opinion vide which the + +injury on the head of Baljeet was declared as dangerous for life, offence punishable + +under Section 307 IPC was added and accordingly, an application was moved + +before the learned Area Magistrate seeking permission to re-arrest the petitioners + +and other accused in the present case. +

+
+ +
+ +

CRM-M-37598 of 2020 + + Present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking + +anticipatory bail in FIR No.220, dated 12.05.2020 registered under Sections 147, + +149, 323, 188(325, 341, 506, 427 and 307 added later on) IPC at Police Station + +Khol, District Rewari. +

+

+

7 of 11 + + 8 CRM-M-37344 of 2020(O&M) and + CRM-M-37598 of 2020(O&M) + + + Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present + +case the petitioners have been falsely implicated and earlier the petitioners were + +granted interim anticipatory bail by the learned Additional and Sessions Judge, + +Rewari on 01.07.2020 and later on 08.07.2020 on the basis of the opinion of the + +doctor that the injury No.1 on the person of Baljeet Singh was dangerous to life, + +Section 307 IPC was added and therefore, vide orders dated 09.07.2020, the + +learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari vacated the interim anticipatory bail + +and dismissed the main application. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further + +submitted that in the present case, no role was attributed to the petitioners and there + +was no specific injury attributed to the petitioners and furthermore, it was a case of + +cross-version and initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, + +325, 188, 341, 506, 427 IPC and the petitioners have been granted interim + +anticipatory bail on 01.07.2020. Thereafter, medical opinion was received with + +regard to the injury No.1 on the person of Baljeet Singh and then on adding of + +Section 307 IPC, the anticipatory bail was dismissed on 09.07.2020 without any + +justifiable reason. He has submitted that it was a case of cross-version and that the + +petitioners were not at fault and therefore, has prayed for the grant of anticipatory + +bail to the petitioners. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble + +Supreme Court in Pradeep Ram's case(supra) by submitting that once bail has been + +granted to the petitioners then on the mere addition of an offence under Section + +307 IPC the petitioners cannot be arrested. +

+
+ +
+ +

Learned State counsel has further submitted that the aforesaid + +judgment in Pradeep Ram's case (supra) would not apply in the present case in + +view of the fact that the petitioners were not on regular bail but were only on + +interim anticipatory bail which was granted on 01.07.2020 and when offence under + +Section 307 IPC was added on 08.07.2020 then on the very next date + +i.e.,09.07.2020 the anticipatory bail was dismissed. +

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the + +available record. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_148971326.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_148971326.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cb5c803f69990157f58826a75250608f115e6772 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_148971326.html @@ -0,0 +1,390 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Pawan vs State Of U.P. on 23 August, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. Heard Mr. Sikandar Khan, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. +

+

2. Perused the record. +

+

3. This is a repeat application for bail filed by applicant-Pawan seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 102 of 2022, under sections 306, 506 IPC, Police Station- Ahar, District Bulandshahr during the pendency of trial. +

+

4. First bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 15.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 57262 of 2022 (Pawan Vs. State of U.P.) For ready reference, same is reproduced herein under: +

+
+ +
+ +
"Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Uttar Kumar Goswami, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. +
+
By means of this application, the applicant namely, Bholu Pradhan who is involved in Case Crime No.102 of 2022, under Sections 306, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Ahar, District- Bulandshahar is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant is in jail since 21.02.2023. +
+
Submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that present F.I.R. was lodged on 21.08.2022 for the offence which is said to have been taken place on 21.08.2022 under Sections 147, 302, 506 I.P.C. by one Dharmveer against six named accused persons including the present applicant. From the F.I.R., it is clear that the prime accused Phuspendra and Shivam have committed the offence of rape on 13.08.2022 and the Phuspendra is languishing in jail. However, another co-accused Shivam was remain an absconder. In the same F.I.R., the name of the applicant has figured up who used his good offices and taken the informant and thereafter his whereabouts was not unknown. The basic thrust of the argument is that there is a material change in the investigation whereby the textural change in the offence of the case was converted from 302 I.P.C. to 306 I.P.C. i.e. abetment to commit suicide. Not coming to the Section 306 I.P.C., the prosecution has to bring around the facts of the case under Section 107 I.P.C. which reads thus:- +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER/THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT/APPLICANTS FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
" List has been revised. +
+
Heard Sri S.M.Faraz I. Kazmi and Sri Sikandar Khan, learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. +
+
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Rajkumar, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.102 of 2022, under Sections 306, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Ahar, District- Bulandshahar , during pendency of trial. +
+
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there was parity role of the applicant and three co-accused, namely, Bholu Pradhan, Gaurav and Pawan. The name of co-accused, Gaurav, was exonerated by the Investigating Officer. The bail application of co-accused, Pawan, was rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 15.12.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.57262 of 2022. Subsequently bail application of co-accused, Kanchid, was allowed by this Court on 01.02.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.55656 of 2022 taking note of the fact that the bail of co-accused, Pawan, has been rejected. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_149823910.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_149823910.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aed73feb46f976a347ccbec5ed61532a1ef1b215 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_149823910.html @@ -0,0 +1,461 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ranjeet Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 31 May, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

15. To substantiate plea to enlarge the petitioner on bail, + +learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon order dated + +5.7.2023 passed in Cr.MP (M) No. 1501 of 2023, titled as Ram Singh @ + +Kaka Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has + +been enlarged on bail on 5.7.2023 after remaining in jail for 3 years 2 + +months. +

+

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred order + +dated 16.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1494 of 2023, titled as + +Rampal @ Ramphal Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section + +302 IPC has been enlarged on bail after remaining in custody for 4 + +years 9 months by considering plea of the petitioner regarding delay + +in trial. +

+
+ +
+ +

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred order + +dated 20.10.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2481 of 2023, titled as + +Sanma Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has + +been released on bail after 3 years 3 months detention considering + +the fact that only 22 witnesses out of 30 witnesses were examined by + +that time. +

+

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on + +order dated 4.11.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2618 of 2023, titled + +as Jasbir Singh Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 + +IPC has been released on bail after 3 years 5 months detention + +considering the fact that only 16 witnesses out of 39 witnesses were + +examined by that time. +

+
+ +
+ +

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on + +order dated 6.10.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2461 of 2023, titled + +as Balwinder Singh @ Kadu Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under + +Section 302 IPC has been released on bail after 3 years 1 month + +detention considering the fact that only 12 witnesses out of 34 + +witnesses were examined by that time. +

+

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred + +order dated 21.8.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1942 of 2023, titled + +as Robin Patrwal Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 + +IPC has been released on bail after 2 years 2 months detention + +considering the fact that only 10 witnesses out of 51 witnesses were + +examined by that time. +

+
+ +
+ +

+

21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred + +order dated 1.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1216 of 2023, titled as + +Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 + +IPC has been released on bail after 4 years detention considering the + +fact that only 13 witnesses out of 47 witnesses were examined by + +that time. +

+

22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on + +order dated 24.7.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1217 of 2023, titled + +as Kulveer Singh Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 + +IPC has been released on bail after 1 year detention considering the + +fact that no witnesses out of 30 witnesses was examined by that + +time. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_150006436.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_150006436.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..473d56cef5756283ad1b4e050641bf489e51142b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_150006436.html @@ -0,0 +1,361 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + S.Deepika vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 July, 2013 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

13. The learned counsel had further submitted that, in paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority had stated that the detenue is in remand, in Central Crime Branch X Cr.Nos.396/2012, 403/2012, 437/2012, 446/2012 and 531/2012 and that the detenue has moved bail applications in the said cases, before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, in Crl.M.P.Nos.5340/2012, 5342/2012, 5781/2012, 5782/2012, and 5778/2012 respectively. The said bail applications had been dismissed, on 16.11.2012. The detaining authority has further stated that the detenue has moved bail applications, once again, in respect of the said crime numbers, before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai,in Crl.M.P.Nos.11827/2012, 11828/2012, 11829/2012, 11830/2012 and 11831/2012, respectively, and that they are pending. It has been further stated that, in a similar case, registered at the Central Crime Branch Crime No.296/2012, under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C., bail had been granted by the Court of sessions, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.7225/2012. Therefore, the detaining authority had inferred that there is a real possibility of the detenue coming out on bail, in Central Crime Branch X Cr.Nos.396/2012, 403/2012, 437/2012, 446/2012 and 531/2012. +

+
+ +
+ +

69. It had also been stated that, in a similar case registered at the Central Crime Branch Crime No.296/2012, under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C., bail had been granted by the Court of sessions, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.7225/2012. Therefore, it had been inferred that there was a real possibility of the detenue coming out on bail in Central Crime Branch X Cr.Nos.396/2012, 403/2012, 437/2012, 446/2012 and 531/2012. It had also been stated that if the detenue comes out on bail, she would indulge in further activities, which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. However, it is noted that the case referred to by the detaining authority, in paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention, does not relate to a co-accused in the cases relating to the detenue. Further, it cannot be said that the cases relating to the detenue are not similar in nature with the case in Central Crime Branch Crime No.296/2012, on facts. Even though the case, in Central Crime Branch Crime No.296/2012, is said to be similar in nature, arising under Sections 406 and 420 Indian Penal Code, it cannot be said that they are similar in nature, in respect of other aspects, with the cases concerning the detenue. Further, only a copy of the bail order, relating to crime No.296/2012, had been furnished to the detenue. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_15033705.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_15033705.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67ca58735e014ea6e0859620baf7c772677915b2 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_15033705.html @@ -0,0 +1,385 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Vinod Kumar Sharma vs State Nct Of Delhi on 21 August, 2013 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

iv) CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution would + + reveal that initially complainant started hitting the applicant + + and had given head butt to the applicant thereafter beat his son + + whose right shoulder got broken. +

+

+

v) The applicant is alleged to have given a danda blow to the + + deceased which fact is denied. Even assuming the same to be + + + + + + + correct, single blow theory would be applicable and, as such, + + offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out. At the most + + this is a case under Section 304 (Part II) IPC. Bail was granted + + to son of applicant after considering CCTV footage relied upon + + by the applicant. If the CCTV footage is seen, it would be + + amply clear that the complainant party and the deceased were + + author of the alleged incident. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_151731967.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_151731967.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1382de07cbbea91561e02df548dc64b283a21623 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_151731967.html @@ -0,0 +1,2203 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Pothumarthi Hemanth Babi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 34, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

+

Pothumarthi Hemanth Babi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025

+ +
        THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
+
+
+CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475,
+
+ 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839,
+
+                     5920 and 9083 of 2024
+
+
+COMMON ORDER:
+ + +

Crl.P.No.5197 of 2024 + + + This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A32 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

2

+ + + + +

2. Sri N. Harinadh, learned Counsel for petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, + +learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- + +State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.4896 of 2024 + + +

3. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A46 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

4. Sri Mukkamalla Rama Swamy, the learned counsel for + +petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + 3 + + + + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5230 of 2024 + + +

5. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A35 and A51 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

6. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + 4 + + + + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5256 of 2024 + + +

7. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A43 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

8. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + 5 + + + + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.5367 of 2024 + + +

9. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A4 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

10. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 6 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5475 of 2024 + + +

11. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A64 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

12. Sri Karanki Yaswanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, the learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

7

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5487 of 2024 + + +

13. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A47 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

14. Ms.P.Srilatha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 8 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5503 of 2024 + + +

15. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A19 and A20 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

16. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 9 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5550 of 2024 + + +

17. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A2, A16, A37 and A45 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

18. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

10

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5553 of 2024 + + +

19. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A7 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

20. Sri Peta Gnana Teja, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 11 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5585 of 2024 + + +

21. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A1 and A67 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

22. Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

12

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5652 of 2024 + + +

23. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A15 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

24. Sri Chalasani Venkat, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

13

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5718 of 2024 + + +

25. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A8, A22, A36 and A68 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

26. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 14 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5724 of 2024 + + +

27. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A3 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

28. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

15

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5752 of 2024 + + +

29. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A31, A53 and A65 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime + +No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna + +District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections + +143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) + +of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

30. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

16

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5839 of 2024 + + +

31. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A55 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

32. Sri B.V Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 17 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5920 of 2024 + + +

33. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A6, A13, A14, A17, A27, A28, A30, A39, A42, A52, + +A54, A56, A61 and A69 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

34. Ms.V.Devi Satya Sri, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

18

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.9083 of 2024 + + +

35. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A75 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

36. Sri G.L.Nageswar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor + +appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments. + + +

37. In all the above bail petitions, detailed counters were filed + +by the respondent-State. +

19

+ + + + +

38. All these criminal petitions pertain to Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station. By these petitions these + +accused pray for pre-arrest bail. All these petitions were heard + +together and by this common order they shall be disposed of. + +The crime incident allegedly occurred on 20.02.2023. Upon a + +written information dated 22.02.2023 F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was + +registered. The scene of offence was Telugu Desam Party office, + +Gannavaram. Sri Mudunuri Satyavardhan belonging to Madiga + +caste, which is a scheduled caste, was computer operator + +working in Telugu Desam Party office and living in the said office. + + +

39. During the time when this crime incident allegedly occurred + +the party in power was YSR Congress Party. Investigation + +commenced and went on for some time. Thereafter there were + +general elections and the then opposition party/Telugu Desam + +Party came into power. Thereafter investigation continued + +further. The allegations and counter allegations in this case + +disclosed the rift between both the political parties. Petitioners + +contend that this is a case falsely alleged against them out of + +political vendetta. According to State, for political reasons there + +was inadequate investigation soon after commission of the + +offence. By the time this crime incident occurred Sri Vallabhaneni + 20 + + + + +Vamsi Mohan was Member of Legislative Assembly for + +Gannavaram Assembly Constituency. He is one of the accused + +in the present crime. +

+

+

40. The version of the prosecution is that on 18.02.2023 during + +afternoon hours a press meet was held by Sri Vallabhaneni + +Vamsi Mohan wherein he allegedly made certain insulting + +remarks as against Sri N.Chandrababu Naidu, Sri Nara Lokesh + +and their family members and used indecent language. In + +response to it, certain leaders of Telugu Desam Party conducted + +a press meeting on 19.02.2023 in the morning hours and + +condemned the statements made by the opponent political party + +people. +

+

+

41. In the above backdrop of facts, the crime incident allegedly + +occurred. It is stated that on 20.02.2023 at about 5:00 P.M. + +Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan went to Telugu Desam Party + +office and on noticing followers of Telugu Desam Party he caused + +enquiries about Mr. Pattabhi of Telugu Desam Party and warned + +them that they would finish Telugu Desam Party and left the + +place. +

21

+ + + + +

42. In the next 30 minutes at about 5:30 P.M. about 100 + +persons belonging to YSR Congress Party came to Telugu + +Desam Party office wielding sticks, stones, petrol bottles and + +various other arms and while hailing Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi + +Mohan they attacked the party office. They threw stones, entered + +into the party office and destroyed the furniture, broke two + +computers and two televisions and caused tremendous panic + +among everyone available there. In the first information report + +the de facto complainant was able to mention the names of 44 + +accused. It also made a mention about four named accused who + +came upon him and abused him by his caste name. The further + +case of the prosecution is that these hooligans caused chaos and + +some of them using their sticks and cricket playing wickets + +seriously damaged three cars/AP 39 K 1999, AP 16 DJ 9499 and + +TS 10 EC 4099. It is also stated that one Mr. Rabbani poured + +petrol on the car bearing No.AP 16 DA 5555 and lit fire to it. The + +version of the de facto complainant is that there were police + +people at the Telugu Desam Party office and they remained mute + +spectators. During investigation it was found that some of the + +accused made attempts to burn the party office as walls in one + +room were found with charred marks. +

22

+ + + + +

43. Investigation has been in progress. Some of the accused + +were arrested and were remanded to judicial custody. According + +to prosecution, at least 44 accused were absconding. After + +gaining contact with about 28 accused they were questioned + +about their mobile phones and only seven out of them + +surrendered their mobile phones and 20 of the accused furnished + +false information with regard to the instruments they used and + +their mobile numbers. +

+

+

44. During the investigation, CCTV footage was collected. + +When the crime incident occurred, various people captured it on + +their mobile phones and all such material was collected. Based + +on these investigative efforts, allegations are made against all + +these petitioners by the prosecution that they are all involved in + +this crime incident. +

+

+

45. Broadly stated all these petitioners raised the following + +contentions: +

+

+

 That there was unexplained delay in registration of crime. + + The incident occurred on 20.02.2023 and F.I.R. was + + registered on 22.02.2023. That around the same time and + + place certain incidents occurred which resulted in + 23 + + + + + registration of multiple F.I.Rs. and many of which disclosed + + accusation of criminal acts of followers of Telugu Desam + + Party as against members of YSR Congress Party + + members and this case is in a way a counter blast to Crime + + Nos.132 of 2023 and 133 of 2023. +
+
+  F.I.R. does not contain any allegations of overt acts against + + these petitioners. +
+
+  After change in political party in power witnesses were + + planted and false evidence is created. +
+
+  The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. were bailable and + + many of these petitioners were served with Section 41A + + Cr.P.C. notice. However, after the change of political + + Government police have unlawfully brought additional + + penal provisions to nullify the rightful reliefs available to the + + petitioners. +
+
+

46. Plethora of precedent is cited on behalf of the petitioners + +and on behalf of some of the accused meticulous written + +arguments are filed leaving one to wonder that this to pronounce + +a judgment as if it is one after trial. +

24

+ + + + +

47. The following significant aspects are required to be noticed: + + +

F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was registered for the offences + +punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435 and 506 read with + +149 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989'). Since caste atrocity was one of + +the offences alleged, on the instructions of Superintendent of + +Police, Krishna, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gannavaram + +took up investigation. After recording the statements of about six + +witnesses, the investigation officer found that the provisions of the + +Act, 1989 were not applicable. Therefore, he applied to the + +Superintendent of Police to accord permission to delete those + +provisions. By proceedings dated 04.07.2023 the Superintendent + +of Police granted such permission. Investigation went further and + +scores of witnesses were examined. Thereafter by way of an + +alteration memo dated 07.08.2024 the investigation agency got + +added Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989. It + +also added Sections 436, 450 and 452 I.P.C. It is also to be + +noticed that in this case so far there are 71 accused. + 25 + + + + +

48. Since in the present crime incident not only offences under + +the Indian Penal Code but also offences under the Act, 1989 are + +alleged, the forceful argument raised by the State is that + +anticipatory bail petitions are not maintainable by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. The further argument is + +that the High Court does not now possess concurrent original + +jurisdiction for bails as well as anticipatory bails and it has only + +appellate jurisdiction by virtue of Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and + +therefore, these petitions are to be dismissed. In such + +circumstances, this Court on 13.11.2024 requested the learned + +counsels on both sides to address arguments in that regard since + +the jurisdictional bar has arisen. +

+

+

49. Valiant submissions are made by the learned counsels for + +petitioners wherein references are made to Sections 18 and 18A + +of the Act, 1989 and precedent is cited to show that if there is no + +prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989 is + +made out, anticipatory bail could be considered. It is also argued + +that this Court in these petitions during hearing granted interim + +protection and therefore, the same may be made absolute since + +these petitioners have not violated anything thereafter. + 26 + + + + +

50. The point that falls for consideration is: + + +

"What is the effect of Section 14A of the Scheduled + + Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the concurrent original + + jurisdiction of the High Court in considering bails + + and anticipatory bails where offences under the Act, + + 1989 are involved? +
+
+POINT: +
+
+

51. Offences under the Act, 1989 can be taken cognizance of + +and tried and be disposed of by Special Courts and Exclusive + +Special Courts as provided in Section 14 of the Act, 1989. Those + +Courts since now empowered to take cognizance hold power to + +take remand of the accused and consider bails. There is no + +provision in the Act, 1989 adverting to the aspects that are to be + +considered by those Courts when they entertain bail petitions. + +Therefore, those Courts draw their powers from the Code of + +Criminal Procedure. Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal + +Procedure is headed as provisions as to bail and bonds. It + +consists of Sections 436 to 450. They refer to bail in cases of + +bailable offences and bail in cases of non-bailable offences. + 27 + + + + +Section 438 Cr.P.C. is given heading direction for grant of bail to + +person apprehending arrest. To the extent the said provision is + +required alone is extracted here: +

+
"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending + arrest: +
+
(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be + arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- +

bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the + Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the + event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that + Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the + following factors, namely:- +

+
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; + +
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to + whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on + conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; + +
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and + +
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of + injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so + arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an + interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail: + +
Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, + the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order + under this sub-Section or has rejected the application for + grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer + 28 + + + + + incharge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the + applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in + such application." +
+

52. Thus, as per the above provision, those accused who + +anticipate their arrest may seek pre-arrest bail and they could + +move such applications either before this Court or before the + +Court of Sessions. It is in the light of such a provision the + +petitioners have straightaway moved this Court for their prayers + +for pre-arrest bail. +

+

+

53. The first submission of the State is that in cases of caste + +atrocities anticipatory bails cannot be maintained by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. Those provisions read as + +below: +

+

+

"18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons + committing an offence under the Act.-- Nothing in + section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case + involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of + having committed an offence under this Act. + + 18A. No enquiry or approval required.--(1) For the + purposes of this Act,-- (a) preliminary enquiry shall not be + required for registration of a First Information Report against + any person; or + 29 + + + + +
(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the + arrest, if necessary, of any person, + + against whom an accusation of having committed an + offence under this Act has been made and no procedure + other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall + apply. +
+
(2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply + to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or + order or direction of any Court." +
+

54. The crisp response from the learned counsels for the + +petitioners is that the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would + +apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist + +pointing towards the commission of an offence under the Act, + +1989. If the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under + +the Act, 1989 are not disclosed on the prima facie reading of the + +allegations levelled in the complaint or F.I.R. then in such + +circumstances, the bar of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would not + +apply and the Courts would not be absolutely precluded from + +granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons. In justification of + +this argument they cited ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + +India in Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala1. + +1 + 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601 + 30 + + + + +

55. If one goes by the contentions of the learned counsel for + +petitioners this Court is to take a view whether the allegations in + +the F.I.R./written information of the de facto complainant prima + +facie disclose caste atrocity or not. However, according to the + +State, even such a view cannot be taken by this Court by virtue of + +interdict contained in Section 14A of the Act, 1989. Therefore, it + +is required to notice what this provision says. The provision reads + +as below: +

+

+

"14A. Appeals:--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained + in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an + appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not + being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an + Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and + on law. +
+
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section + (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, + 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court + against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive + Special Court granting or refusing bail. + + (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for + the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall + be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of + the judgment, sentence or order appealed from: Provided + that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry + of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the + 31 + + + + + appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal + within the period of ninety days: Provided further that no + appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of + one hundred and eighty days. +
+
(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far + as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months + from the date of admission of the appeal." + +

56. As per Sub-Section (2) of Section 14Aof the Act, the + +petitions for bail are to be considered by the Special Court and in + +the event of their granting or refusing to grant such bails the + +aggrieved can prefer an appeal before this Court. Thus, the + +concurrent jurisdiction for consideration of anticipatory bails + +provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C. stood excluded. It is not as + +though the aggrieved is deprived of all the remedies. After + +inviting an order on the bail petition from the Special Court the + +aggrieved is entitled to prefer an appeal before this Court in terms + +of Section 14A of the Act, 1989. In the case at hand, the + +petitioners have moved bail petitions straightaway before this + +Court. At any rate, what is before this Court is not an appeal + +against an order passed by the Special Court with reference to + +bails. It shall be stated that on the same subject matter High + +Court could not be said to possess concurrent original jurisdiction + 32 + + + + +as well as appellate jurisdiction. If one is to state that a bail is + +different from anticipatory bail the result is that in anticipatory + +bails this Court holds original jurisdiction and in regular bails it + +holds only appellate jurisdiction. Assuming that in a case a + +petition for anticipatory bail being moved before the Special Court + +resulted in dismissal, then according to the logic applied by the + +petitioners the petitions would have to move only another bail + +petition before this Court and not an appeal. Such logic is in + +violation of what is clearly provided in Section 14A of the Act, + +1989. It is to be seen that the question of bail presupposes + +detention or custody of the person. In a case where a person is + +arrested he prays for a regular bail. In cases of anticipatory bail + +in the event of granting the relief, it has no effect unless and until + +the accused is arrested. In other words, the order of anticipatory + +bail comes into effect only after a person is arrested and not + +otherwise. In contrast to regular bail, in cases of anticipatory bail + +the order is obtained in advance. In regular bails it was obtained + +after arrest. The timing at which a prayer is made, and an order + +is granted, have no relevance when it comes to operation of + +those orders as in both the cases they come into operation only in + +those cases where a person is arrested. In such view of the + 33 + + + + +matter the word bail used in Section 14A of the Act, 1989 + +encompasses regular bail as well as anticipatory bail. Therefore, + +it must be stated that an application for bail or anticipatory bail + +can be filed only before the Special Court or the Exclusive + +Special Court as the case may be and not before the High Court. + +An order granting or refusing bail or anticipatory bail by the + +Special Court or Exclusive Special Court can be assailed before + +this Court invoking its appellate jurisdiction provided in Section + +14A of the Act, 1989. This Court had deliberated these aspects + +on earlier occasions when similar questions were raised and it + +reached to the same conclusions and reference can be made to + +the following: +

+

+

1. Nakka Nagireddy v. State of A.P.2 + + +
2. Deepak Kumar Tala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh3. + + +

57. Similar conclusions were reached at by other High Courts. + +Reference can be made to the following: +

+

+

1. K.M.Basheer v. Rajani K.T.4 + +2 + 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5322 Order dated 11.11.2024 +3 + Order dated 22.10.2024 in Criminal Petition No.6487 of 2024 +4 + 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 472 + 34 + + + + +
2. Lokesh v. State of Karnataka5 + + +
3. In re Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 v. Nil6 + + +
4. Atul Rajput v. The State of Madhya Pradesh7 + + +

58. At the bar, for petitioners, Abhishek Awasthi v. State of + +U.P.8 is cited. That is a case where other subsections of Section + +14A of the Act, 1989 fell for consideration and the powers of the + +High Court were considered under Section 482 of Code of + +Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings. + +Finally, it was held that with a view to prevent the misuse or + +abuse of the Court or law, the High Court holds inherent + +jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. + +Such question is not available before this Court. Even otherwise + +a brief reference to what was stated by their Lordships in Shajan + +Skaria's case9 would be sufficient here. At paragraph No.49 their + +Lordships stated that if the accused puts forward the case of + +malicious prosecution on account of political or private vendetta + +5 + 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15742 +6 + 2018 SCC OnLine ALL 2087 +7 + Order dated 10.04.2024 in Crl.A.No.3261 of 2024 of the High Court of +Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur +8 + MANU/UP/4595/2024 + 35 + + + + +such aspects can be considered only by the High Court in + +exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code or + +in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the + +Constitution of India. However, powers under Section 438 of the + +Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised once the + +contents of the complaint/F.I.R. disclose a prima facie case. In + +fact, in that case Section 14A of the Act, 1989 did not come up for + +consideration since the anticipatory bail petition was first moved + +before the trial Court and as against those orders appeal was + +preferred before the High Court. +

+

+

59. The plethora of precedent cited before this Court is not with + +reference to Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and therefore any + +reference to those cherished principles of those rulings is not + +required. This Court refrains from delving into other facts and the + +principles of law governing anticipatory bails since any such + +discussion may unnecessarily prejudice the contentions of both + +sides when appropriate applications are filed before appropriate + +Courts for the reliefs or when the maters come up before this + +Court in appeal. +

+

9 + Supra 1 + 36 + + + + +

60. Learned counsel for petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5920 + +of 2024 argued that this very Bench on earlier occasions + +considered and granted anticipatory bail and therefore, the same + +benefit can be extended to the present petitioners. The attention + +of this Court is brought to Sri Settipalli Raghurami Reddy v. + +The State of Andhra Pradesh10 and Julakanti Brahma Reddy + +@ Brahma Nanda Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 11. In + +both those matters the question about Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 was never raised by either side and therefore, there was no + +occasion for this Court to express itself on that aspect of the + +matter. After those orders it was in October and November 2024 + +only this Court had occasion to consider Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 and accordingly decided the earlier referred Nakka + +Nagireddy's case12 and Deepak Kumar Tala's case13. + +Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions of the learned + +counsel for the petitioners. +

+

+

61. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition + +No.5920 of 2024 further argued that the investigating agency is + +10 + Order dated 23.07.2024 in Criminal Petition No.3807 of 2024 +11 + Order dated 13.08.2024 in Criminal Petition No.10005 of 2023 +12 + supra 2 +13 + supra 3 + 37 + + + + +not entitled to add new penal provisions and cited State of + +Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde14. That was a case + +where on written information police registered a crime and + +investigating into it and filed charge sheet specifying certain penal + +provisions. At that stage the informant filed a petition to add + +Sections 364, 394 and 398 I.P.C. The question arose about the + +powers of the Magistrate at that stage as to whether he can + +incorporate those penal provisions as requested by the informant + +in a charge sheet filed by the police. Their Lordships stated that + +allowing incorporation of new provisions into the charge sheet as + +requested by the written informant at that stage is impermissible. + +However, the Court which is to try the case has to consider the + +first information report and all the other material collected and + +take a decision to frame appropriate charges under all the + +relevant penal provisions. Thus, the cited ruling has no relevance + +to the present case at hand. In the case at hand, the + +investigating police, exercising their right of investigation, have + +found it appropriate that the material on record do attract various + +provisions which were not originally mentioned in the F.I.R. Such + +power cannot be questioned. Informant would only put forth the + +14 + AIR 2014 SC 620 + 38 + + + + +facts before the registering officer and the Station House Officer + +on receiving such information using his own diligence + +incorporates the relevant penal provisions in the F.I.R. During + +investigation certain facts may be found incorrect and certain new + +facts may have been discovered and certain new accused may + +have been found having connection with the crime. There can be + +no legal hurdle in that regard since investigation is a voyage of + +truth. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsels for + +petitioners that provisions under the Act, 1989 were brought into + +effect during investigation and therefore have to be discarded is + +an argument that cannot be sustained. It may be recorded here + +that even to begin with in the case at hand the F.I.R. mentioned + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989. At the present also + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989 are alleged by the + +prosecution. Simply because at one stage such penal provisions + +were dropped does not mean that at a later stage they cannot be + +brought in. The argument that the new addition was not granted + +by the Superintendent of Police cannot be countenanced since + +the method of investigation is sole prerogative of the investigation + +officer. For the above reasons, the point is answered against the + +petitioners. +

39

+ + + + +

62. In the result, all these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. It is + +made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate + +petitions for appropriate reliefs before the appropriate Court. In + +the event such petitions are filed, the Court where they are filed is + +to consider the petitions on judicial side and dispose of them in + +accordance with law. Any observations made herein are confined + +to these petitions and they have no bearing on the merits or + +demerits of the case on either side. +

+

________________________ + Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J +Date: 06.01.2025 +Ivd + 40 + + + + + THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR + + + + +CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475, + 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839, + 5920 and 9083 of 2024 + + + + + Date: 06.01.2025 + + + +Ivd +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_151775548.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_151775548.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2bc48bedd26077e515e063a3adfd05b66b36e15b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_151775548.html @@ -0,0 +1,455 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sourabh Kumar @ Sourabh Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The petitioner is in custody for about 4 years. + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 665 of 2023 + + The instant Revision is filed by CICL himself, + + challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order, + + dated 9th of August, 2023, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2023 + + by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum- + + Children's Court, Banka. The CICL was arrested in connection + + with Banduwa Kurawa P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023, corresponding + + to G.R. No. 1202 of 2023, for the offences punishable under + + Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 + + of the Arms Act. However, later on, Sections 34 of the IPC and + + Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section + + 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes + + (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added. Prayer for + + bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Appeal in + + exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Juvenile + + Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter + + referred to as 'said Act') vide order, dated 15th of June, 2023. + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 687 of 2023 + + The petitioner/CICL was arrested in connection + + with Fesar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, + + 325, 307, 34, 504, 506 and 379 of the IPC along with his father + + and uncle. The petitioner prayed for regular bail before the JJB, + + Aurangabad. In JJB Case No. 932 of 2023, prayer for bail was + + rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 41 + + of 2023 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children's Court, + + Aurangabad. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal + + and affirmed the order of the JJB. The petitioner has assailed the + + said order of the Appellate Court on various grounds, specially + + on the ground that the father and uncle of the petitioner have + + already been granted bail for the same offence. + +
+
+ +
+

Reg. Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2024 + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + The petitioner was booked along with other major + + accused persons in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 237 of + + 2022, dated 13th of August, 2022, under Section 302 and 34 of + + the IPC. The petitioner being a CICL prayed for bail before the + + Juvenile Justice Board, but his prayer for bail was rejected. He + + preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the said Act before the + + learned Special Judge, Children's Court and the said appeal was + + also dismissed and the order of rejection of bail passed by the + + JJB was affirmed. It is stated by the petitioner that the accused + + persons who are major, namely, Sushil Kumar Yadav and Anil + + Yadav were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on + + 26th of April, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 4091 of 2023. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_152232740.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_152232740.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..de163a138c7993c48c0f3e7cd27783e1ec9fceea --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_152232740.html @@ -0,0 +1,572 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Siddharth Patel vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 12 July, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Bail petitioners namely Siddharth Patel, Nilesh Patel + + + + + + and Milan Patel have approached this Court in the instant + + proceedings filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of + + anticipatory bail in case FIR No.14/2024 dated 02.02.2024, + + + + + registered at Police Station Barotiwala, District Solan, H.P., + + under Sections 285, 336, 337, 338, 304-A, 308, 304 Part II of + + + IPC & Section 92 of Factories Act, 1948. +

+

2. The petitioners were admitted to interim bail vide + + + order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this + + Court with the direction to join investigation. Pursuant to notices + + + + + issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed as + + + + + + much as four status reports dated 05.05.2024, 23.05.2024, + + 30.06.2024 and 11.07.2024, respectively, perusal whereof + + + + + + reveals that on 02.02.2024 at 01:57 p.m. vide DDO No.14, Police + + received information that fire has broken out in a building near + + Columbus Factory. After receipt of aforesaid information, Police + + reached the spot and found that incident of fire has taken place + + in Company namely 'M/s N.R. Aromas', as a result thereof, many + + + + + + + + + + workers were injured and had been taken to Brooklin Hospital + + and ESIC, Khatha for treatment. +

+
+ +
+ +

4. On the basis of aforesaid statement recorded by + + + + + + complainant named hereinabove under Section 154 Cr.P.C., + + Police initially lodged FIR, as detailed hereinabove, under + + + + + + Sections 285, 336, 337 and 304 of IPC, against bail-petitioners + + as well as other accused namely Vinod Kumar and + + Chandrashekhar, but subsequently, during investigation, after + + finding negligence of an employee namely Harish, which caused + + fire, Police incorporated Section 304-A of IPC and arrested + + + + + + + + + + Harish under Section 285, 336, 334, 338 and 304-A of IPC, + + however, he was later enlarged on bail by Police. Co-accused + + + + + . +

+
+ +
+

committed by the Police while registering case under Section 304 + + + + + + Part II of IPC against the bail-petitioners because they had + + + + + + definite knowledge that mishandling, if any, of the chemical + + stored in the Factory premises, may cause serious injury to the + + workers as well as property of the Factory in question, but yet, + + + + + + they failed to take appropriate steps for the storage/handling of + + highly inflammable chemical. +

+

7. To the contrary, Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior + + Counsel representing the petitioner(s) in Cr.MP(M) Nos.341 and + + 362 of 2024 and Mr. Randeep Rai, learned Senior Counsel + + + + representing the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No.341 of 2024, while + + + + + refuting aforesaid submissions made by Mr. Vishal Panwar, + + + + + + learned Additional Advocate General, states that no case much + + less under Section 304 Part II is made out against bail- +

+
+ +
+ +

26. In a case titled as Rohit Suri (supra), this Court had + + + + an occasion to deal with the scope of Section 304 Part II, where it + + + + + was held as under: +

+
"9. Investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to + be recovered from the bail petitioners. It is also not in dispute + that bail petitioners are in judicial custody. There is another + aspect of the matter that at the first instance case under + + + + + + Sections 286, 337, 304A of IPC and Section 9 (C) of Explosives + Act 1884 was registered against the bail petitioners and other + persons named in the FIR, but subsequently, police after having + taken note of the fact that explosives substance was being made + in the factory without there being license deleted the aforesaid + Sections and re-registered the case against them under Sections + 304, 120B of IPC and Section 5 of the Explosives Substance Act + 1908. Precise case of the prosecution in the case at hand is + that crackers were being manufactured unauthorizedly in the + premises where fire broke, but definitely there is nothing on + record which can compel this Court to conclude/infer that + + + + + + + + + + explosives substance or special category explosive substance as + defined in the Explosives Substance Act, 1908 were being + manufactured or stored in the premises. Aforesaid observation + made by this court gains significance in view of the statement + made by the complainant under Section 154 of the Cr.PC that + + + + + . +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_152239679.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_152239679.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..073402a97c515c29513d43a8a5d6ba7a8cc4aa49 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_152239679.html @@ -0,0 +1,398 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sri. Raghuveer. H. U vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 July, 2022 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

The Crl.P.No.5136/2022 is filed under Section 439 of + +Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in + +Cr.No.60/2022 of High Grounds police station, Bengaluru city for + +the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, + +120B read with Section 34 of IPC. +

+

+

2. The Crl.P.No.5198/2022 is filed under Section 439 of + +Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.60/2022 + +of High Grounds police station, Bengaluru city for the offences + +punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B, 409 read + +with Section 34 of IPC. +

+
+ +
+ +

+

3. The Crl.P.No.5396/2022 is filed under Section 438 of + +Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of + +his arrest in Cr.No.60/2022 of High Grounds police station, + +Bengaluru city for the offences punishable under Sections 128B, + +120, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. +

7

+

4. The Crl.P.No.5648/2022 is filed under Section 439 of + +Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in + +Cr.No.60/2022 of High Grounds police station, Bengaluru city for + +the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, + +120B read with Section 34 of IPC. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_152283342.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_152283342.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fdfc2bea1a7153a416e3f21dc9c1dad64c4fde66 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_152283342.html @@ -0,0 +1,502 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Shri. Champion R. Sangma vs State Of Meghalaya And Ors on 1 March, 2017 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
However, Shri Champion R. Sangma stands involved in different +criminal cases, the details of such cases are delineated herein below District +wise with the status of such cases including the fact as to whether the Accused +is admitted to bail in any of such cases. +
14
+
WP (Criminal) NO. 1 of 2017 + Shri Champion R. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya & Ors + + + + East Khasi Hills, Shillong + +Sl.No. Cases Reasons/Status Whether Bail + arrested status + 1 Pynursla PS Case No. The case is charge Yes No bail + 25(07)2012 u/s sheeted and is + 120(A)/120(B)/121(A) pending trial + IPC r/w sec.16/38(1)(2) + UA(P) Act and sec. 12 + Indian Passport Act + + West Khasi Hills, Nongstoin + +Sl.No. Cases Reasons/Status Whether Bail status + arrested + 1 Nongstoin PS case The case is pending Yes Secured bail + No.9(2)2012 under investigation and + sec.121/353/307/34 IPC will be charge + r/w sec.10/13 of sheeted soon. +
+
+ +
+ 
 Unlawful        Activities
+         Prevention     Act   and
+         section 27(2) Arms Act
+         Nongstoin PS case             F.R. vide Ngn PS           Yes            Secured bail
+         No.10(2)2012       under      F.R.     No.39/2013
+         sec.121(A)/302/34 IPC         dt.07.08.2013
+         r/w     sec.10/13       of
+         Unlawful        Activities
+         Prevention     Act   and
+         section 27(3) of Arms
+         Act.
+
+                            East Garo Hills, Williamnagar
+Sl.No.                  Cases                      Reasons/Status       Whether          Bail status
+                                                                        arrested
+  1      Williamnagar         PS       Case       Charge      Sheet         No
+         No.21(5)2010 U/S 353/307/34 IPC          No.9/2014
+         r/w sec.27 Arms Act & 5 Explosive        dtd.27.3.2014
+         Substance Act.
+  2      Williamnagar         PS       Case       Charge      Sheet         Yes             No bail
+
+         121(B)/121/121(A)/364(A)/384/353/        dtd.25.5.2015
+         307 IPC r/w sec.27 Arms Act & 5
+         Explosive Substance Act.
+  3      Williamnagar PS Case No.9 (1)            Charge      Sheet         No
+         2011 u/s 121/121(A) 121 (B)/             No.8/2014
+         122/353/307 IPC r/w sec.27 Arms          dtd.26.3.2014
+         Act & Explosive Substance Act
+  4      Williamnagar         PS       Case       Charge      Sheet         No
+         No.90(12)2011                   u/s      No.23/2015
+         120(B)/121/121(A)/122/353/307/34         dtd.25..2015
+         IPC r/w sec.27 Arms Act & 5
+         Explosive Sub. Act.
+  5      Williamnagar PS Case No.49(7)            Pending                   No
+         2012          u/s              120       investigation
+         (B)/121/122/302/307/353 IPC r/w
+         sec.25(1-A)(1-B)/27 Arms Act &
+         10/13 UA(P) Act.
+  6      Williamnagar PS Case No.52 (8)           Pending                   No
+         2012      u/s     120(B)/121/121(A)      investigation
+         122/307/326/34 IPC r/w sec.27
+         Arms Act & Act 10/13/16 UA(P) Act.
+
+                                                                  WP (Criminal) NO. 1 of 2017
+
+
+ +
+
Shri Champion R. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya & Ors + + + + 7 Rongjeng PS Case No.28(11)2011 Charge Sheet Yes No bail + + 120(B)/121/121(A)/122/353/326/307 dtd.22.5.2015 + /302/427 IPC r/w sec.25(1-A)(1- + B)/27 Arms Act.
+  8      Songsak PS Case No.07(05)2010        Pending                 No
+         u/s   120/121(A)/122    IPC    r/w   investigation
+         sec.25(1-A)(1-B) Arms Act
+  9      Wiliamnagar PS Case No.13(4)10       F.R.     No.87/11       No
+         u/s 365/34 IPC                       dtd.21.12.11
+ 10      Williamnagar PS Case No.18(4)10      F.R.     No.66/11       No
+         u/s 384/511 IPC                      dtd.30.9.11
+ 11      Mendipathar PS Case No.25(4)10       Case disposed in        No
+         U/S 395 IPC r/w sec.25(1-a)(1-b)     F.R.
+         Arms Act.
+
+                              West Garo Hills, Tura
+
+Sl.No.                Cases                   Reasons/Status Whether                   Bail
+                                                             arrested                 status
+
+         120(B)/121/121(A)/122/427/506/34     investigation
+         IPC r/w sec.27(1) Arms Act
+  2      Tura PS Case No.258(10)11 u/s        F.R.     No.91/14       No
+         365/302/34 IPC r/w sec.27 Arms       dtd.14.5.2014
+         Act.
+
+         365/120(B)/121(A)/122/34 IPC r/w     investigation
+         sec.27 Arms Act.
+
+         384/506/511/120(B)/121/121(A) IPC    dtd.20.5.2014
+         r/w sec.10/13 ULA(P) Act.
+  5      Tura PS Case No.82(4)12 u/s          Pending                 Yes            Secured
+         120(B)/121(A)/506      IPC     r/w   investigation                            bail.
+         sec.10/13 ULAP Act.
+
+         120(B)/121(A)/506      IPC     r/w   dtd.25.2.2014
+         sec.10/13 ULAP Act.
+
+
+
+ +
+
109/387 IPC r/w sec. 27(2)Arms Act No.11/2012 + and 12(A) IPP Act. dtd.19.7.2012 + + + South Garo Hills, Ampati + +Sl.No. Cases Reasons/Status Whether Bail + arrested status + 1 Baghmara PS Case No.62(10)2011 Standing NBWA Not yet + u/s 365/34 IPC. This case has been dated 10.6.2013 + charged sheeted on 29/11/2011 by ADM(J) SGH + issued to be + executed by O/C + Sardar PS + Shillong + 2 Chokpot PS Case No.13(9)2011 Champion R. Yes No bail + u/s 120(B)/121(A)/122/307/341/427 Sangma shown + IPC arrested. Case is + pending + investigation. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_152643922.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_152643922.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed336136b13e8c14d070596ccd2e13268492e895 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_152643922.html @@ -0,0 +1,386 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + K.P. @ Kunvarpal vs State Of U.P. on 5 February, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. List revised. +

+

2. Heard Sri Atul Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. +

+

3. This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant K.P. @ Kunvarpal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 49 of 2023, under Sections 147, 149, 302, 201 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Harduaganj, District Aligarh. +

+

4. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 08.08.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 34729 of 2023 (K.P. Kuvarpal Vs. State of U.P.). +

+
+ +
+ +
"By means of the the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 49 of 2023 at Police Station-Harduaganj, District-Aligarh under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B I.P.C. The applicant is in jail since 28.02.2023. +
+
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 10.04.2023. +
+
The following arguments made by Shri Ashutosh, learned counsel assisted by Shri Dharmendra Kumar Rajput, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Surendra Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Shrawan Kumar Dubey, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail: +
+
+ +
+ +
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
+ +
+ +
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_153432931.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_153432931.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..589aa52a167c64b0af08c3487f1c6e629f8b59cc --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_153432931.html @@ -0,0 +1,452 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ravi S/O. Narayan Gaikwad And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 December, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. Criminal Application No.3690 of 2018 is not on board. The + + same is taken on board. The applicant has filed this application + + seeking permission to assist the APP in Criminal Writ Petition + + No.1371 of 2018. Application is allowed. Permission is granted. + + + +

2. Heard Shri C.C.Deshpande, learned Counsel for the + + petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the order passed + + below Exh.1 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.7 of 2018, + + by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedpur on 18.09.2018. The + + + + + + {3} 932 CR.WP 1371 OF 2018 + + + aforesaid application was filed under Section 439 (2) of the Code + + of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for + + cancellation of bail of the present petitioners in connection with + + Crime No.174 of 2018 registered at Ahmedpur Police Station for + + the offence punishable under Sections 306, 354-D, 504 and 506 + + of the Indian Penal Code. The material on record shows that the + + present petitioners were being prosecuted in aforesaid Crime + + No.174 of 2018 initially for the offences punishable under Section + + 354-D, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners + + were released on bail in the said crime on 26.05.2018 by the + + learned JMFC. +

+
+ +
+

12. In the case of Mool Chand alias Murli and another V. Station + + House Officer, Police Station Renewal, Jaipur [2009 Cri.L.J. 3158] , the + + charge-sheet was filed against the accused in the said case + + under Sections 341, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Since + + all the aforesaid offences were bailable, the accused were + + released on bail. Subsequently, the injured in the case suffered + + + + + + {10} 932 CR.WP 1371 OF 2018 + + + death due to septicemia as a result of ante-mortem injuries. + + The offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was + + therefore, added against the accused. Thereafter, application for + + cancellation of bail was preferred by the prosecution before the + + Sessions Court and the same was allowed by the Session Court. +The said order was challenged by the accused before the High + + Court and the High Court turned down the objection so raised + + relying on the Judgment in the case of Prahlad Singh Bhati + + (supra). In the said case also, initially an application under + + Section 437(5) of the Code was filed before the learned + + Magistrate concerned, who dismissed the said application as not + + maintainable. Subsequently, the prosecution had filed an + + application under Section 439(2) of the Code before the Sessions + + Court and the Sessions Court had allowed the said application + + and thereby cancelled the bail earlier granted to the accused for + + the bailable offences changed against them. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_154225051.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_154225051.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a616ea02f5e1c7459bb9562f2ac176110de6cdb2 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_154225051.html @@ -0,0 +1,2184 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sanjukta Samanta & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 30, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

+

Sanjukta Samanta & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2025

+ +
                                        1
+
+                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
+                   CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
+                            APPELLATE SIDE
+
+
+Present:
+
+The Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
+
+                              W.P.A. 15260 of 2024
+
+                             Sanjukta Samanta & Anr.
+                                       -Vs-
+                               Union of India & Ors.
+
+
+Petitioner No. 1 in person           : Mrs. Sanjukta Samanta
+
+Petitioner No. 2 in person           : Mr. Romit Dutta
+
+For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2        : Mr. Rajdeep Majumdar
+                                       Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Chakraborty
+
+For the State                        : Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury
+                                       Mr. Manas Kumar Sadhu
+                                       Ms. Subhasree Patel
+
+For the Respondent No. 13            : Mr. Neeraj Sekhar
+                                       Ms. Malabika Saha
+
+Heard on                             : 13.03.2025, 28.03.2025,
+                                       25.06.2025, 11.07.2025
+
+Judgment on                          : 26.09.2025
+
+Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-
+
+1. The instant writ petition had been assigned to this Court by the Hon'ble the
+
+  Chief Justice, High Court at Calcutta, after the instant writ petition had
+
+  been released by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court presiding over in
+
+  Court No.14 vide its Order dated 05.08.2024 replicated as follows:-
+
+            "Live streaming of Court proceeding has been paused.
+                                          2
+
+              Heard submission of the petitioner no.2 and the learned advocate
+          representing the respondent no.13.
+              The petitioner no.1 behaves in an extremely unruly manner before
+          the Court. She is highly agitated. The Court is not inclined to hear the
+          matter.
+              Let this matter be released from the list of this Bench and be placed
+          before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for necessary order."
+
+2. The instant writ petition had been filed, inter alia, praying for following
+
+  reliefs:-
+
+          "........
+          B. Writ of an/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+          respondents to declare the impugned proceedings of Chatterjeehat
+          Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 under sections
+          341/365/468/420/506/34         IPC   is   illegal,   void   ab   initio   and
+          unconstitutional;
+
+          C. Writ in nature of mandamus to quash the entire proceedings in
+          connection with Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated
+          04.05.2024 under sections 341/365/468/420/506/34 IPC pending
+          before Learned CJM at Howrah and being investigated by state
+          respondents;
+
+          D. Writ in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondents
+          and its men, subordinates, assignees to unconditionally forthwith
+          withdraw, recall, rescind all steps taken in pursuance of the
+          Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 under
+          sections 341/365/468/420/506/34 IPC;
+
+          E. Writ of an/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+          respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates and each one
+          of them to quash/set aside the impugned Notification issued by the
+          office of Respondent 6 vide Org No.618/CS dated 06.05.2024 through
+                                3
+
+which the investigation of Chatterjeehat Police Station Case no.78 of
+2023 dated 04.05.2023 was taken up by respondent no.7;
+
+F. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents to render appropriate protection to life, liberty and
+possession to the writ petitioner no.1 by the respondents 1, 2;
+
+G. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates and each one
+of them to hand over the Case Diary of Chatterjeehat Police Station
+Case no.78 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 to the office of Respondent no.4
+forthwith;
+
+H. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates to stay the
+investigation of impugned FIR Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 86 of
+2024 dated 04.05.2024 under sections 341/365/468/420/506/34
+IPC by respondent no.9 with immediate effect;
+
+I. Writ of an/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates not to take any
+coercive steps against the petitioners in connection with Chatterjeehat
+Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 under sections
+341/365/468/420/506/34 IPC;
+
+J. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates not to take any
+coercive steps against the petitioners in connection with any frivolous
+FIRs against the Writ Petitioners by the accused respondent 13 and his
+associates;
+
+K. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates to stay the
+impugned further investigation of Chatterjeehat Police Station Case
+no.78 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 by State CID respondents;
+                                           4
+
+         L. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+         respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates not to register
+         any false FIR against the Writ Petitioners by the instant accused
+         respondents and his associates without any preliminary inquiry as
+         well as without leave of this Hon'ble Court;
+
+         M. A writ of and/or in nature of certiorari directing the concerned
+         respondents being respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 thereof to transmit
+         and/or produce all relevant records lying with them to this Hon'ble
+         Court so that conscionable justice may be done after hearing the
+         respective parties to this writ petition;
+
+         N. A writ of and/or in nature of Mandamus commanding the
+         respondent authorities 1, 2 to render appropriate protection to protect
+         life and possession of the petitioner;
+         ......."
+3. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 contended to be the Learned Advocates practising
+
+  in the High Court at Calcutta as well as the Supreme Court of India. The
+
+  petitioners, on invitation by the respondent No.13, visited his house at
+
+  Tamilnadu to hold a conference with the father of respondent No.13
+
+  concerning the filing of affidavit-of-assets and liabilities in connection with a
+
+  dispute regarding domestic violence instituted against the respondent No.13
+
+  pending at the District Court of South 24-Parganas at Alipore.
+
+4. Petitioner No.1 learnt of certain false information presented through an
+
+  affidavit-on-oath before the Court of Learned 6 th Judicial Magistrate at
+
+  Alipore, South 24-Parganas concerning the occupation of respondent No.13
+
+  and confronted the same. The respondent No.13 consequently insulted the
+
+  petitioner, indignifying her with threats, defamation and dire consequences.
+
+  Subsequently, the petitioner No.1 was threatened by an associate of
+                                         5
+
+  respondent no.13 as narrated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the writ petition. The
+
+  petitioners, thereafter, forwarded a complaint through e-mail to the
+
+  respondent no.8 being the Commissioner of Police, Howrah and Kolkata
+
+  Police on 23rd of April, 2023 at 21:44 hours.
+
+5. On 29th of April, 2023 at about 08:30 P.M., the respondent no.13
+
+  accompanied by his associate forcefully entering the chamber of petitioner
+
+  no.1, physically molested and harassed her as stated in paragraph 8 of the
+
+  writ petition. Meanwhile, the unknown associate vandalized the chamber of
+
+  the petitioner and escaped therefrom along with a mobile of model Vivo -
+
+  Y100 and a sum of Rs.65,000/- in cash.
+
+6. The petitioners initially refrained to proceed against the criminal acts of
+
+  respondent no.13, however, ultimately lodged a complaint against the
+
+  aforesaid respondents at the office of respondent no.8 and 9, i.e., Officer-in-
+
+  Charge of Chatterjeehat Police Station at Howrah on 03.05.2023 at 20:21
+
+  hours and the complaint was registered as Chatterjeehat Police Station Case
+
+  No.78      of      2023       dated       04.05.2023      under       Sections
+
+  420/406/448/341/323/354B/307/376/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal
+
+  Code. The respondent no.13 was, thereafter, arrested by the office of the
+
+  respondent no.9 who later on obtained an order of bail from the Hon'ble
+
+  Court.
+
+7. The petitioners had filed a complaint registered by the police being Howrah
+
+  P.S. Case No.262 of 2023 dated 27.07.2023 under Sections 195A/506/34 of
+
+  the Indian Penal Code against the associates of respondent no.13 for being
+
+  threatened as mentioned in paragraph 15 of the writ petition.
+                                          6
+
+8. The petitioners contended to have been insinuated through various means
+
+  as stated in paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the writ petition. The
+
+  predicaments of the petitioners had been vividly described in paragraphs 25,
+
+  26, 27, 28, and 29 of the writ petition. The petitioner no.1 claimed herself to
+
+  be a member of a political party, who had dealt with a Public Interest
+
+  Litigation in person addressing the grievances in connection with an incident
+
+  which occurred at Sandeshkhali in West Bengal through a writ petition
+
+  being No.WPA(P) 78 of 2024 before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and
+
+  SLP(C ) No.9462/9465 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
+
+  The petitioner no.1's combat and opposition against injustice towards
+
+  general women through the aforesaid writ petition rendered her aged senior
+
+  citizen parents to suffer from trauma and threats at the behest of her
+
+  competitive political party. The petitioner no.1 narrated the conduct of the
+
+  Learned Public Prosecutor of the State of West Bengal in paragraphs 35 and
+
+  36 of the writ petition.
+
+9. The petitioners in the instant writ petition further stated as follows:-
+
+       (i) The State respondents in collusion and conspiracy with the accused
+
+          respondent no. 13 had registered the said FIR being Chatterjeehat PS
+
+          Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 against the petitioner no.1 and
+
+          petitioner no.2, who was prime witness of the heinous crime
+
+          happened to her in the form of Chatterjeehat PS Case No.78 of 2023
+
+          dated 04.05.2023 to achieve their ulterior motive to put the instant
+
+          petitioner no.1 and 2, behind the bar for restraining the petitioner
+
+          no.1 from representing herself for the sexual assault victims of
+                                    7
+
+   Sandeshkhali, West Bengal as in person PIL Writ petitioner therein
+
+   before Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in WPA (P) 78 of 2024.
+
+(ii) The instant false and fabricated FIR being Chatterjeehat PS Case
+
+   No.86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 was the delayed counterblast of the
+
+   Chargesheeted Case being Chatterjeehat Police Station Case no 78 of
+
+   2023 dated 04.05.2023, Howrah PS Case 262 of 2023 dated
+
+   27.07.2023 and Chatterjeehat PS Case 23 of 2024 dated 05.02.2024.
+
+(iii) The instant false FIR against Writ Petitioners was lodged by complete
+
+   misusing the liberty granted by Hon'ble High Court in WPA 23711 of
+
+   2023 while the Hon'ble High Court while disposing WPA 23711 of
+
+   2023 vide order dated 16.04.2024 never granted liberty to the
+
+   accused respondent 13 to lodge a fresh /de novo complaint before
+
+   police against petitioners with inordinate delay for registration of FIR.
+
+(iv) The accused respondent no.13 in collusion and conspiracy with the
+
+   State police had misused and abused the Hon'ble High Court given
+
+   liberty to fabricate instant petitioners into a false, fabricated FIR.
+
+(v) The respondent no.3, being clubbed up with the state respondents
+
+   had been actively involved in terrorizing the victim writ petitioner and
+
+   prime eye witness her husband of the case being Chatterjeehat PS
+
+   Case No.78 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 by way of taking up
+
+   investigation of the case by CID in completely mala fide manner
+
+   totally contradictory as mandated by law as well as by way of filing
+
+   such false and fabricated FIR against the petitioner and her husband.
+                                  8
+
+(vi) After coming out of judicial custody and police custody for
+
+   commission of crime of sexual violence against petitioner in
+
+   connection with Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 78 of 2923 dated
+
+   04.05.2023, to wreak personal vengeance the prime               accused
+
+   respondent 13 had created a false, fabricated story of his alleged
+
+   abduction of himself at same time while he committed crime and had
+
+   lodged FIR against writ petitioner after one year of inordinate delay.
+
+(vii) She, being the de-facto complainant of Chatterjeehat PS Case 78 of
+
+   2023 dated 04.05.2023, was not being able to return at her home city
+
+   Calcutta as well as she had not been able to represent the sexual
+
+   assault victims of Sandeshkhali, West Bengal in the PIL WPA(P) 78 of
+
+   2024 (physically , which was the PIL filed by her as in person at first
+
+   instance for protection of Vulnerable victims therein) before the
+
+   Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and before this Hon'ble Supreme
+
+   Court as SLP (C) No. 9462-9465 of 2024 .
+
+ (viii) Due to registration of said false FIR being Chatterjeehat PS Case
+
+   86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 upon a deviated version of original
+
+   crime incident happened to the writ petitioner no. 1, she would not be
+
+   able to represent herself as in person petitioner de-facto complainant
+
+   before the Learned Trial Courts and before Hon'ble High Court in
+
+   several proceedings under severe threat of her and her husband's
+
+   arrest by the State police machineries upon said false FIR registered
+
+   against the Writ Petitioner and her husband.
+                                         9
+
+       (ix) The petitioner stated that the FIR being Chatterjeehat PS Case 86 of
+
+          2024 dated 04.05.2024 was registered to wreak personal vengeance
+
+          against the writ petitioner and her husband by the state police
+
+          respondents in collusion and conspiracy with the accused respondent
+
+          no.13.
+
+10. The investigation in Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.78 of 2023 dated
+
+   04.05.2023 was entrusted upon respondent no.6 C.I.D., West Bengal at the
+
+   instance of the Learned Public Prosecutor, State of West Bengal unilaterally
+
+   without an order passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta to the
+
+   astonishment of the petitioners which, according to the petitioners, had been
+
+   biased and politically motivated.
+
+11. The petitioners are of the firm conviction to be betrayed with right to fair
+
+   investigation and fair trial to their utter detriment and prejudice. The
+
+   petitioners, being intimidated by the action on the part of the State agencies,
+
+   further sought for personal protection as she had been constantly threatened
+
+   by the police offices, CID officials etc. The petitioners, as would appear from
+
+   the order-sheets of the instant writ petition, appeared before this Court in
+
+   person and agitated their trauma and agony to have been continuously
+
+   threatened by the respondents and other State officials resulting in their
+
+   apprehension of life and property to be in extreme danger and peril.
+
+12. The petitioner no.1 claimed to have been physically molested by the
+
+   respondent no.13 and the State agencies constantly threatened and
+
+   harassed her preventing her to pursue her profession as a lawyer and to
+
+   fight for the cause demanding protection of women's life, right and dignity.
+                                          10
+
+   Petitioners appearing in person submitted the Learned Public Prosecutor on
+
+   his own accord had transferred the investigation to the CID agencies without
+
+   an order of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta to investigate the
+
+   Chatterjeehat Police Station Case being No.78 of 2023 as aforesaid to wreak
+
+   vengeance against them.
+
+13. The order dated 23.08.2024 passed by this Court is replicated hereinbelow:-
+
+             "The learned advocates for the respondent nos.3 to 11 and the
+
+          respondent no.13 are present.
+
+             The petitioner no.1 appeared online prior to the recess expressing
+          her extreme urgency for listing the matter for hearing. Accordingly, a
+          supplementary list was prepared fixing the matter at 2.00 p.m.
+             The petitioner no.1 did not appear before the Court either in-person
+          or online at the time of hearing though the petitioner no.2 appeared
+          online and submitted due to medical emergency, the petitioner no.1
+          could not appear before the Court.
+             It was further submitted by the petitioner no.2 that the Union of
+          India being the respondent no.1 and the Central Industrial Security
+          Force being the respondent no.2, should be providing proper security to
+          the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and their presence was required for
+          adjudication of the instant writ petition at the time of hearing.
+             The petitioner nos.1 and 2 are directed to serve a notice upon the
+          learned advocate for the respondent nos.1 and 2 intimating the next
+          date of hearing on 3rd September, 2024 and to file an affidavit of
+          service to that effect.
+             Next date be fixed on 3rd September, 2024 at 2.00 p.m. for further
+
+          hearing."
+
+14. Subsequently, on 03.09.2024 the petitioner no.1 and 2 appeared in person
+
+   and submitted the arbitrary action on the part of the Learned Public
+                                          11
+
+   Prosecutor to have initiated the investigation through CID, West Bengal
+
+   without the direction obtained from the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
+
+   Howrah based on a communication addressed to the same and referred to an
+
+   order dated 08th April, 2024 passed by an Hon'ble Co-Ordinate Bench of this
+
+   Court in CRR 1023 of 2024.
+
+15. Considering the submissions of the petitioners in person, this Court passed
+
+   an order dated 03.09.2024 as replicated hereinbelow:-
+
+             "The supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner no.1-in-person
+          be kept on record. Copies of the same have been served upon the
+          leaned advocates appearing for the other respective respondents.
+             The petitioners-in-person referred to the order dated 8 th April, 2024
+          passed by a Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of Court in CRR 1023 of 2024
+          as well as to the communication addressed to the learned Chief
+          Judicial Magistrate, Howrah Court, marked as "annexure P-10" to the
+          writ petition. The petitioners as aforesaid further submitted that the
+          communication to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah Court
+          referring to CID investigation was not directed through an order of this
+          Court, as aforesaid.
+             The learned advocate for the State refers to the Police Regulation
+          Bengal, 1943 whereby the CID can on its own take up the
+          investigation. The learned advocate for the State is requested to inform
+          the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Debasis Ray to be present before
+          this Court on the next date of hearing to explain as to what prompted
+          him to submit before the Coordinate Bench that the investigations were
+          to be conducted up by the CID, West Bengal.
+             The learned advocate for the respondents are to file respective reply
+          to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners-in-person before
+          the Court on the next date with regard to the possibility of security to
+          be provided to the petitioner no.1 as claimed in the instant writ petition.
+                                         12
+
+             Heard the submission of the learned advocate representing the
+          respondent no.13.
+             The status report filed by the learned advocate for the State be kept
+          on record. A copy of the same has been served upon the petitioner
+          nos.1 and 2 in Court.
+             Next date be fixed on 17th September, 2024."
+16. Vide order dated 17.09.2024, this Court had appointed Learned Senior
+
+   Advocate Mr. Milon Mukherjee, the Learned Advocate Mr. Souvik Mitter and
+
+   Learned Advocate Ms. Sutapa Sanyal to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae in
+
+   order to dispose of the instant writ petition which was accepted by the
+
+   aforesaid Learned Advocates. The order dated 17.09.2024 passed by this
+
+   Court replicated as follows:-
+
+             "The learned senior advocate Mr. Milon Mukherjee, the learned
+          advocate Mr. Souvik Mitter and the learned advocate Ms. Sutapa
+          Sanyal have been requested to assist the Court as amicus curiae in
+          order to dispose of the instant writ petition and the same has been
+          accepted by the aforesaid learned advocates.
+             The learned advocate representing the respondent no.13 submits to
+          serve a copy of the writ petition along with the annexed documents and
+          the orders to the learned advocates appointed as amicus curiae in this
+          matter.
+             The learned advocate representing respondent nos.1 and 2 are
+          present and submitted the opinion of the Union of India with regard to
+          the provision of safety and security, generally accorded to specific
+          individuals subject to certain circumstances.
+             It is further submitted that the Ministry of Home Affairs is the
+          appropriate authority to provide safety and security to an individual
+          considering the threat perception after thorough assessment of the
+          facts and circumstances of a distinct case.
+                                          13
+
+                Heard the submissions of the learned advocates appointed as
+          amicus curiae and also the submissions of the petitioner no.1 and 2
+          appearing in-person.
+                The learned advocate representing the respondent no.13 seeks time
+          to file an affidavit-in-opposition to the supplementary affidavit filed by
+          the petitioner nos.1 and 2 appearing in-person after the processes for
+          filing the same gets endorsed through the concerned authority
+          pertaining to Bangladesh and the same is allowed.
+                Next date be fixed on 4th October, 2024 at 2.00 p.m. for further
+          hearing."
+17. On 04th October, 2024, the petitioner no.2 appeared online and submitted to
+
+   have preferred an appeal before the Division Bench presided over by the
+
+   Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court at Calcutta and sought for time on
+
+   that ground. PW-1 did not appear before the Court. Petitioner no.1 and
+
+   petitioner no.2 were directed to file an affidavit preferring an appeal as
+
+   aforesaid.
+
+18. On 18th November, 2024, petitioner no.1 did not appear before this Court
+
+   either in person or online. Petitioner no.2 appeared online and filed a
+
+   supplementary affidavit through is concerned Learned Advocate Mr. Arkadeb
+
+   Nag in open Court which, inter alia, stated the grievance of the petitioners
+
+   against the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by this Court in WPA 15260 of
+
+   2024 for seeking assistance of the Learned Advocates of this Court to act as
+
+   Amicus Curiae as aforesaid.
+
+19. The appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Division Bench presided over by
+
+   the Hon'ble the Chief Justice being MAT 2051 of 2024 on 6 th of November,
+
+   2024. Moreover, the fate of the said appeal had not been communicated to
+
+   this Court, if at all the hearing had been conducted. On 18 th November,
+                                            14
+
+   2024, the Learned Public Prosecutor appeared before this Court in
+
+   compliance with the order dated 03.09.2024 whereby this Court had sought
+
+   for an explanation as to what prompted him to submit before the Co-
+
+   ordinate Bench that the investigation of the Chatterjeehat Police Station
+
+   Case Nos.86 of 2024, 78 of 2023 and 23 of 2024 was to be conducted by the
+
+   CID, West Bengal.
+
+20. The Learned Public Prosecutor submitted several complaints and allegations
+
+   against two Hon'ble Judges of this Court and the officials of the
+
+   Chatterjeehat Police Station by the petitioners compelled him to ensure the
+
+   investigation to be carried out by an agency not comprising of the said
+
+   officials   of   the   Chatterjeehat   Police   Station   and   to   obliterate   the
+
+   apprehension of partial and biased investigation, the same was asked to be
+
+   conducted by the CID, State of West Bengal.
+
+21. On 19th of December, 2024, the Learned Public Prosecutor in compliance
+
+   with the order dated 18th November, 2024 filed a report stating the status of
+
+   investigation concerning the aforesaid police station cases. On 19 th
+
+   December, 2024, the Learned Public Prosecutor filed the report as aforesaid
+
+   along with an explanation as sought for. The petitioner no.1 was neither
+
+   present before the Court nor appeared online. Petitioner no.2 appeared
+
+   online and stated the appeal filed before the Division Bench was appearing
+
+   in the Daily List to be called for hearing. The petitioner no.1 and 2 had been
+
+   time and again asked by this Court to produce the details of the complaint or
+
+   G.D. Entry number which they claimed to have filed in the concerned police
+
+   station on several occasions for being threatened, physically manhandled,
+                                             15
+
+   molested and harassed. The petitioners did not produce any reference to that
+
+   effect before this Court.
+
+22. An order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in
+
+   WPA 23711 of 2023 is replicated as follows:-
+
+               "The respondent no. 12 appears in-person and tries to out shout
+             others. In spite of request made by the Court to calm down, she does
+             not relent and continues with her belligerent demeanour.
+               In view of this, I am not inclined to take up this matter.
+               Accordingly, the matter is released from my list."
+23. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners and the respondent no.13 who
+
+   had been the erstwhile client of the petitioners who sought for legal
+
+   assistance of the petitioners engaging them to be his advocates had filed writ
+
+   petitions being No.WPA 23711 of 2023 and WPA 21868 of 2023 wherein
+
+   several complaints had been filed against each other. Vide an order dated
+
+   16.04.2024, a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following
+
+   order:-
+
+               "Both these writ petitions are taken up for hearing together. It
+             appears that the petitioners in both the cases have filed several
+             complaints against each other.
+                                In Re: W.P.A. No.23711 of 2023
+               The petitioners in WPA No.23711 of 2023 lodged several complaints
+             against the petitioner in WPA No.21868 of 2023 before the Criminal
+             Investigation Department, West Bengal. In this writ petition, some of
+             the complaints have been annexed at annexure P/15. The petitioners
+             allege that no case has been registered or investigation has been
+             initiated following the said complaints.
+               I am of the view that the petitioners should lodge complaint before
+             the concerned police station at the first instance.
+                               16
+
+  Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty upon the
+petitioners to lodge complaint before the concerned police station. If the
+complaint discloses any cognizable offence, the relevant police station
+shall take steps to register F.I.R. and investigate the matter in
+accordance with law.
+  Accordingly,    W.P.A.    No.23711      of    2023     and    connected
+applications, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024 and CAN 2 of 2024 are
+disposed of.
+                   In Re: W.P.A. No.21868 of 2023
+  The petitioner in this case is a lady advocate. It appears that she
+also filed several complaints against the petitioners in WPA No.23711
+of 2023.
+  Following the complaints, the Investigating Agency has filed
+Chatterjeehat P.S. charge sheet no.191/23 dated 31.10.2022 under
+Sections 420/406/448/341/ 323/307/379/354B/376/506/34 of the
+Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Howrah P.S. charge sheet no.277/23
+dated 30.09.2023 under Sections 195A/506/34 of the 3 Indian Penal
+Code, 1860, before the jurisdictional Court. The trials have not yet
+commenced.
+  It is the grievance of the petitioner that while attending the Courts in
+connection with the aforesaid criminal cases, she is being harassed
+and even attacked by the petitioners in WPA No.23711 of 2023. These
+allegations have been vehemently denied by the petitioners in WPA
+No.23711 of 2023.
+  This Court is not in a position to appreciate the factual disputes. It is
+only expected that if the petitioner approaches the learned Trial Court
+seeking her protection, to ensure a free and fair trial, her prayer shall
+be considered by the Court below by passing necessary order.
+  Accordingly,    W.P.A.    No.21868      of    2023     and    connected
+applications, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2023 and CAN 2 of 2024 are
+disposed of."
+                                           17
+
+24. The present petitioners in the instant writ petition had filed an appeal
+
+   against the order dated 16.04.2024 passed in WPA 23711 of 2023 and WPA
+
+   21868 of 2023 before the Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble the
+
+   Chief Justice of this Court. By a judgment dated 21.05.2024 in MAT 831 of
+
+   2024, the Hon'ble Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice
+
+   of this Court had passed a judgment replicated as follows:-
+
+          "1. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties.
+          2. The appellant no.2, who is appearing online and he had sent a
+          message in the chat box praying that the live streaming of the
+          proceedings be paused. Acceding to the request made by the appellant
+          no.2, live streaming of the proceeding was paused.
+          3. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order passed in
+          W.P.A. No.23711 of 2023. The said writ petition was filed by the
+          respondent herein stating that several complaints have been lodged
+          against the respondents before the Criminal Investigation Department,
+          West Bengal and some of the complaints were annexed to the writ
+          petition. Further, the writ petitioners allege that no case has been
+          registered or investigated based on the complaints lodged by the
+          respondents/writ petitioners.
+          4. The learned Single Bench did not go into the merits of the matter but
+          disposed of the writ petition by the impugned order observing that the
+          writ petitioners, if aggrieved, should lodge complaint before the
+          concerned police station, at the first instance. Accordingly, the writ
+          petition was disposed of granting liberty to the writ petitioners to lodge
+          complaint before the concerned police station with an observation that
+          if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the relevant police
+          station shall take steps to register F.I.R. and investigate the matter in
+          accordance with law.
+          5. We failed to understand as to how the appellants before us, whose
+          names have been masked at their request, are aggrieved by the order
+                                          18
+
+          passed in the writ petition as the learned Writ Court has not gone into
+          the merits of the matter and left it open to the writ petitioners to work
+          out their remedy before the concerned police station.
+          6. The appellant no.2, who is appearing online, submitted that several
+          cases have been registered against them and there is a threat of
+          arrest. If that be so, it is well open to the appellants to invoke the
+          provisions of law available to them and approach the competent forum
+          for necessary relief.
+          7. Thus, we find no ground has been made out to interfere with the
+          order passed in the writ petition.
+          8. With the above observations/directions, appeal as well as the
+          connected application (IA No. CAN 1 of 2024) stand dismissed.
+          9. No costs.
+          10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
+          furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal
+          formalities."
+25. Subsequent to the aforesaid orders passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench and
+
+   the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner no.1 and 2 failed to
+
+   place any document of complaint filed by them before the concerned police
+
+   authorities claiming threat to their personal life and property and of any
+
+   action restricting their liberty to pursue their profession with dignity.
+
+26. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.1 and 2 submitted the
+
+   opinion of the Union of India specifically the Ministry of Home Affairs to be
+
+   the appropriate authority to provide safety and security to an individual
+
+   considering the threat perception after thorough assessment of the facts and
+
+   circumstances of a distinct case. It was further urged neither the police
+
+   authorities concerned nor this Court can assess whether the petitioners
+
+   required to be provided safety and security on the basis of personal claim of
+                                            19
+
+   a threat perception since it was within the absolute domain of the Ministry of
+
+   Home Affairs to ascertain and decide the seriousness and gravity of the
+
+   situation to provide safety and security to any individual.
+
+27. The Learned Advocate representing the State-respondents submitted despite
+
+   the order of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioners did not co-
+
+   operate with the investigation and suspected the investigating agency of
+
+   biasedness, arbitrariness and to wreck vengeance against the petitioners for
+
+   having dealt with a Public Interest Litigation against the State authorities
+
+   concerning an incident at Sandeshkhali. The petitioners were of the opinion
+
+   to be prejudicially prevented and impartial hearing and failed a transfer
+
+   petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India being Transfer Petitions
+
+   Criminal Nos.701/702 of 2024 which was dismissed as the Hon'ble Supreme
+
+   Court observed no case for transfer to have been made out vide its order
+
+   dated September 2, 2024.
+
+28. The petitioners had also filed writ petition criminal No.236 of 2024 before the
+
+   Supreme Court of India which was withdrawn by the petitioners. The
+
+   petitioners had accused the police personnels and other officials and had
+
+   impleaded them in the instant writ petition without plausible reasons and
+
+   did   not   deliberately   co-operate    with   the   investigation   citing   their
+
+   dissatisfaction as the same had been conducted by the CID, West Bengal
+
+   further stating to the Investigating Officer that the investigation should be
+
+   conducted by the CBI.
+
+29. The Learned Advocate representing the State further submitted it would not
+
+   be possible for the Writ Court to quash the proceedings since the complaint
+                                         20
+
+   as well as the FIR delineated commission of cognizable offences and the
+
+   charge-sheet had been submitted with further prayer on the part of the
+
+   Investigating Officer to file a supplementary charge-sheet. The Writ Court in
+
+   case of the offences being cognizable and the conundrum between the
+
+   parties should be decided through trial by the competent court. The Writ
+
+   Court should not exercise its jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.
+
+30. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 submitted the
+
+   petitioners to have instituted false and malicious complaints against the
+
+   respondent no.13 with an intention to incriminate him in serious offences of
+
+   rape, theft etc. The father of the respondent no.13 being a nonagenarian
+
+   person had been dragged mercilessly into humiliation, despair, agony and
+
+   trauma. The petitioners on being asked to be relieved of their professional
+
+   responsibility to represent the respondent no.13 and to withdraw the cases
+
+   on account of reconciliation between the respondent no.13 and his wife
+
+   infuriated the petitioners to lodge frivolous and baseless complaints against
+
+   the respondent no.13 whereby the same being a professional oncologist
+
+   practising in Bangladesh had been arrested and was released on bail. It was
+
+   further submitted the respondent no.13 to have been kidnapped by the
+
+   petitioners, physically assaulted and captivated.
+
+31. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 submitted that the
+
+   petitioner no.1 had instituted complaint cases against her and the same had
+
+   not been taken cognizance of by the CMM vide order dated 13.07.2023
+
+   passed in CS/71375/2023.
+                                         21
+
+32. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 further submitted
+
+   to have been repeatedly threatened and abused by the petitioners on the
+
+   corridor of this Court along with her junior who happened to be a practising
+
+   advocate in this Court. Against complaints registered as FIR, criminal
+
+   revisional applications have been pending before the respective Co-Ordinate
+
+   Bench of this Court.
+
+33. The petitioners were trying to frustrate the proceedings by delaying the
+
+   hearing of the same on several pretexts to the predicament of the respondent
+
+   no.13. Moreover, since the investigation had proceeded to a considerable
+
+   extent, the writ petition should not be entertained.
+
+34. The relationship between the petitioners and the respondent no.13
+
+   apparently had been cordial at the inception whereby the petitioners
+
+   accorded legal assistance to respondent no.13 to defend him in several cases
+
+   instituted against him in the Court of law, which gradually might have
+
+   evolved to be trustworthy and amicable to the extent the petitioners
+
+   accompanied the respondent no.13 to his parents' house at Tamil Nadu to
+
+   assist the respondent no.13 and his father in property related issues and its
+
+   assessment thereof. In course of time, the professional and congenial
+
+   relationship seemingly transformed into resentment and hostility.
+
+35. The petitioner no.1 subsequently on 28.04.2023 was asked to withdraw the
+
+   following cases pending before the respective Courts as stated below:-
+
+          "(i) Divorce Case 1647 of 2022 pending at 13 th ADJ, Alipore
+          (ii) Objection in Restitution Case 1535 of 2022 pending at 6 th ADJ,
+          Alipore
+                                              22
+
+             (iii) All my objection petitions and non maintainability petitions filed by
+             me in Maintenance Case 613 of 2021 pending at 6 th JM, Alipore
+             (iv) Non-maintainability petition in DV Case 561 of 2023 pending at 6 th
+             JM, Alipore"
+36. Respondent no.13 asked the petitioner no.1 through a communication dated
+
+   03.05.2023 for relieving her to take any further steps in the following legal
+
+   matters pending before the various Courts alleging the petitioner no.1 and 2,
+
+   inter alia, to have failed to maintain their professional ethics and discipline
+
+   as mentioned therein:-
+
+             "(i) 613/2021 - 6th JM, Alipore
+             (ii) 1535/2022 - 6th ADJ, Alipore
+             (iii) 1647/2022 - 13th ADJ, Alipore
+             (iv) 561/2023 - 6th JM, Alipore
+             (v) 38867/2023 - 14th Metropolitan Magistrate, Bankshall Court"
+
+37. The relationship between the disputants worsened with lapse of time and the
+
+   petitioner filed complaints against the respondent no.13 and his associates.
+
+38. Based on the complaint filed by the petitioner herein Chatterjeehat Police
+
+   Station     Case    No.23    of    2024     dated   05.02.2024    under    Sections
+
+   341/323/325/326B/354A/354B/509/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code
+
+   anticipatory bail was granted in favour of the accused therein vide order
+
+   dated 13.03.2024 passed by this Court in CRM(A) 880 of 2024.
+
+39. Based on the complaint of the petitioner herein Chatterjeehat Police Station
+
+   Case       No.78      of    2023      dated     04.05.2023       under     Sections
+
+   420/406/448/341/323/307/379/354B/376/506(2)/34 of the Indian Penal
+
+   Code had been instituted against the accused persons mentioned therein.
+                                            23
+
+40. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 submitted the
+
+   complaint filed by the respondent no.13 dated 28 th April, 2024 accused the
+
+   petitioners of abduction, extortion, physical assault, threat to murder,
+
+   defamation, confiscation of passport, ATM card and other official documents
+
+   perjury, forgery implicating in false and fabricated criminal cases to extort
+
+   money.
+
+41. Records further reveal an FIR to have been instituted by the Sathuvachari
+
+   Police Station, Vellore, on the basis of the complaint received from one Dr.
+
+   Debidas Rai who alleged that his son was missing referring to the present
+
+   petitioners to have visited his house claiming for further money to defend his
+
+   sons petitioners' case.
+
+42. The respondent no.13 who had been an accused in Chatterjeehat Police
+
+   Station       Case     No.78      of         2023   filed   under    Sections
+
+   420/406/448/341/323/379/354B/307/376/506/34 of the Indian Penal
+
+   Code was granted bail vide order dated 03.08.2023 passed by this Court in
+
+   CRM (DB) 3080 of 2023.
+
+43. The Learned Public Prosecutor had submitted the status report prepared by
+
+   the concerned Investigating Officer:-
+
+             "1. Case No. and date of registration: Chatterjeehat (Howrah Police
+             Commissionerate) PS Case No 78/2023 dt 04/05/2023
+             2. Sections of law: U/S 420/ 406/ 448/ 341/ 323/ 379/ 354B/
+             307/376/506/34 IPC.
+             3. Control order No. & Date: The case was assumed by CID W.B.
+             Vide Org No 618/CS. Dt. 06/08/24.
+                               24
+
+4. Name and rank of investigating officer: (i) SI Sudipta Kar of
+Chatterjeehat (Howrah Police Commissionerate) PS (ii) Inspector
+Swapna Ghosh O/C, POWC Cell, CID, WB.
+5. Gist of FIR: On 04/05/2023 at 17.25 hrs to the Officer In-Charge of
+Chatterjeehat PS received a written complaint from the complainant
+and perused the complaint properly. On the basis of a written
+complaint of the Victim Lady against one Deepak Shankar Ray and
+others to the effect that she was appointed as an advocate by the
+alleged person since month of December, 2021. The accused person
+was very reluctant to pay her professional fees as per norms of several
+Vakalatnamas executed by him in several cases. Till date the
+complainant owes Rs 1000000/- to the alleged person as her
+professional fees. But in spite of several reminders, he refused to pay
+her the same and threatened her with dire consequences. Thereafter
+on 29.04.2023 at around 20.30 hrs the alleged person came at the
+chamber of the complainant situated at 93 Abinash Banerjee Lane, PS-
+Chatterjeehat, Howrah and forcefully entered in to the chamber and
+committed theft in respect of some cash and mobile phone, then on
+being protest the alleged person outrage her female modesty and also
+trying to kill her by grabbing her throat. Then while the complainant
+felt down on the floor, the alleged person kicked in her lower private
+part and also forcibly inserted one of his left-hand finger at her lower
+private part. Over the complaint of the complainant Chatterjeehat PS
+Case No. 78/23 dated 04.05.2023 u/s 420/406/448/341/323/379
+3548/307/376/506/34 IPC has been started.
+6. Details of FIR named accused: (i) Deepak Shankar Ray(53yrs),
+S/O Debidas Ray of S-3, 2nd street, Sathuvachari, CMC Colony, Vellore,
+Tamil
+Nadu- 632009 and Flat No - 303, Sailagreen, 1137 Kalikapur,
+Purbalok, PS Purba Jadavpur, Kolkatta- 700099 (ii) Kanad Saha- S/O
+Lt Kunal Saha of Block - D2, Flat No - 402, Kendriya Vihar, Phase - II,
+PO- Birati, Dist North 24 Prgns, Kolkata - 700051. (iii) Debidas Ray
+                              25
+
+s/o of Lt. Nagendranath Ray of S-3, 2nd street, Sathuvachari, CMC
+Colony, Vellore, Tamil Nadu- 632009.
+7. Details of arrest: (i) Deepak Shankar Ray(53yrs), s/o Debidas Ray
+of S-3, 2nd street, Sathuvachari, CMC Colony, Vellore, Tamil Nadu-
+632009 and Flat No - 303, Sailagreen, 1137 Kalikapur, Purbalok, PS
+Purba Jadavpur, Kolkatta- 700099, was arrested on 11.07.2023 and
+forwarded before Ld. CJM, Howrah Sadar Court on 12.07.2023. (ii)
+Kanad Saha - S/O Lt Kunal Saha of Block - D2, Flat No - 402,
+Kendriya Vihar, Phase - II, PO- Birati, Dist North 24 Prgns, Kolkata -
+700051 was released on bail by Hon'ble High Court Calcutta on
+21.08.2023 and Ld. CJM, Howrah Sadar Court on 25.09.23. (iii)
+Debidas Ray s/o of Lt. Nagendranath Ray of S-3, 2nd street,
+Sathuvachari, CMC Colony, Vellore, Tamil Nadu- 632009 was granted
+anticipatory Bail by Hon'ble High Court Calcutta on 25.09.2023.
+8. Steps Taken During Investigation by the District Police:
+During investigation of the case I Sudipta Kar of Chatterjeehat PS
+visited the place of Occurrence and prepared a details index of the PO
+and prepared a rough sketch map. The IO examined the complainant
+and others available witnesses and recorded their statement U/S 161
+Cr.P.C. Medico legal examination of Victim Lady was performed by the
+Dr. Debhina Ghosal of Howrah District Hospital. He also arranged to
+record the Judicial Statement of the victim lady with the help of LSI
+Nitu Biswas of Howrah Women PS and produced the victim lady before
+the Ld Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 4th Court, Howrah, recorded her
+statement judicially U/S 164 Cr.P.C and also collected the copy of
+judicial statement from Ld Court, Howrah District.
+Previous IO collected the medico legal report along with one sealed
+envelope containing one glass tube & one glass slide containing the
+swab/ spermatozoa from Howrah District Hospital. IO sent prayer to
+ACP DD, HPC for providing the CDR of the accused person's mobile
+number which was provided by the VG to trace them out and also
+prayed for IMEI searching of the complainant's mobile phone which
+                                26
+
+was taken away by the accused from the PO. In course of
+investigation, IO seized the wearing apparels of the victim lady which
+were worn by her at the time of incident and also seized the bill of the
+alleged mobile which was taken away by the accused and one
+prescription of Dr Souvik Roy who examined the victim lady after the
+incident. In course of investigation, IO held several raids under Purba
+Jadavpur PS area & Naihati PS area to arrest the accused persons but
+no fruitful result achieved. Then IO collected the Passport details and
+prayed to the concerned authority after following all legal procedures
+for issuing Look Out Circular' against the principal accused namely
+Deepak Shankar Ray on 01.07.2023 LOC was initiated by the
+concerned authority against the accused person. On 11.07.2023
+received information that in the immigration Centre of Haridaspur
+under Petrapole PS, North 24 Pgs, said accused person was detained
+as LOC subject. IO along with force went to Haridaspur Immigration
+Centre and with the assistance of Petrapole PS police team, arrested
+the FIR named principle accused person namely Deepak Shankar Ray
+and brought him to PS and forwarded him before Ld. Court and took
+him into Police Custody for 02 days as per kind order of Ld. CJM,
+Howrah. During PC period after obtaining necessary orders from Ld.
+Court,   IO   produced   the   arrested   accused   person   before   the
+Superintendent of Howrah District Hospital for his medico legal
+examination. Dr. Chitta Ranjan Bhattacharya of Howrah District
+Hospital, has done the medico legal examination of the accused
+Deepak Shankar Ray and collected one sealed envelope containing one
+glass tube & one glass slide containing Urethral Swab/smears of said
+accused person. IO along with force and PC accused held raid to
+recover the alleged stolen articles and to arrest the other co accused
+persons, but no fruitful result was achieved. On 19.07.2023 IO sent the
+exhibits before Ld. C.JM. Howrah Sadar Court and collected CMR No.
+vide CMR No. 427/2023 dated 19.07.2023. On 31.08.2023 IO sent the
+exhibits to FSL Kolkata for examination and Expert Opinion. IO further
+                                 27
+
+contacted with the FSL authority over phone regarding the expert
+opinion but informed that the expert opinion is not ready yet. IO
+submitted Charge Sheet vide Chatterjehat PS C.S. No- 191/23 dated-
+31/10/2023 u/s 420/406/448/341/323/379/354B /307/376/506
+IPC against the Principal accused person namely Deepak Shankar Ray,
+53 yrs s/o Debidas Ray and u/s 509/506/34 IPC against the other 2
+FIR named accused persons namely (1) Kanad Saha - S/O Lt Kunal
+Saha (2) Debidas Ray s/o of Lt. Nagendranath Ray and IO also
+submitted prayer before the Ld. Court for allowing to submit
+Supplementary Charge Sheet after receiving the FSL report.
+  9. Steps Taken During Investigation by CID W.B:
+The investigation of the said case was taken up by CID W.B. as per
+order of Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta vide order CRR 1023 of
+2024, dt 08.04.2024 in compliance of the Order passed by Hon'ble
+High Court is "Quote" "Mr. Debasish Roy, learned Public Prosecutor
+appearing for the State submits that State would take up all the
+investigations for being investigated by the CID, West Bengal.
+However, it is the prerogative of the State at this stage as the de facto
+complainant has expressed her apprehension as she has complained
+to different dignitaries in respect of this Court.
+Targeting the Courts are a soft option as has been settled in several
+judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Article 219 of the
+Constitution of India states that court of law is supposed to act without
+any fear or favour. A professional having claimed herself to be a victim
+of sexual assault has raised issues not only in respect of this Court but
+also in respect of four other senior Judges of this Court. There cannot
+be any issue regarding the Court to proceed with the present case as
+the only issue which was expressed is that all the cases of
+Chatterjeehat Police Station in between the self same parties are to be
+transmitted to the CID or any Women Grievance Cell connected with
+the CID so that under the same umbrella investigation and in respect of
+different cases could be conducted.
+                                 28
+
+However, having regard to the attitude and approach of the de facto
+complainant and for preserving the sobriety of the judicial system, I
+intend to leave the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court for
+deciding the issue.
+Let the matter go out of the list and be placed before the Hon'ble Chief
+Justice for assignment.
+All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded
+from the official website of this Court.
+In respect of the said order CID WB has assumed investigation of the
+case vide Org No 618/CS. Dt. 06/08/24. I Inspector Swapna Ghosh,
+OC, POWC Cell was detailed as the Investigating officer.
+During investigation, I submitted a prayer and collected the Case
+Docket from learned CJM, Court, Howrah on 7/05/2024. I perused the
+case diary and learnt that the previous I/0 had submitted charge sheet
+with provision for submitting Supplementary Charge sheet on receipt of
+the FSL report. I submitted a prayer to FSL Kolkata vide memo no-
+79/POWC/CID WB on 14/05/2024 to hand over the FSL report and
+exhibits to me for the interest of investigation.
+On 22/05/2024 I received the exhibits and report from FSL Kolkata
+vide report no- BIO/5783/2023/3606/FSL dated 22/05/2024 and the
+opinion of the examination is "Quote" "No semen (no spermatozoon), no
+Gonococcus could be detected on the contents of the items marked A
+(vaginal swab & vaginal smears) and B (urethral swab & smears).
+"Unquote.
+Hon'ble High Court Calcutta vide order dated 08.04.2024 in CRR 1023
+OF 2024 had directed that all FIR's lodged against the complainants
+and accused persons at Chatterjeehat Police Station be investigated by
+CID, WB.
+O/C Chatterjeehat Police Station informed that along with the current
+case, there are 2 (two) more cases that have been lodged against both
+complainant and accused i.e Chatterjeehat PS case no- 23/2024
+dated-05/02/2024 u/S 341/ 323/ 325/ 326B/ 354A/ 354B/ 354/
+                                29
+
+509/ 506/34 IPC against (i) Dr. Deepak Shankar Roy s/o Dr. Debidas
+Roy (ii) Kanad Saha s/o Late Kunal Saha and (2) Chatterjeehat PS
+case no 86/2024 dated- 04/05/2024 u/s 341/363/468/420/506 IPC
+against Sanjukta Samanta w/o Romit Dutta.
+I had sent message to the complainant through Chatterjeehat PS for
+meeting her in c/w the investigation of the case, this refers to org no
+70/ POWC/CID WB dated 20/05/2024 and org no 73/ POWC/CID
+WB dated 25/05/2024 • However no response was received her till
+date. I also contacted with her over telephone and she told me that she
+don't want to meet investigation by CID, as rather she want CBI
+investigation.
+The complainant on 20/05/2024 had filed a WP (S) (Criminal) No (S)
+236/2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. But later the
+complainant withdrew her petition, this refers to Order dated
+03/06/2024 in WP (CL).
+Later, I came to learn from Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated
+1/07/2024 in c/w WPA Number 15260 of 2024 that "Quote" Let the
+case diary with the progress report of Chatterjeehat PS case no
+78/2023 be produced before this Court as because the petitioners
+apprehend arrest in c/w Chatterjeehat PS case no 86/2024.
+For the ends of justice the police is restrained from taking any coercive
+steps against the petitioner till 12th July, 2024 or until further order,
+which is earlier. "Unquote".
+Later, I came to learn from Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated
+30/07/2024 in c/w WPA Number 15260 of 2024 that "Quote"
+Petitioner No. 1 appears in-person and prays for release of the matter.
+Let this matter be released and placed before the Hon'ble the Chief
+Justice for appropriate assignment. "Unquote".
+In course of investigation, it is necessary to examine the complainant
+for which I have communicated with her over the telecommunication of
+CID West Bengal vide org no-144/ POWC dated 25/11/24.
+Reason for pending of investigation
+                                         30
+
+          Investigation is almost complete and will end in submission of
+          supplementary charge sheet.
+          The Investigation is pending as the complainant is not cooperating with
+          the investigation. During investigation several messages were sent to
+          the complainant but she did not respond. As per latest status dated
+          25/11/24 message was sent to the petitioner whose response was
+          recived by me vide Chatterjeehat PS org no - CHT/9033/24 which was
+          serviced dated 27/11/2024. Chatterjeehat PS. Received the following
+          response in writing against the above petition from the complainant
+          Quote "strongly objected to matter pending for challenging the
+          false FIR filed & counter case to harass me". Unquote.
+          This is submitted for your kind perusal."
+
+44. In compliance with the order dated 18.11.2024 of this Court, the report of
+
+   the Learned Public Prosecutor stated as follows:-
+
+             "The petitioner has initiated multiple proceedings before this Hon'ble
+          Court, asserting various grievances. Her claims are diverse, yet a
+          recurring theme is her assertion that the investigating agency has
+          failed to conduct its investigation impartially, thereby causing her
+          significant injustice. She has gone further to allege that the opposing
+          party is being supported by state machinery. According to her, the
+          advocates representing the state, acting in collusion, have sought to
+          suppress her voice and prevent her from receiving a fair hearing.
+             The petitioner's conduct has been noted on numerous occasions, and
+          there have been several instances where her matters have been
+          released by the Hon'ble Justices of this Court. In WPA 23711/2023, by
+          an order dated October 3, 2023, Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
+          observed the petitioner's belligerent demeanor and subsequently
+          released the matter. Similarly, in CRR 1023/2024, by an order dated
+          April 8, 2024, Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh reflected upon the
+          petitioner's attitude, noting her conduct as targeting the sanctity of the
+          judicial system, and consequently released the matter. This matter
+                                31
+
+was earlier released by Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh on April 4,
+2024.
+   In WPA 15260 of 2024, the petitioner herself sought the release of
+the matter before Hon'ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj, as indicated in
+the order dated July 30, 2024. Subsequently, by an order dated
+August 5, 2024, Hon'ble Justice Amrita Sinha released the same
+matter, attributing the decision to the petitioner's unruly behaviour
+during the proceedings. The petitioner has also alleged that during the
+hearing of the Sandeshkhali matter, WPA(P) 78/2024, she was
+subjected to abuse and threats by state advocates, which she claims
+were motivated by her political affiliations.
+   It is pertinent to mention herein that the aforesaid allegations have
+found place in the Special Leave Petition filed by the Writ Petitioner
+herein before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Writ Petition
+(Criminal) No 236/2024.
+   The petitioner has consistently expressed distrust in the police
+officials involved in the investigations of her matters. She alleges that
+these officials are influenced and biased, undermining her confidence
+in the fairness of the ongoing investigations.
+   Under such circumstances, I was constrained to direct the CID to
+take up the investigation of the cases filed by the instant writ petitioner
+as well as the case filed against her to ensure neutral investigation
+devoid of any blemish, as alleged by her.
+   The petitioner's allegations, demeanor, and conduct across various
+proceedings have drawn attention and have been noted by various
+benches this Hon'ble Court. These observations reflect a pattern of
+dissatisfaction on the part of the petitioner with the judicial and
+investigative processes, alongside allegations of undue influence and
+partiality.
+   It is however, necessary to bring to the notice of this Hon'ble Court
+that the Writ petitioner has consistently refrained from co operating
+with the CID to get her statement recorded or for any other purpose, as
+                                            32
+
+           required by the Investigating Agency thus rendering them incapable of
+           continuation and/or completion of the investigation of the cases
+           instituted by the instant writ petitioner.
+              This report has been prepared in pursuance to paragraph no. 5 of
+           the order dated November 18, 2024 passed by Her Ladyship Hon'ble
+           Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay."
+45. The petitioner no.1 appearing before the Court submitted her plight, agony
+
+   and helplessness being subjected to physical molestation, outrage of
+
+   modesty, theft of mobile and cash sum of Rs.65,000/- on the part of
+
+   respondent no.13 and his associates and non-payment of professional fees.
+
+   The petitioner no.1 submitted her associates. The petitioner no.1 submitted
+
+   her lawyer's chamber to have been impaired and damaged by the respondent
+
+   no.13 and his associates with continuous threat to both the petitioners and
+
+   their family members disrupting mental peace causing physical trauma and
+
+   being indignified with insinuations and ignominies. Both the petitioners
+
+   could not repose faith and trust on the investigating agencies whose actions
+
+   had been suspiciously frustrating to deliberately deprive the petitioners of
+
+   fair justice.
+
+46. The respondent no.13 filed a complaint dated 28 th April, 2024 accusing the
+
+   petitioners of abduction, extortion, physical assault, threat to murder,
+
+   defamation, confiscation of passport, ATM card and other official documents,
+
+   perjury, forgery implicating in false and fabricated criminal cases to extort
+
+   money etc. which had been serious allegations.
+
+47. The serious allegations by the petitioners the counter allegations resulting in
+
+   the institution of the aforementioned criminal cases being registered through
+
+   formal FIRs had been challenged through filing of Criminal Revisional
+                                              33
+
+   Applications pending before the co-ordinate bench of this Court for quashing
+
+   of the proceedings/FIRs being Nos. Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.86
+
+   of 2024 and No.78 of 2023.
+
+48. The allegations of the petitioner no.1 are indubitably grave and deprecated in
+
+   nature which can only be tested in terms of its veracity through trial to
+
+   inculpate the perpetrator. Contrarily the allegations of the respondent no.13
+
+   whether to have been genuine or a counterblast to the allegations of the
+
+   petitioners cannot be decided unless the investigation of the respective cases
+
+   are concluded and the process of trial being conducted by the court of
+
+   competent    jurisdiction   to   arrive    at   a   conclusive   determination   for
+
+   incrimination or exculpation.
+
+49. A web-search on the query as to who decides to provide security to private
+
+   individual in India and on what ground, the following answer has been
+
+   received by this Court:-
+
+
+           "The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), on the recommendation of
+           intelligence agencies, decides to provide security to private individuals
+           in India, based on perceived threats to life or injury from groups or
+           terrorists. While government officials typically receive security based
+           on their position, a call on security for private citizens is made by the
+           MHA using information from bodies like the Intelligence Bureau (IB)
+           and Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW). The Central Reserve Police
+           Force (CRPF) and other forces then provide this security.
+           The Process
+
+             1) Intelligence Gathering: Intelligence Agencies like the IB and R&AW
+                monitor potential threats and gather information from various
+                                           34
+
+               sources, including phone intercepts, human intelligence, and
+               threat analysis.
+             2) Threat   Assessment:      These   agencies   provide   a   subjective
+               assessment of the threat to an individual's life or safety from
+               potential attackers like terrorists or other groups.
+             3) Decision by the MHA: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) reviews
+               the intelligence inputs and decides whether a private individual
+               requires security cover.
+             4) Deployment of Forces: If security is granted, a central agency,
+               often the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), is tasked with
+               providing the security.
+50. The petitioners herein despite the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench of this
+
+   Court in WPA 23711 of 2023 and the Hon'ble Division Bench in MAT 831 of
+
+   2024 presiding over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court at Calcutta,
+
+   having directed to file complaints at the concerned police station for being
+
+   threatened as claimed by the petitioners reiterated by this Court during
+
+   consecutive hearings failed to provide the copy of the complaint or the G.D.
+
+   Entry number concerning such complaints claimed to have been lodged by
+
+   the petitioners.
+
+51. Considering the role of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the submissions of
+
+   the Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.1 and 2 Union of
+
+   India, the prayer of the petitioner for providing personal security on the
+
+   ground of their perception cannot be allowed. The petitioners could not
+
+   establish a case serious and strong enough to be granted protection as
+
+   sought for which otherwise had to be decided by the Ministry of Home Affairs
+
+   on the basis of imminent and persistent threat. The petitioners could not
+
+   justify inaction on the part of the police administration or the investigating
+                                           35
+
+   agency, however, claimed the same to be biased and revengetic in its attitude
+
+   towards the petitioners primarily petitioner no.1 for her active role against
+
+   the State administration defending injustice to women's rights concerning an
+
+   unfortunate event at Sandeshkhali through a Public Interest Litigation.
+
+52. The status report of the Learned Public Prosecutor as aforesaid explaining
+
+   the course of investigation did not endorse police inaction.
+
+53. Vide Order dated 08.07.2024, the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in WPA
+
+   15260 of 2024 observed as follows:-
+
+             "As per the request of the petitioners, the live streaming has been
+          paused.
+             Learned advocate representing the State respondents submits, upon
+          instruction that, the petitioners are not cooperating with the police in
+          the process of investigation.
+             From the documents handed over by the learned advocate
+          representing the State respondents it appears that, after protection
+          was granted to the petitioners vide the order passed by this Court on
+          1st July, 2024, no notice was served upon the petitioners directing their
+          appearance for investigation.
+             The respondents are directed to proceed with the investigation but
+          not take any coercive steps against the petitioners without the leave of
+          the Court.
+             The petitioners and all other parties are directed to cooperate with
+          the police for the sake of investigation.
+             List on 12th August, 2024.
+             Liberty to mention.
+             Report dated 08.07.2024 be kept with the records."
+54. The petitioners despite an order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this
+
+   Court to co-operate in the investigation refrained from participating in the
+
+   investigation as claimed by the Learned Advocate representing the State
+                                          36
+
+   respondents suspecting the Investigating Officers and accusing them of
+
+   arbitrary, biasedness being capricious and revengeful. The Co-Ordinate
+
+   Bench of this Court directed the investigating agency not to take any
+
+   coercive steps against the petitioners. Despite such an order, the petitioners
+
+   denied to co-operate with the investigating agency as had been stated in the
+
+   report filed by the Learned Public Prosecutor as aforesaid.
+
+55. The Learned Public Prosecutor on an explanation sought by this Court for
+
+   transferring the case of investigation to the CID, West Bengal anxiously
+
+   stated for the purpose of an impartial and unbiased investigation, the same
+
+   had been entrusted to the CID, West Bengal conforming to the police
+
+   regulations stated as follows:-
+
+          "II.- Control and assistance in enquiries and investigations.
+          ....
+

618. Method of assuming control. +

(a) The Deputy Inspector-General, Criminal Investigation. Department, + may assume control 0f an enquiry or investigation at any stage. On + assuming control he shall inform the Deputy Inspector-General of the + Range forthwith, sending a copy 0f his intimation direct to the + Superintendent Or Superintendents concerned. +
(b) In excise cases in which the investigation must extend to more than + one district, or in which there are intricacies which cannot be dealt with + without the aid of a specially skilled detective, the services of an officer + of the Criminal Investigation Department, shall be requisitioned by the + Commissioner of Excise. In emergencies such requisition may also be + made by an officer of lower rank. The Deputy Inspector-General, + Criminal Investigation Department, shall, if he thinks fit and if he has + an officer available, depute one and also decide whether the officer + deputed shall be placed at the disposal of the Commissioner of Excise + 37 + + or whether the control of the enquiry shall be taken over by the + Criminal Investigation Department." +

56. It was further submitted several Judges of this Hon'ble High Court had been + + accused along with the police officers and the Learned Public Prosecutor + + himself which compelled him to transfer the responsibilities of conducting + + investigation on the CID, State of West Bengal without any other alternative + + or option being third party to conduct the investigation independently + + without the involvement of the police officers of the concerned police station + + against whose conduct several objections had been raised by the petitioners. + +

57. The status report filed by the Learned Public Prosecutor as aforesaid did not + + reveal police inaction to the detriment of the petitioners' interest. The + + petitioners had filed a transfer petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + + India being Transfer Petitions Criminal No.701/702 of 2024 being Sanjukta + + Samanta vs. the State of West Bengal and Ors. etc. whereby the petitioners + + appeared in person. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated + + 02.09.2024 observed: "No case for transfer is made out. The transfer petitions + + are dismissed." +

+

58. The petitioners, therefore, cannot refuse to participate in the investigation + + violating the order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court on + + 08.07.2024 in WPA 15260 of 2024. Both the parties have filed criminal + + revisional applications before the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court, the + + criminal revisional applications being CRR 1023 of 2024 and CRR 3203 of + + 2023. The petitioners as well as the respondent no.13 have availed the + + jurisdiction to redress their grievances in an alternative form under Section + + 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner no.1 being a + 38 + + complainant in connection with Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.78 of + + 2023 filed under Sections + + 420/406/448/341/323/379/354B/307/376/506/34 sought for stay of the + + investigation in the said case further seeking the investigation to be + + conducted by the State respondent no.4 whose actions had been challenged + + by the petitioners to be against her interest intending to deprive her of fair + + trial and natural justice. +

+

59. In the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajanlal and Others 1, + + the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- +

+
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant + provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law + enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise + of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers + under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and + reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of + illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent + abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of + justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly + defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid + formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases + wherein such power should be exercised. +
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the + complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in + their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a + case against the accused. +
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other + materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable + offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section + + 1 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 + 39 + + 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the + purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. +

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint + and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the + commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. + (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable + offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is + permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as + contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. +

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd + and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can + ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for + proceeding against the accused. +

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the + provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal + proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the + proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or + the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the + aggrieved party. +

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide + and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior + motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite + him due to private and personal grudge." +

60. Since the contents of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet claimed to have + + been filed by the investigating agency as per the report filed by the Learned + + Public Prosecutor in Case No.78 of 2023 and the complaint as well as the + + FIR in Case No.86 of 2024 to have revealed allegations of cognizable offences + + in both the aforesaid cases, this Court is not inclined to stay the further + + proceedings in the aforesaid cases. +

40

+ +

61. The petitioners being young, responsible and bright advocates practising in + + this Hon'ble Court as well as in the Supreme Court, out of shock and + + displeasure probably by the turn of events cannot trust the investigating + + agencies at the moment perhaps due to mental agony. One has to confide in + + the prevailing justice delivery system to attain a finality to a dispute which + + definitely can be assailed at a Higher Forum statutorily. The petitioners did + + not appear before this Court on the dates fixed for hearing as reflected in the + + order-sheets of the instant writ petition and the case was reserved for + + judgment on 17.02.2025. Subsequently the petitioners filed several CAN + + applications in the Court and directly addressed the same in the name of the + + presiding judge of this Court as would be evident from the postal envelopes + + on record. Considering the context of the CAN applications, this Court + + thought it prudent to grant a further opportunity to the petitioners to + + address this Court for a final hearing and recalled the order dated + + 17.02.2025 on 16.05.2025, fixing the next date of hearing on 11.07.2025. + + The petitioner no.2 appeared online only to contradict the court proceedings + + without submissions on merits. Finally on 11.07.2025 the instant writ + + petition was reserved for pronouncing judgment. +

+

62. The contention of the petitioner no.1 to have been a victim of rape and her + + name and presence to be masked is contrary to the cause title of the instant + + writ petition where the name of the petitioner no.1 had been mentioned by + + herself conspicuously claiming the relief sought for revealing her identity for + + quashing of the aforesaid Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.86 of 2024 + + dated 04.05.2024 under Sections 341/365/468/420/506/34 of the Indian + 41 + + Penal Code. The petitioner no.1 appeared before the Hon'ble Supreme Court + + in person to move the Transfer Petition as aforesaid without seeking her + + presence to be masked as the same would not transpire from the order of the + + Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioners did not appear before the Court on + + the dates fixed for hearing and subsequently could not blame this Court for + + not granting them an opportunity of hearing. This Court did hear the + + submissions of the petitioners on earlier dates and recorded the same in the + + order-sheets as well as in the instant judgment. +

+

63. Moreover, the petitioners as well as the respondent no.13 have already + + sought for relief of quashing the proceedings of the criminal cases instituted + + against each other under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as + + stated above before the Co-Ordinate Benches of this Court. The allegations + + and counter-allegations in the complaints do not reveal the same to be prima + + facie frivolous which are in the facts and circumstances of the case serious + + in nature with grave implications and ramifications. + +

64. The Writ Court can quash the criminal proceedings if the same has been + + frivolously instituted, however, in the instant case, the gamut of allegations + + and counter-allegations are complex in terms of severity necessitating to + + unravel the authenticity and credibility of the same which in the facts and + + circumstances of the instant writ petition shall be subjected to the process of + + trial by the competent Court. +

+

65. In view of the above discussions, the instant writ petition being WPA + + No.15260 of 2024 along with its connected CAN applications stand + + dismissed. +

42

+ +

66. There is no order as to costs. +

+

67. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on + + priority basis on compliance of all formalities. +

+

+

(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.) +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_1548938.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_1548938.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b3565c1defd935e79c6cf8492c406ca3a21f78a5 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_1548938.html @@ -0,0 +1,366 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ramu & Another vs State Of U.P. on 29 January, 2010 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned +A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of +sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. +

The accused-appellants Pankaj Kumar Tewari and Rakesh +Kumar Tewari have been convicted in Sessions Trial No.82 of 2002 +(Case Crime No.383/2001) for the offence punishable under Section +323/34 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo one year's simple +imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment +of fine to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment and have +have been acquitted to the charge for the offence punishable under +Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C. Accused-appellants were on bail during +trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on +record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_155311894.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_155311894.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3dfd731c5924cc14bfd183827f45e5f519f0d324 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_155311894.html @@ -0,0 +1,515 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Smt. Deeksha Puri vs State Of Haryana on 16 October, 2012 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ 
 CRM M-359 of 2012                                       [4]
+
+
+
+
+         i)    Satinder Singh Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh and
+
+

another, 2001 (2) RCR (Crl.) 89. In the said case, the + + order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender was + + set aside merely on the ground that it was in violation of + + provisions of Section 82 (4) Cr.P.C.; +

+

ii) In Rahul Dutta Vs. State of Haryana, 2012 (2) RCR + + (Crl.) 585, while considering the application for regular + + bail pending trial in offences under Sections 498 A, 406 + + read with Section 174-A IPC, the scope of Section 82 (4) + + Cr.P.C. was considered in context to the amendment by + + Act No. 25 of 2005, holding that the term "proclaimed + + offender" has different connotations and that a person + + who is evading the execution of warrants of arrest he + + should under the special sections of IPC mentioned in + + Section 82 (4) Cr.P.C. can only be declared to be a + + "proclaimed offender" and a person under the other + + provisions of IPC and the laws can be declared to be a + + "proclaimed person" in terms of Section 82 (1) Cr.P.C. + + and regular bail was granted to the petitioner. The + + provisions of Section 40 (2) (i) Cr.P.C. and Section 40 + + (1) (b) were taken into consideration while forming the + + said opinion. +

+
+ +
+

Section 229 A IPC was also incorporated by Act No.25 of 2005 + +providing punishment for failure of the terms of the bail or bail bonds. + +Section 229 A IPC is reproduced hereunder:- +

   CRM M-359 of 2012                                              [23]
+
+
+
+
+                      "229A.        Failure by person released on bail or
+
+

bond to appear in Court.- Whoever, having been + + charged with an offence and released on bail or on bond + + without sureties, fails without sufficient cause (the + + burden of proving which shall lie upon him), to appear in + + Court in accordance with the terms of the bail or bond, + + shall be punished with imprisonment of either + + description for a term which may extend to one year, or + + with fine, or with both. +

+
+ +
+

CRM M-359 of 2012 [28] + + + + + As discussed hereinabove, the law of Criminal Procedure is + +complimentary to the substantive criminal law. The Indian Penal Code + +together with other penal laws constitutes the substantive criminal law. The + +substantive criminal law by its very nature cannot be self-operative. A + +person committing an offence under IPC or any other law is not + +automatically stigmatized and punished. Any offender cannot receive + +sentence by mere fact that he has committed the offence under IPC or any + +other law. It is for this reason the procedural criminal law has been + +designed to see that the process of administration and enforcement of the + +substantive criminal law is followed. The legislature in its wisdom had + +opted to include substantive criminal offences under Sections 174 A and + +Sections 229 A IPC, providing graver punishment for non-appearance + +pursuant to publication under Section 82 (1) and Section 82 (4) Cr.P.C. and + +violating bail bonds, respectively. In order to enforce the same, the + +legislature had to amend the procedural law in consonance with the + +classification of offences in Section 174-A IPC. It is a settled principle of + +law that in the absence of procedural law, the substantive criminal law could + +be almost worthless. (Refer to 37th report of Law Commission). Without + +the enforcement mechanism, the threat of punishment held out to the law + +breakers by the substantive criminal law would remain empty formality in + +books. In order to implement the substantive offence under Section 174 A + +IPC Part II, the addition under Section 82 (4) and (5) Cr.P.C. was required to + +be made. +

+
+ +
+

CRM M-359 of 2012 [37] + + + + +appearance pursuant to proclamation under Section 82 (1) Cr.P.C. for a + +period of 3 years but if the offences in which a person is accused of + +offences/ charges of serious offences contained in Section 82 (4), the harsh + +punishment of 7 years of RI with fine has been prescribed. The intention of + +the legislature can be gathered from the addition of Section 229 A IPC. + +Section 229 A IPC provides punishment of imprisonment for one year for a + +person, who is charged of an offence and has been released on bail or on + +bond without sureties, in case of his failure to appear in the Court as per + +terms of the bail or bond. As Section 174 A IPC and Section 229 A IPC have + +prescribed punishment for absconding persons in case of "non-appearance" + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_155438449.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_155438449.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f51644cc88f58fe6c4f3ed40f3c00ebecb4ce465 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_155438449.html @@ -0,0 +1,576 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Vinod Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 11 June, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

substance at appropriate place/store. +

+

4. On the basis of aforesaid statement recorded by + + + + + + complainant named hereinabove under Section 154 Cr.P.C., + + Police initially lodged FIR, as detailed hereinabove, under + + Sections 285, 336, 337 and 304 of IPC, against bail-petitioners + + + + + + as well as other accused namely Nilesh Patel, Sidharth Patel and + + Milan Patel, but subsequently, during investigation, after finding + + + negligence of an employee namely Harsh, which caused fire, + + Police incorporated Section 304-A of IPC and arrested Harish + + under Section 285, 336, 334, 338 and 304-A of IPC, however, he + + + + was later enlarged on bail by Police. Co-accused namely Nilesh + + + + + Patel, Sidharth Patel and Milan Patel are on interim bail, + + + + + + pursuant to order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in + + a petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., whereas, present bail + + + + + + petitioners, who at that relevant time were working as Plant Head + + and Assistant Plant Head in the Company concerned are behind + + bars. Since Challan stands filed in competent Court of law and + + nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioners, they + + + + + + + + + + have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant + + of regular bail. +

+
+ +
+ +

. +

6. While referring to the statements made by some of the + + + + + + workers, Mr. Panwar also attempted to argue that though exit + + + + + + gates were available in the Factory premises, but since those + + were found closed, workers trapped in fire were unable to leave + + the premises, as a result thereof, they received grievous injuries. +

+

Lastly, Mr. Panwar stated that as many as nine people lost their + + lives in the alleged incident and approximately 35 people received + + + injuries, on account of carelessness of the officers responsible for + + management of the Factory and as such, no illegality can be said + + to have been committed by the Police while registering case + + + + under Section 304 Part II of IPC against the bail-petitioners + + + + + because they had definite knowledge that mishandling, if any, of + + + + + + the chemical stored in the Factory premises, may cause serious + + injury to the workers as well as property of the Factory in + + + + + + question, but yet, they failed to take appropriate steps for the + + storage/handling of highly inflammable chemical. +

+
+ +
+ +

26. In a case titled as Rohit Suri (supra), this Court had + + + + + + occasion to deal with the scope of Section 304 Part II, where it + + was held as under: +

+
"9. Investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to + be recovered from the bail petitioners. It is also not in dispute + that bail petitioners are in judicial custody. There is another + aspect of the matter that at the first instance case under + Sections 286, 337, 304A of IPC and Section 9 (C) of Explosives + + + + + + + + + + Act 1884 was registered against the bail petitioners and other + persons named in the FIR, but subsequently, police after having + taken note of the fact that explosives substance was being made + in the factory without there being license deleted the aforesaid + Sections and re-registered the case against them under Sections + + + + + . +
+
+ +
+ + ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2024 20:29:59 :::CIS + -25- +

27. In the case at hand, save and except allegation of + + disorderly stacking of drums containing highly inflammable + + + + + . +

chemical, no material has been placed on record, suggestive of + + + + + + the fact that adequate steps for security and safety of the + + + + + + workers working in the Factory in question were not taken by the + + Management, rather, as per own case of the prosecution, factory + + was being run with the valid permission and adequate fire safety + + + + + + arrangements were much in place. Prima facie having taken note + + of material adduced on record by prosecution till date, this Court + + + is persuaded to agree with Mr. Kochhar that no case is made out + + under Section 304 Part II IPC, if it is so, bail petitioners are + + entitled to bail, especially when Challan stands filed in the + + + + competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered + + + + + from them. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_155688536.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_155688536.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..74720a23de86222a8d216da7d44d8c1cf4733e86 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_155688536.html @@ -0,0 +1,422 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Manish Kumar @ Manny vs The State on 24 August, 2021 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

% 24.08.2021 +HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING +

1. BAIL APPLN. 2112/2021 filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C is for grant +of interim bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 28/2018, dated 31.01.2018, +registered at Moti Nagar, for offences under Sections 392/394/395/397/34 +IPC, on the ground that he is squarely covered under the High Powered +Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the HPC') guidelines. +

+BAIL APPLN. 2112/2021 & other Page 1 of 14 +

2. BAIL APPLN. 2709/2021 filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C is for grant +of interim bail to the petitioner in FIR No.415/2015, dated 11.05.2015, +registered at Police Station Kotwali for offences under Sections +395/397/365/412/120B IPC on the ground that he is squarely covered under +the HPC guidelines. +

+
+ +
+ +

With Permission of the Chair, D.G.(Prisons) has + brought to the notice of the Committee orders dated + 17.06.2020 passed by Hon‟ble High Court in bail + application no.291/2019 titled "Satnam @ Raju vs. + State". +

+

Members of the Committee have perused the said + order passed by Hon‟ble High Court with respect to the + petitioner who is an under trial prisoner in FIR + No.491/2017 under section 364A/506/342/323/34 IPC + PS Paschim Vihar. A submission was raised on behalf of + the petitioner that as High Powered Committee in + meeting dated 18.05.2020 had resolved that UTPs + facing trial under section 302 IPC and in Jail, for more + than 2 years and not involved in any other case, may be + released on "Interim Bail" therefore, petitioner who is + involved for offence under section 364A IPC entailing + + + + + same punishment should also be released on Bail. +

+
+ +
+

Members of the Committee have perused the order passed by + Hon‟ble High Court with respect to the petitioner who is an + under trial prisoner in FIR No.491/2017 under section + 364A/506/342/323/34 IPC PS Paschim Vihar. A submission was + raised on behalf of the petitioner that as High Powered + Committee in meeting dated 18.05.2020 had resolved that UTPs + facing trial under section 302 IPC and in Jail, for more than 2 + years and not involved in any other case, may be released on + "Interim Bail" therefore, petitioner who is involved for offence + under section 364A IPC entailing same punishment should also + be released on Bail. +

+
+ +
+

23. This Court by an order dated 05.07.2021 in BAIL +APPLN.2031/2021, titled as Arshad v. State of NCT of Delhi, denied +interim bail to the petitioner therein on the ground that the offence under +Section 394 IPC is excluded from the ambit of the HPC guidelines issued in +the year 2020. +

24. On the other hand, this Court by another order dated 04.06.2021 in +BAIL APPLN. 1773/2021, titled as Mohit Sharma v. State, has extended +the benefit of the HPC guidelines to an accused undergoing trial for offences +under Sections 302/392/397/411/120B/34 IPC. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_156655158.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_156655158.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4868bf9be15f865c9ba9c2763e83516edd795b4f --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_156655158.html @@ -0,0 +1,2203 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Chalivendra Ramakrishna Salivendra ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 34, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

+

Chalivendra Ramakrishna Salivendra ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025

+ +
        THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
+
+
+CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475,
+
+ 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839,
+
+                     5920 and 9083 of 2024
+
+
+COMMON ORDER:
+ + +

Crl.P.No.5197 of 2024 + + + This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A32 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

2

+ + + + +

2. Sri N. Harinadh, learned Counsel for petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, + +learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- + +State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.4896 of 2024 + + +

3. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A46 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

4. Sri Mukkamalla Rama Swamy, the learned counsel for + +petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + 3 + + + + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5230 of 2024 + + +

5. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A35 and A51 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

6. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + 4 + + + + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5256 of 2024 + + +

7. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A43 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

8. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + 5 + + + + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.5367 of 2024 + + +

9. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A4 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

10. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 6 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5475 of 2024 + + +

11. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A64 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

12. Sri Karanki Yaswanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, the learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

7

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5487 of 2024 + + +

13. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A47 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

14. Ms.P.Srilatha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 8 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5503 of 2024 + + +

15. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A19 and A20 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

16. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 9 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5550 of 2024 + + +

17. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A2, A16, A37 and A45 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

18. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

10

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5553 of 2024 + + +

19. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A7 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

20. Sri Peta Gnana Teja, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 11 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5585 of 2024 + + +

21. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A1 and A67 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

22. Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

12

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5652 of 2024 + + +

23. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A15 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

24. Sri Chalasani Venkat, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

13

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5718 of 2024 + + +

25. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A8, A22, A36 and A68 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

26. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 14 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5724 of 2024 + + +

27. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A3 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

28. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

15

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5752 of 2024 + + +

29. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A31, A53 and A65 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime + +No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna + +District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections + +143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) + +of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

30. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

16

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5839 of 2024 + + +

31. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A55 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

32. Sri B.V Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 17 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5920 of 2024 + + +

33. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A6, A13, A14, A17, A27, A28, A30, A39, A42, A52, + +A54, A56, A61 and A69 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

34. Ms.V.Devi Satya Sri, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

18

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.9083 of 2024 + + +

35. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A75 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

36. Sri G.L.Nageswar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor + +appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments. + + +

37. In all the above bail petitions, detailed counters were filed + +by the respondent-State. +

19

+ + + + +

38. All these criminal petitions pertain to Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station. By these petitions these + +accused pray for pre-arrest bail. All these petitions were heard + +together and by this common order they shall be disposed of. + +The crime incident allegedly occurred on 20.02.2023. Upon a + +written information dated 22.02.2023 F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was + +registered. The scene of offence was Telugu Desam Party office, + +Gannavaram. Sri Mudunuri Satyavardhan belonging to Madiga + +caste, which is a scheduled caste, was computer operator + +working in Telugu Desam Party office and living in the said office. + + +

39. During the time when this crime incident allegedly occurred + +the party in power was YSR Congress Party. Investigation + +commenced and went on for some time. Thereafter there were + +general elections and the then opposition party/Telugu Desam + +Party came into power. Thereafter investigation continued + +further. The allegations and counter allegations in this case + +disclosed the rift between both the political parties. Petitioners + +contend that this is a case falsely alleged against them out of + +political vendetta. According to State, for political reasons there + +was inadequate investigation soon after commission of the + +offence. By the time this crime incident occurred Sri Vallabhaneni + 20 + + + + +Vamsi Mohan was Member of Legislative Assembly for + +Gannavaram Assembly Constituency. He is one of the accused + +in the present crime. +

+

+

40. The version of the prosecution is that on 18.02.2023 during + +afternoon hours a press meet was held by Sri Vallabhaneni + +Vamsi Mohan wherein he allegedly made certain insulting + +remarks as against Sri N.Chandrababu Naidu, Sri Nara Lokesh + +and their family members and used indecent language. In + +response to it, certain leaders of Telugu Desam Party conducted + +a press meeting on 19.02.2023 in the morning hours and + +condemned the statements made by the opponent political party + +people. +

+

+

41. In the above backdrop of facts, the crime incident allegedly + +occurred. It is stated that on 20.02.2023 at about 5:00 P.M. + +Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan went to Telugu Desam Party + +office and on noticing followers of Telugu Desam Party he caused + +enquiries about Mr. Pattabhi of Telugu Desam Party and warned + +them that they would finish Telugu Desam Party and left the + +place. +

21

+ + + + +

42. In the next 30 minutes at about 5:30 P.M. about 100 + +persons belonging to YSR Congress Party came to Telugu + +Desam Party office wielding sticks, stones, petrol bottles and + +various other arms and while hailing Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi + +Mohan they attacked the party office. They threw stones, entered + +into the party office and destroyed the furniture, broke two + +computers and two televisions and caused tremendous panic + +among everyone available there. In the first information report + +the de facto complainant was able to mention the names of 44 + +accused. It also made a mention about four named accused who + +came upon him and abused him by his caste name. The further + +case of the prosecution is that these hooligans caused chaos and + +some of them using their sticks and cricket playing wickets + +seriously damaged three cars/AP 39 K 1999, AP 16 DJ 9499 and + +TS 10 EC 4099. It is also stated that one Mr. Rabbani poured + +petrol on the car bearing No.AP 16 DA 5555 and lit fire to it. The + +version of the de facto complainant is that there were police + +people at the Telugu Desam Party office and they remained mute + +spectators. During investigation it was found that some of the + +accused made attempts to burn the party office as walls in one + +room were found with charred marks. +

22

+ + + + +

43. Investigation has been in progress. Some of the accused + +were arrested and were remanded to judicial custody. According + +to prosecution, at least 44 accused were absconding. After + +gaining contact with about 28 accused they were questioned + +about their mobile phones and only seven out of them + +surrendered their mobile phones and 20 of the accused furnished + +false information with regard to the instruments they used and + +their mobile numbers. +

+

+

44. During the investigation, CCTV footage was collected. + +When the crime incident occurred, various people captured it on + +their mobile phones and all such material was collected. Based + +on these investigative efforts, allegations are made against all + +these petitioners by the prosecution that they are all involved in + +this crime incident. +

+

+

45. Broadly stated all these petitioners raised the following + +contentions: +

+

+

 That there was unexplained delay in registration of crime. + + The incident occurred on 20.02.2023 and F.I.R. was + + registered on 22.02.2023. That around the same time and + + place certain incidents occurred which resulted in + 23 + + + + + registration of multiple F.I.Rs. and many of which disclosed + + accusation of criminal acts of followers of Telugu Desam + + Party as against members of YSR Congress Party + + members and this case is in a way a counter blast to Crime + + Nos.132 of 2023 and 133 of 2023. +
+
+  F.I.R. does not contain any allegations of overt acts against + + these petitioners. +
+
+  After change in political party in power witnesses were + + planted and false evidence is created. +
+
+  The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. were bailable and + + many of these petitioners were served with Section 41A + + Cr.P.C. notice. However, after the change of political + + Government police have unlawfully brought additional + + penal provisions to nullify the rightful reliefs available to the + + petitioners. +
+
+

46. Plethora of precedent is cited on behalf of the petitioners + +and on behalf of some of the accused meticulous written + +arguments are filed leaving one to wonder that this to pronounce + +a judgment as if it is one after trial. +

24

+ + + + +

47. The following significant aspects are required to be noticed: + + +

F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was registered for the offences + +punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435 and 506 read with + +149 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989'). Since caste atrocity was one of + +the offences alleged, on the instructions of Superintendent of + +Police, Krishna, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gannavaram + +took up investigation. After recording the statements of about six + +witnesses, the investigation officer found that the provisions of the + +Act, 1989 were not applicable. Therefore, he applied to the + +Superintendent of Police to accord permission to delete those + +provisions. By proceedings dated 04.07.2023 the Superintendent + +of Police granted such permission. Investigation went further and + +scores of witnesses were examined. Thereafter by way of an + +alteration memo dated 07.08.2024 the investigation agency got + +added Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989. It + +also added Sections 436, 450 and 452 I.P.C. It is also to be + +noticed that in this case so far there are 71 accused. + 25 + + + + +

48. Since in the present crime incident not only offences under + +the Indian Penal Code but also offences under the Act, 1989 are + +alleged, the forceful argument raised by the State is that + +anticipatory bail petitions are not maintainable by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. The further argument is + +that the High Court does not now possess concurrent original + +jurisdiction for bails as well as anticipatory bails and it has only + +appellate jurisdiction by virtue of Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and + +therefore, these petitions are to be dismissed. In such + +circumstances, this Court on 13.11.2024 requested the learned + +counsels on both sides to address arguments in that regard since + +the jurisdictional bar has arisen. +

+

+

49. Valiant submissions are made by the learned counsels for + +petitioners wherein references are made to Sections 18 and 18A + +of the Act, 1989 and precedent is cited to show that if there is no + +prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989 is + +made out, anticipatory bail could be considered. It is also argued + +that this Court in these petitions during hearing granted interim + +protection and therefore, the same may be made absolute since + +these petitioners have not violated anything thereafter. + 26 + + + + +

50. The point that falls for consideration is: + + +

"What is the effect of Section 14A of the Scheduled + + Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the concurrent original + + jurisdiction of the High Court in considering bails + + and anticipatory bails where offences under the Act, + + 1989 are involved? +
+
+POINT: +
+
+

51. Offences under the Act, 1989 can be taken cognizance of + +and tried and be disposed of by Special Courts and Exclusive + +Special Courts as provided in Section 14 of the Act, 1989. Those + +Courts since now empowered to take cognizance hold power to + +take remand of the accused and consider bails. There is no + +provision in the Act, 1989 adverting to the aspects that are to be + +considered by those Courts when they entertain bail petitions. + +Therefore, those Courts draw their powers from the Code of + +Criminal Procedure. Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal + +Procedure is headed as provisions as to bail and bonds. It + +consists of Sections 436 to 450. They refer to bail in cases of + +bailable offences and bail in cases of non-bailable offences. + 27 + + + + +Section 438 Cr.P.C. is given heading direction for grant of bail to + +person apprehending arrest. To the extent the said provision is + +required alone is extracted here: +

+
"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending + arrest: +
+
(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be + arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- +

bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the + Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the + event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that + Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the + following factors, namely:- +

+
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; + +
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to + whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on + conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; + +
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and + +
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of + injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so + arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an + interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail: + +
Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, + the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order + under this sub-Section or has rejected the application for + grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer + 28 + + + + + incharge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the + applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in + such application." +
+

52. Thus, as per the above provision, those accused who + +anticipate their arrest may seek pre-arrest bail and they could + +move such applications either before this Court or before the + +Court of Sessions. It is in the light of such a provision the + +petitioners have straightaway moved this Court for their prayers + +for pre-arrest bail. +

+

+

53. The first submission of the State is that in cases of caste + +atrocities anticipatory bails cannot be maintained by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. Those provisions read as + +below: +

+

+

"18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons + committing an offence under the Act.-- Nothing in + section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case + involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of + having committed an offence under this Act. + + 18A. No enquiry or approval required.--(1) For the + purposes of this Act,-- (a) preliminary enquiry shall not be + required for registration of a First Information Report against + any person; or + 29 + + + + +
(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the + arrest, if necessary, of any person, + + against whom an accusation of having committed an + offence under this Act has been made and no procedure + other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall + apply. +
+
(2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply + to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or + order or direction of any Court." +
+

54. The crisp response from the learned counsels for the + +petitioners is that the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would + +apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist + +pointing towards the commission of an offence under the Act, + +1989. If the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under + +the Act, 1989 are not disclosed on the prima facie reading of the + +allegations levelled in the complaint or F.I.R. then in such + +circumstances, the bar of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would not + +apply and the Courts would not be absolutely precluded from + +granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons. In justification of + +this argument they cited ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + +India in Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala1. + +1 + 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601 + 30 + + + + +

55. If one goes by the contentions of the learned counsel for + +petitioners this Court is to take a view whether the allegations in + +the F.I.R./written information of the de facto complainant prima + +facie disclose caste atrocity or not. However, according to the + +State, even such a view cannot be taken by this Court by virtue of + +interdict contained in Section 14A of the Act, 1989. Therefore, it + +is required to notice what this provision says. The provision reads + +as below: +

+

+

"14A. Appeals:--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained + in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an + appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not + being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an + Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and + on law. +
+
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section + (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, + 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court + against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive + Special Court granting or refusing bail. + + (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for + the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall + be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of + the judgment, sentence or order appealed from: Provided + that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry + of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the + 31 + + + + + appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal + within the period of ninety days: Provided further that no + appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of + one hundred and eighty days. +
+
(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far + as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months + from the date of admission of the appeal." + +

56. As per Sub-Section (2) of Section 14Aof the Act, the + +petitions for bail are to be considered by the Special Court and in + +the event of their granting or refusing to grant such bails the + +aggrieved can prefer an appeal before this Court. Thus, the + +concurrent jurisdiction for consideration of anticipatory bails + +provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C. stood excluded. It is not as + +though the aggrieved is deprived of all the remedies. After + +inviting an order on the bail petition from the Special Court the + +aggrieved is entitled to prefer an appeal before this Court in terms + +of Section 14A of the Act, 1989. In the case at hand, the + +petitioners have moved bail petitions straightaway before this + +Court. At any rate, what is before this Court is not an appeal + +against an order passed by the Special Court with reference to + +bails. It shall be stated that on the same subject matter High + +Court could not be said to possess concurrent original jurisdiction + 32 + + + + +as well as appellate jurisdiction. If one is to state that a bail is + +different from anticipatory bail the result is that in anticipatory + +bails this Court holds original jurisdiction and in regular bails it + +holds only appellate jurisdiction. Assuming that in a case a + +petition for anticipatory bail being moved before the Special Court + +resulted in dismissal, then according to the logic applied by the + +petitioners the petitions would have to move only another bail + +petition before this Court and not an appeal. Such logic is in + +violation of what is clearly provided in Section 14A of the Act, + +1989. It is to be seen that the question of bail presupposes + +detention or custody of the person. In a case where a person is + +arrested he prays for a regular bail. In cases of anticipatory bail + +in the event of granting the relief, it has no effect unless and until + +the accused is arrested. In other words, the order of anticipatory + +bail comes into effect only after a person is arrested and not + +otherwise. In contrast to regular bail, in cases of anticipatory bail + +the order is obtained in advance. In regular bails it was obtained + +after arrest. The timing at which a prayer is made, and an order + +is granted, have no relevance when it comes to operation of + +those orders as in both the cases they come into operation only in + +those cases where a person is arrested. In such view of the + 33 + + + + +matter the word bail used in Section 14A of the Act, 1989 + +encompasses regular bail as well as anticipatory bail. Therefore, + +it must be stated that an application for bail or anticipatory bail + +can be filed only before the Special Court or the Exclusive + +Special Court as the case may be and not before the High Court. + +An order granting or refusing bail or anticipatory bail by the + +Special Court or Exclusive Special Court can be assailed before + +this Court invoking its appellate jurisdiction provided in Section + +14A of the Act, 1989. This Court had deliberated these aspects + +on earlier occasions when similar questions were raised and it + +reached to the same conclusions and reference can be made to + +the following: +

+

+

1. Nakka Nagireddy v. State of A.P.2 + + +
2. Deepak Kumar Tala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh3. + + +

57. Similar conclusions were reached at by other High Courts. + +Reference can be made to the following: +

+

+

1. K.M.Basheer v. Rajani K.T.4 + +2 + 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5322 Order dated 11.11.2024 +3 + Order dated 22.10.2024 in Criminal Petition No.6487 of 2024 +4 + 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 472 + 34 + + + + +
2. Lokesh v. State of Karnataka5 + + +
3. In re Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 v. Nil6 + + +
4. Atul Rajput v. The State of Madhya Pradesh7 + + +

58. At the bar, for petitioners, Abhishek Awasthi v. State of + +U.P.8 is cited. That is a case where other subsections of Section + +14A of the Act, 1989 fell for consideration and the powers of the + +High Court were considered under Section 482 of Code of + +Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings. + +Finally, it was held that with a view to prevent the misuse or + +abuse of the Court or law, the High Court holds inherent + +jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. + +Such question is not available before this Court. Even otherwise + +a brief reference to what was stated by their Lordships in Shajan + +Skaria's case9 would be sufficient here. At paragraph No.49 their + +Lordships stated that if the accused puts forward the case of + +malicious prosecution on account of political or private vendetta + +5 + 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15742 +6 + 2018 SCC OnLine ALL 2087 +7 + Order dated 10.04.2024 in Crl.A.No.3261 of 2024 of the High Court of +Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur +8 + MANU/UP/4595/2024 + 35 + + + + +such aspects can be considered only by the High Court in + +exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code or + +in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the + +Constitution of India. However, powers under Section 438 of the + +Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised once the + +contents of the complaint/F.I.R. disclose a prima facie case. In + +fact, in that case Section 14A of the Act, 1989 did not come up for + +consideration since the anticipatory bail petition was first moved + +before the trial Court and as against those orders appeal was + +preferred before the High Court. +

+

+

59. The plethora of precedent cited before this Court is not with + +reference to Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and therefore any + +reference to those cherished principles of those rulings is not + +required. This Court refrains from delving into other facts and the + +principles of law governing anticipatory bails since any such + +discussion may unnecessarily prejudice the contentions of both + +sides when appropriate applications are filed before appropriate + +Courts for the reliefs or when the maters come up before this + +Court in appeal. +

+

9 + Supra 1 + 36 + + + + +

60. Learned counsel for petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5920 + +of 2024 argued that this very Bench on earlier occasions + +considered and granted anticipatory bail and therefore, the same + +benefit can be extended to the present petitioners. The attention + +of this Court is brought to Sri Settipalli Raghurami Reddy v. + +The State of Andhra Pradesh10 and Julakanti Brahma Reddy + +@ Brahma Nanda Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 11. In + +both those matters the question about Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 was never raised by either side and therefore, there was no + +occasion for this Court to express itself on that aspect of the + +matter. After those orders it was in October and November 2024 + +only this Court had occasion to consider Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 and accordingly decided the earlier referred Nakka + +Nagireddy's case12 and Deepak Kumar Tala's case13. + +Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions of the learned + +counsel for the petitioners. +

+

+

61. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition + +No.5920 of 2024 further argued that the investigating agency is + +10 + Order dated 23.07.2024 in Criminal Petition No.3807 of 2024 +11 + Order dated 13.08.2024 in Criminal Petition No.10005 of 2023 +12 + supra 2 +13 + supra 3 + 37 + + + + +not entitled to add new penal provisions and cited State of + +Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde14. That was a case + +where on written information police registered a crime and + +investigating into it and filed charge sheet specifying certain penal + +provisions. At that stage the informant filed a petition to add + +Sections 364, 394 and 398 I.P.C. The question arose about the + +powers of the Magistrate at that stage as to whether he can + +incorporate those penal provisions as requested by the informant + +in a charge sheet filed by the police. Their Lordships stated that + +allowing incorporation of new provisions into the charge sheet as + +requested by the written informant at that stage is impermissible. + +However, the Court which is to try the case has to consider the + +first information report and all the other material collected and + +take a decision to frame appropriate charges under all the + +relevant penal provisions. Thus, the cited ruling has no relevance + +to the present case at hand. In the case at hand, the + +investigating police, exercising their right of investigation, have + +found it appropriate that the material on record do attract various + +provisions which were not originally mentioned in the F.I.R. Such + +power cannot be questioned. Informant would only put forth the + +14 + AIR 2014 SC 620 + 38 + + + + +facts before the registering officer and the Station House Officer + +on receiving such information using his own diligence + +incorporates the relevant penal provisions in the F.I.R. During + +investigation certain facts may be found incorrect and certain new + +facts may have been discovered and certain new accused may + +have been found having connection with the crime. There can be + +no legal hurdle in that regard since investigation is a voyage of + +truth. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsels for + +petitioners that provisions under the Act, 1989 were brought into + +effect during investigation and therefore have to be discarded is + +an argument that cannot be sustained. It may be recorded here + +that even to begin with in the case at hand the F.I.R. mentioned + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989. At the present also + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989 are alleged by the + +prosecution. Simply because at one stage such penal provisions + +were dropped does not mean that at a later stage they cannot be + +brought in. The argument that the new addition was not granted + +by the Superintendent of Police cannot be countenanced since + +the method of investigation is sole prerogative of the investigation + +officer. For the above reasons, the point is answered against the + +petitioners. +

39

+ + + + +

62. In the result, all these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. It is + +made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate + +petitions for appropriate reliefs before the appropriate Court. In + +the event such petitions are filed, the Court where they are filed is + +to consider the petitions on judicial side and dispose of them in + +accordance with law. Any observations made herein are confined + +to these petitions and they have no bearing on the merits or + +demerits of the case on either side. +

+

________________________ + Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J +Date: 06.01.2025 +Ivd + 40 + + + + + THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR + + + + +CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475, + 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839, + 5920 and 9083 of 2024 + + + + + Date: 06.01.2025 + + + +Ivd +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_157050235.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_157050235.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..901f843dfdd90b6ad786ad9d098a5cd0dc74cdf1 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_157050235.html @@ -0,0 +1,485 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Manishaben Kamleshbhai Mehta vs State Of Gujarat & on 18 July, 2014 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

+

8. At present we are concerned with the impugned order dated + +08.05.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.16 of + +Ahmedabad City Civil Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1626 of + +2013. On perusal of such impugned judgment and order, it transpires + + + + + + + + +that the Sessions Court has granted anticipatory bail to the + +respondent No.2 for the offences under Section 506(2) and 376 of the + +Indian Penal Code. For granting anticipatory bail, the Sessions Court + +assigned only a single reason that application for anticipatory bail is + +required to be allowed by imposing certain conditions, considering + +the facts and circumstances of the case. The consideration of facts + +and circumstances are also in few words, which is to be recollected + +from the impugned order in the language by the Sessions Court itself. + +For the purpose para 7 of the impugned order is quoted as under: + + + +

+
+ +
+
"7. Considering the submissions of LAs for the parties, police + papers, affidavits and documents produced on record, it appears + that as per the provisions of section 438 of Cr.P.C. where any + person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an + accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence he may + apply to the high court or the court of session for a direction + under this section that in the event of such arrest, he shall be + released on bail. Now, in the present case, the applicant was + released on bail and thereafter charge sheet has come to be filed. + But after the report of the police during the pendency of the case, + offence under section 376 was added and after submission of the + report, learned Metropolitan Magistrate court has ordered to + cancel the bail bond of the applicant and to take the applicant in + judicial custody and to commit the case. Therefore, looking to the + facts of the case, initially, the applicant was released on bail for + the offence u/s 506(2) of the IPC and case was pending. During + trial, session triable offence u/s 376 has been added and Ld. + Metropolitan Magistrate Court has canceled the bail bond of the + applicant. Therefore, the applicant has apprehension that he may + be arrested. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, + present application is required to be allowed by imposing certain + conditions. Hence, I pass the following order." +
+
+ +
+ +

+

25. In the present case, grounds for cancellation of bail are + +available prior to granting anticipatory bail for commission of an + +offence under Section 376 of IPC i.e. after regular bail under Section + +506(2). Therefore, the ground on which anticipatory bail was granted + +for offence under Section 506(2) cannot be re-agitated in the present + +case. The determination to cancel the bail herein does not base only + +upon allegations made in the application for cancellation of bail, but + +entire police record is called for and perused by this Court and + +decision is based upon entire record of the both petitions as well as + +police papers. Thereby, case of Rajkumar reported in (2004) 10 + +SCC 612, though referred and relied upon, is not applicable at + +present. +

+
+ +
+

27. For coming to such conclusion, this Court has relied upon + +following decisions: +

+

+

(A) In the case between Subodh Kumar Yadav v. State of + Bihar and Anr. reported in AIR 2010 SC 802, the Apex + Court has confirmed the cancellation of bail which was granted + for the offences committed u/Ss. 498(A), 384, 307 and 406 of + IPC considering that all such application cannot be considered + as an application for cancellation of bail for breach of any + condition of bail when original order granting bail has been + challenged on its propensity and more particularly, when it is + found that while granting the bail, the trial Court has taken into + consideration totally irrelevant documents and exhibited undue + haste in deciding the application for bail and the judicial + discretion was also not exercised properly. The Apex Court has + considered that observations in several reported judgments + which are referred in this cited case were not entitled to restrict + the power of the superior Court to cancel the bail in appropriate + cases on grounds other than breach of condition of bail order. It + is further stated that if a superior Court finds that the Court + grating bail had acted in irrelevant material and if there was + nonapplication of mind or failure to take note of any statutory + + + + + + + +bar to grant bail, or if there was manifest impropriety e.g. +failure to hear the Public Prosecutor / Complainant where +required, an order of cancellation of bail can be made. For +arriving at such conclusion, the Apex Court has relied upon +several previous decisions also. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_157171160.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_157171160.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7c79ff2d9a3fa130d73faa59c9209ff459d1d352 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_157171160.html @@ -0,0 +1,433 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Miss G (Minor) Thr. Her Mother vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 5 June, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +CRL.M.C. 1474/2020 Page 1 of 17 +
"23. In Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure- +
(a) In sub-section (1), after the first proviso, the + following proviso shall be inserted, namely:- +
+
"Provided further that the High Court or the + Court of Session shall, before granting bail + to a person who is accused of an offence + triable under sub-Section (3) of section 376 + or section 376-AB or section 376-DA or + section 376-DB of the Indian Penal Code + (45 of 1860), give notice of the application + for bail to the Public Prosecutor within a + period of fifteen days from the date of + receipt of the notice of such application." +
+
+ +
+ +

PRATHIBA M. SINGH + JUDGE +JUNE 5, 2020 +dj/rg + + + + + + HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI + +No. 67/Rules/DHC Dated: 24.09.2019 + + PRACTICE DIRECTION + Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 stood amended +by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018 (No. 22 of 2018) w.e.f. +21.04.2018 vide which, amongst others, it has been mandated that the +presence of the informant or any person authorized by him shall be +obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to the person +under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376AB or section 376DA or +section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code and that the High Court or the +Court of Session shall, before granting bail, give notice of such application +to the Public Prosecutor within a period of fifteen days from the date of +receipt of the notice of such application. +

+
+ +
+

The relevant provisions of "The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, +2018" in this respect are reproduced herein below: - +

"23. In Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure- +
(a) In sub-section (1), after the first proviso, the following + proviso shall be inserted, namely: - +
"Provided further that the High Court or the Court of + Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is + accused of an offence triable under sub-Section (3) of + section 376 or section 376-AB or section 376-DA or + section 376-DB of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), + give notice of the application for bail to the Public + Prosecutor within a period of fifteen days from the date + of receipt of the notice of such application." +
+
+ +
+
(a) Before granting bail to a person who is accused of an + offence triable under sub-Section (3) of section 376 or section + 376-AB or section 376-DA or section 376-DB of the Indian +Penal Code, the High Court or the Court of Session shall give + notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor within + a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice of + such application; and + +
(b) The Courts shall ensure that the Investigating Officer has, in + writing as per Annexure A, communicated to the informant or + any person authorized by her that her presence is obligatory at + the time of hearing of the application for bail to the person + under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376-AB or + section 376-DA or section 376-DB of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_157229445.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_157229445.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..afb7d77e77673079e43c0ac80d64bb8c59c1071a --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_157229445.html @@ -0,0 +1,424 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Girdhar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:11536) on 7 March, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

4. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.69/2024) +

5. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.69/2024) +

6. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.69/2024) + + +

8. Concerned Police Station Shreekaranpur +

+
+ +
+

12. Date of passing of 21.10.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.14884/2023) + +

14. Concerned Police Station Kotwali Barmer +

15. District Barmer +

16. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 420 and 406 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.14885/2023) +

17. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.14885/2023) +

+
+ +
+

34. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.15296/2023) +

35. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.15296/2023) +

36. Date of passing of 22.11.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.15296/2023) + +

38. Concerned Police Station Pratap Nagar +

+
+ +
+

76. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.90/2024) +

77. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.90/2024) +

78. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.90/2024) + + +

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no + + case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his + + incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in + + the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the + + accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based + + on conjectures and surmises. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_15813754.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_15813754.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..205948271eac408e130ca9e3754ca75334b15499 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_15813754.html @@ -0,0 +1,427 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Susa @ Susanta Baliarsingh @ vs State Of Odisha .... Opp. Party on 7 February, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

147/148/448/427/354/323/307/506/149 IPC & 9(b) I.E. Act + (Regular Bail) +

(vi) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 171 dtd. 20.12.2014 U/S - + 341/294/323/354/506 IPC (Judgment - Acquitted) +

(vii) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 75 dtd. 17.08.2016 U/S - + 147/148/427/323/506/149 IPC r/w 25 Arms Act & 3/4 E.S. Act + (Judgment - Acquitted) +

(ix) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 05 dtd. 13.01.2017 U/S - + 147/148/294/323/506/149 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act (Judgment - + Acquitted) +

+
+ +
+

(xv) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 19 dtd. 09.03.2019 U/S - + 52(a)(i) Odisha Excise Act (Judgment - Acquitted) + + (xvi) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 25 dtd. 17.02.2020 U/S - + 52(a)(i) Odisha Excise Act (Judgment - Acquitted) + (xvii) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 52 dtd. 21.05.2019 U/S - + 451/323/354(A)/354(B)/294/506/34 IPC (Regular Bail) + (xviii) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 99 dtd. 20.10.2019 U/S - + 52(a)(i) Odisha Excise Act (Judgment - Acquitted) + (xix) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 79 dtd. 12.06.2020 U/S - + 52(a)(i) Odisha Excise Act (Judgment - Acquitted) + (xx) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 163 dtd. 20.11.2020 U/S - + 341/323/379/294/506/34 IPC (Judgment - Acquitted) + (xxi) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 123 dtd. 13.08.2021 U/S - + 186 IPC r/w 52(a)(i) Excise Act r/w Sec 183/184 of M.V. Act + (Judgment - Acquitted) + (xxii) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 147 dtd. 22.09.2021 U/S - + 52(a)(i) Odisha Excise Act (Judgment - Acquitted) + (xxiii) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 152 dtd. 02.10.2021 U/S - + 52(a)(i) Odisha Excise Act (Judgment - Acquitted) + (xxiv) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 82 dtd. 31.03.2023 U/S - + 294/323/452/506/34 (Regular Bail) + (xxv) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 183 dtd. 24.12.2020 U/S - + 52(a)(i) Odisha Excise Act (Judgment - Acquitted) + (xxvi) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 36 dtd. 23.04.20106 U/S - + 47(a) B & O Odisha Excise Act (Judgment - Acquitted) + (xxvii)Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 62 dtd. 22.06.2018 U/S - + 52(a)(i) Odisha Excise Act (Judgment - Acquitted) + (xxviii)Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 95 dtd. 28.09.2017 U/S - + 52(a)(i) Odisha Excise Act (Judgment - Acquitted)" + +

+
+ +
+
Mr. Sahoo further submits that out of 27 cases excluding the + +present case, the petitioner has been acquitted in 24 cases out of + +which 18 cases are under the Orissa Excise Act. Out of the + +remaining 4 cases which are pending, one is the present case and + +the other three cases are (i)Jankia P.S. Case No.235 of 2023 under + +Sections 307/506/34 of the IPC, (ii)Nirakarpur P.S. Case No.52 of + +2019 under Sections 451/323/354(A)/354(B)/294/506/34 IPC and + +
(iii) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No.82 of 2023 under Sections + +294/323/452/506/34 of the IPC and he has been granted bail in all + + + + the three cases. He further submits that one Ashok Mohapatra has + +been examined as P.W.1 in this case and he has not supported the + +prosecution case. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_158428218.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_158428218.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d2bdb479a74fdfb4049b49f9690b955ef4648b3b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_158428218.html @@ -0,0 +1,454 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Damru Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 May, 2014 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

3 The petitioner appeared before the CJM on 19.7.2007 +with prayer to grant bail and the payer was allowed, because the offences +alleged were bailable on that date. On the very same day, the informant +Tulsi Mahato succumbed to his injuries and therefore petition was filed by +the investigating officer to add section 302 IPC and further prayer was +made to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner on the ground that the +circumstance has now changed due to death of the informant. Thereafter, +the petitioner was served with a show cause notice and, accordingly, he +appeared and filed show cause raising objection that bail once granted +under section 436 Cr.P.C. cannot be cancelled due to change in the +situation. He has further raised objection that the Chief Judicial Magistrate +has no right to cancel the bail. +

+
+ +
+

Further, reliance has been placed in the case reported +in AIR 1967 SC 1639 and it is submitted that once bail is granted by the +CJM, it cannot be cancelled by the same court and jurisdiction to cancel +bail lies with the High Court. By referring to the aforesaid judgments and +the facts and circumstances, learned counsel has prayed for quashing +the impugned orders and to allow the petitioner to remain on the bail +already granted. +

6 On the other hand, learned counsel for the +respondents has opposed the prayer and submitted that on the date on +which the petitioner appeared before the learned CJM, the case was +registered under sections 337/338/325 of the Indian Penal Code; since the +offences alleged were bailable, the court had no option, but to grant bail. +But on the very same day ( 19.7.2007) itself, the informant succumbed to +his injuries and very promptly, on the next day, the investigating officer +filed petition for cancellation of bail and a separate petition to add section +302 of the Indian Penal Code. The CJM has rightly directed the petitioner +to file show cause and after granting hearing to the parties, bail granted + + +to the petitioner was cancelled due to change in the circumstances. There +is no illegality in the impugned orders and the judgments referred to above +by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant to the facts and +circumstances appearing in the case at hand; rather, the facts of the +present case are fully covered by the judgment rendered in the case of +Hamida Vs. Rashid (2008 (1) SCC 474) (Supra ). The judgment in the +case of Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT. Delhi reported in 2001(4) SCC +280 has also been relied upon. +

+
+ +
+

8. I have gone through the judgment in the case of Hamida +Vs. Rashid (2008 (1) SCC 474) (Supra ). In that case, appellant Hamida +had lodged a case at P.S. Kotwali, Muzaffar Nagar at 00.10 hrs on +13.6.2005 alleging that her husband Balla was assaulted by the +respondents by means of licenced and illegal firearms exhorting that they +would kill him. Balla had also received grievous injuries caused by knife. +On the basis of the FIR lodged by Hamida, a case being Crime No. 792 +of 2005 under sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC was registered. Two of the +accused/respondents were arrested and forwarded to court for their +remand on that very day i.e. on 13.6.2005, but the learned CJM +considering the offences bailable, ordered to release them on bail with an +observation, - If the case was converted into more serious offence, the +accused would not get any benefit of the bail being granted to them. +Subsequently, the remaining two accused were also released on bail. +Between intervening night of 16.6.2005 and 17.6.2005, the deceased +succumbed to his injuries and thereafter the offence was converted under +section 304 IPC. Thereafter, the accused persons preferred application +under section 482 Cr.P.C. and the High Court considering the prayer, +directed the CJM to allow them to remain on bail. Thereafter, the matter +went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the apex court has held that the +High Court has erred in allowing the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. +

+
+ +
+

10 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prahlad Singh +Bhati Vs. NCT. Delhi reported in 2001(4) SCC 280 (supra) was also +having same view which is reproduced below : +

"In the instant case while exercising the jurisdiction, + apparently under Section 437 of the Code, the + Metropolitan Magistrate appears to have completely + ignored the basic principles governing the grant of bail. + The mere initial grant of anticipatory bail for lesser + offence, did not entitle the respondent to insist for + regular bail even if he was subsequently found to be + involved in the case of murder. Neither Section 437(5) + nor Section 439(1) of the Code was attracted. There + was no question of cancellation of bail earlier granted to + the accused for an offence punishable under sections + 498A, 306 and 406 IPC. With the change of the nature + of the offence, the accused becomes dis-entitled to the + liberty granted to him in relation to a minor offence, if + the offence is altered for an aggravated crime. Instead + of referring to the grounds which entitled the + respondent-accused the grant of bail, the Magistrate + adopted a wrong approach to confer on him the benefit + of liberty on allegedly finding that no grounds were + made out for cancellation of bail. Despite the + involvement of important questions of law, the High + Court failed in its obligation to adjudicate the pleas of + law raised before it and dismissed the petition of the + appellant by a one-sentence order. The orders of the + Magistrate as also of the High Court being contrary to + law are liable to be set aside. (paras 9 and 10) ". +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_158517458.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_158517458.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..215648274e23db498e7c68e3c62061a33a601b5d --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_158517458.html @@ -0,0 +1,2203 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Vinta Adinarayana Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 34, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

+

Vinta Adinarayana Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025

+ +
        THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
+
+
+CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475,
+
+ 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839,
+
+                     5920 and 9083 of 2024
+
+
+COMMON ORDER:
+ + +

Crl.P.No.5197 of 2024 + + + This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A32 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

2

+ + + + +

2. Sri N. Harinadh, learned Counsel for petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, + +learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- + +State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.4896 of 2024 + + +

3. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A46 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

4. Sri Mukkamalla Rama Swamy, the learned counsel for + +petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + 3 + + + + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5230 of 2024 + + +

5. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A35 and A51 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

6. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + 4 + + + + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5256 of 2024 + + +

7. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A43 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

8. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + 5 + + + + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.5367 of 2024 + + +

9. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A4 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

10. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 6 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5475 of 2024 + + +

11. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A64 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

12. Sri Karanki Yaswanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, the learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

7

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5487 of 2024 + + +

13. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A47 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

14. Ms.P.Srilatha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 8 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5503 of 2024 + + +

15. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A19 and A20 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

16. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 9 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5550 of 2024 + + +

17. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A2, A16, A37 and A45 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

18. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

10

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5553 of 2024 + + +

19. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A7 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

20. Sri Peta Gnana Teja, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 11 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5585 of 2024 + + +

21. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A1 and A67 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

22. Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

12

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5652 of 2024 + + +

23. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A15 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

24. Sri Chalasani Venkat, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

13

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5718 of 2024 + + +

25. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A8, A22, A36 and A68 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

26. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 14 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5724 of 2024 + + +

27. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A3 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

28. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

15

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5752 of 2024 + + +

29. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A31, A53 and A65 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime + +No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna + +District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections + +143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) + +of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

30. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

16

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5839 of 2024 + + +

31. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A55 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

32. Sri B.V Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 17 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5920 of 2024 + + +

33. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A6, A13, A14, A17, A27, A28, A30, A39, A42, A52, + +A54, A56, A61 and A69 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

34. Ms.V.Devi Satya Sri, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

18

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.9083 of 2024 + + +

35. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A75 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

36. Sri G.L.Nageswar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor + +appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments. + + +

37. In all the above bail petitions, detailed counters were filed + +by the respondent-State. +

19

+ + + + +

38. All these criminal petitions pertain to Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station. By these petitions these + +accused pray for pre-arrest bail. All these petitions were heard + +together and by this common order they shall be disposed of. + +The crime incident allegedly occurred on 20.02.2023. Upon a + +written information dated 22.02.2023 F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was + +registered. The scene of offence was Telugu Desam Party office, + +Gannavaram. Sri Mudunuri Satyavardhan belonging to Madiga + +caste, which is a scheduled caste, was computer operator + +working in Telugu Desam Party office and living in the said office. + + +

39. During the time when this crime incident allegedly occurred + +the party in power was YSR Congress Party. Investigation + +commenced and went on for some time. Thereafter there were + +general elections and the then opposition party/Telugu Desam + +Party came into power. Thereafter investigation continued + +further. The allegations and counter allegations in this case + +disclosed the rift between both the political parties. Petitioners + +contend that this is a case falsely alleged against them out of + +political vendetta. According to State, for political reasons there + +was inadequate investigation soon after commission of the + +offence. By the time this crime incident occurred Sri Vallabhaneni + 20 + + + + +Vamsi Mohan was Member of Legislative Assembly for + +Gannavaram Assembly Constituency. He is one of the accused + +in the present crime. +

+

+

40. The version of the prosecution is that on 18.02.2023 during + +afternoon hours a press meet was held by Sri Vallabhaneni + +Vamsi Mohan wherein he allegedly made certain insulting + +remarks as against Sri N.Chandrababu Naidu, Sri Nara Lokesh + +and their family members and used indecent language. In + +response to it, certain leaders of Telugu Desam Party conducted + +a press meeting on 19.02.2023 in the morning hours and + +condemned the statements made by the opponent political party + +people. +

+

+

41. In the above backdrop of facts, the crime incident allegedly + +occurred. It is stated that on 20.02.2023 at about 5:00 P.M. + +Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan went to Telugu Desam Party + +office and on noticing followers of Telugu Desam Party he caused + +enquiries about Mr. Pattabhi of Telugu Desam Party and warned + +them that they would finish Telugu Desam Party and left the + +place. +

21

+ + + + +

42. In the next 30 minutes at about 5:30 P.M. about 100 + +persons belonging to YSR Congress Party came to Telugu + +Desam Party office wielding sticks, stones, petrol bottles and + +various other arms and while hailing Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi + +Mohan they attacked the party office. They threw stones, entered + +into the party office and destroyed the furniture, broke two + +computers and two televisions and caused tremendous panic + +among everyone available there. In the first information report + +the de facto complainant was able to mention the names of 44 + +accused. It also made a mention about four named accused who + +came upon him and abused him by his caste name. The further + +case of the prosecution is that these hooligans caused chaos and + +some of them using their sticks and cricket playing wickets + +seriously damaged three cars/AP 39 K 1999, AP 16 DJ 9499 and + +TS 10 EC 4099. It is also stated that one Mr. Rabbani poured + +petrol on the car bearing No.AP 16 DA 5555 and lit fire to it. The + +version of the de facto complainant is that there were police + +people at the Telugu Desam Party office and they remained mute + +spectators. During investigation it was found that some of the + +accused made attempts to burn the party office as walls in one + +room were found with charred marks. +

22

+ + + + +

43. Investigation has been in progress. Some of the accused + +were arrested and were remanded to judicial custody. According + +to prosecution, at least 44 accused were absconding. After + +gaining contact with about 28 accused they were questioned + +about their mobile phones and only seven out of them + +surrendered their mobile phones and 20 of the accused furnished + +false information with regard to the instruments they used and + +their mobile numbers. +

+

+

44. During the investigation, CCTV footage was collected. + +When the crime incident occurred, various people captured it on + +their mobile phones and all such material was collected. Based + +on these investigative efforts, allegations are made against all + +these petitioners by the prosecution that they are all involved in + +this crime incident. +

+

+

45. Broadly stated all these petitioners raised the following + +contentions: +

+

+

 That there was unexplained delay in registration of crime. + + The incident occurred on 20.02.2023 and F.I.R. was + + registered on 22.02.2023. That around the same time and + + place certain incidents occurred which resulted in + 23 + + + + + registration of multiple F.I.Rs. and many of which disclosed + + accusation of criminal acts of followers of Telugu Desam + + Party as against members of YSR Congress Party + + members and this case is in a way a counter blast to Crime + + Nos.132 of 2023 and 133 of 2023. +
+
+  F.I.R. does not contain any allegations of overt acts against + + these petitioners. +
+
+  After change in political party in power witnesses were + + planted and false evidence is created. +
+
+  The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. were bailable and + + many of these petitioners were served with Section 41A + + Cr.P.C. notice. However, after the change of political + + Government police have unlawfully brought additional + + penal provisions to nullify the rightful reliefs available to the + + petitioners. +
+
+

46. Plethora of precedent is cited on behalf of the petitioners + +and on behalf of some of the accused meticulous written + +arguments are filed leaving one to wonder that this to pronounce + +a judgment as if it is one after trial. +

24

+ + + + +

47. The following significant aspects are required to be noticed: + + +

F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was registered for the offences + +punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435 and 506 read with + +149 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989'). Since caste atrocity was one of + +the offences alleged, on the instructions of Superintendent of + +Police, Krishna, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gannavaram + +took up investigation. After recording the statements of about six + +witnesses, the investigation officer found that the provisions of the + +Act, 1989 were not applicable. Therefore, he applied to the + +Superintendent of Police to accord permission to delete those + +provisions. By proceedings dated 04.07.2023 the Superintendent + +of Police granted such permission. Investigation went further and + +scores of witnesses were examined. Thereafter by way of an + +alteration memo dated 07.08.2024 the investigation agency got + +added Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989. It + +also added Sections 436, 450 and 452 I.P.C. It is also to be + +noticed that in this case so far there are 71 accused. + 25 + + + + +

48. Since in the present crime incident not only offences under + +the Indian Penal Code but also offences under the Act, 1989 are + +alleged, the forceful argument raised by the State is that + +anticipatory bail petitions are not maintainable by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. The further argument is + +that the High Court does not now possess concurrent original + +jurisdiction for bails as well as anticipatory bails and it has only + +appellate jurisdiction by virtue of Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and + +therefore, these petitions are to be dismissed. In such + +circumstances, this Court on 13.11.2024 requested the learned + +counsels on both sides to address arguments in that regard since + +the jurisdictional bar has arisen. +

+

+

49. Valiant submissions are made by the learned counsels for + +petitioners wherein references are made to Sections 18 and 18A + +of the Act, 1989 and precedent is cited to show that if there is no + +prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989 is + +made out, anticipatory bail could be considered. It is also argued + +that this Court in these petitions during hearing granted interim + +protection and therefore, the same may be made absolute since + +these petitioners have not violated anything thereafter. + 26 + + + + +

50. The point that falls for consideration is: + + +

"What is the effect of Section 14A of the Scheduled + + Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the concurrent original + + jurisdiction of the High Court in considering bails + + and anticipatory bails where offences under the Act, + + 1989 are involved? +
+
+POINT: +
+
+

51. Offences under the Act, 1989 can be taken cognizance of + +and tried and be disposed of by Special Courts and Exclusive + +Special Courts as provided in Section 14 of the Act, 1989. Those + +Courts since now empowered to take cognizance hold power to + +take remand of the accused and consider bails. There is no + +provision in the Act, 1989 adverting to the aspects that are to be + +considered by those Courts when they entertain bail petitions. + +Therefore, those Courts draw their powers from the Code of + +Criminal Procedure. Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal + +Procedure is headed as provisions as to bail and bonds. It + +consists of Sections 436 to 450. They refer to bail in cases of + +bailable offences and bail in cases of non-bailable offences. + 27 + + + + +Section 438 Cr.P.C. is given heading direction for grant of bail to + +person apprehending arrest. To the extent the said provision is + +required alone is extracted here: +

+
"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending + arrest: +
+
(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be + arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- +

bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the + Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the + event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that + Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the + following factors, namely:- +

+
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; + +
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to + whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on + conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; + +
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and + +
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of + injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so + arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an + interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail: + +
Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, + the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order + under this sub-Section or has rejected the application for + grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer + 28 + + + + + incharge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the + applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in + such application." +
+

52. Thus, as per the above provision, those accused who + +anticipate their arrest may seek pre-arrest bail and they could + +move such applications either before this Court or before the + +Court of Sessions. It is in the light of such a provision the + +petitioners have straightaway moved this Court for their prayers + +for pre-arrest bail. +

+

+

53. The first submission of the State is that in cases of caste + +atrocities anticipatory bails cannot be maintained by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. Those provisions read as + +below: +

+

+

"18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons + committing an offence under the Act.-- Nothing in + section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case + involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of + having committed an offence under this Act. + + 18A. No enquiry or approval required.--(1) For the + purposes of this Act,-- (a) preliminary enquiry shall not be + required for registration of a First Information Report against + any person; or + 29 + + + + +
(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the + arrest, if necessary, of any person, + + against whom an accusation of having committed an + offence under this Act has been made and no procedure + other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall + apply. +
+
(2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply + to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or + order or direction of any Court." +
+

54. The crisp response from the learned counsels for the + +petitioners is that the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would + +apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist + +pointing towards the commission of an offence under the Act, + +1989. If the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under + +the Act, 1989 are not disclosed on the prima facie reading of the + +allegations levelled in the complaint or F.I.R. then in such + +circumstances, the bar of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would not + +apply and the Courts would not be absolutely precluded from + +granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons. In justification of + +this argument they cited ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + +India in Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala1. + +1 + 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601 + 30 + + + + +

55. If one goes by the contentions of the learned counsel for + +petitioners this Court is to take a view whether the allegations in + +the F.I.R./written information of the de facto complainant prima + +facie disclose caste atrocity or not. However, according to the + +State, even such a view cannot be taken by this Court by virtue of + +interdict contained in Section 14A of the Act, 1989. Therefore, it + +is required to notice what this provision says. The provision reads + +as below: +

+

+

"14A. Appeals:--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained + in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an + appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not + being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an + Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and + on law. +
+
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section + (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, + 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court + against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive + Special Court granting or refusing bail. + + (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for + the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall + be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of + the judgment, sentence or order appealed from: Provided + that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry + of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the + 31 + + + + + appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal + within the period of ninety days: Provided further that no + appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of + one hundred and eighty days. +
+
(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far + as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months + from the date of admission of the appeal." + +

56. As per Sub-Section (2) of Section 14Aof the Act, the + +petitions for bail are to be considered by the Special Court and in + +the event of their granting or refusing to grant such bails the + +aggrieved can prefer an appeal before this Court. Thus, the + +concurrent jurisdiction for consideration of anticipatory bails + +provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C. stood excluded. It is not as + +though the aggrieved is deprived of all the remedies. After + +inviting an order on the bail petition from the Special Court the + +aggrieved is entitled to prefer an appeal before this Court in terms + +of Section 14A of the Act, 1989. In the case at hand, the + +petitioners have moved bail petitions straightaway before this + +Court. At any rate, what is before this Court is not an appeal + +against an order passed by the Special Court with reference to + +bails. It shall be stated that on the same subject matter High + +Court could not be said to possess concurrent original jurisdiction + 32 + + + + +as well as appellate jurisdiction. If one is to state that a bail is + +different from anticipatory bail the result is that in anticipatory + +bails this Court holds original jurisdiction and in regular bails it + +holds only appellate jurisdiction. Assuming that in a case a + +petition for anticipatory bail being moved before the Special Court + +resulted in dismissal, then according to the logic applied by the + +petitioners the petitions would have to move only another bail + +petition before this Court and not an appeal. Such logic is in + +violation of what is clearly provided in Section 14A of the Act, + +1989. It is to be seen that the question of bail presupposes + +detention or custody of the person. In a case where a person is + +arrested he prays for a regular bail. In cases of anticipatory bail + +in the event of granting the relief, it has no effect unless and until + +the accused is arrested. In other words, the order of anticipatory + +bail comes into effect only after a person is arrested and not + +otherwise. In contrast to regular bail, in cases of anticipatory bail + +the order is obtained in advance. In regular bails it was obtained + +after arrest. The timing at which a prayer is made, and an order + +is granted, have no relevance when it comes to operation of + +those orders as in both the cases they come into operation only in + +those cases where a person is arrested. In such view of the + 33 + + + + +matter the word bail used in Section 14A of the Act, 1989 + +encompasses regular bail as well as anticipatory bail. Therefore, + +it must be stated that an application for bail or anticipatory bail + +can be filed only before the Special Court or the Exclusive + +Special Court as the case may be and not before the High Court. + +An order granting or refusing bail or anticipatory bail by the + +Special Court or Exclusive Special Court can be assailed before + +this Court invoking its appellate jurisdiction provided in Section + +14A of the Act, 1989. This Court had deliberated these aspects + +on earlier occasions when similar questions were raised and it + +reached to the same conclusions and reference can be made to + +the following: +

+

+

1. Nakka Nagireddy v. State of A.P.2 + + +
2. Deepak Kumar Tala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh3. + + +

57. Similar conclusions were reached at by other High Courts. + +Reference can be made to the following: +

+

+

1. K.M.Basheer v. Rajani K.T.4 + +2 + 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5322 Order dated 11.11.2024 +3 + Order dated 22.10.2024 in Criminal Petition No.6487 of 2024 +4 + 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 472 + 34 + + + + +
2. Lokesh v. State of Karnataka5 + + +
3. In re Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 v. Nil6 + + +
4. Atul Rajput v. The State of Madhya Pradesh7 + + +

58. At the bar, for petitioners, Abhishek Awasthi v. State of + +U.P.8 is cited. That is a case where other subsections of Section + +14A of the Act, 1989 fell for consideration and the powers of the + +High Court were considered under Section 482 of Code of + +Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings. + +Finally, it was held that with a view to prevent the misuse or + +abuse of the Court or law, the High Court holds inherent + +jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. + +Such question is not available before this Court. Even otherwise + +a brief reference to what was stated by their Lordships in Shajan + +Skaria's case9 would be sufficient here. At paragraph No.49 their + +Lordships stated that if the accused puts forward the case of + +malicious prosecution on account of political or private vendetta + +5 + 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15742 +6 + 2018 SCC OnLine ALL 2087 +7 + Order dated 10.04.2024 in Crl.A.No.3261 of 2024 of the High Court of +Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur +8 + MANU/UP/4595/2024 + 35 + + + + +such aspects can be considered only by the High Court in + +exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code or + +in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the + +Constitution of India. However, powers under Section 438 of the + +Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised once the + +contents of the complaint/F.I.R. disclose a prima facie case. In + +fact, in that case Section 14A of the Act, 1989 did not come up for + +consideration since the anticipatory bail petition was first moved + +before the trial Court and as against those orders appeal was + +preferred before the High Court. +

+

+

59. The plethora of precedent cited before this Court is not with + +reference to Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and therefore any + +reference to those cherished principles of those rulings is not + +required. This Court refrains from delving into other facts and the + +principles of law governing anticipatory bails since any such + +discussion may unnecessarily prejudice the contentions of both + +sides when appropriate applications are filed before appropriate + +Courts for the reliefs or when the maters come up before this + +Court in appeal. +

+

9 + Supra 1 + 36 + + + + +

60. Learned counsel for petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5920 + +of 2024 argued that this very Bench on earlier occasions + +considered and granted anticipatory bail and therefore, the same + +benefit can be extended to the present petitioners. The attention + +of this Court is brought to Sri Settipalli Raghurami Reddy v. + +The State of Andhra Pradesh10 and Julakanti Brahma Reddy + +@ Brahma Nanda Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 11. In + +both those matters the question about Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 was never raised by either side and therefore, there was no + +occasion for this Court to express itself on that aspect of the + +matter. After those orders it was in October and November 2024 + +only this Court had occasion to consider Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 and accordingly decided the earlier referred Nakka + +Nagireddy's case12 and Deepak Kumar Tala's case13. + +Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions of the learned + +counsel for the petitioners. +

+

+

61. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition + +No.5920 of 2024 further argued that the investigating agency is + +10 + Order dated 23.07.2024 in Criminal Petition No.3807 of 2024 +11 + Order dated 13.08.2024 in Criminal Petition No.10005 of 2023 +12 + supra 2 +13 + supra 3 + 37 + + + + +not entitled to add new penal provisions and cited State of + +Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde14. That was a case + +where on written information police registered a crime and + +investigating into it and filed charge sheet specifying certain penal + +provisions. At that stage the informant filed a petition to add + +Sections 364, 394 and 398 I.P.C. The question arose about the + +powers of the Magistrate at that stage as to whether he can + +incorporate those penal provisions as requested by the informant + +in a charge sheet filed by the police. Their Lordships stated that + +allowing incorporation of new provisions into the charge sheet as + +requested by the written informant at that stage is impermissible. + +However, the Court which is to try the case has to consider the + +first information report and all the other material collected and + +take a decision to frame appropriate charges under all the + +relevant penal provisions. Thus, the cited ruling has no relevance + +to the present case at hand. In the case at hand, the + +investigating police, exercising their right of investigation, have + +found it appropriate that the material on record do attract various + +provisions which were not originally mentioned in the F.I.R. Such + +power cannot be questioned. Informant would only put forth the + +14 + AIR 2014 SC 620 + 38 + + + + +facts before the registering officer and the Station House Officer + +on receiving such information using his own diligence + +incorporates the relevant penal provisions in the F.I.R. During + +investigation certain facts may be found incorrect and certain new + +facts may have been discovered and certain new accused may + +have been found having connection with the crime. There can be + +no legal hurdle in that regard since investigation is a voyage of + +truth. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsels for + +petitioners that provisions under the Act, 1989 were brought into + +effect during investigation and therefore have to be discarded is + +an argument that cannot be sustained. It may be recorded here + +that even to begin with in the case at hand the F.I.R. mentioned + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989. At the present also + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989 are alleged by the + +prosecution. Simply because at one stage such penal provisions + +were dropped does not mean that at a later stage they cannot be + +brought in. The argument that the new addition was not granted + +by the Superintendent of Police cannot be countenanced since + +the method of investigation is sole prerogative of the investigation + +officer. For the above reasons, the point is answered against the + +petitioners. +

39

+ + + + +

62. In the result, all these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. It is + +made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate + +petitions for appropriate reliefs before the appropriate Court. In + +the event such petitions are filed, the Court where they are filed is + +to consider the petitions on judicial side and dispose of them in + +accordance with law. Any observations made herein are confined + +to these petitions and they have no bearing on the merits or + +demerits of the case on either side. +

+

________________________ + Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J +Date: 06.01.2025 +Ivd + 40 + + + + + THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR + + + + +CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475, + 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839, + 5920 and 9083 of 2024 + + + + + Date: 06.01.2025 + + + +Ivd +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_159612009.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_159612009.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..60348e01e4d7c27175fd9b6777683fbbfb757e4b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_159612009.html @@ -0,0 +1,2200 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Santosh K Nagpal vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 February, 2022 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 16, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Karnataka High Court

+

Santosh K Nagpal vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 February, 2022

+ +
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
+
+    DATED THIS THE 04 T H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
+
+                         BEFORE
+
+THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
+
+ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.417 OF 2020
+
+BETWEEN:
+
+1. Santosh K Nagp al
+   S/o Kishore Nagp al
+   Aged about 38 years
+
+2. Smt. Rakee K Nagpal
+   W/o Kishore Nag pal
+   Aged about 61 years
+
+Both are Residing at
+Kamadhenu Nilaya, No.50
+M.S.Layout, Jaraganahalli
+J.P.Nag ar 6 t h Phase
+Beng aluru - 560 078
+
+                                        ...Petitioners
+(By Sri K.B.K.Swamy, Advocate)
+
+AND:
+
+The State of Karnataka
+By J.P.Nag ar Police Station
+Represented by
+State Pub lic Prosecutor
+High Court of Karnataka
+Beng aluru - 560 001
+
+                                         ...Respondent
+(By Sri K.S.Abhijith, HCGP for respondent;
+    Sri Venkatesh Prasad R, Advocate
+    for applicant in IA No.2/2021)
+                                    :: 2 ::
+
+
+     This     Criminal         Revision        Petition   is    filed    under
+Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. p raying
+to set-aside the judgment and order d ated 18.02.2019
+passed        by        the     44 t h     ACMM,          Beng aluru          in
+C.C.No.2831/2014 in convicting the appellant No.1 for
+the offences punishab le under Sections 323, 498A,
+504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections
+3   and   4   of   Dowry        Prohib ition       Act    and    convicting
+app ellant    No.2       for    the      offences    punishab le         under
+Sections 498A and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC
+and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and confirmation of
+the above in Crl.A.No.622/2019 on the file of the LXXI
+Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Beng aluru
+(CCH-72) by the ord er d ated 06.02.2020 by allowing
+this Crl.R.P.
+
+     This Criminal Revision Petition having b een heard
+&    reserved           on     17.01.2022,           coming         on       for
+pronouncement throug h video conferencing this day,
+the Court pronounced the following:
+
+                                 ORDER
+
+

The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in + +C.C.2831/2014 on the file of 44 t h Additional Chief + +Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. They were + +prosecuted in relation to offences punishable + +under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of Indian + :: 3 :: +

+

+

Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry + +Prohibition Act read with section 34 of IPC. + +Prosecution case in brief is as below: - + + +
2. PW1, Smt. Komal Asrani, made a report to + +the police for registration of FIR. She is the wife + +of the first accused. The second accused is the + +mother of the first accused. The marriage + +between the first accused and PW1 was solemnized + +on 27.6.2010 at Bengaluru International Hotel, + +Bengaluru. She reported to the police that the + +accused started torturing her ten days after the + +marriage for the sake of cash and jewellery as + +they were not satisfied with what her parents had + +given at the time of marriage. She went to her + +parents house in the sixth month of her pregnancy + +and stayed there for about two years. She went + +back to her marital home on 21.1.2013. She was + +looked after well for one month and then again her + +husband started abusing and torturing her. He + :: 4 :: +
+
+
wanted money and jewellery, but she did not tell + +her parents about the demand by the accused + +because her father was a heart patient. She was + +not allowed to speak to her parents. On a + +Monday, i.e., 7.10.2013, her father came to meet + +her at 5.00 PM. The second accused told this to + +first accused when he went home at 8.30 PM and + +questioning his wife as to why she allowed her + +father, he hit her and threatened to kill her and + +her father in case he would come again. She + +alleged that the first accused used to always slap, + +pull her hair, hit her on back, head and neck, + +prick with a pen, and twist her hands. He used to + +force her to sign the divorce papers. Very + +specifically she stated that on 6.10.2013, the first + +accused hit her on neck and as a result her + +Mangalasutra was broken. She gave a report of + +these events to the police on 9.10.2013. The + +police registered an FIR in Crime No. 722/2013, + :: 5 :: +
+
+
held investigation and filed charge sheet against + +the accused. +
+
+
3. The prosecution in all examined ten + +witnesses, PWs1 to 10 and produced 12 + +documents, Exs.P1 to P12. The defence examined + +one witness namely Namaha Shivaaya as DW1 and + +produced ten documents as per Exs.D1 to D10. + +

MO1 consist of gold ornaments marked on behalf + +of the prosecution. +

+

+

4. Upon appreciation of evidence, the trial + +court convicted the accused and sentenced each of + +them to undergo simple imprisonment for two + +years and fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default + +sentence of one month imprisonment for the + +offence under section 498A IPC. For the offence + +under section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, if + +accused No.1 was sentenced to simple + +imprisonment for two years with fine of + +Rs.10,00,000/- and default sentence of six months + :: 6 :: +

+

+

imprisonment, accused No.2 was sentenced to + +simple imprisonment for two years with fine of + +Rs.15,000/- and default sentence of one month + +imprisonment. In relation to offence under section + +4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, each of accused 1 + +and 2 each was sentenced to simple imprisonment + +for one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default + +sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. + +

In relation to offence under section 323 IPC, + +accused No.1 was sentenced to simple + +imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- + +with default sentence of one month simple + +imprisonment. For the offence under section 506, + +accused No.1 was sentenced for a period of simple + +imprisonment for two years six months and fine of + +Rs.5,000/- with default sentence of one and half + +months simple imprisonment. Then for the offence + +under section 504 IPC, accused 1 and 2 each was + +sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months + +and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of + :: 7 :: +

+

+

simple imprisonment for one month. Sentences + +for all the offences were made to run concurrently. + + +

5. Both the accused preferred an appeal to + +the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, + +aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court. The + +sessions court dismissed their appeal, 622/2019 + +confirming the judgment of conviction and + +sentence and hence this revision petition against + +the judgment of the appellate court. + + +

6. I have heard the arguments of Sri + +K.B.K.Swamy for the petitioners and Sri + +K.S.Abhijith, High Court Government Pleader. + + +

7. Sri K.B.K. Swamy argued that the trial + +court has considered the further statement of PW1 + +and the statements of the other witnesses under + +section 161 Cr.P.C to hold that the prosecution has + +been able to prove its case beyond reasonable + +doubt. In this regard he submitted that it was not + :: 8 :: +

+

+

permitted for the trial court to consider the + +statements under section 161 Cr.P.C as a + +substantive piece of evidence unless contradictions + +and omissions are proved in accordance with law. + +The testimony of PW1 is not credit worthy, but the + +trial court has believed her testimony by referring + +to her further statement which is nothing but a + +statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. + + +
7.1. The second point that he argued was + +that according to PW1, she was assaulted on + +6.10.2013; but she went to the hospital on + +9.10.2013 and this is admitted by the doctor who + +was examined as a witness. Delay in going to + +hospital is not explained and so also delay in + +making a report to the police is also not explained. + +

Though delay was by three days, in the facts and + +circumstances it was inordinate and the trial court + +ought to have appreciated this aspect. +

:: 9 :: +

+

+

7.2. The doctor has not given the age of the + +injury in the wound certificate. The injuries + +complained of could be self-inflicted also and in + +the cases emerging from strained marital + +relationships, it is quite possible that the events + +will be exaggerated for falsely implicating the + +husband and his relatives. This is one such case. + + +
7.3. The trial court has not considered the + +defence evidence in true spirit. It is settled + +principle of appreciation of evidence that the + +defence evidence must receive as much + +importance as the prosecution evidence. The + +judgments of the trial court and the appellate + +court show that there is no proper discussion of + +evidence given by DW1. +
+
+
7.4. FIR came to be registered hurriedly with + +the sole intention of ruining the image of the + +accused in their social circle. The dispute arises + +out of matrimonial disharmony and before + :: 10 :: +
+
+
registration of FIR, the SHO should have held + +preliminary enquiry. +
+
+
7.5. There is no proper discussion on the + +evidence given by mahazar witnesses. If the + +mahazar shows that both the accused were + +present while drawing up spot mahazar, the + +remand application shows that second appellant + +had absconded. This discrepancy gives room for + +doubting the prosecution case and the trial court + +has failed to appreciate this aspect. + + +
7.6. The evidence of DW1 clearly shows that + +the accused have been falsely implicated. The + +father of PW1 is richer than the accused. After the + +marriage, PW1 found it difficult to adjust herself in + +the house of accused and therefore she voluntarily + +left the house of the accused and then made false + +allegations. In fact when PW1 became pregnant, + +the first accused took her to hospital for medical + +check up and provided her best medical treatment. +

:: 11 :: +

+

+

Documents in this regard are produced. Instead + +PW1 has gone to the extent of making false + +allegations that the accused No.1 doubted the + +paternity of the child. +
+
+
7.7. As a whole the prosecution has failed to + +prove the guilt of the accused. The appellate + +court has mechanically confirmed the judgment of + +the trial court. There is no proper re-appreciation + +of evidence, rather the entire evidence appears to + +have been appreciated perversely and hence the + +judgments of the courts below are to be set aside + +and the accused, acquitted of the offences with + +which they have stood convicted and sentenced. + + +
8. Learned Government Pleader argued that + +PW1 is none other than the daughter of the + +brother of the second accused. Unnecessarily she + +would not make allegations against the accused, + +her evidence shows that she was subjected to + +physical and mental torture as she was unwilling + :: 12 :: +
+
+
to bring money and jewellery from her parents + +house after the marriage. Normally no wife will + +rush to the police station to make a complaint and + +this is how the evidence is to be appreciated if + +there is any delay in registration of FIR. The + +evidence of father of PW1 further strengthens the + +evidence of PW2. The mahazar witnesses are also + +supported. The doctor has clearly stated about + +the injuries that she noticed when she examined + +PW1. Both the courts have properly appreciated + +the evidence and therefore there are no grounds + +to interfere with the impugned judgment. + + +
9. I have considered the points of + +arguments. This revision petition is filed by the + +accused questioning the correctness of the + +concurrent findings of the two courts below. + +

Actually there is no scope for re-appreciation of + +evidence in the revision. Since Sri K.B.K.Swamy + +argued that the trial court has perversely + :: 13 :: +

+

+

appreciated the evidence and that the first + +appellate court has failed to notice this aspect of + +the matter, it is necessary in this revision petition + +to examine whether evidence is properly + +appreciated or not. +
+
+
10. PW1 and 2 are the main witnesses. PW1 + +is the wife of first accused and PW2 is the father + +of PW1. In the examination-in-chief, PW1 has + +stated about negotiations held in the month of + +December 2019 in a temple at J.P.Nagar in + +connection with the marriage and that the bride + +groom party demanded at that time for cash of + +Rs.20,00,000/-, a gold chain, bracelet and a + +diamond ring and that her father agreed for the + +same. Then the marriage took place on 27.6.2010 + +at Bengaluru International Hotel. According to + +PW1, in the month of March 2010, her father went + +to the house of the accused and gave them cash of + +Rs.10,00,000/-, a gold chain, bracelet and a ring. +

:: 14 :: +

+

+

Her father told he would pay the balance + +Rs.10,00,000/- sometime later. She has stated + +that after the marriage she went to her husband's + +house and lived there for about six months. What + +she has stated is that ten days after the marriage + +the accused asked her to bring balance of + +Rs.10,00,000/- and another sum of Rs.10,00,000/- + +i.e., totally Rs.20,00,000/- and some more + +jewellery. She did not tell this to her father + +because he was suffering from heart disease. + +Then accused No.1 insisted on bringing money, bet + +her and told that if she would not bring money, he + +would burn her by pouring kerosene and he would + +not care for going to jail. When she became + +pregnant, he told that he was not the father of the + +child and forced her to abort the pregnancy. Then + +she went to her father's house for delivery. She + +gave birth to a female baby but, the accused did + +not come to see the baby. An attempt was made to + +convene panchayat but, the accused did not agree. +
:: 15 :: +
+
+
Her further testimony is that on 15.1.2013, her + +father-in-law telephoned to her father and asked + +them to come to Saibaba Temple at J.P.Nagar + +along with the child and mother and accordingly + +she went to that place along with her child and + +parents and from there she came to the house of + +the accused. She has stated that for about a + +month she was treated well and again the accused + +demanded for Rs.20,00,000/- and jewellery. In + +this connection accused No.1 subjected her to + +physical cruelty. Even he was not caring the child + +and therefore at last, since she was assaulted, she + +went to hospital for taking treatment to the + +injuries sustained by her and made a report to the + +police as per Ex.P1. She has spoken about + +mahazar drawn as per Ex.P2. +
+
+
11. On 23.2.2016 she was again examined in + +chief and at that time she identified gold items, + +two diamond rings and silver items. Again she + :: 16 :: +
+
+
stated that the first accused used to threaten to + +set fire to her and force her to sign divorce + +papers. +
+
+
12. PW2 has stated in examination-in-chief + +about pre-marriage negotiations, demand by the + +accused for cash of Rs.20,00,000/-, gold items and + +diamond ring, his agreeing for the same and giving + +Rs.10,00,000/- and gold items in the month of + +February 2010, i.e., before the marriage by going + +to the house of the accused, demand by the + +accused for Rs.20,00,000/- and gold after the + +marriage, physical cruelty on his daughter in this + +connection, the first accused suspecting the + +character of his daughter, birth of a baby in his + +house, receiving a call from the father of first + +accused in the year 2013 to come to Saibaba + +Temple at J.P.Nagar with his daughter and child + +and his daughter going to her matrimonial home + +from that place. He has stated that thereafter his + :: 17 :: +
+
+
daughter lived in the house of the accused for nine + +months and that he came to know from his + +daughter about the demand by the accused for + +Rs.20,00,000/- and gold. He also stated that he + +came to know from his daughter that she was + +assaulted by the first accused and therefore her + +daughter made a complaint to the police. + + +
13. PW3 is the nephew of PW2. Firstly he + +has spoken about the negotiation before the + +marriage and demands put forward by the accused + +at that time, and that his uncle, i.e., PW2 went to + +the house of the accused a few days before + +marriage and gave them cash of Rs.10,00,000/-, + +gold ornaments and diamond ring. But with regard + +to events after the marriage, he has just stated + +that he came to know that the accused demanded + +for Rs.20,00,000/- and in that connection PW1 was + +subjected to harassment. +

:: 18 :: +

+

+

14. PW5 is a neighbor of PW2. He too has + +stated what he came to know from PW2 about + +harassment on PW1. +
+
+
15. PW6 has stated that he attended the + +marriage on 27.2.2010, PW1 and first accused led + +a cordial matrimonial life for a few days after the + +marriage and that whenever PW1 used to come to + +her father's house she used to tell him that the + +accused was demanding for Rs.20,00,000/- dowry. + +

He has stated further that PW1 came to her + +parents house when she became pregnant and + +even after delivery she stayed back in the parents + +house and when he asked her about the reason for + +the same, she told him that the accused would ill- + +treat her for dowry and therefore she did not like + +to go back to her matrimonial home. + + +

16. PW8 has stated that he too had attended + +the marriage and that when PW1 was pregnant, + +she had sustained injury on her face and that she + :: 19 :: +

+

+

had stayed back in her father's house for long + +time. At that time he asked her the reason and + +came to know about the quarrel between her and + +accused No.1 in regard to dowry and that first + +accused had not taken her back. +
+
+

17. PW9 is the doctor who examined PW1 on + +9.10.2013 and noticed the presence of injuries like + +abrasions and that she issued wound certificate as + +per Ex.P12. PW17 is the investigating officer. + + +

18. PW4 is a witness to spot panchanama + +drawn on 9.10.2013 in between 2.00 and 2.30 PM + +as per Ex.P2 in the house of the accused at VI + +Phase J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru. +

+

+

19. DW1 is the defence witness. He is the + +husband of sister of accused No.2. The family of + +the accused shifted their residence to a house in + +the first floor of the building where he too was + +residing in another floor. According to him since + :: 20 :: +

+

+

the accused were residing in the same building he + +used to come to know about what was transpiring + +in the house of the accused. He has stated that + +first accused was getting monthly salary, PW1 + +hailed from an affluent family and that she desired + +a luxurious life and after marrying the first + +accused, she could not lead the kind of life she + +wanted and therefore she tried to take the + +husband to her parents house and therefore + +started the quarrel. He has further stated that + +she wanted to see cinemas in PVR Theatre, shop at + +Shoppers' Stop and take treatment only in multi + +super specialty hospitals. When she became + +pregnant she went to her parents house. When + +once he visited the shop of PW2 on 15.4.2011 he + +came to know that PW1 had delivered a baby and + +he informed this matter to the accused. Further + +he has stated that the accused vacated his house + +and shifted to J.P.Nagar and two to three months + +thereafter, he called PW1, PW2 and the wife of + :: 21 :: +
+
+
PW2 to his house for discussion and advised them. + +He told them that he would call the accused the + +next day but, on the same night, PW2 telephoned + +and told him that he had decided to go to court. + + +

20. Before adverting to the answers given by + +them in cross-examination, the findings of the trial + +court and the appellate court may be referred. + +The judgment of the trial court is very lengthy and + +full of repetitions. It is held that the evidence of + +PW1 is trustworthy; that she has narrated the + +incident of assault on her, putting threat to pour + +kerosene and kill her father besides suspecting her + +character. As regards her inability to give the + +specific dates of incidents, it is held that it is quite + +common for a human being not possible to give + +minute details of every thing. It is held that PW1 + +was standing in the verge of breaking her marital + +life and in such a circumstance one has to think + +about the dilemmas in her mind and therefore her + :: 22 :: +

+

+

failure to give full narration of incidents cannot be + +given any significance. However, her testimony + +shows that before and after the marriage there + +was a demand for dowry by the accused. Her + +father had partially fulfilled the demand before the + +marriage and because there was demand for + +Rs.20,00,000/- and some more gold ornaments + +after the marriage, she was harassed and + +subjected to cruelty. Her further statement given + +before the police provide corroboration to her + +testimony. Her father has also proved the + +prosecution case. Moreover the testimonies of + +PW3, 5, 6 and 8 prove that PW1 was subjected to + +harassment for the sake of dowry. In cases of this + +nature, only the close relatives and the friends + +would come forward to testify the events. Just + +because they are relatives and friends, their + +evidence cannot be discarded. These witnesses + +appear to be truthful. So far as the injuries are + +concerned, the evidence of PW9 is helpful as she + :: 23 :: +
+
+
was the doctor who treated PW1. Though it was + +true that the father of PW1 was financially better + +placed than the accused, it does not mean that she + +was accustomed to luxurious life. What PW1 and + +PW2 have stated is that they were leading a + +comfortable life and not luxurious life and + +therefore the defence theory in this regard cannot + +be accepted. +
+
+

21. So far as the evidence of DW1 is + +concerned, it is held that his evidence cannot be + +believed because he had noted down the dates of + +events on his left palm and that gave a clear + +admission that he did not know as to what actually + +had transpired in the matrimonial life of PW1 and + +the first accused. With these reasons the trial + +court came to conclusion to hold that the + +prosecution was able to prove its case beyond + +reasonable doubt. +

:: 24 :: +

+

+

22. The appellate court also has come to + +same conclusions and has specifically observed + +that the cross-examination of PW1 to 10 literally + +does not benefit the defence in any way. + + +

23. The judgment of the trial court shows + +very well that it has found corroboration to the + +testimony of PW1 from her further statement. + +This is where the trial court has fallen in error. It + +appears that the trial court has not understood the + +scope of sections 161 and 162 of the Code of + +Criminal Procedure. Probably the trial court might + +have read the further statement of PW1 treating it + +as continuation of Ex.P1, i.e., her report to the + +police for registration of FIR. The further + +statement is nothing but a statement recorded + +under section 161 of Cr.P.C. and for this reason, + +such a statement cannot be made use of to find + +corroboration. Section 162(1) is a clear bar for + +making use of any statement given by a witness + :: 25 :: +

+

+

before the police officer. The proviso to section + +162(1) states that only a part of the statement + +may be made use of by an accused to contradict a + +witness in the manner provided under section 145 + +of the Indian Evidence Act. But before using part + +of the statement as a contradiction, making of + +such a statement must be duly proved. Looked in + +this view, the trial court has straight away read + +the entire further statement of PW1 to draw + +inference that the testimony of PW1 is + +corroborated from her further statement. + + +

24. PW1 is the main witness. The other + +witnesses including her father are not eye + +witnesses and as their testimonies disclose, they + +have stated on the basis of what they came to + +know. Now if the evidence of PW1 is assessed, it + +appears that firstly she has made allegations that + +before and after the marriage the accused + +demanded for dowry and in that connection that + :: 26 :: +

+

+

she was subjected to harassment after the + +marriage. Therefore the ill-treatment and physical + +harassment she has complained of is in relation to + +dowry demand. But, the defence version is that + +PW1 found it difficult to adjust herself in the house + +of the accused who were placed in a lower strata + +financially than her father. +
+
+

25. It is true that if the entire examination of + +PW1 is read, it appears as though she has not + +been discredited. She has denied all the + +suggestions that there was no demand for dowry, + +that whatever was given to the accused before the + +marriage was nothing but customary gifts + +prevailing in the Sindhi community to which they + +belong, that she used to be treated well in the + +matrimonial home and rather it was she who used + +to grumble being unable to adjust in the house of + +the accused as she had been brought up in a + +luxurious atmosphere. However, the defence + :: 27 :: +

+

+

counsel has been able to extract some admissions + +from her. Both the courts below have not given + +much importance to these admissions but, in my + +opinion they are significant to assess + +creditworthiness of PW1. +
+
+

26. It is to be noted here that in Ex.P1, PW1 + +has not stated very specifically the amount that + +the accused demanded towards dowry. She simply + +stated that they demanded cash and jewellery. It + +is only in the examination-in-chief she stated that + +the accused demanded for balance of + +Rs.10,00,000/- as agreed by PW2 before the + +marriage and additional sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for + +the purpose of constructing a house. But, in the + +cross-examination she asserts to have stated in + +her complaint, i.e., Ex.P1 that the first accused + +demanded for Rs.10,00,000/- for constructing the + +house and some jewellery. If she was so sure that + +there was a demand for a specific sum of money, + :: 28 :: +

+

+

she could have stated about it in her report as per + +Ex.P1. It is true that the report given to the + +police need not contain all the minute details, but + +when she was aware that the accused wanted a + +certain sum of money and in that connection she + +was subjected to harassment, she could have + +mentioned about it in Ex.P1. Even if it is assumed + +that this is a very trivial discrepancy in her + +evidence, there are some other aspects which + +cannot be ignored as trivial. +
+
+

27. Her clear evidence in the examination-in- + +chief is that after she went to her matrimonial + +home, she was treated well for only ten days and + +thereafter the accused started demanding for + +money and jewellery and in that connection she + +was ill-treated. She stayed in the house of the + +accused for six months until she became pregnant + +and went to her parents house. She has answered + +in the cross-examination that she had brought to + :: 29 :: +

+

+

the notice of her father, mother and aunt who was + +staying in the another house of the same building. + +She has admitted that after six months she went + +to the house of her father and she has given an + +explanation here to the effect that since her father + +was not keeping good health, she went to see him + +and she has given admission further that she did + +not return to the house of the accused thereafter. + +If she went to see her father, she could have + +returned to her matrimonial home after the + +father's recovery from illness. Of course her other + +answers indicate that she stayed back in the house + +of her father as by that time she was pregnant. + +She has stated that the accused did not turn up to + +see the baby in spite of the same being informed + +to them. She has stated that she herself + +telephoned to the first accused and informed about + +the birth of the female baby. But, DW1 has stated + +that on 15.4.2011, he had been to the shop of + +PW2 and at that time he came to know about the + :: 30 :: +
+
+
birth of the baby and then he informed the same + +to the accused. Therefore if answer of DW1 is + +taken to be true, whatever PW1 has stated that + +she informed about the birth of the baby + +immediately after delivery becomes difficult to be + +believed. Be that as it may, as it does not matter + +much. +
+
+

28. It is admitted by PW1 that she stayed in + +her parents house for two years. When she was + +questioned whether there was any effort for + +reconciliation of the relationship during that time, + +her answer is that her father, mother, uncle and + +cousins made efforts. If such an effort was really + +made, there was no occasion for the father of + +accused No.1 to contact PW2 to ask him to bring + +PW1 and the baby to a temple on 21.1.2013. PW1 + +herself has stated in the examination-in-chief + +about it. That means whatever she has stated + +about the efforts made by her father and mother + :: 31 :: +

+

+

including herself to contact the accused cannot per + +se believed to be true. +
+
+

29. There is another main allegation by PW1 + +that the first accused doubted her character and + +the paternity of the child. Even this allegation is + +difficult to be believed because as has been + +admitted by PW1, the accused No.1 took her and + +the child to Sringeri for performing Aksharabhyasa + +and then to the surrounding temples. She + +admitted that accused No.1 himself admitted the + +child to school called 'Euro Kids' and it was his + +decision. If really the allegation made by PW1 is + +believable, accused No.1 would not have shown + +that much of interest. +

+

+

30. When PW1 was specifically questioned + +whether she had written in Ex.P1 that ten days + +after she went to matrimonial home, the accused + +insisted on bringing remaining Rs.10,00,000/- and + +additional sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for the purpose + :: 32 :: +

+

+

of constructing a house and some more jewellery, + +she answered that she just stated about demand + +made by the accused. When the investigating + +officer, i.e., PW10 was questioned whether such a + +statement was made, his answer is that PW1 has + +not stated so either in Ex.P1 or in her further + +statement. Because of this answer by the + +investigating officer, the truth in the main + +allegation made by PW1 that she was subjected to + +harassment by the accused in connection with + +demand for dowry becomes doubtful to be + +believed. +
+
+

31. If the answers given by PW2 in the cross- + +examination are considered, it is possible to infer + +that he did not have first hand information about + +the ill-treatment of his daughter and that he came + +to know about it only from her. It is quite natural + +also but, what is to be stated here is that his + +certain other answers make his testimony + :: 33 :: +

+

+

unbelievable. He has clearly admitted that he has + +not given any statement before the police that ten + +days after his daughter started living with the + +accused after the marriage, the accused demanded + +Rs.20,00,000/- for constructing a house and some + +more jewellery. He has further admitted that he + +has not given statement before the police that + +when his daughter returned to the matrimonial + +home with the baby and stayed there for nine + +months, the accused again started demanding for + +Rs.20,00,000/-. With regard to these two + +statements, his answer is that his daughter has + +made such statements. Though PW10 has not + +been questioned in this regard, it may be stated + +that if according to him he did not make such + +statements, his testimony in examination-in-chief + +cannot be so easily believed. +
+
+

32. Then with regard to the evidence given + +by PW3, 5, 6 and 8, it is held by the courts below + :: 34 :: +

+

+

that their evidence provides corroboration to the + +testimony of PW1 as in cases of this type, none + +other than the close relatives and friends can be + +examined as witnesses. To some extent the + +observation of the trial court is correct, but it is + +difficult to hold that their evidence provides + +corroboration to the testimony of PW1. They have + +deposed what they came to know from PW1 and + +PW2. If the evidence of PW1 is again seen, she + +has clearly stated that she had informed about the + +demand for dowry and consequent ill-treatment to + +her aunt who was living in another house of the + +same building at Sahakarnagara. DW1 is the + +husband of the aunt. The evidence of PW1 also + +shows that her aunt was fully aware of the + +strained relationship between PW1 and the + +accused and the reasons for it. That means the + +best witness for the prosecution would have been + +her aunt and DW1. It is not known why the + +investigating officer did not think it necessary to + :: 35 :: +
+
+
examine them during investigation. It is elicited + +from PW10, the investigating officer, during cross- + +examination that he did not examine anybody in + +the neighbourhood of the accused. +
+
+

33. PW7 was Assistant Sub-Inspector of + +Police and his evidence shows that he was + +deployed for arresting the accused and that he + +arrested them on 9.10.2013 at about 10.30 AM at + +M.S.Layout. His evidence totally contradicts the + +evidence of PW10. He has very clearly stated that + +when he went to the house of the accused for + +conducting panchanama, the accused were very + +much present in the house. If they were present + +at that time, he himself could have arrested them + +and where was the necessity for deploying PW7 for + +arresting the accused. In this view, the probity in + +the investigation can also be doubted. + + +

34. The trial court has not believed the + +testimony of DW1 just placing reliance on his one + :: 36 :: +

+

+

answer. That answer is that he did not know how + +PW1 and first accused were living as husband and + +wife and what used to transpire in their + +matrimonial life. This is just a stray answer and + +the question put to elicit this answer also appears + +to be misleading. It is well established principle of + +appreciation of evidence that the evidence as a + +whole must be considered. The tenor of the + +evidence given by DW1 is something otherwise in + +the sense that according to him, PW1 found it + +difficult to live in the house having been + +accustomed to a kind of luxurious life which she + +did not get in her matrimonial home, she started + +quarrels with accused No.1. The trial court appears + +to have not believed the evidence of DW1 because + +of one stray answer noted above and for another + +reason that he had gone to the court by noting + +some dates on his left palm. For this reason alone + +his evidence could not have been disbelieved. If + +his cross-examination is seen, most of the + :: 37 :: +
+
+
questions pertain to his caste, inter caste + +marriage, religious practices of the caste to which + +he belongs, etc. They are all irrelevant. His + +evidence clearly discloses that it was within his + +knowledge as to what used to take place in the + +house of the accused as he was staying in the next + +floor. As has been observed already, he should + +have been cited as a prosecution witness. If + +intentionally he was not examined by the + +investigating officer, only inference that can be + +drawn is that probably for the reason that he + +would reveal the truth, the investigating officer + +might not have examined him and rather preferred + +to cite those persons known to PW2 as witnesses. + +In my opinion, absolutely there is no reason to + +discard the evidence of DW1. +
+
+

35. There is no rule that the evidence of the + +relatives should be discarded. If interestedness is + +proved, it is a good reason for discarding their + :: 38 :: +

+

+

testimonies. Here a little bit of interestedness on + +the part of the witnesses may be demonstrated + +and it is not out of context if it can be stated that + +even the investigating officer might have yielded + +to PW2. This can be demonstrated if panchanama + +as per Ex.P2 is considered. The two panch + +witnesses are Mohammed Nihal examined as PW4 + +and one Mujeeb Khan. These two persons were + +workers in the shop of PW2 and this is admitted by + +PW1. PW4 has also admitted in the cross- + +examination about it. Ex.P2 was drawn in the + +house of accused. PW10 has stated that the + +witnesses were brought to that place by PW2. + +PW10 has very well admitted in the cross- + +examination that he did not summon any person of + +that locality to be a witness for the panchanama. + +This itself demonstrates the amount of interest + +that PW2 had in the investigation. For this reason + +if the investigating officer found it convenient to + +cite PW3, 5, 6 and 8 as witnesses, probably it was + :: 39 :: +
+
+
at instance of PW2 being the father of PW1. + +Thus seen, the interestedness in the testimonies of + +other witnesses cannot be ruled out. + + +

36. It is true that PW9 has given wound + +certificate as per Ex.P12 after examining PW1 on + +9.10.2013. PW1 complains of specific incident of + +assault on her on 6.10.2013 and that she went to + +the hospital on 9.10.2013. The injuries noted in + +Ex.P12 are simple, some kind of abrasions on the + +face, neck and chest region of PW1. In Ex.P12 the + +history is written as assault, but the name of the + +assailant is not written there. The date of incident + +is also not written in Ex.P12. The date written is + +9.10.2013, i.e., the day when PW1 was subjected + +to medical examination. PW1 was taken to the + +hospital by a police constable. In the + +examination-in-chief, PW9 has stated that the + +police constable gave the history as assault by + +husband of PW1, if that is so in Ex.P12 it could + :: 40 :: +

+

+

have been written clearly. Just for this reason the + +evidence of PW9 cannot be totally discarded. It + +may be inferred probably some incident might + +have taken place on 6.10.2013 and it is very + +difficult to hold that PW1 might have been beaten + +to compel her to bring dowry. As discussed above, + +there is no clear proof that PW1 was subjected to + +ill-treatment or harassment by the accused as she + +refused to fulfill their demand for dowry. Each and + +every misunderstanding and petty quarrel between + +husband and wife do not amount to cruelty. As + +DW1 has stated, probably PW1 might have found it + +difficult to adjust herself in the house of the + +accused. There is probability in the defence put + +forward. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion + +that both the courts below have erred in holding + +the accused guilty of the offences with which they + +were charged. Therefore I find that this revision + +petition deserves to be allowed. +
:: 41 :: +
+
+
37. For the foregoing discussion, the revision + +petition stands allowed. The judgment dated + +6.2.2020 in Criminal Appeal 622/2019 on the file + +of LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge + +(CCH 72), Bengaluru, is set aside. Consequently + +the judgment of the trial court in C.C.2831/2014 is + +also set aside. The accused are acquitted of the + +offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of the + +Dowry Prohibition Act and sections 498A, 323, 504 + +and 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. + +

Bail bonds of the petitioners are cancelled. + + + + +

Sd/- +

JUDGE + + +Ckl +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_1608097.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_1608097.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8c7db51e69d55eee34694891b00af257f5f727ca --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_1608097.html @@ -0,0 +1,355 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + State Of Maharashtra vs Rajendra Shantilal Nahar on 4 December, 2003 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

9. Coming to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused opposing this application on the ground that no case has been made out to cancel the bail on account of the behaviour of the accused are well merited and the law in that regard is well settled. However, the thrust of the challenge to the order dated 11-2-2002 is on the basis that it is a perverse order and contrary to the provisions of Section 21(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999 [hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as "MCOC Act 1999"]. There is no dispute that the parameters for cancellation of bail, as set out in the decision of Aslam Desai (supra) are not applicable in the instant case. Nonetheless, in the said case, the Apex Court also put a caveat that the grounds set out therein are only illustrative and not exhaustive. The learned Prosecutor was right in his submissions that apart from the grounds which are set out in Aslam's case, the order granting bail can also be set aside by this Court under its inherent powers if such an order is found to be perverse. These submissions find support in the following decisions: (1) Puran v. Rambilas and Anr., 2001 Cr.L.J. 2566 and (2) Ramgovind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Shah and Ors., 2002 Cr.L.J. 1849. In the case of Puran (supra), the offences registered were punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Bail was granted by the Sessions Court on 30-11-2000 in favour of some of the accused and this order came to be challenged before this Court. By order dated 24-1-2001, the bail order was cancelled. The Apex Court, while upholding the decision of this Court in Para 9 and 10 observed thus : +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_1616817.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_1616817.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cf171915517bad47e88beeb048b3cbdd7d9f8058 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_1616817.html @@ -0,0 +1,377 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sita Ram Singh And Anr. vs State Of Bihar on 14 February, 2002 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

2. According to petitioners, the cancellation of their bail is illegal, improper and unjust because the first ground, that is, subsequent death of the injured and addition of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is impermissible in law for cancellation of bail and the other ground, i.e. threatening of witnesses has been accepted without any inquiry and verification. +

+

3. Because the matter involved cancellation of bail already granted to the petitioners, hence the matter was heard in details at the admission stage itself. So far as the second ground mentioned in the impugned order to the effect that the accused persons are tampering with evidence, is concerned, there is no controversy that on such a ground, if properly inquired and established, the bail already granted can be cancelled. But on facts, there is no difficulty in holding that allegation to this effect has not been inquired properly and learned Magistrate erred in using this as an additional ground for cancellation of petitioners bail. It was rightly pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that in Annexure 3, a petition filed by the Addl. P.P. dated 15.9.2000 there is no allegation of tampering an cancellation of petitioners' bail was sought only on the ground that the injured had died after about a fortnight and in view of Section 302 of the IPC being attracted, the bail earlier granted in a case then under Section 307, IPC should be cancelled for the ends of justice. No doubt, in a petition for cancellation of bail filed by the informant on 11.9.2000 as contained in Annexure 4, the allegation of threatening of prosecution witnesses was mentioned in paragraph 10 in a general manner without specific particulars but in another petition by the informant dated 14.9.2000 as contained in Annexure 5, some grievance was raised against the police but there was no allegation of tampering. By the order dated 15.9.2000 which is part of Annexure-2, notice was issued to the accused, persons as to why their bail be not cancelled and in that order also nothing was mentioned about tampering and the only ground considered for issuance of notice was the fact that subsequently Section 302 of the IPC has been added in the case. It is also not in dispute that with regard to subsequent allegation of threat, etc. no inquiry was held and there is no report by the police to support the allegation of tampering. In such circumstances, it has to be held that petitioners bail should not have been cancelled on the ground of tampering and to that extent the impugned order is unjust and bad in law. +

+
+ +
+ +

4. However, in order to interfere with the impugned order in the interest of justice, the legality and validity of the other ground requires scrutiny. It is this aspect of the controversy between the parties which required hearing at some detail because no clear judicial pronouncement of this Court was cited on the question whether on subsequent developments which make the original offence graver, a bail earlier granted can be cancelled. +

+

5. Before examining the aforesaid legal question, the relevant facts may be noticed in brief. The criminal case in question was lodged on 24.8.2000 on the basis of statement of brother of the injured to the effect that on 23.8.2000 at 6.30 p.m. the injured, Gunanand Jha, was sitting at his Darwaza. At that time, petitioner, Sitaram Singh and his son petitioner, Ranjit Sinoh who are co-villagers, brought a Nad and, kept on the land in front of informant's Darwaza. The injured felt that the accused persons had encroached upon his land and made a protest. On that, allegedly Sitaram Singh ordered to assault and his son Ranjit Singh used a piece of wood Mungari to assault the injured Gunanand Jha on his mouth. The injured fell down and became unconscious. Allegedly, the assault was made with the intention to kill and when the injured fell down unconscious then both the accused fled to their house. The aforesaid case was initially instituted under Section 307 and other allied sections of the IPC but in course of investigation the injured died on 6.9.2000. On 11.9.2000, the investigating officer prayed and got Section 302, IPC added in the aforesaid police case. But before that, the petitioners had surrendered and had been granted regular bail on 1.9.2000 passed by the learned ACJM, Jhanjharpur. A perusal of the said order dated 1.9.2000 shows that at that stage, the Magistrate was of the view that no case under Section 307, IPC was made out against the petitioners. After the death of the injured and on addition of Section 302ofthelPCtothe offence alleged against the petitioners, the prosecuting agency of the State as well as the informant applied for cancellation of bail of the petitioner which led to the impugned order in which the main discussion is on the question whether bail can be cancelled in view of subsequent development according to which now the petitioners are facing a case under Section 302 of the IPC. +

+
+ +
+ +

11. The last judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the informant is a recent judgment by the Supreme Court in the case of Prahlad Singh Bhatt v. NCT Delhi 2001 Cr.L.J. 1730 2001 (3) PUR (SC) 205. In this case, the Supreme Court was considering a prayer for cancellation of bail granted to the accused of a case that was initially lodged under Sections 306 and 498A of the I PC but after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 302 of the I.P.C. yet the accused was allowed bail under Section 302IPC because on the earlier allegations he had been allowed anticipatory bail. The apex Court found the approach of the Magistrate and of the High Court erroneous. The bail earlier granted to the accused was cancelled in view of seriousness of the offence but the accused was permitted to apply for regular bail in the trial Court which was directed to dispose it on merits keeping in view the law explained by the Court. In the said judgment, in paragraph 9, the apex Court formulated the law in the following words: +

+
+ +
+ +

13. In view of aforesaid legal position, this Court finds that the learned ACJM acted in a mechanical manner in cancelling the bail of the petitioners only on ground of subsequent addition of Section 302 of the IPC without further considering whether, even in the altered situation, the petitioners deserve to be granted bail or not. As held earlier, the ground of tampering was improperly applied for cancellation of petitioners' bail. For all these reasons, this Court finds the impugned order dated 18.1.2001 fit to be quashed. It is, therefore, quashed but the interest of justice further requires that the matter be remitted back to the learned Magistrate for reconsidering the applications for cancellation of bail of both the petitioners in accordance with law and the observations noticed in this judgment. Interest of justice also warrants pointing out that for bail on merits the case of the two petitioners may stand on different footings and this aspect should also be kept in mind by the learned Magistrate while reconsidering the matter as per law. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_161702216.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_161702216.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..17df3f42d3f20ceb1bc8c0bda005df9b95120bcf --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_161702216.html @@ -0,0 +1,458 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Reserved On: 7.1.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

10. To substantiate plea to enlarge the petitioner on bail, + +learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon order dated 5.7.2023 + +passed in Cr.MP (M) No. 1501 of 2023, titled as Ram Singh @ Kaka + +Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has been + +enlarged on bail on 5.7.2023 after remaining in jail for 3 years 2 months. +

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred order + +dated 16.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1494 of 2023, titled as + 7 2025:HHC:2310 + + + +Rampal @ Ramphal Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section + +302 IPC has been enlarged on bail after remaining in custody for 4 years + +9 months by considering plea of the petitioner regarding delay in trial. + +

+
+ +
+

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred order dated + +20.10.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2481 of 2023, titled as Sanma + +Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has been + +released on bail after 3 years 3 months detention considering the fact + +that only 22 witnesses out of 30 witnesses were examined by that time. +

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on order + +dated 4.11.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2618 of 2023, titled as + +Jasbir Singh Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC + +has been released on bail after 3 years 5 months detention considering + +the fact that only 16 witnesses out of 39 witnesses were examined by + +that time. +

+
+ +
+ +

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred order + +dated 1.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1216 of 2023, titled as + +Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 + +IPC has been released on bail after 4 years detention considering the + +fact that only 13 witnesses out of 47 witnesses were examined by that + +time. +

+

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on order + +dated 24.7.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1217 of 2023, titled as + +Kulveer Singh Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 + +IPC has been released on bail after 1 year detention considering the fact + +that no witnesses out of 30 witnesses were examined by that time. +

+
+ +
+

28. Order dated 3rd September, 2024 passed in Cr.MP (M) No. + +1584 of 2024, titled as Krishan Kumar Vs. State of H.P. has also been + +referred by learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein petitioner an + +accused under Section 302 IPC was enlarged on bail after detention of 5 + +years 5 months by considering the fact that out of 48 witnesses only 16- + +18 witnesses had been examined and there was no likelihood of + +conclusion of trial in near future. +

+

29. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the + +petitioner on order dated 18.9.2024 passed in Cr.MP (M) No. 1804 of + +2024, titled as Suryakant Vs. State of H.P., wherein petitioner, an + +accused under Section 302 IPC, has been enlarged on bail by co- + +ordinate Bench on the ground of delay in trial after custody of more than + +3 years 10 months by taking into consideration the fact that there was no + +likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future as 23 witnesses were yet to + +be examined. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_161763429.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_161763429.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1abea5e55bad2c5affe80e4be7bb48c42682a72b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_161763429.html @@ -0,0 +1,516 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 24 May, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

- 15 - +

+

Section 307 IPC was inserted prior to it on 20.02.2024 + + and these bail applications were rejected by Learned + + Trial Court on 29.02.2024, on the ground, that the + + + + + . +

bail petitioners, have suppressed factum of insertion + + + + + + of Section 307 IPC in their bail applications ; coupled + + + + + + with the fact that the offence was grave/serious + + by deadly weapons and the fact that one of the + + + + + + weapon (Sword) has been recovered clearly points + + out, towards the intention of the bail petitioners to + + commit the offence and since the investigation was + + at nascent stage, therefore, grant of pre-arrest bail + + would have prejudiced the investigation, therefore, the + + + + Learned Trial Court dismissed the bail applications of + + the bail petitioners on 29.02.2024. +

+
+ +
+ +

ANALYSIS OF ORDER DATED 29.02.2024 + [Annexure P-2] PASSED BY LEARNED TRIAL + COURT-REJECTING BAIL APPLICATIONS: +

+

10. Though + + originally the FIR + + dated 20.1.2024 was registered under Sections 147, + + + 148, 149, 323 and 506 IPC, but keeping in view + + the medical opinion, gravity of offence, the nature of + + + injuries which were grievous in nature and dangerous + + to life, Section 307 IPC was inserted/added to the + + + + + aforesaid FIR on 20.02.2024, yet the bail petitioners + + + + + + filed the bail applications before Learned Trial Court + + + + + + i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, on 21.02.2024 + + without disclosing factum of Section 307 IPC having + + been inserted/added to the aforesaid FIR. All six bail + + application(s) were rejected by the Learned Trial Court + + + + + +

+
+ +
+
12 The most disturbing feature in this bail + + + + + application is that the bail applicant has + + + + + + misled this court while obtaining pre + arrest. Police report suggests that Section + 307 IPC had already been invoked against + + + + + + bail applicant and others on 20.02.2024 + and this application was admittedly + moved on 21.02.2024 and bail applicant + did not mention this fact in this application. + Thus, they are not entitled to relief from this + court on this count as well. +
+
+ +
+ +

19(ii). Mr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, Learned Senior + + Counsel, contends that another FIR No. 161 of 2022, + + dated 01.06.2022, was registered by one of the bail + + petitioners, namely, Satish Kumar, under Sections 341, + + + + 323 and 506 IPC, cannot be of any avail to the bail + + petitioners when, the aforesaid FIR, nowhere indicates + + + + + that the alleged offences were against or in the context + + + + + + of the complainant [Sandeep Kumar] and two friends, + + + + + + Neema and Kulbir, as in the instant case. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_162025117.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_162025117.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5663835eb8f38f2cede2d1da12dce425a91e4dcd --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_162025117.html @@ -0,0 +1,452 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Shri Basavaraj S/O Vasant Khilari vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 June, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

2. Case of the prosecution is that the victim lady is + +working as Aaya in Gurubasav School at Beeranagaddi. + +She is married and having two children. She used to go to + +Gokak for purchasing articles and she met one Basavarj + +Khilari - accused No. 6 and he took her saying that he will + +get her job. About two months ago, the victim lady and + +one Smt. Sharada had gone to Ghataprabha and after + +work they were waiting for bus. At that time one motor + +cyclist introduced himself as Vinod Talawar - a teacher in + +Harugeri and he took the phone number of the victim lady + +and they were in touch. On 05.09.2023, i.e., on teachers' + +day the victim lady had gone to Gokak and at that time + +she received a phone call from Vinod Talawar (C.W.16) + +and both of them had tea in a hotel. At that time, they + +met accused No. 6 - Basavaraj Khilari and he requested + +both of them to come to his room and have tea and all the + + NC: 2024:KHC-D:8204 + + C/W CRL.P No. 101347 of 2024, CRL.P No. + 101541 of 2024 + + +three of them went to Basavaraj Khilari's room. Accused + +No. 6 locked victim lady and Vinod Talawar in the room. At + +about 02.30 - 03.00 pm, 4 to 5 people came and asked + +them as to why they were staying in their room and + +assaulted them, took Rs.2,000/-, purse, ATM and mobile + +from Vinod Talawar and they assaulted the victim lady and + +took Rs.2,000/-, earrings, purse and mobile. They also + +demanded Rs.2,00,000/- to leave them. Later they made + +Vinod Talawar and victim lady to stand and took photos, + +video graphed, showed knife to her and removed her + +saree and raped one after another. At that time it was + +about 05.30 pm and Vinod Talawar ran away. The accused + +were talking to each other and their names were Ramesh + +Khilari, Durappa, Yallappa, Ramasidda and Krishna and + +they threatened them with dire consequences. Said + +complaint filed by the victim lady came to be registered in + +crime No. 132/2023 of Gokak Town Police Station for + +offence punishable under Sections 341, 342, 376D, 384 + +and 506 read with Section 149 IPC. During investigation + + NC: 2024:KHC-D:8204 + + C/W CRL.P No. 101347 of 2024, CRL.P No. + 101541 of 2024 + + +accused Nos. 1 and 6 came to be arrested. The Police after + +completing investigation filed charge sheet against the + +accused for offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, + +376-D, 384, 395, 397, 120-B, 506 read with Section 149 + +of IPC. Bail petitions filed by accused Nos.1 and 6 came to + +be rejected. Anticipatory bail petition filed by accused No. + +3 came to be rejected by the Sessions Court. Therefore, + +petitioners are before this Court seeking bail/anticipatory + +bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_16320042.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_16320042.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67e0b4dcfc98dac4a5aa19210c16a93c38dbdbe1 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_16320042.html @@ -0,0 +1,373 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Viparna Gaur vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 March, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
19. That the third condition imposed by this Hon'ble Court against the respondent no.2 to appear on the date fixed by the Trial Court. Now the respondent no.2 consistently seeks adjournment before the trial court in S.T. No. 566/2016 (State vs. P.C.Sharma & Ors.) U/s 307, 302 IPC registered at P.S. Ujhani, District Budaun. The respondent through his counsel to mislead the court, endorsed section 304-B IPC in place of section 307 and 302 IPC, so that his applications seeking adjournments may not be used for cancellation of his bail application before this Hon'ble Court. Ultimately on 26.08.2017 the resondent no.2 corrected the said offence alleged against him and transcribed the correct section U/s 302, 120-B IPC and seeks adjournment for his non appearance. The copy of applications dated 24.07.2017, 02.08.2017, 26.08.2017 and 08.09.2017 are being collectively filed here with and marked as Annexure No.8 to this affidavit. +
+
+ +
+ +

29. Thereafter, referring to 15 cases registered again accused showing that he was a history-sheeter and mostly under Section 302 IPC, order of bail was set aside. Court observed that there has to be a balance between personal liberty of an individual and peace and harmony of Society. No individual interest can be allowed to create a concavity in the stem of social stream otherwise it would bring chaos and anarchy in the Society. Relevant observations made in this regard are reproduced as under : +

+
+ +
+ +

34. In X vs. The State of Telangana and Ors. (2018)16 SCC 511, accused, a Film Producer, based in Mumbai, was charged of offences under Sections 376, 342, 493, 506, 354(C) of IPC. Accused got anticipatory bail from Sessions Judge on 13.01.2017 and had advantage of that order for about eight months. The said order was cancelled by Sessions Judge on the ground that accused has not disclosed that he was also accused in 2G Spectrum case. This cancellation order was affirmed by High Court and also by Supreme Court. Thereafter accused moved a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by High Court and accused was released on bail. This order was challenged in appeal before Supreme Court. Upholding the said order, Court said that bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case, based on supervening event has been made out. +

+
+ +
+ +

35. In Seema Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. (2018) 16 SCC 10 bail granted to accused by High Court in the case registered under Sections 498-A, 302, 120-B IPC was challenged in appeal before Supreme Court. Court noticed that accused-2's bail application was rejected by Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ghaziabad and thereafter bail was granted by High Court. Court said that gravity of offence is a relevant factor but not the sole ground to deny bail if there are other overwhelming circumstances justifying grant of bail. Noticing special feature, Court upheld order of High Court granting bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_163343814.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_163343814.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..56bdaf35a71cbb870dec9f48fc05eff6c3a78d67 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_163343814.html @@ -0,0 +1,424 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Girdhar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:11536) on 7 March, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

4. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.69/2024) +

5. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.69/2024) +

6. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.69/2024) + + +

8. Concerned Police Station Shreekaranpur +

+
+ +
+

12. Date of passing of 21.10.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.14884/2023) + +

14. Concerned Police Station Kotwali Barmer +

15. District Barmer +

16. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 420 and 406 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.14885/2023) +

17. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.14885/2023) +

+
+ +
+

34. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.15296/2023) +

35. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.15296/2023) +

36. Date of passing of 22.11.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.15296/2023) + +

38. Concerned Police Station Pratap Nagar +

+
+ +
+

76. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.90/2024) +

77. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.90/2024) +

78. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.90/2024) + + +

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no + + case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his + + incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in + + the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the + + accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based + + on conjectures and surmises. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_163694912.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_163694912.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9cb92f613fc67253c8a11334364c1a664754aeb3 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_163694912.html @@ -0,0 +1,378 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Virender Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 25 October, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ 
+
+    Resultantly,   present
+                      r       petition        is    allowed.       judgment        dated
+
+

22.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, + + Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Appeal No. 22-S/10 + + of 2009 and judgment/order of conviction dated 6.6.2009, passed + + + by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, District Solan (HP) + + in Criminal Case No. 171/2 of 2003 are quashed and set aside. +

+

Accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Ss. 279 and + + + + + + 337 IPC. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by him are discharged. Fine + + amount, if any, paid by him, is ordered to be refunded to him. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_163931844.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_163931844.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..93a4d73b61dc496ca03966f39773abff29614649 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_163931844.html @@ -0,0 +1,376 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + __________________________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 7 January, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

above as well as law relied upon, this Court has no hesitation to conclude + + + + + + that learned court below has not appreciated the evidence in its right + + perspective and as such, findings returned by it deserve to be set-aside. +

+

Accordingly, present appeal is allowed and judgment passed by the Court + + below is quashed and set-aside and appellant-accused is acquitted of the + + + + + + offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. +

+

Fine amount, if any deposited by the appellant, be refunded to him. Release + + warrants be prepared forthwith. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_164934996.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_164934996.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1d51c6c110770792e13cea112f6a0d0712c4245b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_164934996.html @@ -0,0 +1,369 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sant Prasad Jaiswal Alias Guddu Jaiswal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 May, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
(i) Bail Application No. 331 of 2019 in Case Crime No. 440 of 2017 under Section 120, 120-B, 265, 264, 420, 425 of I.P.C. Police Station- Thuthibari, District- Maharajganj rejected on 15.04.2019. +
+
(ii) Bail Application No. 236 of 2019 in Case Crime No. 290 of 2018 under Section 408, 409, 417, 418, 420, 427, 465, 468, 120-B of I.P.C and 22-B Sugarcane Act and 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, Police Station- Thuthibari, District- Maharajganj rejected on 15.04.2019. +
+
(iii) Bail Application No. 267 of 2019 in Case Crime No. 51 of 2018 under Section 418, 409 of I.P.C Police Station- Thuthibari, District- Maharajganj rejected on 15.04.2019. +
+
+ +
+ +
(iv) Bail Application No. 332 of 2019 in Case Crime No. 448 of 2015 under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, and 419, 420 of I.P.C Police Station- Thuthibari, District- Maharajganj rejected on 15.04.2019. +
+
(v) Bail Application No. 293 of 2019 in Case Crime No. 2417 of 2017 under Section 418,420,332 of I.P.C and 110 Cr.P.C Police Station Thuthibari, District- Maharajganj rejected on 15.04.2019. +
+
vi) Bail Application No. 377 of 2019 in Case Crime No. 149 of 2014 under Section 420 of I.P.C and 22 Sugarcane Act, Police Station- Thuthibari, District- Maharajganj rejected on 15.04.2019. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_165400190.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_165400190.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5b462c86d42659f14310510743637421b6f13975 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_165400190.html @@ -0,0 +1,2184 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sanjukta Samanta & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 30, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

+

Sanjukta Samanta & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2025

+ +
                                        1
+
+                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
+                   CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
+                            APPELLATE SIDE
+
+
+Present:
+
+The Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
+
+                              W.P.A. 15260 of 2024
+
+                             Sanjukta Samanta & Anr.
+                                       -Vs-
+                               Union of India & Ors.
+
+
+Petitioner No. 1 in person           : Mrs. Sanjukta Samanta
+
+Petitioner No. 2 in person           : Mr. Romit Dutta
+
+For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2        : Mr. Rajdeep Majumdar
+                                       Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Chakraborty
+
+For the State                        : Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury
+                                       Mr. Manas Kumar Sadhu
+                                       Ms. Subhasree Patel
+
+For the Respondent No. 13            : Mr. Neeraj Sekhar
+                                       Ms. Malabika Saha
+
+Heard on                             : 13.03.2025, 28.03.2025,
+                                       25.06.2025, 11.07.2025
+
+Judgment on                          : 26.09.2025
+
+Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-
+
+1. The instant writ petition had been assigned to this Court by the Hon'ble the
+
+  Chief Justice, High Court at Calcutta, after the instant writ petition had
+
+  been released by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court presiding over in
+
+  Court No.14 vide its Order dated 05.08.2024 replicated as follows:-
+
+            "Live streaming of Court proceeding has been paused.
+                                          2
+
+              Heard submission of the petitioner no.2 and the learned advocate
+          representing the respondent no.13.
+              The petitioner no.1 behaves in an extremely unruly manner before
+          the Court. She is highly agitated. The Court is not inclined to hear the
+          matter.
+              Let this matter be released from the list of this Bench and be placed
+          before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for necessary order."
+
+2. The instant writ petition had been filed, inter alia, praying for following
+
+  reliefs:-
+
+          "........
+          B. Writ of an/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+          respondents to declare the impugned proceedings of Chatterjeehat
+          Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 under sections
+          341/365/468/420/506/34         IPC   is   illegal,   void   ab   initio   and
+          unconstitutional;
+
+          C. Writ in nature of mandamus to quash the entire proceedings in
+          connection with Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated
+          04.05.2024 under sections 341/365/468/420/506/34 IPC pending
+          before Learned CJM at Howrah and being investigated by state
+          respondents;
+
+          D. Writ in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondents
+          and its men, subordinates, assignees to unconditionally forthwith
+          withdraw, recall, rescind all steps taken in pursuance of the
+          Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 under
+          sections 341/365/468/420/506/34 IPC;
+
+          E. Writ of an/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+          respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates and each one
+          of them to quash/set aside the impugned Notification issued by the
+          office of Respondent 6 vide Org No.618/CS dated 06.05.2024 through
+                                3
+
+which the investigation of Chatterjeehat Police Station Case no.78 of
+2023 dated 04.05.2023 was taken up by respondent no.7;
+
+F. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents to render appropriate protection to life, liberty and
+possession to the writ petitioner no.1 by the respondents 1, 2;
+
+G. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates and each one
+of them to hand over the Case Diary of Chatterjeehat Police Station
+Case no.78 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 to the office of Respondent no.4
+forthwith;
+
+H. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates to stay the
+investigation of impugned FIR Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 86 of
+2024 dated 04.05.2024 under sections 341/365/468/420/506/34
+IPC by respondent no.9 with immediate effect;
+
+I. Writ of an/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates not to take any
+coercive steps against the petitioners in connection with Chatterjeehat
+Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 under sections
+341/365/468/420/506/34 IPC;
+
+J. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates not to take any
+coercive steps against the petitioners in connection with any frivolous
+FIRs against the Writ Petitioners by the accused respondent 13 and his
+associates;
+
+K. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates to stay the
+impugned further investigation of Chatterjeehat Police Station Case
+no.78 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 by State CID respondents;
+                                           4
+
+         L. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+         respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates not to register
+         any false FIR against the Writ Petitioners by the instant accused
+         respondents and his associates without any preliminary inquiry as
+         well as without leave of this Hon'ble Court;
+
+         M. A writ of and/or in nature of certiorari directing the concerned
+         respondents being respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 thereof to transmit
+         and/or produce all relevant records lying with them to this Hon'ble
+         Court so that conscionable justice may be done after hearing the
+         respective parties to this writ petition;
+
+         N. A writ of and/or in nature of Mandamus commanding the
+         respondent authorities 1, 2 to render appropriate protection to protect
+         life and possession of the petitioner;
+         ......."
+3. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 contended to be the Learned Advocates practising
+
+  in the High Court at Calcutta as well as the Supreme Court of India. The
+
+  petitioners, on invitation by the respondent No.13, visited his house at
+
+  Tamilnadu to hold a conference with the father of respondent No.13
+
+  concerning the filing of affidavit-of-assets and liabilities in connection with a
+
+  dispute regarding domestic violence instituted against the respondent No.13
+
+  pending at the District Court of South 24-Parganas at Alipore.
+
+4. Petitioner No.1 learnt of certain false information presented through an
+
+  affidavit-on-oath before the Court of Learned 6 th Judicial Magistrate at
+
+  Alipore, South 24-Parganas concerning the occupation of respondent No.13
+
+  and confronted the same. The respondent No.13 consequently insulted the
+
+  petitioner, indignifying her with threats, defamation and dire consequences.
+
+  Subsequently, the petitioner No.1 was threatened by an associate of
+                                         5
+
+  respondent no.13 as narrated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the writ petition. The
+
+  petitioners, thereafter, forwarded a complaint through e-mail to the
+
+  respondent no.8 being the Commissioner of Police, Howrah and Kolkata
+
+  Police on 23rd of April, 2023 at 21:44 hours.
+
+5. On 29th of April, 2023 at about 08:30 P.M., the respondent no.13
+
+  accompanied by his associate forcefully entering the chamber of petitioner
+
+  no.1, physically molested and harassed her as stated in paragraph 8 of the
+
+  writ petition. Meanwhile, the unknown associate vandalized the chamber of
+
+  the petitioner and escaped therefrom along with a mobile of model Vivo -
+
+  Y100 and a sum of Rs.65,000/- in cash.
+
+6. The petitioners initially refrained to proceed against the criminal acts of
+
+  respondent no.13, however, ultimately lodged a complaint against the
+
+  aforesaid respondents at the office of respondent no.8 and 9, i.e., Officer-in-
+
+  Charge of Chatterjeehat Police Station at Howrah on 03.05.2023 at 20:21
+
+  hours and the complaint was registered as Chatterjeehat Police Station Case
+
+  No.78      of      2023       dated       04.05.2023      under       Sections
+
+  420/406/448/341/323/354B/307/376/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal
+
+  Code. The respondent no.13 was, thereafter, arrested by the office of the
+
+  respondent no.9 who later on obtained an order of bail from the Hon'ble
+
+  Court.
+
+7. The petitioners had filed a complaint registered by the police being Howrah
+
+  P.S. Case No.262 of 2023 dated 27.07.2023 under Sections 195A/506/34 of
+
+  the Indian Penal Code against the associates of respondent no.13 for being
+
+  threatened as mentioned in paragraph 15 of the writ petition.
+                                          6
+
+8. The petitioners contended to have been insinuated through various means
+
+  as stated in paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the writ petition. The
+
+  predicaments of the petitioners had been vividly described in paragraphs 25,
+
+  26, 27, 28, and 29 of the writ petition. The petitioner no.1 claimed herself to
+
+  be a member of a political party, who had dealt with a Public Interest
+
+  Litigation in person addressing the grievances in connection with an incident
+
+  which occurred at Sandeshkhali in West Bengal through a writ petition
+
+  being No.WPA(P) 78 of 2024 before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and
+
+  SLP(C ) No.9462/9465 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
+
+  The petitioner no.1's combat and opposition against injustice towards
+
+  general women through the aforesaid writ petition rendered her aged senior
+
+  citizen parents to suffer from trauma and threats at the behest of her
+
+  competitive political party. The petitioner no.1 narrated the conduct of the
+
+  Learned Public Prosecutor of the State of West Bengal in paragraphs 35 and
+
+  36 of the writ petition.
+
+9. The petitioners in the instant writ petition further stated as follows:-
+
+       (i) The State respondents in collusion and conspiracy with the accused
+
+          respondent no. 13 had registered the said FIR being Chatterjeehat PS
+
+          Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 against the petitioner no.1 and
+
+          petitioner no.2, who was prime witness of the heinous crime
+
+          happened to her in the form of Chatterjeehat PS Case No.78 of 2023
+
+          dated 04.05.2023 to achieve their ulterior motive to put the instant
+
+          petitioner no.1 and 2, behind the bar for restraining the petitioner
+
+          no.1 from representing herself for the sexual assault victims of
+                                    7
+
+   Sandeshkhali, West Bengal as in person PIL Writ petitioner therein
+
+   before Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in WPA (P) 78 of 2024.
+
+(ii) The instant false and fabricated FIR being Chatterjeehat PS Case
+
+   No.86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 was the delayed counterblast of the
+
+   Chargesheeted Case being Chatterjeehat Police Station Case no 78 of
+
+   2023 dated 04.05.2023, Howrah PS Case 262 of 2023 dated
+
+   27.07.2023 and Chatterjeehat PS Case 23 of 2024 dated 05.02.2024.
+
+(iii) The instant false FIR against Writ Petitioners was lodged by complete
+
+   misusing the liberty granted by Hon'ble High Court in WPA 23711 of
+
+   2023 while the Hon'ble High Court while disposing WPA 23711 of
+
+   2023 vide order dated 16.04.2024 never granted liberty to the
+
+   accused respondent 13 to lodge a fresh /de novo complaint before
+
+   police against petitioners with inordinate delay for registration of FIR.
+
+(iv) The accused respondent no.13 in collusion and conspiracy with the
+
+   State police had misused and abused the Hon'ble High Court given
+
+   liberty to fabricate instant petitioners into a false, fabricated FIR.
+
+(v) The respondent no.3, being clubbed up with the state respondents
+
+   had been actively involved in terrorizing the victim writ petitioner and
+
+   prime eye witness her husband of the case being Chatterjeehat PS
+
+   Case No.78 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 by way of taking up
+
+   investigation of the case by CID in completely mala fide manner
+
+   totally contradictory as mandated by law as well as by way of filing
+
+   such false and fabricated FIR against the petitioner and her husband.
+                                  8
+
+(vi) After coming out of judicial custody and police custody for
+
+   commission of crime of sexual violence against petitioner in
+
+   connection with Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 78 of 2923 dated
+
+   04.05.2023, to wreak personal vengeance the prime               accused
+
+   respondent 13 had created a false, fabricated story of his alleged
+
+   abduction of himself at same time while he committed crime and had
+
+   lodged FIR against writ petitioner after one year of inordinate delay.
+
+(vii) She, being the de-facto complainant of Chatterjeehat PS Case 78 of
+
+   2023 dated 04.05.2023, was not being able to return at her home city
+
+   Calcutta as well as she had not been able to represent the sexual
+
+   assault victims of Sandeshkhali, West Bengal in the PIL WPA(P) 78 of
+
+   2024 (physically , which was the PIL filed by her as in person at first
+
+   instance for protection of Vulnerable victims therein) before the
+
+   Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and before this Hon'ble Supreme
+
+   Court as SLP (C) No. 9462-9465 of 2024 .
+
+ (viii) Due to registration of said false FIR being Chatterjeehat PS Case
+
+   86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 upon a deviated version of original
+
+   crime incident happened to the writ petitioner no. 1, she would not be
+
+   able to represent herself as in person petitioner de-facto complainant
+
+   before the Learned Trial Courts and before Hon'ble High Court in
+
+   several proceedings under severe threat of her and her husband's
+
+   arrest by the State police machineries upon said false FIR registered
+
+   against the Writ Petitioner and her husband.
+                                         9
+
+       (ix) The petitioner stated that the FIR being Chatterjeehat PS Case 86 of
+
+          2024 dated 04.05.2024 was registered to wreak personal vengeance
+
+          against the writ petitioner and her husband by the state police
+
+          respondents in collusion and conspiracy with the accused respondent
+
+          no.13.
+
+10. The investigation in Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.78 of 2023 dated
+
+   04.05.2023 was entrusted upon respondent no.6 C.I.D., West Bengal at the
+
+   instance of the Learned Public Prosecutor, State of West Bengal unilaterally
+
+   without an order passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta to the
+
+   astonishment of the petitioners which, according to the petitioners, had been
+
+   biased and politically motivated.
+
+11. The petitioners are of the firm conviction to be betrayed with right to fair
+
+   investigation and fair trial to their utter detriment and prejudice. The
+
+   petitioners, being intimidated by the action on the part of the State agencies,
+
+   further sought for personal protection as she had been constantly threatened
+
+   by the police offices, CID officials etc. The petitioners, as would appear from
+
+   the order-sheets of the instant writ petition, appeared before this Court in
+
+   person and agitated their trauma and agony to have been continuously
+
+   threatened by the respondents and other State officials resulting in their
+
+   apprehension of life and property to be in extreme danger and peril.
+
+12. The petitioner no.1 claimed to have been physically molested by the
+
+   respondent no.13 and the State agencies constantly threatened and
+
+   harassed her preventing her to pursue her profession as a lawyer and to
+
+   fight for the cause demanding protection of women's life, right and dignity.
+                                          10
+
+   Petitioners appearing in person submitted the Learned Public Prosecutor on
+
+   his own accord had transferred the investigation to the CID agencies without
+
+   an order of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta to investigate the
+
+   Chatterjeehat Police Station Case being No.78 of 2023 as aforesaid to wreak
+
+   vengeance against them.
+
+13. The order dated 23.08.2024 passed by this Court is replicated hereinbelow:-
+
+             "The learned advocates for the respondent nos.3 to 11 and the
+
+          respondent no.13 are present.
+
+             The petitioner no.1 appeared online prior to the recess expressing
+          her extreme urgency for listing the matter for hearing. Accordingly, a
+          supplementary list was prepared fixing the matter at 2.00 p.m.
+             The petitioner no.1 did not appear before the Court either in-person
+          or online at the time of hearing though the petitioner no.2 appeared
+          online and submitted due to medical emergency, the petitioner no.1
+          could not appear before the Court.
+             It was further submitted by the petitioner no.2 that the Union of
+          India being the respondent no.1 and the Central Industrial Security
+          Force being the respondent no.2, should be providing proper security to
+          the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and their presence was required for
+          adjudication of the instant writ petition at the time of hearing.
+             The petitioner nos.1 and 2 are directed to serve a notice upon the
+          learned advocate for the respondent nos.1 and 2 intimating the next
+          date of hearing on 3rd September, 2024 and to file an affidavit of
+          service to that effect.
+             Next date be fixed on 3rd September, 2024 at 2.00 p.m. for further
+
+          hearing."
+
+14. Subsequently, on 03.09.2024 the petitioner no.1 and 2 appeared in person
+
+   and submitted the arbitrary action on the part of the Learned Public
+                                          11
+
+   Prosecutor to have initiated the investigation through CID, West Bengal
+
+   without the direction obtained from the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
+
+   Howrah based on a communication addressed to the same and referred to an
+
+   order dated 08th April, 2024 passed by an Hon'ble Co-Ordinate Bench of this
+
+   Court in CRR 1023 of 2024.
+
+15. Considering the submissions of the petitioners in person, this Court passed
+
+   an order dated 03.09.2024 as replicated hereinbelow:-
+
+             "The supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner no.1-in-person
+          be kept on record. Copies of the same have been served upon the
+          leaned advocates appearing for the other respective respondents.
+             The petitioners-in-person referred to the order dated 8 th April, 2024
+          passed by a Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of Court in CRR 1023 of 2024
+          as well as to the communication addressed to the learned Chief
+          Judicial Magistrate, Howrah Court, marked as "annexure P-10" to the
+          writ petition. The petitioners as aforesaid further submitted that the
+          communication to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah Court
+          referring to CID investigation was not directed through an order of this
+          Court, as aforesaid.
+             The learned advocate for the State refers to the Police Regulation
+          Bengal, 1943 whereby the CID can on its own take up the
+          investigation. The learned advocate for the State is requested to inform
+          the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Debasis Ray to be present before
+          this Court on the next date of hearing to explain as to what prompted
+          him to submit before the Coordinate Bench that the investigations were
+          to be conducted up by the CID, West Bengal.
+             The learned advocate for the respondents are to file respective reply
+          to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners-in-person before
+          the Court on the next date with regard to the possibility of security to
+          be provided to the petitioner no.1 as claimed in the instant writ petition.
+                                         12
+
+             Heard the submission of the learned advocate representing the
+          respondent no.13.
+             The status report filed by the learned advocate for the State be kept
+          on record. A copy of the same has been served upon the petitioner
+          nos.1 and 2 in Court.
+             Next date be fixed on 17th September, 2024."
+16. Vide order dated 17.09.2024, this Court had appointed Learned Senior
+
+   Advocate Mr. Milon Mukherjee, the Learned Advocate Mr. Souvik Mitter and
+
+   Learned Advocate Ms. Sutapa Sanyal to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae in
+
+   order to dispose of the instant writ petition which was accepted by the
+
+   aforesaid Learned Advocates. The order dated 17.09.2024 passed by this
+
+   Court replicated as follows:-
+
+             "The learned senior advocate Mr. Milon Mukherjee, the learned
+          advocate Mr. Souvik Mitter and the learned advocate Ms. Sutapa
+          Sanyal have been requested to assist the Court as amicus curiae in
+          order to dispose of the instant writ petition and the same has been
+          accepted by the aforesaid learned advocates.
+             The learned advocate representing the respondent no.13 submits to
+          serve a copy of the writ petition along with the annexed documents and
+          the orders to the learned advocates appointed as amicus curiae in this
+          matter.
+             The learned advocate representing respondent nos.1 and 2 are
+          present and submitted the opinion of the Union of India with regard to
+          the provision of safety and security, generally accorded to specific
+          individuals subject to certain circumstances.
+             It is further submitted that the Ministry of Home Affairs is the
+          appropriate authority to provide safety and security to an individual
+          considering the threat perception after thorough assessment of the
+          facts and circumstances of a distinct case.
+                                          13
+
+                Heard the submissions of the learned advocates appointed as
+          amicus curiae and also the submissions of the petitioner no.1 and 2
+          appearing in-person.
+                The learned advocate representing the respondent no.13 seeks time
+          to file an affidavit-in-opposition to the supplementary affidavit filed by
+          the petitioner nos.1 and 2 appearing in-person after the processes for
+          filing the same gets endorsed through the concerned authority
+          pertaining to Bangladesh and the same is allowed.
+                Next date be fixed on 4th October, 2024 at 2.00 p.m. for further
+          hearing."
+17. On 04th October, 2024, the petitioner no.2 appeared online and submitted to
+
+   have preferred an appeal before the Division Bench presided over by the
+
+   Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court at Calcutta and sought for time on
+
+   that ground. PW-1 did not appear before the Court. Petitioner no.1 and
+
+   petitioner no.2 were directed to file an affidavit preferring an appeal as
+
+   aforesaid.
+
+18. On 18th November, 2024, petitioner no.1 did not appear before this Court
+
+   either in person or online. Petitioner no.2 appeared online and filed a
+
+   supplementary affidavit through is concerned Learned Advocate Mr. Arkadeb
+
+   Nag in open Court which, inter alia, stated the grievance of the petitioners
+
+   against the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by this Court in WPA 15260 of
+
+   2024 for seeking assistance of the Learned Advocates of this Court to act as
+
+   Amicus Curiae as aforesaid.
+
+19. The appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Division Bench presided over by
+
+   the Hon'ble the Chief Justice being MAT 2051 of 2024 on 6 th of November,
+
+   2024. Moreover, the fate of the said appeal had not been communicated to
+
+   this Court, if at all the hearing had been conducted. On 18 th November,
+                                            14
+
+   2024, the Learned Public Prosecutor appeared before this Court in
+
+   compliance with the order dated 03.09.2024 whereby this Court had sought
+
+   for an explanation as to what prompted him to submit before the Co-
+
+   ordinate Bench that the investigation of the Chatterjeehat Police Station
+
+   Case Nos.86 of 2024, 78 of 2023 and 23 of 2024 was to be conducted by the
+
+   CID, West Bengal.
+
+20. The Learned Public Prosecutor submitted several complaints and allegations
+
+   against two Hon'ble Judges of this Court and the officials of the
+
+   Chatterjeehat Police Station by the petitioners compelled him to ensure the
+
+   investigation to be carried out by an agency not comprising of the said
+
+   officials   of   the   Chatterjeehat   Police   Station   and   to   obliterate   the
+
+   apprehension of partial and biased investigation, the same was asked to be
+
+   conducted by the CID, State of West Bengal.
+
+21. On 19th of December, 2024, the Learned Public Prosecutor in compliance
+
+   with the order dated 18th November, 2024 filed a report stating the status of
+
+   investigation concerning the aforesaid police station cases. On 19 th
+
+   December, 2024, the Learned Public Prosecutor filed the report as aforesaid
+
+   along with an explanation as sought for. The petitioner no.1 was neither
+
+   present before the Court nor appeared online. Petitioner no.2 appeared
+
+   online and stated the appeal filed before the Division Bench was appearing
+
+   in the Daily List to be called for hearing. The petitioner no.1 and 2 had been
+
+   time and again asked by this Court to produce the details of the complaint or
+
+   G.D. Entry number which they claimed to have filed in the concerned police
+
+   station on several occasions for being threatened, physically manhandled,
+                                             15
+
+   molested and harassed. The petitioners did not produce any reference to that
+
+   effect before this Court.
+
+22. An order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in
+
+   WPA 23711 of 2023 is replicated as follows:-
+
+               "The respondent no. 12 appears in-person and tries to out shout
+             others. In spite of request made by the Court to calm down, she does
+             not relent and continues with her belligerent demeanour.
+               In view of this, I am not inclined to take up this matter.
+               Accordingly, the matter is released from my list."
+23. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners and the respondent no.13 who
+
+   had been the erstwhile client of the petitioners who sought for legal
+
+   assistance of the petitioners engaging them to be his advocates had filed writ
+
+   petitions being No.WPA 23711 of 2023 and WPA 21868 of 2023 wherein
+
+   several complaints had been filed against each other. Vide an order dated
+
+   16.04.2024, a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following
+
+   order:-
+
+               "Both these writ petitions are taken up for hearing together. It
+             appears that the petitioners in both the cases have filed several
+             complaints against each other.
+                                In Re: W.P.A. No.23711 of 2023
+               The petitioners in WPA No.23711 of 2023 lodged several complaints
+             against the petitioner in WPA No.21868 of 2023 before the Criminal
+             Investigation Department, West Bengal. In this writ petition, some of
+             the complaints have been annexed at annexure P/15. The petitioners
+             allege that no case has been registered or investigation has been
+             initiated following the said complaints.
+               I am of the view that the petitioners should lodge complaint before
+             the concerned police station at the first instance.
+                               16
+
+  Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty upon the
+petitioners to lodge complaint before the concerned police station. If the
+complaint discloses any cognizable offence, the relevant police station
+shall take steps to register F.I.R. and investigate the matter in
+accordance with law.
+  Accordingly,    W.P.A.    No.23711      of    2023     and    connected
+applications, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024 and CAN 2 of 2024 are
+disposed of.
+                   In Re: W.P.A. No.21868 of 2023
+  The petitioner in this case is a lady advocate. It appears that she
+also filed several complaints against the petitioners in WPA No.23711
+of 2023.
+  Following the complaints, the Investigating Agency has filed
+Chatterjeehat P.S. charge sheet no.191/23 dated 31.10.2022 under
+Sections 420/406/448/341/ 323/307/379/354B/376/506/34 of the
+Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Howrah P.S. charge sheet no.277/23
+dated 30.09.2023 under Sections 195A/506/34 of the 3 Indian Penal
+Code, 1860, before the jurisdictional Court. The trials have not yet
+commenced.
+  It is the grievance of the petitioner that while attending the Courts in
+connection with the aforesaid criminal cases, she is being harassed
+and even attacked by the petitioners in WPA No.23711 of 2023. These
+allegations have been vehemently denied by the petitioners in WPA
+No.23711 of 2023.
+  This Court is not in a position to appreciate the factual disputes. It is
+only expected that if the petitioner approaches the learned Trial Court
+seeking her protection, to ensure a free and fair trial, her prayer shall
+be considered by the Court below by passing necessary order.
+  Accordingly,    W.P.A.    No.21868      of    2023     and    connected
+applications, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2023 and CAN 2 of 2024 are
+disposed of."
+                                           17
+
+24. The present petitioners in the instant writ petition had filed an appeal
+
+   against the order dated 16.04.2024 passed in WPA 23711 of 2023 and WPA
+
+   21868 of 2023 before the Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble the
+
+   Chief Justice of this Court. By a judgment dated 21.05.2024 in MAT 831 of
+
+   2024, the Hon'ble Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice
+
+   of this Court had passed a judgment replicated as follows:-
+
+          "1. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties.
+          2. The appellant no.2, who is appearing online and he had sent a
+          message in the chat box praying that the live streaming of the
+          proceedings be paused. Acceding to the request made by the appellant
+          no.2, live streaming of the proceeding was paused.
+          3. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order passed in
+          W.P.A. No.23711 of 2023. The said writ petition was filed by the
+          respondent herein stating that several complaints have been lodged
+          against the respondents before the Criminal Investigation Department,
+          West Bengal and some of the complaints were annexed to the writ
+          petition. Further, the writ petitioners allege that no case has been
+          registered or investigated based on the complaints lodged by the
+          respondents/writ petitioners.
+          4. The learned Single Bench did not go into the merits of the matter but
+          disposed of the writ petition by the impugned order observing that the
+          writ petitioners, if aggrieved, should lodge complaint before the
+          concerned police station, at the first instance. Accordingly, the writ
+          petition was disposed of granting liberty to the writ petitioners to lodge
+          complaint before the concerned police station with an observation that
+          if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the relevant police
+          station shall take steps to register F.I.R. and investigate the matter in
+          accordance with law.
+          5. We failed to understand as to how the appellants before us, whose
+          names have been masked at their request, are aggrieved by the order
+                                          18
+
+          passed in the writ petition as the learned Writ Court has not gone into
+          the merits of the matter and left it open to the writ petitioners to work
+          out their remedy before the concerned police station.
+          6. The appellant no.2, who is appearing online, submitted that several
+          cases have been registered against them and there is a threat of
+          arrest. If that be so, it is well open to the appellants to invoke the
+          provisions of law available to them and approach the competent forum
+          for necessary relief.
+          7. Thus, we find no ground has been made out to interfere with the
+          order passed in the writ petition.
+          8. With the above observations/directions, appeal as well as the
+          connected application (IA No. CAN 1 of 2024) stand dismissed.
+          9. No costs.
+          10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
+          furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal
+          formalities."
+25. Subsequent to the aforesaid orders passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench and
+
+   the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner no.1 and 2 failed to
+
+   place any document of complaint filed by them before the concerned police
+
+   authorities claiming threat to their personal life and property and of any
+
+   action restricting their liberty to pursue their profession with dignity.
+
+26. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.1 and 2 submitted the
+
+   opinion of the Union of India specifically the Ministry of Home Affairs to be
+
+   the appropriate authority to provide safety and security to an individual
+
+   considering the threat perception after thorough assessment of the facts and
+
+   circumstances of a distinct case. It was further urged neither the police
+
+   authorities concerned nor this Court can assess whether the petitioners
+
+   required to be provided safety and security on the basis of personal claim of
+                                            19
+
+   a threat perception since it was within the absolute domain of the Ministry of
+
+   Home Affairs to ascertain and decide the seriousness and gravity of the
+
+   situation to provide safety and security to any individual.
+
+27. The Learned Advocate representing the State-respondents submitted despite
+
+   the order of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioners did not co-
+
+   operate with the investigation and suspected the investigating agency of
+
+   biasedness, arbitrariness and to wreck vengeance against the petitioners for
+
+   having dealt with a Public Interest Litigation against the State authorities
+
+   concerning an incident at Sandeshkhali. The petitioners were of the opinion
+
+   to be prejudicially prevented and impartial hearing and failed a transfer
+
+   petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India being Transfer Petitions
+
+   Criminal Nos.701/702 of 2024 which was dismissed as the Hon'ble Supreme
+
+   Court observed no case for transfer to have been made out vide its order
+
+   dated September 2, 2024.
+
+28. The petitioners had also filed writ petition criminal No.236 of 2024 before the
+
+   Supreme Court of India which was withdrawn by the petitioners. The
+
+   petitioners had accused the police personnels and other officials and had
+
+   impleaded them in the instant writ petition without plausible reasons and
+
+   did   not   deliberately   co-operate    with   the   investigation   citing   their
+
+   dissatisfaction as the same had been conducted by the CID, West Bengal
+
+   further stating to the Investigating Officer that the investigation should be
+
+   conducted by the CBI.
+
+29. The Learned Advocate representing the State further submitted it would not
+
+   be possible for the Writ Court to quash the proceedings since the complaint
+                                         20
+
+   as well as the FIR delineated commission of cognizable offences and the
+
+   charge-sheet had been submitted with further prayer on the part of the
+
+   Investigating Officer to file a supplementary charge-sheet. The Writ Court in
+
+   case of the offences being cognizable and the conundrum between the
+
+   parties should be decided through trial by the competent court. The Writ
+
+   Court should not exercise its jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.
+
+30. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 submitted the
+
+   petitioners to have instituted false and malicious complaints against the
+
+   respondent no.13 with an intention to incriminate him in serious offences of
+
+   rape, theft etc. The father of the respondent no.13 being a nonagenarian
+
+   person had been dragged mercilessly into humiliation, despair, agony and
+
+   trauma. The petitioners on being asked to be relieved of their professional
+
+   responsibility to represent the respondent no.13 and to withdraw the cases
+
+   on account of reconciliation between the respondent no.13 and his wife
+
+   infuriated the petitioners to lodge frivolous and baseless complaints against
+
+   the respondent no.13 whereby the same being a professional oncologist
+
+   practising in Bangladesh had been arrested and was released on bail. It was
+
+   further submitted the respondent no.13 to have been kidnapped by the
+
+   petitioners, physically assaulted and captivated.
+
+31. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 submitted that the
+
+   petitioner no.1 had instituted complaint cases against her and the same had
+
+   not been taken cognizance of by the CMM vide order dated 13.07.2023
+
+   passed in CS/71375/2023.
+                                         21
+
+32. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 further submitted
+
+   to have been repeatedly threatened and abused by the petitioners on the
+
+   corridor of this Court along with her junior who happened to be a practising
+
+   advocate in this Court. Against complaints registered as FIR, criminal
+
+   revisional applications have been pending before the respective Co-Ordinate
+
+   Bench of this Court.
+
+33. The petitioners were trying to frustrate the proceedings by delaying the
+
+   hearing of the same on several pretexts to the predicament of the respondent
+
+   no.13. Moreover, since the investigation had proceeded to a considerable
+
+   extent, the writ petition should not be entertained.
+
+34. The relationship between the petitioners and the respondent no.13
+
+   apparently had been cordial at the inception whereby the petitioners
+
+   accorded legal assistance to respondent no.13 to defend him in several cases
+
+   instituted against him in the Court of law, which gradually might have
+
+   evolved to be trustworthy and amicable to the extent the petitioners
+
+   accompanied the respondent no.13 to his parents' house at Tamil Nadu to
+
+   assist the respondent no.13 and his father in property related issues and its
+
+   assessment thereof. In course of time, the professional and congenial
+
+   relationship seemingly transformed into resentment and hostility.
+
+35. The petitioner no.1 subsequently on 28.04.2023 was asked to withdraw the
+
+   following cases pending before the respective Courts as stated below:-
+
+          "(i) Divorce Case 1647 of 2022 pending at 13 th ADJ, Alipore
+          (ii) Objection in Restitution Case 1535 of 2022 pending at 6 th ADJ,
+          Alipore
+                                              22
+
+             (iii) All my objection petitions and non maintainability petitions filed by
+             me in Maintenance Case 613 of 2021 pending at 6 th JM, Alipore
+             (iv) Non-maintainability petition in DV Case 561 of 2023 pending at 6 th
+             JM, Alipore"
+36. Respondent no.13 asked the petitioner no.1 through a communication dated
+
+   03.05.2023 for relieving her to take any further steps in the following legal
+
+   matters pending before the various Courts alleging the petitioner no.1 and 2,
+
+   inter alia, to have failed to maintain their professional ethics and discipline
+
+   as mentioned therein:-
+
+             "(i) 613/2021 - 6th JM, Alipore
+             (ii) 1535/2022 - 6th ADJ, Alipore
+             (iii) 1647/2022 - 13th ADJ, Alipore
+             (iv) 561/2023 - 6th JM, Alipore
+             (v) 38867/2023 - 14th Metropolitan Magistrate, Bankshall Court"
+
+37. The relationship between the disputants worsened with lapse of time and the
+
+   petitioner filed complaints against the respondent no.13 and his associates.
+
+38. Based on the complaint filed by the petitioner herein Chatterjeehat Police
+
+   Station     Case    No.23    of    2024     dated   05.02.2024    under    Sections
+
+   341/323/325/326B/354A/354B/509/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code
+
+   anticipatory bail was granted in favour of the accused therein vide order
+
+   dated 13.03.2024 passed by this Court in CRM(A) 880 of 2024.
+
+39. Based on the complaint of the petitioner herein Chatterjeehat Police Station
+
+   Case       No.78      of    2023      dated     04.05.2023       under     Sections
+
+   420/406/448/341/323/307/379/354B/376/506(2)/34 of the Indian Penal
+
+   Code had been instituted against the accused persons mentioned therein.
+                                            23
+
+40. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 submitted the
+
+   complaint filed by the respondent no.13 dated 28 th April, 2024 accused the
+
+   petitioners of abduction, extortion, physical assault, threat to murder,
+
+   defamation, confiscation of passport, ATM card and other official documents
+
+   perjury, forgery implicating in false and fabricated criminal cases to extort
+
+   money.
+
+41. Records further reveal an FIR to have been instituted by the Sathuvachari
+
+   Police Station, Vellore, on the basis of the complaint received from one Dr.
+
+   Debidas Rai who alleged that his son was missing referring to the present
+
+   petitioners to have visited his house claiming for further money to defend his
+
+   sons petitioners' case.
+
+42. The respondent no.13 who had been an accused in Chatterjeehat Police
+
+   Station       Case     No.78      of         2023   filed   under    Sections
+
+   420/406/448/341/323/379/354B/307/376/506/34 of the Indian Penal
+
+   Code was granted bail vide order dated 03.08.2023 passed by this Court in
+
+   CRM (DB) 3080 of 2023.
+
+43. The Learned Public Prosecutor had submitted the status report prepared by
+
+   the concerned Investigating Officer:-
+
+             "1. Case No. and date of registration: Chatterjeehat (Howrah Police
+             Commissionerate) PS Case No 78/2023 dt 04/05/2023
+             2. Sections of law: U/S 420/ 406/ 448/ 341/ 323/ 379/ 354B/
+             307/376/506/34 IPC.
+             3. Control order No. & Date: The case was assumed by CID W.B.
+             Vide Org No 618/CS. Dt. 06/08/24.
+                               24
+
+4. Name and rank of investigating officer: (i) SI Sudipta Kar of
+Chatterjeehat (Howrah Police Commissionerate) PS (ii) Inspector
+Swapna Ghosh O/C, POWC Cell, CID, WB.
+5. Gist of FIR: On 04/05/2023 at 17.25 hrs to the Officer In-Charge of
+Chatterjeehat PS received a written complaint from the complainant
+and perused the complaint properly. On the basis of a written
+complaint of the Victim Lady against one Deepak Shankar Ray and
+others to the effect that she was appointed as an advocate by the
+alleged person since month of December, 2021. The accused person
+was very reluctant to pay her professional fees as per norms of several
+Vakalatnamas executed by him in several cases. Till date the
+complainant owes Rs 1000000/- to the alleged person as her
+professional fees. But in spite of several reminders, he refused to pay
+her the same and threatened her with dire consequences. Thereafter
+on 29.04.2023 at around 20.30 hrs the alleged person came at the
+chamber of the complainant situated at 93 Abinash Banerjee Lane, PS-
+Chatterjeehat, Howrah and forcefully entered in to the chamber and
+committed theft in respect of some cash and mobile phone, then on
+being protest the alleged person outrage her female modesty and also
+trying to kill her by grabbing her throat. Then while the complainant
+felt down on the floor, the alleged person kicked in her lower private
+part and also forcibly inserted one of his left-hand finger at her lower
+private part. Over the complaint of the complainant Chatterjeehat PS
+Case No. 78/23 dated 04.05.2023 u/s 420/406/448/341/323/379
+3548/307/376/506/34 IPC has been started.
+6. Details of FIR named accused: (i) Deepak Shankar Ray(53yrs),
+S/O Debidas Ray of S-3, 2nd street, Sathuvachari, CMC Colony, Vellore,
+Tamil
+Nadu- 632009 and Flat No - 303, Sailagreen, 1137 Kalikapur,
+Purbalok, PS Purba Jadavpur, Kolkatta- 700099 (ii) Kanad Saha- S/O
+Lt Kunal Saha of Block - D2, Flat No - 402, Kendriya Vihar, Phase - II,
+PO- Birati, Dist North 24 Prgns, Kolkata - 700051. (iii) Debidas Ray
+                              25
+
+s/o of Lt. Nagendranath Ray of S-3, 2nd street, Sathuvachari, CMC
+Colony, Vellore, Tamil Nadu- 632009.
+7. Details of arrest: (i) Deepak Shankar Ray(53yrs), s/o Debidas Ray
+of S-3, 2nd street, Sathuvachari, CMC Colony, Vellore, Tamil Nadu-
+632009 and Flat No - 303, Sailagreen, 1137 Kalikapur, Purbalok, PS
+Purba Jadavpur, Kolkatta- 700099, was arrested on 11.07.2023 and
+forwarded before Ld. CJM, Howrah Sadar Court on 12.07.2023. (ii)
+Kanad Saha - S/O Lt Kunal Saha of Block - D2, Flat No - 402,
+Kendriya Vihar, Phase - II, PO- Birati, Dist North 24 Prgns, Kolkata -
+700051 was released on bail by Hon'ble High Court Calcutta on
+21.08.2023 and Ld. CJM, Howrah Sadar Court on 25.09.23. (iii)
+Debidas Ray s/o of Lt. Nagendranath Ray of S-3, 2nd street,
+Sathuvachari, CMC Colony, Vellore, Tamil Nadu- 632009 was granted
+anticipatory Bail by Hon'ble High Court Calcutta on 25.09.2023.
+8. Steps Taken During Investigation by the District Police:
+During investigation of the case I Sudipta Kar of Chatterjeehat PS
+visited the place of Occurrence and prepared a details index of the PO
+and prepared a rough sketch map. The IO examined the complainant
+and others available witnesses and recorded their statement U/S 161
+Cr.P.C. Medico legal examination of Victim Lady was performed by the
+Dr. Debhina Ghosal of Howrah District Hospital. He also arranged to
+record the Judicial Statement of the victim lady with the help of LSI
+Nitu Biswas of Howrah Women PS and produced the victim lady before
+the Ld Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 4th Court, Howrah, recorded her
+statement judicially U/S 164 Cr.P.C and also collected the copy of
+judicial statement from Ld Court, Howrah District.
+Previous IO collected the medico legal report along with one sealed
+envelope containing one glass tube & one glass slide containing the
+swab/ spermatozoa from Howrah District Hospital. IO sent prayer to
+ACP DD, HPC for providing the CDR of the accused person's mobile
+number which was provided by the VG to trace them out and also
+prayed for IMEI searching of the complainant's mobile phone which
+                                26
+
+was taken away by the accused from the PO. In course of
+investigation, IO seized the wearing apparels of the victim lady which
+were worn by her at the time of incident and also seized the bill of the
+alleged mobile which was taken away by the accused and one
+prescription of Dr Souvik Roy who examined the victim lady after the
+incident. In course of investigation, IO held several raids under Purba
+Jadavpur PS area & Naihati PS area to arrest the accused persons but
+no fruitful result achieved. Then IO collected the Passport details and
+prayed to the concerned authority after following all legal procedures
+for issuing Look Out Circular' against the principal accused namely
+Deepak Shankar Ray on 01.07.2023 LOC was initiated by the
+concerned authority against the accused person. On 11.07.2023
+received information that in the immigration Centre of Haridaspur
+under Petrapole PS, North 24 Pgs, said accused person was detained
+as LOC subject. IO along with force went to Haridaspur Immigration
+Centre and with the assistance of Petrapole PS police team, arrested
+the FIR named principle accused person namely Deepak Shankar Ray
+and brought him to PS and forwarded him before Ld. Court and took
+him into Police Custody for 02 days as per kind order of Ld. CJM,
+Howrah. During PC period after obtaining necessary orders from Ld.
+Court,   IO   produced   the   arrested   accused   person   before   the
+Superintendent of Howrah District Hospital for his medico legal
+examination. Dr. Chitta Ranjan Bhattacharya of Howrah District
+Hospital, has done the medico legal examination of the accused
+Deepak Shankar Ray and collected one sealed envelope containing one
+glass tube & one glass slide containing Urethral Swab/smears of said
+accused person. IO along with force and PC accused held raid to
+recover the alleged stolen articles and to arrest the other co accused
+persons, but no fruitful result was achieved. On 19.07.2023 IO sent the
+exhibits before Ld. C.JM. Howrah Sadar Court and collected CMR No.
+vide CMR No. 427/2023 dated 19.07.2023. On 31.08.2023 IO sent the
+exhibits to FSL Kolkata for examination and Expert Opinion. IO further
+                                 27
+
+contacted with the FSL authority over phone regarding the expert
+opinion but informed that the expert opinion is not ready yet. IO
+submitted Charge Sheet vide Chatterjehat PS C.S. No- 191/23 dated-
+31/10/2023 u/s 420/406/448/341/323/379/354B /307/376/506
+IPC against the Principal accused person namely Deepak Shankar Ray,
+53 yrs s/o Debidas Ray and u/s 509/506/34 IPC against the other 2
+FIR named accused persons namely (1) Kanad Saha - S/O Lt Kunal
+Saha (2) Debidas Ray s/o of Lt. Nagendranath Ray and IO also
+submitted prayer before the Ld. Court for allowing to submit
+Supplementary Charge Sheet after receiving the FSL report.
+  9. Steps Taken During Investigation by CID W.B:
+The investigation of the said case was taken up by CID W.B. as per
+order of Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta vide order CRR 1023 of
+2024, dt 08.04.2024 in compliance of the Order passed by Hon'ble
+High Court is "Quote" "Mr. Debasish Roy, learned Public Prosecutor
+appearing for the State submits that State would take up all the
+investigations for being investigated by the CID, West Bengal.
+However, it is the prerogative of the State at this stage as the de facto
+complainant has expressed her apprehension as she has complained
+to different dignitaries in respect of this Court.
+Targeting the Courts are a soft option as has been settled in several
+judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Article 219 of the
+Constitution of India states that court of law is supposed to act without
+any fear or favour. A professional having claimed herself to be a victim
+of sexual assault has raised issues not only in respect of this Court but
+also in respect of four other senior Judges of this Court. There cannot
+be any issue regarding the Court to proceed with the present case as
+the only issue which was expressed is that all the cases of
+Chatterjeehat Police Station in between the self same parties are to be
+transmitted to the CID or any Women Grievance Cell connected with
+the CID so that under the same umbrella investigation and in respect of
+different cases could be conducted.
+                                 28
+
+However, having regard to the attitude and approach of the de facto
+complainant and for preserving the sobriety of the judicial system, I
+intend to leave the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court for
+deciding the issue.
+Let the matter go out of the list and be placed before the Hon'ble Chief
+Justice for assignment.
+All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded
+from the official website of this Court.
+In respect of the said order CID WB has assumed investigation of the
+case vide Org No 618/CS. Dt. 06/08/24. I Inspector Swapna Ghosh,
+OC, POWC Cell was detailed as the Investigating officer.
+During investigation, I submitted a prayer and collected the Case
+Docket from learned CJM, Court, Howrah on 7/05/2024. I perused the
+case diary and learnt that the previous I/0 had submitted charge sheet
+with provision for submitting Supplementary Charge sheet on receipt of
+the FSL report. I submitted a prayer to FSL Kolkata vide memo no-
+79/POWC/CID WB on 14/05/2024 to hand over the FSL report and
+exhibits to me for the interest of investigation.
+On 22/05/2024 I received the exhibits and report from FSL Kolkata
+vide report no- BIO/5783/2023/3606/FSL dated 22/05/2024 and the
+opinion of the examination is "Quote" "No semen (no spermatozoon), no
+Gonococcus could be detected on the contents of the items marked A
+(vaginal swab & vaginal smears) and B (urethral swab & smears).
+"Unquote.
+Hon'ble High Court Calcutta vide order dated 08.04.2024 in CRR 1023
+OF 2024 had directed that all FIR's lodged against the complainants
+and accused persons at Chatterjeehat Police Station be investigated by
+CID, WB.
+O/C Chatterjeehat Police Station informed that along with the current
+case, there are 2 (two) more cases that have been lodged against both
+complainant and accused i.e Chatterjeehat PS case no- 23/2024
+dated-05/02/2024 u/S 341/ 323/ 325/ 326B/ 354A/ 354B/ 354/
+                                29
+
+509/ 506/34 IPC against (i) Dr. Deepak Shankar Roy s/o Dr. Debidas
+Roy (ii) Kanad Saha s/o Late Kunal Saha and (2) Chatterjeehat PS
+case no 86/2024 dated- 04/05/2024 u/s 341/363/468/420/506 IPC
+against Sanjukta Samanta w/o Romit Dutta.
+I had sent message to the complainant through Chatterjeehat PS for
+meeting her in c/w the investigation of the case, this refers to org no
+70/ POWC/CID WB dated 20/05/2024 and org no 73/ POWC/CID
+WB dated 25/05/2024 • However no response was received her till
+date. I also contacted with her over telephone and she told me that she
+don't want to meet investigation by CID, as rather she want CBI
+investigation.
+The complainant on 20/05/2024 had filed a WP (S) (Criminal) No (S)
+236/2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. But later the
+complainant withdrew her petition, this refers to Order dated
+03/06/2024 in WP (CL).
+Later, I came to learn from Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated
+1/07/2024 in c/w WPA Number 15260 of 2024 that "Quote" Let the
+case diary with the progress report of Chatterjeehat PS case no
+78/2023 be produced before this Court as because the petitioners
+apprehend arrest in c/w Chatterjeehat PS case no 86/2024.
+For the ends of justice the police is restrained from taking any coercive
+steps against the petitioner till 12th July, 2024 or until further order,
+which is earlier. "Unquote".
+Later, I came to learn from Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated
+30/07/2024 in c/w WPA Number 15260 of 2024 that "Quote"
+Petitioner No. 1 appears in-person and prays for release of the matter.
+Let this matter be released and placed before the Hon'ble the Chief
+Justice for appropriate assignment. "Unquote".
+In course of investigation, it is necessary to examine the complainant
+for which I have communicated with her over the telecommunication of
+CID West Bengal vide org no-144/ POWC dated 25/11/24.
+Reason for pending of investigation
+                                         30
+
+          Investigation is almost complete and will end in submission of
+          supplementary charge sheet.
+          The Investigation is pending as the complainant is not cooperating with
+          the investigation. During investigation several messages were sent to
+          the complainant but she did not respond. As per latest status dated
+          25/11/24 message was sent to the petitioner whose response was
+          recived by me vide Chatterjeehat PS org no - CHT/9033/24 which was
+          serviced dated 27/11/2024. Chatterjeehat PS. Received the following
+          response in writing against the above petition from the complainant
+          Quote "strongly objected to matter pending for challenging the
+          false FIR filed & counter case to harass me". Unquote.
+          This is submitted for your kind perusal."
+
+44. In compliance with the order dated 18.11.2024 of this Court, the report of
+
+   the Learned Public Prosecutor stated as follows:-
+
+             "The petitioner has initiated multiple proceedings before this Hon'ble
+          Court, asserting various grievances. Her claims are diverse, yet a
+          recurring theme is her assertion that the investigating agency has
+          failed to conduct its investigation impartially, thereby causing her
+          significant injustice. She has gone further to allege that the opposing
+          party is being supported by state machinery. According to her, the
+          advocates representing the state, acting in collusion, have sought to
+          suppress her voice and prevent her from receiving a fair hearing.
+             The petitioner's conduct has been noted on numerous occasions, and
+          there have been several instances where her matters have been
+          released by the Hon'ble Justices of this Court. In WPA 23711/2023, by
+          an order dated October 3, 2023, Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
+          observed the petitioner's belligerent demeanor and subsequently
+          released the matter. Similarly, in CRR 1023/2024, by an order dated
+          April 8, 2024, Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh reflected upon the
+          petitioner's attitude, noting her conduct as targeting the sanctity of the
+          judicial system, and consequently released the matter. This matter
+                                31
+
+was earlier released by Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh on April 4,
+2024.
+   In WPA 15260 of 2024, the petitioner herself sought the release of
+the matter before Hon'ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj, as indicated in
+the order dated July 30, 2024. Subsequently, by an order dated
+August 5, 2024, Hon'ble Justice Amrita Sinha released the same
+matter, attributing the decision to the petitioner's unruly behaviour
+during the proceedings. The petitioner has also alleged that during the
+hearing of the Sandeshkhali matter, WPA(P) 78/2024, she was
+subjected to abuse and threats by state advocates, which she claims
+were motivated by her political affiliations.
+   It is pertinent to mention herein that the aforesaid allegations have
+found place in the Special Leave Petition filed by the Writ Petitioner
+herein before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Writ Petition
+(Criminal) No 236/2024.
+   The petitioner has consistently expressed distrust in the police
+officials involved in the investigations of her matters. She alleges that
+these officials are influenced and biased, undermining her confidence
+in the fairness of the ongoing investigations.
+   Under such circumstances, I was constrained to direct the CID to
+take up the investigation of the cases filed by the instant writ petitioner
+as well as the case filed against her to ensure neutral investigation
+devoid of any blemish, as alleged by her.
+   The petitioner's allegations, demeanor, and conduct across various
+proceedings have drawn attention and have been noted by various
+benches this Hon'ble Court. These observations reflect a pattern of
+dissatisfaction on the part of the petitioner with the judicial and
+investigative processes, alongside allegations of undue influence and
+partiality.
+   It is however, necessary to bring to the notice of this Hon'ble Court
+that the Writ petitioner has consistently refrained from co operating
+with the CID to get her statement recorded or for any other purpose, as
+                                            32
+
+           required by the Investigating Agency thus rendering them incapable of
+           continuation and/or completion of the investigation of the cases
+           instituted by the instant writ petitioner.
+              This report has been prepared in pursuance to paragraph no. 5 of
+           the order dated November 18, 2024 passed by Her Ladyship Hon'ble
+           Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay."
+45. The petitioner no.1 appearing before the Court submitted her plight, agony
+
+   and helplessness being subjected to physical molestation, outrage of
+
+   modesty, theft of mobile and cash sum of Rs.65,000/- on the part of
+
+   respondent no.13 and his associates and non-payment of professional fees.
+
+   The petitioner no.1 submitted her associates. The petitioner no.1 submitted
+
+   her lawyer's chamber to have been impaired and damaged by the respondent
+
+   no.13 and his associates with continuous threat to both the petitioners and
+
+   their family members disrupting mental peace causing physical trauma and
+
+   being indignified with insinuations and ignominies. Both the petitioners
+
+   could not repose faith and trust on the investigating agencies whose actions
+
+   had been suspiciously frustrating to deliberately deprive the petitioners of
+
+   fair justice.
+
+46. The respondent no.13 filed a complaint dated 28 th April, 2024 accusing the
+
+   petitioners of abduction, extortion, physical assault, threat to murder,
+
+   defamation, confiscation of passport, ATM card and other official documents,
+
+   perjury, forgery implicating in false and fabricated criminal cases to extort
+
+   money etc. which had been serious allegations.
+
+47. The serious allegations by the petitioners the counter allegations resulting in
+
+   the institution of the aforementioned criminal cases being registered through
+
+   formal FIRs had been challenged through filing of Criminal Revisional
+                                              33
+
+   Applications pending before the co-ordinate bench of this Court for quashing
+
+   of the proceedings/FIRs being Nos. Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.86
+
+   of 2024 and No.78 of 2023.
+
+48. The allegations of the petitioner no.1 are indubitably grave and deprecated in
+
+   nature which can only be tested in terms of its veracity through trial to
+
+   inculpate the perpetrator. Contrarily the allegations of the respondent no.13
+
+   whether to have been genuine or a counterblast to the allegations of the
+
+   petitioners cannot be decided unless the investigation of the respective cases
+
+   are concluded and the process of trial being conducted by the court of
+
+   competent    jurisdiction   to   arrive    at   a   conclusive   determination   for
+
+   incrimination or exculpation.
+
+49. A web-search on the query as to who decides to provide security to private
+
+   individual in India and on what ground, the following answer has been
+
+   received by this Court:-
+
+
+           "The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), on the recommendation of
+           intelligence agencies, decides to provide security to private individuals
+           in India, based on perceived threats to life or injury from groups or
+           terrorists. While government officials typically receive security based
+           on their position, a call on security for private citizens is made by the
+           MHA using information from bodies like the Intelligence Bureau (IB)
+           and Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW). The Central Reserve Police
+           Force (CRPF) and other forces then provide this security.
+           The Process
+
+             1) Intelligence Gathering: Intelligence Agencies like the IB and R&AW
+                monitor potential threats and gather information from various
+                                           34
+
+               sources, including phone intercepts, human intelligence, and
+               threat analysis.
+             2) Threat   Assessment:      These   agencies   provide   a   subjective
+               assessment of the threat to an individual's life or safety from
+               potential attackers like terrorists or other groups.
+             3) Decision by the MHA: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) reviews
+               the intelligence inputs and decides whether a private individual
+               requires security cover.
+             4) Deployment of Forces: If security is granted, a central agency,
+               often the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), is tasked with
+               providing the security.
+50. The petitioners herein despite the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench of this
+
+   Court in WPA 23711 of 2023 and the Hon'ble Division Bench in MAT 831 of
+
+   2024 presiding over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court at Calcutta,
+
+   having directed to file complaints at the concerned police station for being
+
+   threatened as claimed by the petitioners reiterated by this Court during
+
+   consecutive hearings failed to provide the copy of the complaint or the G.D.
+
+   Entry number concerning such complaints claimed to have been lodged by
+
+   the petitioners.
+
+51. Considering the role of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the submissions of
+
+   the Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.1 and 2 Union of
+
+   India, the prayer of the petitioner for providing personal security on the
+
+   ground of their perception cannot be allowed. The petitioners could not
+
+   establish a case serious and strong enough to be granted protection as
+
+   sought for which otherwise had to be decided by the Ministry of Home Affairs
+
+   on the basis of imminent and persistent threat. The petitioners could not
+
+   justify inaction on the part of the police administration or the investigating
+                                           35
+
+   agency, however, claimed the same to be biased and revengetic in its attitude
+
+   towards the petitioners primarily petitioner no.1 for her active role against
+
+   the State administration defending injustice to women's rights concerning an
+
+   unfortunate event at Sandeshkhali through a Public Interest Litigation.
+
+52. The status report of the Learned Public Prosecutor as aforesaid explaining
+
+   the course of investigation did not endorse police inaction.
+
+53. Vide Order dated 08.07.2024, the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in WPA
+
+   15260 of 2024 observed as follows:-
+
+             "As per the request of the petitioners, the live streaming has been
+          paused.
+             Learned advocate representing the State respondents submits, upon
+          instruction that, the petitioners are not cooperating with the police in
+          the process of investigation.
+             From the documents handed over by the learned advocate
+          representing the State respondents it appears that, after protection
+          was granted to the petitioners vide the order passed by this Court on
+          1st July, 2024, no notice was served upon the petitioners directing their
+          appearance for investigation.
+             The respondents are directed to proceed with the investigation but
+          not take any coercive steps against the petitioners without the leave of
+          the Court.
+             The petitioners and all other parties are directed to cooperate with
+          the police for the sake of investigation.
+             List on 12th August, 2024.
+             Liberty to mention.
+             Report dated 08.07.2024 be kept with the records."
+54. The petitioners despite an order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this
+
+   Court to co-operate in the investigation refrained from participating in the
+
+   investigation as claimed by the Learned Advocate representing the State
+                                          36
+
+   respondents suspecting the Investigating Officers and accusing them of
+
+   arbitrary, biasedness being capricious and revengeful. The Co-Ordinate
+
+   Bench of this Court directed the investigating agency not to take any
+
+   coercive steps against the petitioners. Despite such an order, the petitioners
+
+   denied to co-operate with the investigating agency as had been stated in the
+
+   report filed by the Learned Public Prosecutor as aforesaid.
+
+55. The Learned Public Prosecutor on an explanation sought by this Court for
+
+   transferring the case of investigation to the CID, West Bengal anxiously
+
+   stated for the purpose of an impartial and unbiased investigation, the same
+
+   had been entrusted to the CID, West Bengal conforming to the police
+
+   regulations stated as follows:-
+
+          "II.- Control and assistance in enquiries and investigations.
+          ....
+

618. Method of assuming control. +

(a) The Deputy Inspector-General, Criminal Investigation. Department, + may assume control 0f an enquiry or investigation at any stage. On + assuming control he shall inform the Deputy Inspector-General of the + Range forthwith, sending a copy 0f his intimation direct to the + Superintendent Or Superintendents concerned. +
(b) In excise cases in which the investigation must extend to more than + one district, or in which there are intricacies which cannot be dealt with + without the aid of a specially skilled detective, the services of an officer + of the Criminal Investigation Department, shall be requisitioned by the + Commissioner of Excise. In emergencies such requisition may also be + made by an officer of lower rank. The Deputy Inspector-General, + Criminal Investigation Department, shall, if he thinks fit and if he has + an officer available, depute one and also decide whether the officer + deputed shall be placed at the disposal of the Commissioner of Excise + 37 + + or whether the control of the enquiry shall be taken over by the + Criminal Investigation Department." +

56. It was further submitted several Judges of this Hon'ble High Court had been + + accused along with the police officers and the Learned Public Prosecutor + + himself which compelled him to transfer the responsibilities of conducting + + investigation on the CID, State of West Bengal without any other alternative + + or option being third party to conduct the investigation independently + + without the involvement of the police officers of the concerned police station + + against whose conduct several objections had been raised by the petitioners. + +

57. The status report filed by the Learned Public Prosecutor as aforesaid did not + + reveal police inaction to the detriment of the petitioners' interest. The + + petitioners had filed a transfer petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + + India being Transfer Petitions Criminal No.701/702 of 2024 being Sanjukta + + Samanta vs. the State of West Bengal and Ors. etc. whereby the petitioners + + appeared in person. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated + + 02.09.2024 observed: "No case for transfer is made out. The transfer petitions + + are dismissed." +

+

58. The petitioners, therefore, cannot refuse to participate in the investigation + + violating the order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court on + + 08.07.2024 in WPA 15260 of 2024. Both the parties have filed criminal + + revisional applications before the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court, the + + criminal revisional applications being CRR 1023 of 2024 and CRR 3203 of + + 2023. The petitioners as well as the respondent no.13 have availed the + + jurisdiction to redress their grievances in an alternative form under Section + + 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner no.1 being a + 38 + + complainant in connection with Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.78 of + + 2023 filed under Sections + + 420/406/448/341/323/379/354B/307/376/506/34 sought for stay of the + + investigation in the said case further seeking the investigation to be + + conducted by the State respondent no.4 whose actions had been challenged + + by the petitioners to be against her interest intending to deprive her of fair + + trial and natural justice. +

+

59. In the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajanlal and Others 1, + + the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- +

+
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant + provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law + enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise + of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers + under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and + reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of + illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent + abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of + justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly + defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid + formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases + wherein such power should be exercised. +
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the + complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in + their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a + case against the accused. +
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other + materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable + offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section + + 1 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 + 39 + + 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the + purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. +

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint + and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the + commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. + (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable + offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is + permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as + contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. +

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd + and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can + ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for + proceeding against the accused. +

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the + provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal + proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the + proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or + the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the + aggrieved party. +

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide + and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior + motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite + him due to private and personal grudge." +

60. Since the contents of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet claimed to have + + been filed by the investigating agency as per the report filed by the Learned + + Public Prosecutor in Case No.78 of 2023 and the complaint as well as the + + FIR in Case No.86 of 2024 to have revealed allegations of cognizable offences + + in both the aforesaid cases, this Court is not inclined to stay the further + + proceedings in the aforesaid cases. +

40

+ +

61. The petitioners being young, responsible and bright advocates practising in + + this Hon'ble Court as well as in the Supreme Court, out of shock and + + displeasure probably by the turn of events cannot trust the investigating + + agencies at the moment perhaps due to mental agony. One has to confide in + + the prevailing justice delivery system to attain a finality to a dispute which + + definitely can be assailed at a Higher Forum statutorily. The petitioners did + + not appear before this Court on the dates fixed for hearing as reflected in the + + order-sheets of the instant writ petition and the case was reserved for + + judgment on 17.02.2025. Subsequently the petitioners filed several CAN + + applications in the Court and directly addressed the same in the name of the + + presiding judge of this Court as would be evident from the postal envelopes + + on record. Considering the context of the CAN applications, this Court + + thought it prudent to grant a further opportunity to the petitioners to + + address this Court for a final hearing and recalled the order dated + + 17.02.2025 on 16.05.2025, fixing the next date of hearing on 11.07.2025. + + The petitioner no.2 appeared online only to contradict the court proceedings + + without submissions on merits. Finally on 11.07.2025 the instant writ + + petition was reserved for pronouncing judgment. +

+

62. The contention of the petitioner no.1 to have been a victim of rape and her + + name and presence to be masked is contrary to the cause title of the instant + + writ petition where the name of the petitioner no.1 had been mentioned by + + herself conspicuously claiming the relief sought for revealing her identity for + + quashing of the aforesaid Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.86 of 2024 + + dated 04.05.2024 under Sections 341/365/468/420/506/34 of the Indian + 41 + + Penal Code. The petitioner no.1 appeared before the Hon'ble Supreme Court + + in person to move the Transfer Petition as aforesaid without seeking her + + presence to be masked as the same would not transpire from the order of the + + Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioners did not appear before the Court on + + the dates fixed for hearing and subsequently could not blame this Court for + + not granting them an opportunity of hearing. This Court did hear the + + submissions of the petitioners on earlier dates and recorded the same in the + + order-sheets as well as in the instant judgment. +

+

63. Moreover, the petitioners as well as the respondent no.13 have already + + sought for relief of quashing the proceedings of the criminal cases instituted + + against each other under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as + + stated above before the Co-Ordinate Benches of this Court. The allegations + + and counter-allegations in the complaints do not reveal the same to be prima + + facie frivolous which are in the facts and circumstances of the case serious + + in nature with grave implications and ramifications. + +

64. The Writ Court can quash the criminal proceedings if the same has been + + frivolously instituted, however, in the instant case, the gamut of allegations + + and counter-allegations are complex in terms of severity necessitating to + + unravel the authenticity and credibility of the same which in the facts and + + circumstances of the instant writ petition shall be subjected to the process of + + trial by the competent Court. +

+

65. In view of the above discussions, the instant writ petition being WPA + + No.15260 of 2024 along with its connected CAN applications stand + + dismissed. +

42

+ +

66. There is no order as to costs. +

+

67. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on + + priority basis on compliance of all formalities. +

+

+

(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.) +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_1659901.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_1659901.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4612a7455093b1b9ae6298210b324eb09fadac48 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_1659901.html @@ -0,0 +1,386 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Komal Prakash, Formerly Additional ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh Through Chief ... on 23 September, 2005 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
(iii)Entertaining and allowing the review application against his own earlier order on an application under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) + + +

3. All the charges were found proved by the Inquiry Officer. The report was accepted by this Court and order of punishment was passed after completing all the formalities required in law. +

+

4. The specific charges which were sought to be inquired into can be briefly summarised as follows:- +

+
Charge No. 1 related to the order dated 20.12.1995, while working as Judicial Magistrate, petitioner granted bail to accused Babloo and Balwant in Crime No. 172 of 1995 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 326 and 504 I.P.C., illegally against all judicial norms and propriety knowing that he had no jurisdiction to grant bail in a case under Section 326 I.P.C. as the offence was punishable with life imprisonment. +
+
+ +
+ +
Charge No. 2 related to order dated 7.1.1998, while working as Judicial Magistrate, petitioner granted bail to accused Lala Ram in Crime No. 435 of 1997 State v. Lala Ram and Ors. under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, illegally against all judicial norms and propriety knowing that he had no jurisdiction to grant bail in the said case. +
+
Charge No. 3 related to the order dated 9.1.1998, while working as Judicial Magistrate, petitioner granted bail to accused Veerpal Singh in Crime No. 435 of 1997 State v. Veerpal Singh and Ors. under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, illegally against all judicial norms and propriety knowing that he had no jurisdiction to grant bail in a case under Sections 467 and 471 IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
Charge No. 4 related to order dated 3.5.1998, while working as Judicial Magistrate, petitioner granted bail to accused Khajan Singh in Crime No. 314 of 1997 under Sections 323 and 307, 504 and 506 IPC illegally against all judicial norms and propriety knowing it that the accused remained absent for a long time and he had no jurisdiction to grant bail in a case under Section 307 IPC. +
+
Charge No. 5 related to order dated 3.5.1998, while working as Judicial Magistrate, petitioner illegally set aside his own order dated 2.1.1998 i.e. "Register & Investigate" passed on the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. knowing that review of an order was not permissible in criminal cases. +
+
+ +
+ +
Charge No. 8 related to order dated 17.8.1996, while working as Judicial Magistrate, petitioner granted bail to accused Tejpal in Crime No. 261 of 1996 State v. Tejpal under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, illegally against all judicial norms and propriety knowing that on 16.8.1996 he had rejected the first bail application of co-accused Tejpal on merit and no ground was available for allowing the second bail application. +
+
Charge No. 9 related to order dated 17.8.1996, while working as Judicial Magistrate, petitioner granted bail to accused Kaloo in Crime No. 261 of 1996 under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, illegally against all judicial norms and propriety knowing that on 12.8.1996 he had rejected the first bail application of co-accused Kaloo on merits. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_166314777.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_166314777.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b10f237a66355772196a507f74806634433e10d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_166314777.html @@ -0,0 +1,479 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Harjot Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 6 June, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

13. To substantiate plea to enlarge the petitioner on + +bail, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon order + +dated 5.7.2023 passed in Cr.MP (M) No. 1501 of 2023, + ( 2025:HHC:18113 ) + + +titled as Ram Singh @ Kaka Vs. State of H.P., wherein + +accused under Section 302 IPC has been enlarged on bail on + +5.7.2023 after remaining in jail for 3 years 2 months. +

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also + +referred order dated 16.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. + +1494 of 2023, titled as Rampal @ Ramphal Vs. State + +of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has been + +enlarged on bail after remaining in custody for 4 years 9 + +months by considering plea of the petitioner regarding + +delay in trial. +

+
+ +
+ +

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred + +order dated 20.10.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2481 + +of 2023, titled as Sanma Vs. State of H.P., wherein + +accused under Section 302 IPC has been released on bail + +after 3 years 3 months detention considering the fact that + +only 22 witnesses out of 30 witnesses were examined by + +that time. +

+

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further + +relied on order dated 4.11.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. + +2618 of 2023, titled as Jasbir Singh Vs. State of H.P., + +wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has been released + +on bail after 3 years 5 months detention considering the + +fact that only 16 witnesses out of 39 witnesses were + +examined by that time. +

+
+ +
+

( 2025:HHC:18113 ) + + +

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further + +relied on order dated 6.10.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. + +2461 of 2023, titled as Balwinder Singh @ Kadu Vs. + +State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has + +been released on bail after 3 years 1 month detention + +considering the fact that only 12 witnesses out of 34 + +witnesses were examined by that time. +

+

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further + +referred order dated 21.8.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. + +1942 of 2023, titled as Robin Patrwal Vs. State of + +H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has been + +released on bail after 2 years 2 months detention + +considering the fact that only 10 witnesses out of 51 + +witnesses were examined by that time. +

+
+ +
+ +

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further + +referred order dated 1.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. + +1216 of 2023, titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of + +H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has been + +released on bail after 4 years detention considering the fact + +that only 13 witnesses out of 47 witnesses were examined + +by that time. +

+

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further + +relied on order dated 24.7.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) + +No. 1217 of 2023, titled as Kulveer Singh Vs. State of + ( 2025:HHC:18113 ) + + +H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has been + +released on bail after 1 year detention considering the fact + +that no witnesses out of 30 witnesses were examined by + +that time. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_167332190.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_167332190.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6f594831b50cbc98b5f5c3e01e9a2b7b616e9d8a --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_167332190.html @@ -0,0 +1,383 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sandeep Singh Alias Sonu vs State Of Haryana on 27 September, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128754 + +CRM-38762-2024 in/and + +

3. 41 dated City Budhlada, On bail dated 11 days + 08.05.2013 u/s Mansa 21.05.2013 + 457, 380 IPC +

4. 115 dated City Rama On bail 24 days + 27.05.2021 u/s Mandi 05.07.2024 + 457, 380, 411, Jalandhar + 34 IPC +

5. 441 dated City Narwana On bail 06 months 22 + 08.05.2013 u/s Jind 06.06.2024 days + 457, 380 IPC +

+
+ +
+

6. 188 dated City Budhlada On bail 33 days + 12.09.2023 u/s 21.12.2023 + 21(b), 25, 29 + of NDPS Act + +

7. 287 dated Sadar Narwana On bail 07 months 05 + 19.10.2023 u/s Jind 06.07.2024 days + 379A, 34 IPC +

8. 279 dated Sadar Narwana, On bail 09 months 01 + 15.10.2023 u/s Jind 04.06.2024 day + 379 A + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_168495926.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_168495926.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..122c62ddd90f13e4b5fa8a9d632ab0c4f39c8b5e --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_168495926.html @@ -0,0 +1,424 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sanjay More vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 9 February, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +Signature Not Verified +Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 856/2024 Page 2 of 17 +By:SUNIL +Signing Date:09.02.2024 +21:50:36 +

Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner: +

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the + judgment of this Court in Varun Goyal v. State of NCT of Delhi, + Neutral Citation No.2023:DHC:1704, submits that where the FIR is + lodged invoking Section 304 of the IPC, the accused/petitioner shall + be entitled to a Statutory Bail on the expiry of 60 days of the arrest, + until and unless the Investigating Agency apprises the learned + Metropolitan Magistrate that the accused is being charged under + Section 304-I of the IPC, that is, for an offence for which the accused + can be sentenced upto imprisonment for life. +
+
+ +
+ +Signature Not Verified +Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 856/2024 Page 11 of 17 +By:SUNIL +Signing Date:09.02.2024 +21:50:36 +

18. As noted hereinabove, if the applicant is charged for an offence + under Part I of Section 304 of the IPC, he would be entitled to + Statutory Bail under Proviso (a)(i) to Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. on + expiry of 90 days, however, if he is charged under Part II of Section + 304, in terms of Proviso (a)(ii) of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., he + shall be entitled to a Statutory Bail on expiry of period of 60 days of + his arrest. Though the charge-sheet has been subsequently filed under + Part I of Section 304 of the IPC against the petitioner, his entitlement + to the Statutory Bail has to be considered as on the date of the expiry + of period of 60 days of his arrest. +

+
+ +
+ +
58. However, where even on the 60th day, the + prosecution is still unable to determine + whether the offence falls within Part (I) or + Part (II), there is nothing to presume that the + offence shall fall in Part (I) entitling further 30 + days (total of 90 days) for completion of + investigation and any remand thereafter, for + the said purpose without specifying the offence + being in Section 304 Part (I) of IPC shall vest + a right in the favor of accused to be released + + + + + + + + on bail in terms of Section 167(2)(a)(ii) + CrP.C. Since, it is a matter of liberty of a + person and a person cannot be detained in + custody even for a day more than what is + permitted under law. Where the prosecution + even after 60 days of investigation, is not in a + position to definitively assert, that the offence + falls under sub-clause(1) of Section 304 IPC, + in such a situation, the denial of bail and + remanding the accused further to custody to + enable the prosecution to determine if Part (1) + of Section 304 IPC applies, cannot be + permitted. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_169371056.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_169371056.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6b9bd82f0e86d2969bf45133136b0541d19b1573 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_169371056.html @@ -0,0 +1,439 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rd Patil @ Rudragouda vs The State on 13 December, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Criminal Petition No.201625/2023 is filed by the + +petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.295/2023 registered by + +University Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 34, 37 of + +IPC and Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2008 + +(for short, hereinafter referred to as 'IT Act') + + +

2. Criminal Petition No.201627/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner who is accused No.1 under Section 438 of + +Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.267/2023 + +registered by Afzalpur Police Station, Kalaburagi District, for + +the offences punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, + +420, 34, 36, 37, 149 of IPC. +

+
+ +
+ +

+

3. Criminal Petition No.201738/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + + + + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.144/2023 registered by + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

4. Criminal Petition No.201736/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.145/2023 registered by + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

+
+ +
+

5. Criminal Petition No.201735/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.146/2023 registered by + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

6. Criminal Petition No.201734/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.147/2023 registered by + + + + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_170724432.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_170724432.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..51264b0319734c89f4f049f4a4e548ea7798e227 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_170724432.html @@ -0,0 +1,2447 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Omprakash Pal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 August, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 40, Cited by 2] + +
+ +

Madhya Pradesh High Court

+

Omprakash Pal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 August, 2018

+ +
            The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
+
+                              CRA-5100/18
+              (Omprakash vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another)
+
+
+                        20-08-2018
+Jabalpur, Dated :
+      Shri B.K. Shukla, Advocate for the appellant.
+
+      Shri Arvind Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent no.1/State.
+ +

None present for the respondent No.2/complainant despite +compliance of provision of Section 15(A)(III) of SC/ST +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the respondent No.1. + +

Case diary perused and arguments heard. + + This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (1) of +SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated +26/08/2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of +Atrocities) Act, Bhopal, in ST No.44/18; whereby learned Special +Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant, under +Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.106/2018 registered +at P.S. Najirabad, Distt. Bhopal (M.P.) for the offences punishable +under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and also section 3(I)(w)(I), +3(2)(5), 3(2)(5a) of SC/ST Act and also section ¾ of PACSO Act + + As per prosecution case, on 5.05.2018 applicant abducted +the prosecutrix who was minor at the time of incident and took her +to village Shivnateran where he kept her and committed rape with +her. On that, police registered Crime no.106/2018 registered at P.S. +Najirabad, Distt. Bhopal (M.P.) for the offences punishable under +Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and also Section 3(I)(w)(I), 3(2)(5), +3(2) (5a) of ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section ¾ of +the POSCO Act and investigated the matter. During investigation +on 16/5/2018 police arrested the appellant. On that, the appellant +filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him +on bail, which was rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide order dated 26.08.2018. Being + aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal +Appeal. +

+

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that applicant is +innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The +statements of the prosecutrix and her mother have been recorded by +the trial Court. They did not support the prosecution story and the +appellant is in custody since 16.05.2018 and conclusion of trial +will take considerable time. So appellant be released on bail. + +

On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposed the +prayer and submitted that the appellant abducted the minor girl and +made sexual relation with her, so he should not be released on bail. + +

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the +statement of prosecutrix and her mother recorded by the trial Court +and as to the fact that the appellant is in custody since 16.05.2018 +and conclusion of trial will take time, so without commenting on +merit, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that the appellant +Omprakash Pal be released on bail on his furnishing personal +bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) +with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial +Court. +

+

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the +following conditions by the appellant :- +

1.The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of +the bond executed by him. +
2. The appellant will cooperate in the trial; +
+
3. The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, +threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case +so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to +the Police Officer, as the case may be; +
+
4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence +of which he is accused; +
+
5. The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the +trial; and + +
6. The appellant will not leave India without previous permission +of the trial Court. +

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for + compliance. +

+

Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of. + + Certified copy as per rule. +

+

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) + JUDGE + + + + +Digitally signed by +MANISHA ALOK SHEWALE +Date: 2018.08.23 15:21:28 ++05'30' + The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh + + CRA-4800-2018 + (VICKY @ RAJA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) + + + 24-07-2018 +Jabalpur, Dated : +

Shri Rahul Diwarkar, Advocate for the applicant. +
+
Shri Manish Soni, Govt. Adv.for the respondent no.1/State. +
+
None present from the respondent No.2/complainant despite +compliance of provision of Section 15(A)(III) of SC/ST +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the respondent No.1. +
+
Case diary perused and arguments heard. +
+
This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of +SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated +4/5/2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of +Atrocities) Act, Chhindwara, in B.A.No.1005/2018; whereby +learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by the +appellant, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime +No.111/2018 registered at P.S. City Kotwali, District +Chhindwara (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections +341, 394 of IPC and also Section 3(2)(v)(a) of ST/ST +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. +
+
As per prosecution case, on 23/2/2018 at about 8.30 p.m. when +complainant went to Gulabra on the way, when she reached at +street no.14 applicant and co-accused came on bike and looted +one mobile from the complainant and ran away. On that, police +registered Crime no.111/2018 registered at P.S. City Kotwali, +District Chhindwara (M.P.) for the offences punishable under +Sections 341, 394 of IPC and also Section 3(2)(v)(a) of ST/ST +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and investigated the matter. +During investigation on 27/2/2018 police arrested the +applicant and after investigation charge-sheet was filed, on +which Special S.T.No.62/2018 was registered. During trial of +the case, appellant filed an application under Section 439 of + Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was rejected by the +learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act +vide order dated 4/5/2018. Being aggrieved by the impugned +order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal. +
+
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has +falsely been implicated in this matter. The appellant has no +criminal past. Charge-sheet has been filed and the appellant is +in custody since 27/2/2018 and conclusion of trial will take +considerable time. So applicant be released on bail. +
+
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and +submitted that the appellant looted the mobile from the +possession of the complainant and the mobile has been seized +by the police from the possession of the appellant and the +complainant also identified the appellant in the T.I. Parade. So +he should not be released on bail. +
+
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to +the fact that the appellant has no criminal past, he is in custody +since 27/2/2018 and the charge-sheet has been filed and +conclusion of trial will take time, so without commenting on +merit, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that the appellant be +released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of +Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only) with one solvent surety in +the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court. +
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of +the following conditions by the appellant :- +
+
1.The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions +of the bond executed by him; +
+
2. The appellant will cooperate in the trial; +
+
3.The appellant will not indulge himself in extending +inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with +the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such +facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be; +
4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the +offence of which he is accused; +
+
5. The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments +during the trial; and + +
6. The appellant will not leave India without previous +permission of the trial Court. +
+

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for +compliance. +

+

Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of. + + + + +

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) + + JUDGE + + +m/- +

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh + + CRA-4905-2018 + (JODHARAM TANWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) + + + 24-07-2018 +Jabalpur, Dated : +

Shri R.S. Verma, Advocate for the appellants. +
+
Shri Arvind Singh, Govt. Adv. for the respondent No.1/State. +
+
None present from the respondent No.2/complainant despite +compliance of provision of Section 15(A)(III) of SC/ST +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the respondent No.1. +
+
Case diary perused and arguments heard. +
+
This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) of +SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order +dated 27/6/2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention +of Atrocities) Act, in Spl.Case no.SC48/2018; whereby learned +Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by appellants +Jodharam Tanwar, Sunil Tanwar and Braj Tanwar, under +Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.81/2018 +registered at P.S. Najeerabad, Distt. Bhopal (M.P.) for the +offences punishable under Section 294, 323 and 506-B/34 of +I.P.C.and also under Section 3(1)(r(S) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. +
As per prosecution case, on 5/4/2018 at about 10 p.m., +appellants abused complainant Chhitarlal and when +complainant denied, the appellants also assaulted him by stick +and also threatened to kill him. On the incident, the +complainant sustained injury on his head. On the report of the +complainant, police registered Crime no.81/2018 registered at +P.S. Najeerabad, Distt. Bhopal (M.P.) for the offences +punishable under Section 294, 323 and 506-B/34 of I.P.C.and +also under Section 3(1)(r(S) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and investigated the +matter. During investigation on 12/6/2018 police arrested the +appellants. On that, appellants filed an application under + Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing them on bail, which was +rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of +Atrocities) Act vide order dated 19/12/2017. Being aggrieved +by the impugned order, appellants filed this Criminal Appeal. +
+
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellants +are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this matter. +The appellants are in custody since 12/6/2018. Charge sheet +has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, so +appellants be released on bail. +
+
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer. +
+
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to +the fact that the appellants are in custody since 12/6/2018, +charge sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take +time, so without commenting on merit, the appeal is allowed. +It is directed that appellants namely Jodharam Tanwar, Sunil +Tanwar and Braj Tanwar be released on bail on their +furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees +Fifty Thousand only) each with one solvent surety in the like +amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. +
+
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the +following conditions by the appellants : +
1. The appellants will comply with all the terms and conditions +of the bond executed by them; +
2. The appellants will cooperate in the trial; +
3. The appellants will not indulge themselves in extending +inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with +the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such +facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be; +
4. The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the +offence of which they are accused; +
5. The appellants will not seek unnecessary adjournments +during the trial; and +
6. The appellants will not leave India without previous + permission of the trial Court. +

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for +compliance. +

C.C. as per rules. +

+

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) + + JUDGE + + + + +m/- +

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh + + CRA-4920-2018 + (RAJA BHAIYA KURMI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) + + + 23-07-2018 +Jabalpur, Dated : +

Shri S.K. Kashyap, Advocate for the appellant. +
+
Shri Akhilendra Singh, Govt. Advocate for the respondent +no.1-State. +
+
None present from the respondent Nos.2/complainant despite +compliance of provision of Section 15(A)(III) of SC/ST +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the respondent No.1. +
+
Case diary perused and arguments heard. +
+
This first criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) +of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order +dated 5/6/2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of +Atrocities) Act, in A.No.15307/2018; whereby learned Special +Judge rejected the bail application filed by appellant, under +Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.49/2017 +registered at P.S. Majhgawan, District Jabalpur, (M.P.) for the +offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of I.P.C. and +3(2)(5) and 3(2)(5ka) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act +1989 and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. Earlier, the appellant +filed the applications which were dismissed as withdrawn vide +orders dated 13/11/2017 & 11/5/2018 passed in +Cr.A.No.3379/17 and Cr.A.No.2935/2018 respectively. +
+
As per prosecution case, in the intervening night of 22- +23/2/2017 appellant abducted the prosecutrix, who was minor +at the time of incident, and took her to Sihora, Katni, Singrauli +then Satna, where he kept her and made sexual relation with +her. On that report, police registered the Crime No. Crime +No.49/2017 registered at P.S. Majhgawan, District Jabalpur, +(M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, +376 of I.P.C. r/w Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act and Section + 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(5) and 3(2)(5ka) of SC/ST (Prevention of +Atrocities) Act 1989 and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act and +investigated the matter in which appellant was arrested on +8/4/2017. On that, appellant filed an application under Section +439 of the Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was +rejected by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) +Act vide order dated 5/6/2018. Being aggrieved by the +impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal. +
+

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he is innocent +and has falsely been implicated in this matter. The prosecutrix +was major at the time of incident and went with the appellant +on her own will. The appellant is in custody since 8/4/2017, so +appellant be released on bail. +

+

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent +no.1/State opposed the prayer and submitted that in the school +admission register, date of birth of the prosecutrix is +mentioned as 6/7/2000 and the appellant abducted the minor +girl and made sexual relation with her, so he should not be +released on bail. +

+

Hence, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and +as to the fact that the appellant abducted minor girl and +committed rape with her, so this Court is not inclined to grant +bail. Hence appeal is dismissed. +

+

+ + +

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) + + JUDGE + + +m/- +

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh +CRA-3761-2018 +(BHUKUL @ MUKUL YADAV @ ROHANI PRASAD Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) +Jabalpur, Dated : 04-07-2018 +Shri Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants. +Shri Arvind Singh, Govt. Adv. for the respondent No.1/State. +None present from the respondent Nos.2 and 3/complainant +despite +compliance of provision of Section 15(A)(III) of SC/ST +(Prevention of +Atrocities) Act by the respondent No.1. +Case diary perused and arguments heard. +This first criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) +of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order +dated 10/5/2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention +of Atrocities) Act, in B.A. No.24/2018; whereby learned +Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by appellant +Bhukul @ Mukul Yadav @ Rohani Prasad, under Section 439 +of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.39/2018 registered at P.S. +Burhar, District Shahdol, (M.P.) for the offences punishable +under Sections 147, 148, 294, 323, 307 of I.P.C. r/w Section +25(1-B) of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(5 ka) of +SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. Earlier, the +appellant filed the applications which were dismissed as +withdrawn vide orders dated 28/2/2018 & 4/5/2018 passed in +MCrC Nos.5979/2018 and 16284/2018 respectively. +As per prosecution case on 17/01/2018 at 2:00 PM appellant +and +co-accused persons namely Laltesh Yadav, Lalan Kewat, +Daddu Baiga, +Minda Yadav, Bablu Kewat and Lallu Kewat went to the the +Hotel of +Jhurru Kewat situated at village Jarwahi armed with stick, +sword and +knife and abused the complainant Ajay Yadav and his friends +Manoj +Raidas & Ramchandra. Thereafter, co-accused Minda Yadav +inflicted +knife blow on the stomach of Ramchandra and co-accused +Lalan Kewat +also assaulted Manoj Choudhary by means of sword, who +sustained +injury in his right hand. It is alleged that the applicants +Lalitesh Yadav +and Daddu Baiga also assaulted them by stick. On that report, +police +registered Crime No.39/2018 registered at P.S. Burhar, District +Shahdol, +(M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, +294, 323, +307 of I.P.C. r/w Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act and Section +3(2)(v) + and 3(2)(5 ka) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 +and +investigated the matter. During investigation on 18/1/2018 +police +1 CRA-3761-2018 +arrested the appellant. On that appellant filed application under +Section +439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was rejected by +the +learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, +Shahdol +vide order dated 10/05/2018. Being aggrieved from that order +appellant +has preferred this appeal. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has +falsely been implicated in this matter. Otherwise also +according to the +prosecution story co-accused Minda Yadav caused grievous +injury to +Ramchandra by knife. The appellant is in custody since +18/01/2018 and +conclusion of trial is likely to take long time, hence prayed for +release of +the applicant on bail. +

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/State +opposed +the prayer and submitted that sufficient material is available +against the +applicant to connect him with the offence. +Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to +the fact +that the appellant is in custody since 18/1/2018, charge sheet +has been +filed and conclusion of trial will take time, so without +commenting on +merit, the appeal is allowed. +

It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his +furnishing +personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty +Thousand only) +with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of +trial +Court. +

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the +following conditions by the appellant : +

1. The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions +of +the bond executed by him; +
2. The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the +case may be; +
3. The appellant will not indulge himself in extending +inducement, + threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the +case so as +to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to +the Police +Officer, as the case may be; +
4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the +offence +of which he is accused; +
5. The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments +during the +trial; and +
6. The appellant will not leave India without previous +permission +of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be. +2 CRA-3761-2018 +(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) +JUDGE +A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for +compliance. +

C.C. as per rules. +

m/- +

3 CRA-3761-2018 + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + + CRA-6374-2017 + (MANISH JAIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) + +8 + 01-02-2018 +Jabalpur, Dated : +

Shri Atul Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant. +
+
Shri Y.D. Yadav, Govt. Adv. for the respondent No.1/State. +
+
Shri A.M. Lal, Advocate for the respondent no.2/Complainant. +
+
Complainant is also present in person. +
+
Case diary perused and arguments heard. +
+
This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) of +SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated +19/12/2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of +Atrocities) Act, in B.A. No.419/2017; whereby learned Special +Judge rejected the bail application filed by appellant Manish Jain, +under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.564/2017 +registered at P.S. Garha, District Jabalpur, (M.P.) for the offences +punishable under Section 376 (2)(N) of I.P.C.and also under +Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. +
+
[2] As per prosecution case, on 12/8/2017 prosecutrix lodged a +report at P.S. Garha averring that appellant for the first time made +sexual relation with her in the year 2007 on the pretext of marriage. +Thereafter, he used to make sexual relation on the pretext of +marriage. Thereafter, he denied to marry with her. On that report, +police registered Crime no.564/2017 for the offence punishable +under Section 376 (2)(N) of I.P.C. and also under Section 3(2)(v) of +SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and investigated the +matter. During investigation on 12/12/2017 police arrested the +appellant. On that appellant filed an application under Section 439 +of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was rejected by the +learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide +order dated 19/12/2017. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, +appellant filed this Criminal Appeal. +
[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant +has falsely been implicated in this matter. In the FIR, it is +mentioned that for the first time appellant made sexual relation +with the prosecutrix in the year 2007, while prosecutrix lodged the +report on 12/9/2017, after ten years of the incident. The appellant is +in custody since 12/12/2017. Charge sheet has been filed and +conclusion of trial will take time, so appellant be released on bail. +
+
[4] Learned counsel for the State as well as Objector opposed +the prayer and submitted that the appellant sexually exploited the +prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage. So, he should not be +released on bail. +
+
[5] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as +to the fact that the appellant is in custody since 12/12/2017, charge +sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, so +without commenting on merit, the appeal is allowed. +
+
[6] It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his +furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty +Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the +satisfaction of trial Court. +
+
[7] This order will remain operative subject to compliance of +the following conditions by the appellant : +
+
1. The appellant will comply with all the terms and + conditions of the bond executed by him; +
+
2. The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as + the case may be; +
+
3. The appellant will not indulge himself in extending + inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted + with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from + disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, + as the case may be; +
+
4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the + offence of which he is accused; +
5. The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments + during the trial; and + +
6. The appellant will not leave India without previous + permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the + case may be. +
+

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for +compliance. +

+

C.C. as per rules. +

+

+ + +

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) + + JUDGE + + + +m/- +

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + CRA-6374-2017 + (MANISH JAIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) + +8 + 01-02-2018 +Jabalpur, Dated : +

Shri Atul Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Y.D. Yadav, Govt. Adv. for the respondent No.1/State. + Shri A.M. Lal, Advocate for the respondent no.2/Complainant. + Complainant is also present in person. +
Case diary perused and arguments heard. +
This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) of +SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated +19/12/2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of +Atrocities) Act, in B.A. No.419/2017; whereby learned Special +Judge rejected the bail application filed by appellant Manish Jain, +under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.564/2017 +registered at P.S. Garha, District Jabalpur, (M.P.) for the offences +punishable under Section 376 (2)(N) of I.P.C.and also under +Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. + [2] As per prosecution case, on 12/8/2017 prosecutrix lodged a +report at P.S. Garha averring that appellant for the first time made +sexual relation with her in the year 2007 on the pretext of marriage. +Thereafter, he used to make sexual relation on the pretext of +marriage. Thereafter, he denied to marry with her. On that report, +police registered Crime no.564/2017 for the offence punishable +under Section 376 (2)(N) of I.P.C. and also under Section 3(2)(v) of +SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and investigated the +matter. During investigation on 12/12/2017 police arrested the +appellant. On that appellant filed an application under Section 439 +of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was rejected by the +learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide +order dated 19/12/2017. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, +appellant filed this Criminal Appeal. +
[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant +has falsely been implicated in this matter. In the FIR, it is +mentioned that for the first time appellant made sexual relation +with the prosecutrix in the year 2007, while prosecutrix lodged the +report on 12/9/2017, after ten years of the incident. The appellant is + in custody since 12/12/2017. Charge sheet has been filed and +conclusion of trial will take time, so appellant be released on bail. +
[4] Learned counsel for the State as well as Objector opposed +the prayer and submitted that the appellant sexually exploited the +prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage. So, he should not be +released on bail. +
[5] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as +to the fact that the appellant is in custody since 12/12/2017, charge +sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, so +without commenting on merit, the appeal is allowed. +
[6] It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his +furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty +Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the +satisfaction of trial Court. +
[7] This order will remain operative subject to compliance of +the following conditions by the appellant : +
1. The appellant will comply with all the terms and + conditions of the bond executed by him; +
2. The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as + the case may be; +
3. The appellant will not indulge himself in extending + inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted + with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from + disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, + as the case may be; +
4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the + offence of which he is accused; +
5. The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments + during the trial; and +
6. The appellant will not leave India without previous + permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the + case may be. +

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for +compliance. +

C.C. as per rules. +

+

+

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) + JUDGE +m/- +

CRA-6243-2017 + (GOVINDSINGH SAHU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) + + 10-01-2018 +Jabalpur, Dated : +

Shri Anand Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Y.D. Yadav, Govt. Adv. for the respondent No.1/State. + None present from the respondent No.2/complainant despite +compliance of provision of Section 15(A)(III) of SC/ST +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the respondent No.1. +
Case diary perused and arguments heard. +
This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) of +SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated +13/12/2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of +Atrocities) Act, in B.A. No.794/2017; whereby learned Special +Judge rejected the bail application filed by appellant Govind Singh +Sahu, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime +No.794/2017 registered at P.S. Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur, +(M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376, 376 (2) +
(n) of I.P.C.and also under Sections 3(1)(w-i), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v) +of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. +

[2] As per prosecution case, on 2/12/2017 prosecutrix lodged a +report at P.S. Gotegaon averring that on 1/12/2017 at 2.30 p.m., the +appellant abducted the prosecutrix and took her to forest near +Paramhansi temple where he committed intercourse with her on the +pretext of marriage. On that report, police registered Crime +no.794/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376, +376 (2)(n) of I.P.C. and also under Sections 3 (1)(w-i), 3(2)(va) and +3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and +investigated the matter. During investigation on 3/12/2017 police +arrested the appellant. On that appellant filed an application under +Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was +rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of +Atrocities) Act vide order dated 13/12/2017. Being aggrieved by +the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal. +[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant +has falsely been implicated in this matter and the prosecutrix was +major and went with the appellant on her own will and the +consenting party. Prosecutrix in her statement, recorded by JMFC +under Section 164 of the CrPC, stated that the appellant did not + comit rape with her. The appellant is in custody since 3/12/2017, so +appellant be released on bail. +

[4] Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by +the appellant. +

[5] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and +statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the JMFC under Section +164 of the Cr.P.C. and as to the fact that appellant is in custody +since 3/12/2017 and conclusion of trial will take time, without +commenting on merit, the appeal is allowed. +[6] It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his +furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty +Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the +satisfaction of trial Court. +

[7] This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the +following conditions by the appellant : +

1. The appellant will comply with all the terms and + conditions of the bond executed by him; +
2. The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, + as the case may be; +
3. The appellant will not indulge himself in extending + inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted + with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from + disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, + as the case may be; +
4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to + the offence of which he is accused; +
5. The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments + during the trial; and +
6. The appellant will not leave India without previous + permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the + case may be. +
+ +

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for +compliance. +

C.C. as per rules. +

+

+

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) + JUDGE + m/- +

Cr.Appeal No.4354/17

+Jabalpur dated, 21/11/2017 + Shri Rahul Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the + +appellant. +

+

Shri S.P. Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the + +respondent No.1/State. +

+

None present from the respondent No.2/complainant + +despite compliance of provision of Section 15(A)(III) of + +SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the respondent No.1. + +

Case diary perused and arguments heard. + + This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 (2) + +of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order + +dated 10/10/2017 passed by Special Sessions Judge, SC/ST + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in M.Cr.C. No.876/2017; + +whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application + +filed by the appellant Mukesh Kumar Jain, under Section 439 + +of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.316/2017 registered at P.S. + +Jatara, District Tikamgarh, (M.P.) for the offences punishable + +under Sections 363, 365, 376, 506/34 of I.P.C. and also under + +Sections 3 (2) (5-A) and 3(1)(da) of SC/ST (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act 1989. +

+

[2] As per prosecution case, on 2/9/2017 prosecutrix + +lodged a report at P.S. Jatara averring that on 9/8/2017 when + +she was return to her house, on the way, the appellant forcibly + +took her by a four wheeler to Jhansi and from Jhansi to + +Udaipur, where he kept the prosecutrix for one day and + +committed rape with her and then took her to Rajkot, where he + +kept her for two days and also committed rape with her and + +then he took her to Junagarh, where he kept the prosecutrix for + +10-12 days wherein he also committed rape. After that, he took + her back to Tikamgarh. On that report, police registered Crime + +no.316/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, + +365, 376, 506/34 of I.P.C. and also under Sections 3 (2) (5-A) + +and 3(1)(da) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and + +investigated the matter. During investigation on 27/9/2017 + +police arrested the appellant. On that appellant filed an + +application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on + +bail, which was rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide order dated 10/10/2017. + +Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this + +Criminal Appeal. +

+

[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that + +appellant has falsely been implicated in this matter and the + +prosecutrix was major and went with the appellant on her own + +will and the consenting party. The appellant is in custody since + +10/10/2017, so appellant be released on bail. + +

[4] Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer + +made by the appellant. +

+

[5] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case + +and as to the fact that appellant is in custody since 10/10/2017 + +and conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on + +merit, the appeal is allowed. +

+

[6] It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on + +his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees + +Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like + +amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court. + +

[7] This order will remain operative subject to + +compliance of the following conditions by the appellant : +

1. The appellant will comply with all the terms + and conditions of the bond executed by him; +
2. The appellant will cooperate in + theinvestigation/trial, as the case may be; +
3. The appellant will not indulge himself in + extending inducement, threat or promise to any + person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to + dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court + or to the Police Officer, as the case may be; +
4. The appellant shall not commit an offence + similar to the offence of which he is accused; +
5. The appellant will not seek unnecessary + adjournments during the trial; and +
6. The appellant will not leave India without + previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating + Officer, as the case may be. +
+ +

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned +for compliance. +

+

C.C. as per rules. +

+

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) + JUDGE +m/- +

CRA No.3624/2017

+Jabalpur, dated 27/11/2017 + + Shri D.K. Upadhyaya, Advocate for the applicant. + + Shri B.P. Pandey, Govt. Adv. for the respondent no.1/State. + + Respondent No.2/complainant present in person. + + Case diary perused and arguments heard. + + This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(1) of + +SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated + +17/8/2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, in Case No.SC.ATR./200010/2017; whereby + +learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by + +appellant Anar Singh, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in + +Crime No.695/2016 registered at P.S. G.R.P. Bhopal (M.P.) for the + +offences punishable under Sections 363, 365, 366, 368, 376-D (2) + +(N), 120-B, 370 and 370-K of I.P.C. and also under Sections 3 (1) + +(Y)(W)(II), 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 + +and also under Section 5/6 and 9 of Human Trafficking Act. + +[2] As per prosecution, on 6/11/16 the prosecutrix, a married + +lady, aged about 30 years, lodged a report at Police Station GRP, + +Bhopal that she had come to Bhopal with her son, Sachin from + +Betul by train 3 months ago. At railway station Bhopal, she met + with co-accuased Anil @ Rahul @ Laddu, who offered her for job + +and then she went to the residence of Anil. At his residence, Anil + +committed rape with her. Thereafter, Anil and Rahees @ Rajkumar + +took her to house of present appellant Anar Singh, but her son was + +kept by the wife of Anil namely, Kavya. At the residence of the + +appellant, he and co-accused Rajaram committed rape with her and + +stated that they had purchased her from Anil for Rs.25,000/-. After + +three-four days, they sold prosecutrix to Raju Gadli for Rs.50000/- + +and he kept her as his wife for approximately one month and + +committed rape with her. When prosecutrix asked him to meet her + +son, Raju Gadli asked her to tell the appellant to return his money + +only then he would leave her. When she threatened to lodge a + +report then, appellant came and took her to Binaganj and where he + +handed over her to co-accused Dev Singh, Rambabu, Dhirav and + +Kishan. Thereafter, co-accused Dev Singh took her to a forest by + +motorcycle and committed rape with her. Then, co-accused Dev + +Singh, Rambabu, Dhirav and Kishan took her to Hinauti village + +and where they kept prosecutrix in the house of Pratap for 15 days. + +Thereafter, they kept her at village Talabadi and Khamkheda for 15 + +each. +

[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant + +is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. It + +is further submitted that Police has made total 8 accused in this + +case and the other co-accused persons Mohan and Dev Singh have + +been released on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide + +orders dated 1/8/2017 and 1/6/2017 passed in Cr.A.Nos.2537/2017 + +and 959/2017 respectively. The appellant is in custody since + +18/11/2016. So, appellant be released on bail. + +[4] Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by + +the appellant. +

+

[5] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to + +the fact that co-accused have already granted bail by the co- + +ordinate Bench of this Court. Appellant is in custody since + +18/11/2016 and conclusion of trial will take time, without + +commenting on merit, the appeal is allowed. + +[6] It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his + +furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty + +Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the + +satisfaction of trial Court. +

[7] This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the + +following conditions by the appellant : + +

1. The appellant will comply with + all the terms and conditions of the + bond executed by him; +
7. The appellant will cooperate in the + investigation/trial, as the case may be; +
8. The appellant will not indulge himself in + extending inducement, threat or promise to + any person acquainted with the fact of the + case so as to dissuade him from disclosing + such facts to the Court or to the Police + Officer, as the case may be; +
9. The appellant shall not commit an offence + similar to the offence of which he is + accused; +
10. The appellant will not seek + unnecessary adjournments during the trial; + and +
11. The appellant will not leave India + without previous permission of the trial + Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may + be. +

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for + +compliance. +

+

C.C. as per rules. +

+

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) + JUDGE +m/- +

Criminal Appeal No.2131/17

+17/7/2017 + Shri Guljar Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Santosh Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent +No.1/State. +

None present from the respondent No.2/complainant despite +compliance of provision of Section 15(A)(III) of SC/ST +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the respondent No.1. + +

Case diary perused and arguments heard. + + This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of +SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated +7/4/2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of +Atrocities) Act, Narsinghpur, in special Case No.44/2017; whereby +learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by the +appellant Kedar Rajput, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in +Crime No.15/2016 registered at P.S. Saikheda, District +Narsinghpur, M.P. for the offences punishable under Sections 376, +354, 354(B), 294, 506 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), +3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v), of ST/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. + + [2] As per prosecution case, on 20/1/2017 prosecutrix lodged a +report averring that on 31/12/2016 at about 2 a.m. when she was +sleeping in her house situated at Village Udni P.S. Saikheda, the +applicant came to her house and committed rape with her. +Thereafter, on 19/1/2017 at about 2 p.m., the applicant again came +to her house and abused her and also used criminal force on her to +outrage her modesty. On that report, police registered Crime +no.15/2017 at police station Saikheda for the offence punishable + under Sections 376, 354, 354(B), 294, 506 of IPC and under +Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v), of ST/ST (Prevention +of Atrocities) Act and investigated the matter. During investigation +on 15/3/17 police arrested the applicant and after investigation +charge-sheet was filed, on which Special Case No.44/2017 was +registered. During trial of the case, appellant filed an application +under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was +rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of +Atrocities) Act vide order dated 7/4/2017. Being aggrieved by the +impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal. + + [3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant +has falsely been implicated in this matter. Prosecutrix was major. It +is alleged that applicant committed rape with the prosecutrix on +31/12/2016 while prosecutrix lodged the report on 20/1/2017.There +is no appropriate explanation regarding the delay in FIR. The +applicant is in custody since 15/3/2017. Charge-sheet has been +filed and conclusion of trial will take considerable time. So +applicant be released on bail + + [4] Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by +the appellant. +

+

[5] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to +the fact that appellant is in custody since 15/3/2017, and that +Charge-sheet has been filled and conclusion of trial will take time, +without commenting on merit, the appeal is allowed. It is directed +that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing personal + bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only) with one +solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court. + +

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the +following conditions by the appellant :- + +

1. The appellant will comply with all the terms and + conditions of the bond executed by him; +
2. The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, + as the case may be; +
3. The appellant will not indulge himself in extending + inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted + with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from + disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, + as the case may be; +
4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to + the offence of which he is accused; +
5. The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments + during the trial; and +
6. The appellant will not leave India without previous + permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the + case may be. +

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for + +compliance. +

+

Accordingly, Cr. A. No. 2131/2017 is disposed of. + C.C.as per rules. +

+

+

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) + + JUDGE +m/- +

Cr.Appeal No.2239/17

+25-07-2017 + + Shri Manish Datt, Senior Counsel with Shri Pawan Gujjar, + +learned counsel for the appellant. +

+

Shri Vijay Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent + +No.1/State. +

+

Shri S.K. Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent + +no.2/complainant. +

+

Complainant is present in person. +

+

Case diary perused and arguments heard. + + This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(1) of + +SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order + +dated 27/5/2017 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge for + +Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in Special + +Case No.31/2017; whereby learned Special Judge rejected the + +bail application filed by the appellant Raju @ Ramprakash, + +under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking bail in Crime No.341/13 + +registered at P.S. Amla, District Betul, (M.P.) for the offences + punishable under Sections 342, 376(2) and 506 of I.P.C. and + +also under Sections 3 (2) (v) read with 3(1)(xii)of SC/ST + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and also under Section ¾ + +of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. + +[2] As per prosecution case, on 26/9/2013 at about 8 p.m. + +when the prosecutrix was going to attend the call of nature + +near her house situated at village Jammwada, the appellant + +met her on the way. He caught hold of her and took her to a + +room built at Tejlal Sahu's farm used for fastening bulls and + +committed rape with her there and also threatened to kill her. + +At about 12 a.m. the prosecutrix's father Ramdas and mother + +Sugarti Bai came there and on seeing them appellant fled + +away. Prosecutrix narrated the incident to them.They took her + +to P.S. Amla, Distt. Betul where she lodged the report. On that + +report, police registered Crime no.341/13 for the offences + +punishable under Sections 342, 376(2) (Jha) and 506 of I.P.C. + +and also under Sections 3 (2) (v) read with 3(1)(xii)of SC/ST + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and investigated the + matter. During investigation Police did not get the accused. So + +after investigation police filed the charge sheet in the absence + +of the appellant. On that, charge sheet, Special Case No. 31/17 + +was registered. Police arrested the appellant on 6/5/2017 and + +produced before the court. Learned Court sent him to judicial + +custody. On that appellant filed an application under Section + +439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail, which was rejected by the learned + +Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide order + +dated 27/5/2017. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, + +appellant filed this Criminal Appeal. +

+

[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that + +appellant has falsely been implicated in this matter. Appellant + +is in custody since 6/5/2017, the charge sheet has been filed + +and conclusion of trial will take time, so appellant be released + +on bail. +

+

[4] Respondent No.2 and her counsel submitted that they + +have no objection on appellant being granted bail . + [5] Learned counsel for the State/Respondent No.1 opposed + +the prayer and submitted that In the marksheet the date of birth + +of prosecutrix is mentioned as 08/10/98 which shows that + +prosecutrix was only 15 years of age when the appellant + +committed rape with her and appellant remained absconded + +for a long period, So he shall not be released on bail. + + [6] Looking to the allegations levelled against the appellant + +that he committed rape of minor girl of 15 years and remained + +absconding for a long time after incident. Besides the + +possibility of tampering with the evidence by the accused if + +released on bail at this stage also can not be ruled out.So in + +the considered opinion of this court learned trial court did not + +commit any mistake in rejecting the application of applicant + +for releasing him on bail at this stage. So his appeal is rejected + +with the liberty that after recording the statement of the + +prosecutrix, the appellant is free to again file fresh bail + +application. +

+

Accordingly, Cr.A. No. 2239/2017 is disposed of. + (RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) + JUDGE +m/- +

Cr.Appeal No.2384/17

+24-07-2017 + Shri Purshottam Soni, learned counsel for the appellant. + + Shri Ashutosh Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the + +respondent No.1/State. +

+

None present from the respondent No.2/complainant + +despite compliance of provision of Section 15(A)(III) of + +SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the respondent No.1. + +

Case diary perused and arguments heard. + + This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 (2) + +of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order + +dated 05.06.2017 passed by Special Sessions Judge, SC/ST + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in M.Cr.C. No.453/2017; + +whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application + +filed by the appellant Suresh Patel, under Section 439 of + +Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.87/2017 registered at P.S. + +Mohangarh, District Tikamgarh, (M.P.) for the offences + +punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of I.P.C. and also + +under Sections 3 (2) (5-A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) + +Act 1989. +

[2] As per prosecution case, on 18.03.2017 appellant + +abducted the prosecutrix, who was minor at the time of + +incident, and took her to Orchha and from Orchha to village + +Kochha Bhawar, Distt. Jhansi, where he kept the prosecutrix + +till 28/5/2017 and committed rape. On that report, police + +registered Crime no.87/2017 for the offences punishable under + +Sections 363, 366 and 376 of I.P.C. And Sections 3 (2) (5-A) + +of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and investigated + +the matter. During investigation on 30.06.2017 police arrested + +the appellant. On that appellant filed an application under + +Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was + +rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act vide order dated 5/6/2017. Being aggrieved by + +the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal. + +

[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that + +appellant has falsely been implicated in this matter. The + +prosecutrix was major and she went with the appellant on her + +own will and he also filed the Adhar Card of the prosecutrix in + +support of his application, in which her age is mentioned as 20 + +years. The appellant is in custody since 30.06.2017, so + +appellant be released on bail. +

[4] Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer + +made by the appellant. +

+

[5] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case + +and statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the JMFC under + +Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and as to the fact that appellant is in + +custody since 30.06.2017, the charge sheet has been filed and + +conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on + +merit, the appeal is allowed. +

+

[6] It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on + +his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees + +Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like + +amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court. + +

[7] This order will remain operative subject to + +compliance of the following conditions by the appellant : + +

12. The appellant will comply with all the terms + and conditions of the bond executed by him; +
13. The appellant will cooperate in + theinvestigation/trial, as the case may be; +
14. The appellant will not indulge himself in + extending inducement, threat or promise to any + person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to + dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court + or to the Police Officer, as the case may be; +
15. The appellant shall not commit an offence + similar to the offence of which he is accused; +
16. The appellant will not seek unnecessary + adjournments during the trial; and +
17. The appellant will not leave India without + previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating + Officer, as the case may be. +
+ +

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned +for compliance. +

+

Accordingly, Cr.A. No. 11174/2017 is disposed of. + + CC as per rules. +

+

+ +

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) + JUDGE +m/- +

Cr.Appeal No.2384/17

+24-07-2017 + Shri Purshottam Soni, learned counsel for the appellant. + + Shri Ashutosh Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the + +respondent No.1/State. +

+

None present from the respondent No.2/complainant + +despite compliance of provision of Section 15(A)(III) of + +SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the respondent No.1. + +

Case diary perused and arguments heard. + + This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 (2) + +of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order + +dated 05.06.2017 passed by Special Sessions Judge, SC/ST + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in M.Cr.C. No.453/2017; + +whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application + +filed by the appellant Mukesh Kumar Jain, under Section 439 + +of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.316/2017 registered at P.S. + +Jatara, District Tikamgarh, (M.P.) for the offences punishable + +under Sections 363, 365, 376, 506/34 of I.P.C. and also under + +Sections 3 (2) (5-A) and 3(1)(da) of SC/ST (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act 1989. +

[2] As per prosecution case, on 2/9/2017 prosecutrix + +lodged a report at P.S. Jatara averring that on 9/8/2017 when + +she was return to her house, on the way, the appellant forcibly + +took her by a four wheeler to Jhansi and from Jhansi to + +Udaipur, where he kept the prosecutrix for one day and + +committed rape and then took her to Rajkot, where he kept her + +for two days and also committed rape and then he took her to + +Gujrat where he kept the prosecutrix for 10-12 days wherein + +he also committed rape. After that, he took her back to + +Tikamgarh. On that report, police registered Crime + +no.316/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, + +365, 376, 506/34 of I.P.C. and also under Sections 3 (2) (5-A) + +and 3(1)(da) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and + +investigated the matter. During investigation on 27/9/2017 + +police arrested the appellant. On that appellant filed an + +application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on + +bail, which was rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide order dated 10/10/2017. + +Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this + +Criminal Appeal. +

[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that + +appellant has falsely been implicated in this matter and the + +prosecutrix is a major and consenting party. The appellant is + +in custody since 10/10/2017, so appellant be released on bail. + +

[4] Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer + +made by the appellant. +

+

[5] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case + +and as to the fact that appellant is in custody since 10/10/2017 + +and conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on + +merit, the appeal is allowed. +

+

[6] It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on + +his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees + +Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like + +amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court. + +

[7] This order will remain operative subject to + +compliance of the following conditions by the appellant : + +

18. The appellant will comply with all the terms + and conditions of the bond executed by him; +
19. The appellant will cooperate in + theinvestigation/trial, as the case may be; +
20. The appellant will not indulge himself in + extending inducement, threat or promise to any + person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to + dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court + or to the Police Officer, as the case may be; +
21. The appellant shall not commit an offence + similar to the offence of which he is accused; +
22. The appellant will not seek unnecessary + adjournments during the trial; and +
23. The appellant will not leave India without + previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating + Officer, as the case may be. +
+ +

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned +for compliance. +

+

C.C. as per rules. +

+

+ +

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) + JUDGE +m/- +

Criminal Appeal No.2131/17

+17/7/2017 + Shri Guljar Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Santosh Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent +No.1/State. +

None present from the respondent No.2/complainant despite +compliance of provision of Section 15(A)(III) of SC/ST +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the respondent No.1. + +

Case diary perused and arguments heard. + + This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of +SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated +7/4/2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of +Atrocities) Act, Narsinghpur, in special Case No.44/2017; whereby +learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by the +appellant Kedar Rajput, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in +Crime No.15/2016 registered at P.S. Saikheda, District +Narsinghpur, M.P. for the offences punishable under Sections 376, +354, 354(B), 294, 506 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), +3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v), of ST/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. + + [2] As per prosecution case, on 20/1/2017 prosecutrix lodged a +report averring that on 31/12/2016 at about 2 a.m. when she was +sleeping in her house situated at Village Udni P.S. Saikheda, the +applicant came to her house and committed rape with her. +Thereafter, on 19/1/2017 at about 2 p.m., the applicant again came +to her house and abused her and also used criminal force on her to +outrage her modesty. On that report, police registered Crime +no.15/2017 at police station Saikheda for the offence punishable + under Sections 376, 354, 354(B), 294, 506 of IPC and under +Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v), of ST/ST (Prevention +of Atrocities) Act and investigated the matter. During investigation +on 15/3/17 police arrested the applicant and after investigation +charge-sheet was filed, on which Special Case No.44/2017 was +registered. During trial of the case, appellant filed an application +under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was +rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of +Atrocities) Act vide order dated 7/4/2017. Being aggrieved by the +impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal. + + [3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant +has falsely been implicated in this matter. Prosecutrix was major. It +is alleged that applicant committed rape with the prosecutrix on +31/12/2016 while prosecutrix lodged the report on 20/1/2017.There +is no appropriate explanation regarding the delay in FIR. The +applicant is in custody since 15/3/2017. Charge-sheet has been +filed and conclusion of trial will take considerable time. So +applicant be released on bail + + [4] Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by +the appellant. +

+

[5] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to +the fact that appellant is in custody since 15/3/2017, and that +Charge-sheet has been filled and conclusion of trial will take time, +without commenting on merit, the appeal is allowed. It is directed +that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing personal + bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only) with one +solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court. + +

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the +following conditions by the appellant :- + +

1. The appellant will comply with all the terms and + conditions of the bond executed by him; +
2. The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, + as the case may be; +
3. The appellant will not indulge himself in extending + inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted + with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from + disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, + as the case may be; +
4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to + the offence of which he is accused; +
5. The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments + during the trial; and +
6. The appellant will not leave India without previous + permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the + case may be. +

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for + +compliance. +

+

Accordingly, Cr. A. No. 2131/2017 is disposed of. +

2. as per rules. +

+

+

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) + + JUDGE +m/- +

Cr.Appeal No.2239/17

+25-07-2017 + + Shri Manish Datt, Senior Counsel with Shri Pawan Gujjar, + +learned counsel for the appellant. +

+

Shri Vijay Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent + +No.1/State. +

+

Shri S.K. Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent + +no.2/complainant. +

+

Complainant is present in person. +

+

Case diary perused and arguments heard. + + This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(1) of + +SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order + +dated 27/5/2017 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge for + +Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in Special + +Case No.31/2017; whereby learned Special Judge rejected the + +bail application filed by the appellant Raju @ Ramprakash, + +under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking bail in Crime No.341/13 + +registered at P.S. Amla, District Betul, (M.P.) for the offences + punishable under Sections 342, 376(2) and 506 of I.P.C. and + +also under Sections 3 (2) (v) read with 3(1)(xii)of SC/ST + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and also under Section ¾ + +of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. + + [2] As per prosecution case, on 26/9/2013 at about 8 p.m. + +when the prosecutrix was going to attend the call of nature + +near her house situated at village Jammwada, the appellant + +met her on the way. He caught hold of her and took her to a + +room built at Tejlal Sahu's farm used for fastening bulls and + +committed rape with her there and also threatened to kill her. + +At about 12 a.m. the prosecutrix's father Ramdas and mother + +Sugarti Bai came there and on seeing them appellant fled + +away. Prosecutrix narrated the incident to them.They took her + +to P.S. Amla, Distt. Betul where she lodged the report. On that + +report, police registered Crime no.341/13 for the offences + +punishable under Sections 342, 376(2) (Jha) and 506 of I.P.C. + +and also under Sections 3 (2) (v) read with 3(1)(xii)of SC/ST + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and investigated the + matter. During investigation Police did not get the accused. So + +after investigation police filed the charge sheet in the absence + +of the appellant. On that, charge sheet, Special Case No. 31/17 + +was registered. Police arrested the appellant on 6/5/2017 and + +produced before the court. Learned Court sent him to judicial + +custody. On that appellant filed an application under Section + +439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail, which was rejected by the learned + +Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide order + +dated 27/5/2017. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, + +appellant filed this Criminal Appeal. +

+

[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that + +appellant has falsely been implicated in this matter. Appellant + +is in custody since 6/5/2017, the charge sheet has been filed + +and conclusion of trial will take time, so appellant be released + +on bail. +

+

[4] Respondent No.2 and her counsel submitted that they + +have no objection on appellant being granted bail . + [5] Learned counsel for the State/Respondent No.1 opposed + +the prayer and submitted that In the marksheet the date of birth + +of prosecutrix is mentioned as 08/10/98 which shows that + +prosecutrix was only 15 years of age when the appellant + +committed rape with her and appellant remained absconded + +for a long period, So he shall not be released on bail. + + [6] Looking to the allegations levelled against the appellant + +that he committed rape of minor girl of 15 years and remained + +absconding for a long time after incident. Besides the + +possibility of tampering with the evidence by the accused if + +released on bail at this stage also can not be ruled out.So in + +the considered opinion of this court learned trial court did not + +commit any mistake in rejecting the application of applicant + +for releasing him on bail at this stage. So his appeal is rejected + +with the liberty that after recording the statement of the + +prosecutrix, the appellant is free to again file fresh bail + +application. +

+

Accordingly, Cr.A. No. 2239/2017 is disposed of. + (RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) + JUDGE +m/- +

Cr.Appeal No.2384/17

+24-07-2017 + Shri Purshottam Soni, learned counsel for the appellant. + + Shri Ashutosh Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the + +respondent No.1/State. +

+

None present from the respondent No.2/complainant + +despite compliance of provision of Section 15(A)(III) of + +SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the respondent No.1. + +

Case diary perused and arguments heard. + + This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 (2) + +of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order + +dated 05.06.2017 passed by Special Sessions Judge, SC/ST + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in M.Cr.C. No.453/2017; + +whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application + +filed by the appellant Suresh Patel, under Section 439 of + +Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.87/2017 registered at P.S. + +Mohangarh, District Tikamgarh, (M.P.) for the offences + +punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of I.P.C. and also + +under Sections 3 (2) (5-A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) + +Act 1989. +

[2] As per prosecution case, on 18.03.2017 appellant + +abducted the prosecutrix, who was minor at the time of + +incident, and took her to Orchha and from Orchha to village + +Kochha Bhawar, Distt. Jhansi, where he kept the prosecutrix + +till 28/5/2017 and committed rape. On that report, police + +registered Crime no.87/2017 for the offences punishable under + +Sections 363, 366 and 376 of I.P.C. And Sections 3 (2) (5-A) + +of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and investigated + +the matter. During investigation on 30.06.2017 police arrested + +the appellant. On that appellant filed an application under + +Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was + +rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act vide order dated 5/6/2017. Being aggrieved by + +the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal. + +

[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that + +appellant has falsely been implicated in this matter. The + +prosecutrix was major and she went with the appellant on her + +own will and he also filed the Adhar Card of the prosecutrix in + +support of his application, in which her age is mentioned as 20 + +years. The appellant is in custody since 30.06.2017, so + +appellant be released on bail. +

[4] Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer + +made by the appellant. +

+

[5] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case + +and statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the JMFC under + +Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and as to the fact that appellant is in + +custody since 30.06.2017, the charge sheet has been filed and + +conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on + +merit, the appeal is allowed. +

+

[6] It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on + +his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees + +Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like + +amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court. + +

[7] This order will remain operative subject to + +compliance of the following conditions by the appellant : + +

1. The appellant will comply with all the terms + and conditions of the bond executed by him; +
2. The appellant will cooperate in + theinvestigation/trial, as the case may be; +
3. The appellant will not indulge himself in + extending inducement, threat or promise to any + person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to + dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court + or to the Police Officer, as the case may be; +
4. The appellant shall not commit an offence + similar to the offence of which he is accused; +
5. The appellant will not seek unnecessary + adjournments during the trial; and +
6. The appellant will not leave India without + previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating + Officer, as the case may be. +
+ +

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned +for compliance. +

+

Accordingly, Cr.A. No. 11174/2017 is disposed of. + + CC as per rules. +

+

+ +

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) + JUDGE +m/- +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_171211.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_171211.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d468f843ae20a2e27b010348fe3311a6c1908329 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_171211.html @@ -0,0 +1,462 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Pradeep vs State on 11 February, 2011 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

3.4 The +petitioner filed Special Criminal Application No.895 of 2010 before +this Court for quashing of the FIR on 11th +May 2010. Thereafter, an anticipatory bail application was filed by +the petitioner on 15th +June 2010, which was disposed of as 'not pressed' by the Special +Judge on 20th +August 2010. Thereafter, on 03rd +September 2010 the petitioner filed Application No.360 of 2010 for +default bail before the Sessions Court. Thereafter, on 06th +September 2010 the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Cri) No.4604 +of 2010 granted bail to the petitioner in connection with M.Case No.1 +of 2008 for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code only +and the petitioner was released qua the Indian Penal Code offences +only, on 07th +September 2010. Thereafter, on 13th +September 2010 the default bail application of the petitioner was +rejected by the Special Judge. Thereafter, Criminal Miscellaneous +Application No.11389 of 2010 filed by the petitioner under Section +482 read with Section 167(2) +of the CrPC came to be dismissed on 22nd +September 2010. Thereafter, on 25th +September 2010 another FIR came to be lodged against the petitioner +and others being I-C.R. No.9 of 2010 with the State CID Crime, Rajkot +Zone Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, +406 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. +

+
+ +
+ +
9. Mr. +PK Jani, learned Public Prosecutor, referred to the FIR and also +referred to the arrest memo, which is produced at page 20 of the +paper-book. and submitted that as it is evident from the arrest memo, +the applicant has been arrested in connection with the alleged +offences under the IPC in connection with M. Case No. 1/2008. +Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Jani submitted that it is required to +be mentioned that it was in respect of offences under IPC only. He +pointedly referred to the sequence of events and also the affidavit +filed on behalf of the respondent with the details enclosed produced +on record and submitted that as stated in this, an application was +made to add offences under the PC Act on 19.2.2010 which came to be +withdrawn as per the application dated 1.4.2010 (Annexure-B). +Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Jani submitted that an application for +bail in the meantime was preferred by the applicant before the +Sessions Court and thereafter an application for bail was preferred +before the High Court being Criminal Misc. Application No. 604 of +2010 which came to be rejected vide order dated 3.3.2010. The said +application was with regard to grant of bail for the alleged offences +under the IPC in connection with M. Case No. 1/2008 registered with +CID Crime, Rajkot Zone. Thereafter, the petitioner again moved an +application under sec. 439 of CrPC for grant of regular bail which +came to be rejected on 30.6.2010 against which he preferred an +application before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned Public +Prosecutor Mr. Jani submitted that pursuant to the order of the +Hon'ble Apex Court, the chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj, as per the +report produced at page 188, released the applicant on bail which he +pointedly referred and submitted that it was with regard to offences +under sec. 200, 203, 216, 465, 468, 471, 472, 474, 475, 406, 409, +120B of IPC in connection with M. Case No. 1/2008. +
+
+ +
+ +

16. In +view of rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether +the present application can e entertained or not. +

+

17. As +it transpires from the facts, admittedly, the applicant has been +released pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP +(Cri.) No. 6166 of 2010 vide order dated 16.9.2010 and he has been +enlarged on bail for which the report is also produced. It clearly +refers to the fact it was in connection with M. Case No. 1/2008 for +the alleged offences under the IPC. Further, even in an application +for bail being Criminal Misc. Application No. 4604 of 2010 after +charge sheet before the High Court, the application itself makes it +clear that it was preferred under sec. 439 for bail in connection +with M. Case No. 1/2008 registered with CID Crime, for the alleged +offences under sec. 200, 203, 217, 465, 468, 471 etc. of IPC. +Admittedly, the applicant has not been in custody. Admittedly, the +applicant had preferred an application for anticipatory bail being +Criminal Misc. Application No. 237 of 2010 before the Special Judge +(ACB), Kutch at Bhuj under sec. 438 in connection with C.R. No. +I-3/2010 registered with CID Crime, Rajkot Zone, for the alleged +offences under the PC Act, which has been withdrawn by him. +

+
+ +
+ +

20. The +conduct of the applicant is also required to be appreciated that +thereafter when he has filed regular bail application before the High +Court as well as before the Hon'ble Apex Court, he has confined +the application for bail under sec. 439(2) for the offences under IPC +in connection with M. Case No. 1/2008 and not a whisper has been made +with regard to this aspect. Even thereafter he has filed +anticipatory bail application under sec. 438 before the Special Judge +being Criminal Misc. Application No. 237 of 2010 in connection with +the subsequent FIR being C.R. No. 3/2010 registered with CID Crime, +Rajkot Zone, which has been withdrawn. If there was any +misconception, he could have taken further recourse as may be advised +for anticipatory bail and in fact it would suggest that the applicant +petitioner has also admitted about the separate FIR for the alleged +offences under the PC Act against him. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_1714595.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_1714595.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..45d725d757aaab745717e7ea919a7be8f1bf3443 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_1714595.html @@ -0,0 +1,383 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Kamal Kumar Shukla vs State Of U.P. And Others on 22 January, 2010 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. +This application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer that a suitable +direction may be issued to the learned Magistrate concerned to accept the +fresh bail bond under sections 467,468 I.P.C. and section 25 of the Arms Act +in view of added section in case crime no. 197 of 2006 under sections +419,420,170 I.P.C. pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, +Manjhanpur district Kaushambi. +

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that after considering +the merits of the case the applicant has been released on bail under sections +419,420,170 I.P.C. He has not misused the liberty of bail. but on the same +material section 467,468 I.P.C. and section 25 of the Arms Act, has also been +added. The applicant is ready to furnish fresh bail bonds under the added +section. +

+
+ +
+

In reply to the above contention it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that that +due to added section, the nature of the offence has been changed. Therefore, +such direction may not be issued to accept the fresh bail bonds. +Considering the facts, circumstances of the case and submission made by the +learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A., and from the perusal +of the record it appears that by adding section 467,468 I.P.C. and section 25 +of the Arms Act, the nature of the offence has been changed and the remedy +of bail is available to the applicant, therefore, the prayer for issuing direction +for accepting the fresh bail bonds under the added section is refused. +However, it is directed that in case applicant appears before the court +concerned within 30 days from today and apply for bail under section sections +467,468 I.P.C. and section 25 of the Arms Act, the same shall be considered +and disposed of on the same day by the courts below. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_171882289.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_171882289.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1eff9c70a98ec55c8e3df93022429e2869f611ea --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_171882289.html @@ -0,0 +1,403 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sajid Alias Bhola vs State Of U.P. on 7 March, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
III. Case Crime No. 408 of 2019 under section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station-Etmaddaulah, District- Agra. BAILED OUT. +
+
IV. Case Crime No. 409 of 2019 under section 41 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Etmaddaulah, District- Agra. BAILED OUT. +
+
V. Case Crime No. 770 of 2019 under section 379/411 I.P.C., Police Station-Etmaddaulah, District-Agra. - BAILED OUT. +
+
VI. Case Crime No. 825 of 2019 under section 379/411 I.P..C., Police Station-Etmaddaulah, District-Agra. BAILED OUT. +
+
VII. Case Crime No. 873 of 2019 under section 392/411 I.P.C., Police Station-Etmaddaulah, District-Agra. BAILED OUT. +
+
+ +
+ +
VIII. Case Crime No. 940 of 2019 under section 380/457/411 I.P.C., Police Station- Etmaddaulah, District-Agra. BAILED OUT. +
+
IX. Case Crime No. 941 of 2019 under section 380/457/411 I.P.C., Police Station- Etmaddaulah, District-Agra. - BAILED OUT. +
+
X. Case Crime No. 946 of 2019 under section 380/457/411 I.P.C., Police Station- Etmaddaulah, District-Agra. BAILED OUT. +
+
XI. Case Crime No. 990 of 2019 under section 41/102 Cr.P.C., & 411/414 I.P.C., Police Station- Etmaddaulah, District-Agra. BAILED OUT. +
+
+ +
+ +
XII. Case Crime No. 993 of 2019 under section 379/411 I.P.C., Police Station-Sikandra, District- Agra. BAILED OUT. +
+
XIII. Case Crime No. 159 of 2021 under section 379/411 I.P.C., Police Station-Shamshabad, District-Agra. - BAILED OUT. +
+
XIV. Case Crime No. 167 of 2021 under section 307/399/402 I.P.C., Police Station-Shamshabad, District-Agra. BAILED OUT. +
+
XV. Case Crime No. 168 of 2021 under section 25 Arms Act, Police Station-Shamshabad, District- Agra. BAILED OUT. +
+
XVI. Case Crime No. 228 of 2019 under section 392/411 I.P.C., Police Station-Khandoli, District- Agra. BAILED OUT. +
+
+ +
+ +
XVII. Case Crime No. 103 of 2023 under section 392/411 I.P.C., Police Station-Fatehabad, District-Agra. - BAILED OUT. +
+
XVIII. Case Crime No. 166 of 2023 under section 411, 413, 420 I.P.C., Police Station-Shamshabad, District-Agra. BAILED OUT. +
+
XIX. Case Crime No. 167 of 2023 under section 3/25 Arms Act Police Station-Shamshabad, District- Agra. BAILED OUT. +
+
XX. Case Crime No. 323 of 2022 under section 2/3 Gangsters Act, Police Station-Shamshabad, District-Agra. BAILED OUT. +
+
XXI. Case Crime No. 58 of 2018 under section 457, 380, 411 I.P.C., Police Station-Sikandra, District- Agra. BAILED OUT. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_172234064.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_172234064.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..db23d0742591bc75cb2413950ac818575099c37f --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_172234064.html @@ -0,0 +1,378 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Darshan Dabas vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 16 August, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
(ii) FIR No.135/2022 under Section 307/34 of IPC and 27 + Arms Act, Police Station Najafgarh (on bail); +
+
(iii) FIR No. 501/2021 under Section 302/34 of IPC and + 25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Najafgarh (on bail); +
+
(iv) FIR No. 520/2018 under Section 323/336/174A/34 + IPC, Police Station Kanjhawala (on bail); +
+
+ +
+ +
(v) FIR No. 329/2019 under Section 186/353/307/506 IPC + & 25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Crime Branch (on + bail); +
+
                                (vi)    FIR      No.       53/2015       under    Section
+                                        147/148/149/427/452/506/34    IPC, Police Station
+                                        Najfagarh (pending); and
+
+
(vii) Conviction in FIR No. 638/2008 dated 29.08.2011 + under Section 302/34 IPC and 25A of Arms Act, + Police Station Najafgarh. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_173141999.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_173141999.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e99e1eca30506aa6a61ab8f236c9295e9d1de1ea --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_173141999.html @@ -0,0 +1,365 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ram Singh vs State Of U.P. on 12 December, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_173477377.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_173477377.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a349b6c7fcbf35156830dcfcd7b7fb3b41ce7825 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_173477377.html @@ -0,0 +1,1065 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ganesh Sharma Alias Gelal vs State Of Sikkim on 25 January, 2021 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 21, Cited by 1] + +
+ +

Sikkim High Court

+

Ganesh Sharma Alias Gelal vs State Of Sikkim on 25 January, 2021

+ +

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 SK 6

+ +

Author: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan

+ +

Bench: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan

+ +
                                                                                                               1
+
+                                       Bail Application No. 12 of 2020
+                                  Ganesh Sharma @ Gelal vs. State of Sikkim
+
+
+
+
+              THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM: GANGTOK
+                      (Criminal Jurisdiction)
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+SINGLE BENCH: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+                            Bail Application No.12 of 2020
+
+         Ganesh Sharma @ Gelal
+         S/o Shri Shiva Lall Sharma,
+         Near Hotel Lemon Tree,
+         Lower Sichey, P.O. & P.S. Gangtok,
+         East Sikkim.
+
+            Presently lodged at State Jail,
+            Rongyek, East Sikkim
+
+                                                                     ..... Applicant
+
+                                                 Versus
+
+         State of Sikkim                                           .....Respondent
+
+
+Application for Bail under Section 439 read with Section
+   482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Appearance:
+         Mr. Rahul Rathi, Advocate for the Applicant.
+
+      Mr. Yadev Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for
+      the State of Sikkim.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
+    Date of hearing :           25.01.2021
+
+
+                           J U D G M E N T (O R A L)
+
+

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. +

+

+

1. The applicant has preferred the present application + +under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of + +Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking bail in Rangpo + +P.S. Case FIR No. 19/2020 dated 09.06.2020 registered + 2 + + Bail Application No. 12 of 2020 + Ganesh Sharma @ Gelal vs. State of Sikkim + + + + +under Sections 7(a)(b)/9/14 of the Sikkim Anti Drugs Act, + +2006 (SADA, 2006) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal + +Code, 1860 (IPC). +

+

+

2. The facts as narrated by the applicant is that he was + +arrested on 09.06.2020 in connection with the aforesaid + +FIR. He was forwarded to State Jail at Rongyek on the + +same day itself by the learned Judicial Magistrate, + +Gangtok. The investigation is over and charge sheet has + +been filed. It is registered as S.T. (SADA, 2006) Case No. 22 + +of 2020 and the next date is fixed on 16.03.2021 for + +examination of prosecution witnesses. +

+

+

3. It is also stated that the applicant had moved an + +application for bail before the learned Special Judge, SADA, + +2006 which was rejected on 01.09.2020 on the ground that + +the concerned witnesses had clearly stated in their + +statements recorded by the police pursuant to the + +examination under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the applicant + +was frequently calling on the mobile phone of accused + +person-Sandeep Chettri and verifying about the + +consignment of drugs. +

+

+

4. The bail application was rejected on the ground that + +the offences were of serious nature and there was + 3 + + Bail Application No. 12 of 2020 + Ganesh Sharma @ Gelal vs. State of Sikkim + + + + +possibility of the applicant abusing his freedom in the event + +of being enlarged on bail. +

+

+

5. The State of Sikkim has filed a reply dated 10.12.2020 + +to the application for bail. The release of the applicant on + +bail has been objected to by the State respondent not only + +on the merit of the case but also that there was possibility + +of the applicant abusing his liberty and tampering with + +witnesses. +

+

+

6. On 14.12.2020 this court directed the learned + +Additional Public Prosecutor to file the entire charge sheet + +along with all the materials within a period of one week and + +listed the matter for hearing today. The charge sheet had + +been filed by the State of Sikkim on 26.12.2020 along with + +the documents filed therewith. The orders passed by the + +learned Special Judge from time to time have also been + +filed. On perusal it is clear that the learned Special Judge + +has on 14.10.2020 heard the parties and having considered + +the materials, framed charged against the accused persons + +including the applicant herein under Rule 17(1) of the + +Sikkim Anti Drugs Rules, 2007 and Section 9(1)(c) of SADA, + +2006 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 9(4) of SADA, + +2006 read with Section 34 IPC. +

4

+ +

Bail Application No. 12 of 2020 + Ganesh Sharma @ Gelal vs. State of Sikkim + + + + +

7. Heard Mr. Rahul Rathi, learned counsel for the + +applicant and Mr. Yadev Sharma, learned Additional Public + +Prosecutor for the State of Sikkim. +

+

+

8. Mr. Rahul Rathi contends that the materials before + +the learned Special Judge against the applicant are limited + +to the statements of the two seizures witnesses recorded + +under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and on perusal thereof it would + +be clear that the applicant is entitled to bail. + + +

9. The applicant also contends that the learned Special + +Judge has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances + +of the case as well as the law in its correct prospective. It is + +contested that since the investigation of the case is + +completed he is entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is stated + +that the applicant has been falsely implicated and Section + +18 of SADA, 2006 had not been appreciated correctly by + +the learned Special Judge. +

+

+

10. Section 18 of the SADA, 2006 provides that the + +offences under it are both cognizable and non-bailable. + +Section 18 starts with a non obstante clause + +"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal + +Procedure, 1973". It reads as under: +

+
"18. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable: +
5 + +
Bail Application No. 12 of 2020 + Ganesh Sharma @ Gelal vs. State of Sikkim + + + + + (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code + of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - +
+
(a) every offence punishable under this Act + shall be cognizable; +
(b) no person accused of an offence + punishable under this Act shall be released + on bail or on his own bond unless - +
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been heard and + also given an opportunity to oppose the + application for such release, and +
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the + application, the court is satisfied that there + are reasonable grounds for believing that he + is not guilty of such offence and that he is not + likely to commit any offence while on bail. + (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in + clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the + limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, + 1973 or any other law for the time being in force on + granting of bail." +
+ + +

11. Section 18 (b) of SADA, 2006 provides for the twin + +conditions necessary for grant of bail in a case arising in + +SADA, 2006, notwithstanding anything contained in + +Cr.P.C. This provision is in pari-materia to Section 37 of the + +Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 + +(NDPS Act, 1985). +

+

+

12. The Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau vs. + +Kishan Lal & Ors.1 had occasion to examine the provision of + +Section 439 Cr.P.C. and Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. + +The Supreme Court was pleased to hold that the powers of + +the High Court to grant bail under Section 439 are subject + +1 (1991) 1 SCC 705 + 6 + + Bail Application No. 12 of 2020 + Ganesh Sharma @ Gelal vs. State of Sikkim + + + + +to the limitations contained in the amended Section 37 of + +the NDPS Act and the restrictions placed on the powers of + +the court under the said section are applicable to the High + +Court also in the matter of granting bail. + + +

13. In Intelligence Officer, Narcotics C. Bureau v. Sambhu + +Sonkar & Anr.2 the Supreme Court held that it would be + +difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for + +the respondents therein that the liberal interpretation + +given by the High Court to Section 37 was justified as it + +affects personal liberty of a citizen who is yet to be tried is + +not acceptable. It was held by the Supreme Court that + +considering the legislative intent of curbing the practice of + +giving bail on technical ground in a crime which adversely + +affects the entire society including the lives of a number of + +persons and the object of making stringent provisions for + +control of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic + +substances, there is no reason to accept the construction of + +the section which its language can hardly bear. + + +

14. In Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Dilip Pralhad Namade3 + +the Supreme Court while examining the provision of + +Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 held as under:- + + + +

2 (2001) 2 SCC 562 +3 (2004) 3 SCC 619 + 7 + + Bail Application No. 12 of 2020 + Ganesh Sharma @ Gelal vs. State of Sikkim + + + + + "9. As observed by this Court in Union of + India v. Thamisharasi [(1995) 4 SCC 190 : 1995 SCC (Cri) + 665 : JT (1995) 4 SC 253] clause (b) of sub-section (1) of + Section 37 imposes limitations on granting of bail in + addition to those provided under the Code. The two + limitations are: (1) an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor + to oppose the bail application, and (2) satisfaction of the + court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that + the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not + likely to commit any offence while on bail. +
10. The limitations on granting of bail come in only + when the question of granting bail arises on merits. Apart + from the grant of opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, the + other twin conditions which really have relevance so far + as the present respondent-accused is concerned, are: (1) + the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable + grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the + alleged offence, and (2) that he is not likely to commit any + offence while on bail. The conditions are cumulative and + not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding + the accused being not guilty has to be based on + reasonable grounds. The expression "reasonable grounds" +
means something more than prima facie grounds. It + contemplates substantial probable causes for believing + that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The + reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires + existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient + in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not + guilty of the alleged offence and he is not likely to commit + any offence while on bail. This nature of embargo seems to + have been envisaged keeping in view the deleterious + nature of the offence, necessities of public interest and the + normal tendencies of the persons involved in such network + to pursue their activities with greater vigour and make hay + when at large. In the case at hand the High Court seems + to have completely overlooked the underlying object of + Section 37 and transgressed the limitations statutorily + imposed in allowing bail. It did not take note of the + confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the + Act." +
+ +

15. In Collector of Customs, New Delhi vs. Ahmadalieva + +Nodira4 the Supreme Court held as under: +

+

+

" 7. The limitations on granting of bail come in only + when the question of granting bail arises on merits. Apart + from the grant of opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, the + +4 2004 SCC (Cri) 834 + 8 + + Bail Application No. 12 of 2020 + Ganesh Sharma @ Gelal vs. State of Sikkim + + + + + other twin conditions which really have relevance so far + as the present accused-respondent is concerned, are: the + satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds + for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged + offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence + while on bail. The conditions are cumulative and not + alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the + accused being not guilty has to be based on reasonable + grounds. The expression "reasonable grounds" means + something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates + substantial probable causes for believing that the accused + is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief + contemplated in the provision requires existence of such + facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to + justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the + alleged offence. .........................................." +
+ + +

16. The records reveal that the learned Special Judge + +having found prima facie materials against the applicant + +framed charges under the SADA, 2006 and the IPC. The + +order framing charge is not under challenge. The materials + +placed before this court are materials filed along with the + +charge sheet. It reveals, prima facie, that Sandeep Chettri + +(accused no.1) was apprehended on 09.06.2020 while + +driving a truck at the Rangpo boarder check post and + +during his search and seizure various controlled + +substances were recovered. The controlled substances were + +accordingly seized. It is the case of the prosecution that + +during this time the applicant constantly called Sandeep + +Chettri (accused no.1) from his phone no (8918189280) + +informing him that he was coming to receive the + +consignment of controlled substances in his vehicle. + 9 + +

Bail Application No. 12 of 2020 + Ganesh Sharma @ Gelal vs. State of Sikkim + + + + +According to the prosecution he was thereafter, + +apprehended at IBM, Rangpo after a team was dispatched. + +Besides the statements of the two seizure witnesses as + +pointed out by Mr. Rahul Rathi the statement of the + +complainant also implicates the applicant for the + +commission of the alleged offence. The words "reasonable + +grounds" under Section 18 of the SADA, 2006 would have + +same meaning as has been explained by the Supreme + +Court vis-à-vis Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. It would + +connote substantial probable cause for believing that the + +accused is not guilty of the offences charged and that this + +reasonable belief contemplated in turn would point to the + +existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient + +in themselves to justify recording of satisfaction that the + +accused is not guilty of the offence charged. + + +

17. This court has examined the materials which were + +placed before the learned Special Judge along with the + +charge sheet and the probable evidence which are required + +to be tested during trial. None of the materials placed + +would point to the existence of any facts or circumstances + +sufficient in themselves to justify the satisfaction that the + +applicant is not guilty of the offence charged. Contravention + +of Section 9(1)(c) and Section 9(4) of SADA, 2006 entails + 10 + + Bail Application No. 12 of 2020 + Ganesh Sharma @ Gelal vs. State of Sikkim + + + + + punishment of rigorous imprisonment which shall not be + + less than 10 years but may extend to 14 years. Therefore, + + in due consideration of the provisions of Section 439 and + + Section 18 of the SADA 2006, the materials against the + + applicant and the offences alleged to have been committed + + by the applicant this court is of the considered view that + + bail sought for by the applicant cannot be granted. The + + application is accordingly rejected.

+
+
+
+
+                                                  ( Bhaskar Raj Pradhan )
+                                                         Judge
+
+
+
+
+     Approved for reporting   : yes
+     Internet                 : Yes
+to
+
+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_173975444.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_173975444.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..af207670f6cedcdf2898038eaba1dc7c3411d030 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_173975444.html @@ -0,0 +1,2203 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Bheemavarapu Yateendra Rama Krishna, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 6 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 34, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

+

Bheemavarapu Yateendra Rama Krishna, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 6 January, 2025

+ +
        THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
+
+
+CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475,
+
+ 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839,
+
+                     5920 and 9083 of 2024
+
+
+COMMON ORDER:
+ + +

Crl.P.No.5197 of 2024 + + + This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A32 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

2

+ + + + +

2. Sri N. Harinadh, learned Counsel for petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, + +learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- + +State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.4896 of 2024 + + +

3. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A46 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

4. Sri Mukkamalla Rama Swamy, the learned counsel for + +petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + 3 + + + + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5230 of 2024 + + +

5. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A35 and A51 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

6. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + 4 + + + + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5256 of 2024 + + +

7. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A43 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

8. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + 5 + + + + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.5367 of 2024 + + +

9. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A4 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

10. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 6 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5475 of 2024 + + +

11. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A64 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

12. Sri Karanki Yaswanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, the learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

7

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5487 of 2024 + + +

13. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A47 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

14. Ms.P.Srilatha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 8 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5503 of 2024 + + +

15. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A19 and A20 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

16. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 9 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5550 of 2024 + + +

17. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A2, A16, A37 and A45 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

18. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

10

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5553 of 2024 + + +

19. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A7 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

20. Sri Peta Gnana Teja, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 11 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5585 of 2024 + + +

21. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A1 and A67 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

22. Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

12

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5652 of 2024 + + +

23. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A15 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

24. Sri Chalasani Venkat, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

13

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5718 of 2024 + + +

25. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A8, A22, A36 and A68 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

26. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 14 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5724 of 2024 + + +

27. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A3 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

28. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

15

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5752 of 2024 + + +

29. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A31, A53 and A65 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime + +No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna + +District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections + +143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) + +of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

30. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

16

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5839 of 2024 + + +

31. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A55 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

32. Sri B.V Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 17 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5920 of 2024 + + +

33. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A6, A13, A14, A17, A27, A28, A30, A39, A42, A52, + +A54, A56, A61 and A69 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

34. Ms.V.Devi Satya Sri, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

18

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.9083 of 2024 + + +

35. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A75 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

36. Sri G.L.Nageswar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor + +appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments. + + +

37. In all the above bail petitions, detailed counters were filed + +by the respondent-State. +

19

+ + + + +

38. All these criminal petitions pertain to Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station. By these petitions these + +accused pray for pre-arrest bail. All these petitions were heard + +together and by this common order they shall be disposed of. + +The crime incident allegedly occurred on 20.02.2023. Upon a + +written information dated 22.02.2023 F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was + +registered. The scene of offence was Telugu Desam Party office, + +Gannavaram. Sri Mudunuri Satyavardhan belonging to Madiga + +caste, which is a scheduled caste, was computer operator + +working in Telugu Desam Party office and living in the said office. + + +

39. During the time when this crime incident allegedly occurred + +the party in power was YSR Congress Party. Investigation + +commenced and went on for some time. Thereafter there were + +general elections and the then opposition party/Telugu Desam + +Party came into power. Thereafter investigation continued + +further. The allegations and counter allegations in this case + +disclosed the rift between both the political parties. Petitioners + +contend that this is a case falsely alleged against them out of + +political vendetta. According to State, for political reasons there + +was inadequate investigation soon after commission of the + +offence. By the time this crime incident occurred Sri Vallabhaneni + 20 + + + + +Vamsi Mohan was Member of Legislative Assembly for + +Gannavaram Assembly Constituency. He is one of the accused + +in the present crime. +

+

+

40. The version of the prosecution is that on 18.02.2023 during + +afternoon hours a press meet was held by Sri Vallabhaneni + +Vamsi Mohan wherein he allegedly made certain insulting + +remarks as against Sri N.Chandrababu Naidu, Sri Nara Lokesh + +and their family members and used indecent language. In + +response to it, certain leaders of Telugu Desam Party conducted + +a press meeting on 19.02.2023 in the morning hours and + +condemned the statements made by the opponent political party + +people. +

+

+

41. In the above backdrop of facts, the crime incident allegedly + +occurred. It is stated that on 20.02.2023 at about 5:00 P.M. + +Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan went to Telugu Desam Party + +office and on noticing followers of Telugu Desam Party he caused + +enquiries about Mr. Pattabhi of Telugu Desam Party and warned + +them that they would finish Telugu Desam Party and left the + +place. +

21

+ + + + +

42. In the next 30 minutes at about 5:30 P.M. about 100 + +persons belonging to YSR Congress Party came to Telugu + +Desam Party office wielding sticks, stones, petrol bottles and + +various other arms and while hailing Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi + +Mohan they attacked the party office. They threw stones, entered + +into the party office and destroyed the furniture, broke two + +computers and two televisions and caused tremendous panic + +among everyone available there. In the first information report + +the de facto complainant was able to mention the names of 44 + +accused. It also made a mention about four named accused who + +came upon him and abused him by his caste name. The further + +case of the prosecution is that these hooligans caused chaos and + +some of them using their sticks and cricket playing wickets + +seriously damaged three cars/AP 39 K 1999, AP 16 DJ 9499 and + +TS 10 EC 4099. It is also stated that one Mr. Rabbani poured + +petrol on the car bearing No.AP 16 DA 5555 and lit fire to it. The + +version of the de facto complainant is that there were police + +people at the Telugu Desam Party office and they remained mute + +spectators. During investigation it was found that some of the + +accused made attempts to burn the party office as walls in one + +room were found with charred marks. +

22

+ + + + +

43. Investigation has been in progress. Some of the accused + +were arrested and were remanded to judicial custody. According + +to prosecution, at least 44 accused were absconding. After + +gaining contact with about 28 accused they were questioned + +about their mobile phones and only seven out of them + +surrendered their mobile phones and 20 of the accused furnished + +false information with regard to the instruments they used and + +their mobile numbers. +

+

+

44. During the investigation, CCTV footage was collected. + +When the crime incident occurred, various people captured it on + +their mobile phones and all such material was collected. Based + +on these investigative efforts, allegations are made against all + +these petitioners by the prosecution that they are all involved in + +this crime incident. +

+

+

45. Broadly stated all these petitioners raised the following + +contentions: +

+

+

 That there was unexplained delay in registration of crime. + + The incident occurred on 20.02.2023 and F.I.R. was + + registered on 22.02.2023. That around the same time and + + place certain incidents occurred which resulted in + 23 + + + + + registration of multiple F.I.Rs. and many of which disclosed + + accusation of criminal acts of followers of Telugu Desam + + Party as against members of YSR Congress Party + + members and this case is in a way a counter blast to Crime + + Nos.132 of 2023 and 133 of 2023. +
+
+  F.I.R. does not contain any allegations of overt acts against + + these petitioners. +
+
+  After change in political party in power witnesses were + + planted and false evidence is created. +
+
+  The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. were bailable and + + many of these petitioners were served with Section 41A + + Cr.P.C. notice. However, after the change of political + + Government police have unlawfully brought additional + + penal provisions to nullify the rightful reliefs available to the + + petitioners. +
+
+

46. Plethora of precedent is cited on behalf of the petitioners + +and on behalf of some of the accused meticulous written + +arguments are filed leaving one to wonder that this to pronounce + +a judgment as if it is one after trial. +

24

+ + + + +

47. The following significant aspects are required to be noticed: + + +

F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was registered for the offences + +punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435 and 506 read with + +149 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989'). Since caste atrocity was one of + +the offences alleged, on the instructions of Superintendent of + +Police, Krishna, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gannavaram + +took up investigation. After recording the statements of about six + +witnesses, the investigation officer found that the provisions of the + +Act, 1989 were not applicable. Therefore, he applied to the + +Superintendent of Police to accord permission to delete those + +provisions. By proceedings dated 04.07.2023 the Superintendent + +of Police granted such permission. Investigation went further and + +scores of witnesses were examined. Thereafter by way of an + +alteration memo dated 07.08.2024 the investigation agency got + +added Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989. It + +also added Sections 436, 450 and 452 I.P.C. It is also to be + +noticed that in this case so far there are 71 accused. + 25 + + + + +

48. Since in the present crime incident not only offences under + +the Indian Penal Code but also offences under the Act, 1989 are + +alleged, the forceful argument raised by the State is that + +anticipatory bail petitions are not maintainable by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. The further argument is + +that the High Court does not now possess concurrent original + +jurisdiction for bails as well as anticipatory bails and it has only + +appellate jurisdiction by virtue of Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and + +therefore, these petitions are to be dismissed. In such + +circumstances, this Court on 13.11.2024 requested the learned + +counsels on both sides to address arguments in that regard since + +the jurisdictional bar has arisen. +

+

+

49. Valiant submissions are made by the learned counsels for + +petitioners wherein references are made to Sections 18 and 18A + +of the Act, 1989 and precedent is cited to show that if there is no + +prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989 is + +made out, anticipatory bail could be considered. It is also argued + +that this Court in these petitions during hearing granted interim + +protection and therefore, the same may be made absolute since + +these petitioners have not violated anything thereafter. + 26 + + + + +

50. The point that falls for consideration is: + + +

"What is the effect of Section 14A of the Scheduled + + Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the concurrent original + + jurisdiction of the High Court in considering bails + + and anticipatory bails where offences under the Act, + + 1989 are involved? +
+
+POINT: +
+
+

51. Offences under the Act, 1989 can be taken cognizance of + +and tried and be disposed of by Special Courts and Exclusive + +Special Courts as provided in Section 14 of the Act, 1989. Those + +Courts since now empowered to take cognizance hold power to + +take remand of the accused and consider bails. There is no + +provision in the Act, 1989 adverting to the aspects that are to be + +considered by those Courts when they entertain bail petitions. + +Therefore, those Courts draw their powers from the Code of + +Criminal Procedure. Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal + +Procedure is headed as provisions as to bail and bonds. It + +consists of Sections 436 to 450. They refer to bail in cases of + +bailable offences and bail in cases of non-bailable offences. + 27 + + + + +Section 438 Cr.P.C. is given heading direction for grant of bail to + +person apprehending arrest. To the extent the said provision is + +required alone is extracted here: +

+
"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending + arrest: +
+
(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be + arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- +

bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the + Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the + event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that + Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the + following factors, namely:- +

+
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; + +
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to + whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on + conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; + +
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and + +
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of + injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so + arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an + interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail: + +
Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, + the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order + under this sub-Section or has rejected the application for + grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer + 28 + + + + + incharge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the + applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in + such application." +
+

52. Thus, as per the above provision, those accused who + +anticipate their arrest may seek pre-arrest bail and they could + +move such applications either before this Court or before the + +Court of Sessions. It is in the light of such a provision the + +petitioners have straightaway moved this Court for their prayers + +for pre-arrest bail. +

+

+

53. The first submission of the State is that in cases of caste + +atrocities anticipatory bails cannot be maintained by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. Those provisions read as + +below: +

+

+

"18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons + committing an offence under the Act.-- Nothing in + section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case + involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of + having committed an offence under this Act. + + 18A. No enquiry or approval required.--(1) For the + purposes of this Act,-- (a) preliminary enquiry shall not be + required for registration of a First Information Report against + any person; or + 29 + + + + +
(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the + arrest, if necessary, of any person, + + against whom an accusation of having committed an + offence under this Act has been made and no procedure + other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall + apply. +
+
(2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply + to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or + order or direction of any Court." +
+

54. The crisp response from the learned counsels for the + +petitioners is that the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would + +apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist + +pointing towards the commission of an offence under the Act, + +1989. If the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under + +the Act, 1989 are not disclosed on the prima facie reading of the + +allegations levelled in the complaint or F.I.R. then in such + +circumstances, the bar of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would not + +apply and the Courts would not be absolutely precluded from + +granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons. In justification of + +this argument they cited ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + +India in Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala1. + +1 + 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601 + 30 + + + + +

55. If one goes by the contentions of the learned counsel for + +petitioners this Court is to take a view whether the allegations in + +the F.I.R./written information of the de facto complainant prima + +facie disclose caste atrocity or not. However, according to the + +State, even such a view cannot be taken by this Court by virtue of + +interdict contained in Section 14A of the Act, 1989. Therefore, it + +is required to notice what this provision says. The provision reads + +as below: +

+

+

"14A. Appeals:--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained + in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an + appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not + being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an + Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and + on law. +
+
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section + (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, + 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court + against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive + Special Court granting or refusing bail. + + (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for + the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall + be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of + the judgment, sentence or order appealed from: Provided + that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry + of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the + 31 + + + + + appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal + within the period of ninety days: Provided further that no + appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of + one hundred and eighty days. +
+
(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far + as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months + from the date of admission of the appeal." + +

56. As per Sub-Section (2) of Section 14Aof the Act, the + +petitions for bail are to be considered by the Special Court and in + +the event of their granting or refusing to grant such bails the + +aggrieved can prefer an appeal before this Court. Thus, the + +concurrent jurisdiction for consideration of anticipatory bails + +provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C. stood excluded. It is not as + +though the aggrieved is deprived of all the remedies. After + +inviting an order on the bail petition from the Special Court the + +aggrieved is entitled to prefer an appeal before this Court in terms + +of Section 14A of the Act, 1989. In the case at hand, the + +petitioners have moved bail petitions straightaway before this + +Court. At any rate, what is before this Court is not an appeal + +against an order passed by the Special Court with reference to + +bails. It shall be stated that on the same subject matter High + +Court could not be said to possess concurrent original jurisdiction + 32 + + + + +as well as appellate jurisdiction. If one is to state that a bail is + +different from anticipatory bail the result is that in anticipatory + +bails this Court holds original jurisdiction and in regular bails it + +holds only appellate jurisdiction. Assuming that in a case a + +petition for anticipatory bail being moved before the Special Court + +resulted in dismissal, then according to the logic applied by the + +petitioners the petitions would have to move only another bail + +petition before this Court and not an appeal. Such logic is in + +violation of what is clearly provided in Section 14A of the Act, + +1989. It is to be seen that the question of bail presupposes + +detention or custody of the person. In a case where a person is + +arrested he prays for a regular bail. In cases of anticipatory bail + +in the event of granting the relief, it has no effect unless and until + +the accused is arrested. In other words, the order of anticipatory + +bail comes into effect only after a person is arrested and not + +otherwise. In contrast to regular bail, in cases of anticipatory bail + +the order is obtained in advance. In regular bails it was obtained + +after arrest. The timing at which a prayer is made, and an order + +is granted, have no relevance when it comes to operation of + +those orders as in both the cases they come into operation only in + +those cases where a person is arrested. In such view of the + 33 + + + + +matter the word bail used in Section 14A of the Act, 1989 + +encompasses regular bail as well as anticipatory bail. Therefore, + +it must be stated that an application for bail or anticipatory bail + +can be filed only before the Special Court or the Exclusive + +Special Court as the case may be and not before the High Court. + +An order granting or refusing bail or anticipatory bail by the + +Special Court or Exclusive Special Court can be assailed before + +this Court invoking its appellate jurisdiction provided in Section + +14A of the Act, 1989. This Court had deliberated these aspects + +on earlier occasions when similar questions were raised and it + +reached to the same conclusions and reference can be made to + +the following: +

+

+

1. Nakka Nagireddy v. State of A.P.2 + + +
2. Deepak Kumar Tala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh3. + + +

57. Similar conclusions were reached at by other High Courts. + +Reference can be made to the following: +

+

+

1. K.M.Basheer v. Rajani K.T.4 + +2 + 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5322 Order dated 11.11.2024 +3 + Order dated 22.10.2024 in Criminal Petition No.6487 of 2024 +4 + 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 472 + 34 + + + + +
2. Lokesh v. State of Karnataka5 + + +
3. In re Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 v. Nil6 + + +
4. Atul Rajput v. The State of Madhya Pradesh7 + + +

58. At the bar, for petitioners, Abhishek Awasthi v. State of + +U.P.8 is cited. That is a case where other subsections of Section + +14A of the Act, 1989 fell for consideration and the powers of the + +High Court were considered under Section 482 of Code of + +Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings. + +Finally, it was held that with a view to prevent the misuse or + +abuse of the Court or law, the High Court holds inherent + +jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. + +Such question is not available before this Court. Even otherwise + +a brief reference to what was stated by their Lordships in Shajan + +Skaria's case9 would be sufficient here. At paragraph No.49 their + +Lordships stated that if the accused puts forward the case of + +malicious prosecution on account of political or private vendetta + +5 + 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15742 +6 + 2018 SCC OnLine ALL 2087 +7 + Order dated 10.04.2024 in Crl.A.No.3261 of 2024 of the High Court of +Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur +8 + MANU/UP/4595/2024 + 35 + + + + +such aspects can be considered only by the High Court in + +exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code or + +in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the + +Constitution of India. However, powers under Section 438 of the + +Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised once the + +contents of the complaint/F.I.R. disclose a prima facie case. In + +fact, in that case Section 14A of the Act, 1989 did not come up for + +consideration since the anticipatory bail petition was first moved + +before the trial Court and as against those orders appeal was + +preferred before the High Court. +

+

+

59. The plethora of precedent cited before this Court is not with + +reference to Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and therefore any + +reference to those cherished principles of those rulings is not + +required. This Court refrains from delving into other facts and the + +principles of law governing anticipatory bails since any such + +discussion may unnecessarily prejudice the contentions of both + +sides when appropriate applications are filed before appropriate + +Courts for the reliefs or when the maters come up before this + +Court in appeal. +

+

9 + Supra 1 + 36 + + + + +

60. Learned counsel for petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5920 + +of 2024 argued that this very Bench on earlier occasions + +considered and granted anticipatory bail and therefore, the same + +benefit can be extended to the present petitioners. The attention + +of this Court is brought to Sri Settipalli Raghurami Reddy v. + +The State of Andhra Pradesh10 and Julakanti Brahma Reddy + +@ Brahma Nanda Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 11. In + +both those matters the question about Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 was never raised by either side and therefore, there was no + +occasion for this Court to express itself on that aspect of the + +matter. After those orders it was in October and November 2024 + +only this Court had occasion to consider Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 and accordingly decided the earlier referred Nakka + +Nagireddy's case12 and Deepak Kumar Tala's case13. + +Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions of the learned + +counsel for the petitioners. +

+

+

61. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition + +No.5920 of 2024 further argued that the investigating agency is + +10 + Order dated 23.07.2024 in Criminal Petition No.3807 of 2024 +11 + Order dated 13.08.2024 in Criminal Petition No.10005 of 2023 +12 + supra 2 +13 + supra 3 + 37 + + + + +not entitled to add new penal provisions and cited State of + +Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde14. That was a case + +where on written information police registered a crime and + +investigating into it and filed charge sheet specifying certain penal + +provisions. At that stage the informant filed a petition to add + +Sections 364, 394 and 398 I.P.C. The question arose about the + +powers of the Magistrate at that stage as to whether he can + +incorporate those penal provisions as requested by the informant + +in a charge sheet filed by the police. Their Lordships stated that + +allowing incorporation of new provisions into the charge sheet as + +requested by the written informant at that stage is impermissible. + +However, the Court which is to try the case has to consider the + +first information report and all the other material collected and + +take a decision to frame appropriate charges under all the + +relevant penal provisions. Thus, the cited ruling has no relevance + +to the present case at hand. In the case at hand, the + +investigating police, exercising their right of investigation, have + +found it appropriate that the material on record do attract various + +provisions which were not originally mentioned in the F.I.R. Such + +power cannot be questioned. Informant would only put forth the + +14 + AIR 2014 SC 620 + 38 + + + + +facts before the registering officer and the Station House Officer + +on receiving such information using his own diligence + +incorporates the relevant penal provisions in the F.I.R. During + +investigation certain facts may be found incorrect and certain new + +facts may have been discovered and certain new accused may + +have been found having connection with the crime. There can be + +no legal hurdle in that regard since investigation is a voyage of + +truth. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsels for + +petitioners that provisions under the Act, 1989 were brought into + +effect during investigation and therefore have to be discarded is + +an argument that cannot be sustained. It may be recorded here + +that even to begin with in the case at hand the F.I.R. mentioned + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989. At the present also + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989 are alleged by the + +prosecution. Simply because at one stage such penal provisions + +were dropped does not mean that at a later stage they cannot be + +brought in. The argument that the new addition was not granted + +by the Superintendent of Police cannot be countenanced since + +the method of investigation is sole prerogative of the investigation + +officer. For the above reasons, the point is answered against the + +petitioners. +

39

+ + + + +

62. In the result, all these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. It is + +made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate + +petitions for appropriate reliefs before the appropriate Court. In + +the event such petitions are filed, the Court where they are filed is + +to consider the petitions on judicial side and dispose of them in + +accordance with law. Any observations made herein are confined + +to these petitions and they have no bearing on the merits or + +demerits of the case on either side. +

+

________________________ + Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J +Date: 06.01.2025 +Ivd + 40 + + + + + THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR + + + + +CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475, + 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839, + 5920 and 9083 of 2024 + + + + + Date: 06.01.2025 + + + +Ivd +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_174468305.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_174468305.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..507f28989ce6c2a9fa0524eb64a3f432fafda043 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_174468305.html @@ -0,0 +1,455 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Pintu Kumar @ Pintu Kumar Pal vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The petitioner is in custody for about 4 years. + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 665 of 2023 + + The instant Revision is filed by CICL himself, + + challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order, + + dated 9th of August, 2023, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2023 + + by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum- + + Children's Court, Banka. The CICL was arrested in connection + + with Banduwa Kurawa P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023, corresponding + + to G.R. No. 1202 of 2023, for the offences punishable under + + Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 + + of the Arms Act. However, later on, Sections 34 of the IPC and + + Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section + + 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes + + (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added. Prayer for + + bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Appeal in + + exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Juvenile + + Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter + + referred to as 'said Act') vide order, dated 15th of June, 2023. + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 687 of 2023 + + The petitioner/CICL was arrested in connection + + with Fesar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, + + 325, 307, 34, 504, 506 and 379 of the IPC along with his father + + and uncle. The petitioner prayed for regular bail before the JJB, + + Aurangabad. In JJB Case No. 932 of 2023, prayer for bail was + + rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 41 + + of 2023 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children's Court, + + Aurangabad. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal + + and affirmed the order of the JJB. The petitioner has assailed the + + said order of the Appellate Court on various grounds, specially + + on the ground that the father and uncle of the petitioner have + + already been granted bail for the same offence. + +
+
+ +
+

Reg. Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2024 + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + The petitioner was booked along with other major + + accused persons in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 237 of + + 2022, dated 13th of August, 2022, under Section 302 and 34 of + + the IPC. The petitioner being a CICL prayed for bail before the + + Juvenile Justice Board, but his prayer for bail was rejected. He + + preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the said Act before the + + learned Special Judge, Children's Court and the said appeal was + + also dismissed and the order of rejection of bail passed by the + + JJB was affirmed. It is stated by the petitioner that the accused + + persons who are major, namely, Sushil Kumar Yadav and Anil + + Yadav were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on + + 26th of April, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 4091 of 2023. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_175624995.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_175624995.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..400430a80032a8b1564bda67e97136fd34773879 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_175624995.html @@ -0,0 +1,2184 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sanjukta Samanta & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 30, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

+

Sanjukta Samanta & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2025

+ +
                                        1
+
+                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
+                   CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
+                            APPELLATE SIDE
+
+
+Present:
+
+The Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
+
+                              W.P.A. 15260 of 2024
+
+                             Sanjukta Samanta & Anr.
+                                       -Vs-
+                               Union of India & Ors.
+
+
+Petitioner No. 1 in person           : Mrs. Sanjukta Samanta
+
+Petitioner No. 2 in person           : Mr. Romit Dutta
+
+For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2        : Mr. Rajdeep Majumdar
+                                       Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Chakraborty
+
+For the State                        : Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury
+                                       Mr. Manas Kumar Sadhu
+                                       Ms. Subhasree Patel
+
+For the Respondent No. 13            : Mr. Neeraj Sekhar
+                                       Ms. Malabika Saha
+
+Heard on                             : 13.03.2025, 28.03.2025,
+                                       25.06.2025, 11.07.2025
+
+Judgment on                          : 26.09.2025
+
+Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-
+
+1. The instant writ petition had been assigned to this Court by the Hon'ble the
+
+  Chief Justice, High Court at Calcutta, after the instant writ petition had
+
+  been released by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court presiding over in
+
+  Court No.14 vide its Order dated 05.08.2024 replicated as follows:-
+
+            "Live streaming of Court proceeding has been paused.
+                                          2
+
+              Heard submission of the petitioner no.2 and the learned advocate
+          representing the respondent no.13.
+              The petitioner no.1 behaves in an extremely unruly manner before
+          the Court. She is highly agitated. The Court is not inclined to hear the
+          matter.
+              Let this matter be released from the list of this Bench and be placed
+          before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for necessary order."
+
+2. The instant writ petition had been filed, inter alia, praying for following
+
+  reliefs:-
+
+          "........
+          B. Writ of an/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+          respondents to declare the impugned proceedings of Chatterjeehat
+          Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 under sections
+          341/365/468/420/506/34         IPC   is   illegal,   void   ab   initio   and
+          unconstitutional;
+
+          C. Writ in nature of mandamus to quash the entire proceedings in
+          connection with Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated
+          04.05.2024 under sections 341/365/468/420/506/34 IPC pending
+          before Learned CJM at Howrah and being investigated by state
+          respondents;
+
+          D. Writ in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondents
+          and its men, subordinates, assignees to unconditionally forthwith
+          withdraw, recall, rescind all steps taken in pursuance of the
+          Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 under
+          sections 341/365/468/420/506/34 IPC;
+
+          E. Writ of an/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+          respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates and each one
+          of them to quash/set aside the impugned Notification issued by the
+          office of Respondent 6 vide Org No.618/CS dated 06.05.2024 through
+                                3
+
+which the investigation of Chatterjeehat Police Station Case no.78 of
+2023 dated 04.05.2023 was taken up by respondent no.7;
+
+F. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents to render appropriate protection to life, liberty and
+possession to the writ petitioner no.1 by the respondents 1, 2;
+
+G. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates and each one
+of them to hand over the Case Diary of Chatterjeehat Police Station
+Case no.78 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 to the office of Respondent no.4
+forthwith;
+
+H. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates to stay the
+investigation of impugned FIR Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 86 of
+2024 dated 04.05.2024 under sections 341/365/468/420/506/34
+IPC by respondent no.9 with immediate effect;
+
+I. Writ of an/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates not to take any
+coercive steps against the petitioners in connection with Chatterjeehat
+Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 under sections
+341/365/468/420/506/34 IPC;
+
+J. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates not to take any
+coercive steps against the petitioners in connection with any frivolous
+FIRs against the Writ Petitioners by the accused respondent 13 and his
+associates;
+
+K. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates to stay the
+impugned further investigation of Chatterjeehat Police Station Case
+no.78 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 by State CID respondents;
+                                           4
+
+         L. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+         respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates not to register
+         any false FIR against the Writ Petitioners by the instant accused
+         respondents and his associates without any preliminary inquiry as
+         well as without leave of this Hon'ble Court;
+
+         M. A writ of and/or in nature of certiorari directing the concerned
+         respondents being respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 thereof to transmit
+         and/or produce all relevant records lying with them to this Hon'ble
+         Court so that conscionable justice may be done after hearing the
+         respective parties to this writ petition;
+
+         N. A writ of and/or in nature of Mandamus commanding the
+         respondent authorities 1, 2 to render appropriate protection to protect
+         life and possession of the petitioner;
+         ......."
+3. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 contended to be the Learned Advocates practising
+
+  in the High Court at Calcutta as well as the Supreme Court of India. The
+
+  petitioners, on invitation by the respondent No.13, visited his house at
+
+  Tamilnadu to hold a conference with the father of respondent No.13
+
+  concerning the filing of affidavit-of-assets and liabilities in connection with a
+
+  dispute regarding domestic violence instituted against the respondent No.13
+
+  pending at the District Court of South 24-Parganas at Alipore.
+
+4. Petitioner No.1 learnt of certain false information presented through an
+
+  affidavit-on-oath before the Court of Learned 6 th Judicial Magistrate at
+
+  Alipore, South 24-Parganas concerning the occupation of respondent No.13
+
+  and confronted the same. The respondent No.13 consequently insulted the
+
+  petitioner, indignifying her with threats, defamation and dire consequences.
+
+  Subsequently, the petitioner No.1 was threatened by an associate of
+                                         5
+
+  respondent no.13 as narrated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the writ petition. The
+
+  petitioners, thereafter, forwarded a complaint through e-mail to the
+
+  respondent no.8 being the Commissioner of Police, Howrah and Kolkata
+
+  Police on 23rd of April, 2023 at 21:44 hours.
+
+5. On 29th of April, 2023 at about 08:30 P.M., the respondent no.13
+
+  accompanied by his associate forcefully entering the chamber of petitioner
+
+  no.1, physically molested and harassed her as stated in paragraph 8 of the
+
+  writ petition. Meanwhile, the unknown associate vandalized the chamber of
+
+  the petitioner and escaped therefrom along with a mobile of model Vivo -
+
+  Y100 and a sum of Rs.65,000/- in cash.
+
+6. The petitioners initially refrained to proceed against the criminal acts of
+
+  respondent no.13, however, ultimately lodged a complaint against the
+
+  aforesaid respondents at the office of respondent no.8 and 9, i.e., Officer-in-
+
+  Charge of Chatterjeehat Police Station at Howrah on 03.05.2023 at 20:21
+
+  hours and the complaint was registered as Chatterjeehat Police Station Case
+
+  No.78      of      2023       dated       04.05.2023      under       Sections
+
+  420/406/448/341/323/354B/307/376/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal
+
+  Code. The respondent no.13 was, thereafter, arrested by the office of the
+
+  respondent no.9 who later on obtained an order of bail from the Hon'ble
+
+  Court.
+
+7. The petitioners had filed a complaint registered by the police being Howrah
+
+  P.S. Case No.262 of 2023 dated 27.07.2023 under Sections 195A/506/34 of
+
+  the Indian Penal Code against the associates of respondent no.13 for being
+
+  threatened as mentioned in paragraph 15 of the writ petition.
+                                          6
+
+8. The petitioners contended to have been insinuated through various means
+
+  as stated in paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the writ petition. The
+
+  predicaments of the petitioners had been vividly described in paragraphs 25,
+
+  26, 27, 28, and 29 of the writ petition. The petitioner no.1 claimed herself to
+
+  be a member of a political party, who had dealt with a Public Interest
+
+  Litigation in person addressing the grievances in connection with an incident
+
+  which occurred at Sandeshkhali in West Bengal through a writ petition
+
+  being No.WPA(P) 78 of 2024 before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and
+
+  SLP(C ) No.9462/9465 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
+
+  The petitioner no.1's combat and opposition against injustice towards
+
+  general women through the aforesaid writ petition rendered her aged senior
+
+  citizen parents to suffer from trauma and threats at the behest of her
+
+  competitive political party. The petitioner no.1 narrated the conduct of the
+
+  Learned Public Prosecutor of the State of West Bengal in paragraphs 35 and
+
+  36 of the writ petition.
+
+9. The petitioners in the instant writ petition further stated as follows:-
+
+       (i) The State respondents in collusion and conspiracy with the accused
+
+          respondent no. 13 had registered the said FIR being Chatterjeehat PS
+
+          Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 against the petitioner no.1 and
+
+          petitioner no.2, who was prime witness of the heinous crime
+
+          happened to her in the form of Chatterjeehat PS Case No.78 of 2023
+
+          dated 04.05.2023 to achieve their ulterior motive to put the instant
+
+          petitioner no.1 and 2, behind the bar for restraining the petitioner
+
+          no.1 from representing herself for the sexual assault victims of
+                                    7
+
+   Sandeshkhali, West Bengal as in person PIL Writ petitioner therein
+
+   before Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in WPA (P) 78 of 2024.
+
+(ii) The instant false and fabricated FIR being Chatterjeehat PS Case
+
+   No.86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 was the delayed counterblast of the
+
+   Chargesheeted Case being Chatterjeehat Police Station Case no 78 of
+
+   2023 dated 04.05.2023, Howrah PS Case 262 of 2023 dated
+
+   27.07.2023 and Chatterjeehat PS Case 23 of 2024 dated 05.02.2024.
+
+(iii) The instant false FIR against Writ Petitioners was lodged by complete
+
+   misusing the liberty granted by Hon'ble High Court in WPA 23711 of
+
+   2023 while the Hon'ble High Court while disposing WPA 23711 of
+
+   2023 vide order dated 16.04.2024 never granted liberty to the
+
+   accused respondent 13 to lodge a fresh /de novo complaint before
+
+   police against petitioners with inordinate delay for registration of FIR.
+
+(iv) The accused respondent no.13 in collusion and conspiracy with the
+
+   State police had misused and abused the Hon'ble High Court given
+
+   liberty to fabricate instant petitioners into a false, fabricated FIR.
+
+(v) The respondent no.3, being clubbed up with the state respondents
+
+   had been actively involved in terrorizing the victim writ petitioner and
+
+   prime eye witness her husband of the case being Chatterjeehat PS
+
+   Case No.78 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 by way of taking up
+
+   investigation of the case by CID in completely mala fide manner
+
+   totally contradictory as mandated by law as well as by way of filing
+
+   such false and fabricated FIR against the petitioner and her husband.
+                                  8
+
+(vi) After coming out of judicial custody and police custody for
+
+   commission of crime of sexual violence against petitioner in
+
+   connection with Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 78 of 2923 dated
+
+   04.05.2023, to wreak personal vengeance the prime               accused
+
+   respondent 13 had created a false, fabricated story of his alleged
+
+   abduction of himself at same time while he committed crime and had
+
+   lodged FIR against writ petitioner after one year of inordinate delay.
+
+(vii) She, being the de-facto complainant of Chatterjeehat PS Case 78 of
+
+   2023 dated 04.05.2023, was not being able to return at her home city
+
+   Calcutta as well as she had not been able to represent the sexual
+
+   assault victims of Sandeshkhali, West Bengal in the PIL WPA(P) 78 of
+
+   2024 (physically , which was the PIL filed by her as in person at first
+
+   instance for protection of Vulnerable victims therein) before the
+
+   Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and before this Hon'ble Supreme
+
+   Court as SLP (C) No. 9462-9465 of 2024 .
+
+ (viii) Due to registration of said false FIR being Chatterjeehat PS Case
+
+   86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 upon a deviated version of original
+
+   crime incident happened to the writ petitioner no. 1, she would not be
+
+   able to represent herself as in person petitioner de-facto complainant
+
+   before the Learned Trial Courts and before Hon'ble High Court in
+
+   several proceedings under severe threat of her and her husband's
+
+   arrest by the State police machineries upon said false FIR registered
+
+   against the Writ Petitioner and her husband.
+                                         9
+
+       (ix) The petitioner stated that the FIR being Chatterjeehat PS Case 86 of
+
+          2024 dated 04.05.2024 was registered to wreak personal vengeance
+
+          against the writ petitioner and her husband by the state police
+
+          respondents in collusion and conspiracy with the accused respondent
+
+          no.13.
+
+10. The investigation in Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.78 of 2023 dated
+
+   04.05.2023 was entrusted upon respondent no.6 C.I.D., West Bengal at the
+
+   instance of the Learned Public Prosecutor, State of West Bengal unilaterally
+
+   without an order passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta to the
+
+   astonishment of the petitioners which, according to the petitioners, had been
+
+   biased and politically motivated.
+
+11. The petitioners are of the firm conviction to be betrayed with right to fair
+
+   investigation and fair trial to their utter detriment and prejudice. The
+
+   petitioners, being intimidated by the action on the part of the State agencies,
+
+   further sought for personal protection as she had been constantly threatened
+
+   by the police offices, CID officials etc. The petitioners, as would appear from
+
+   the order-sheets of the instant writ petition, appeared before this Court in
+
+   person and agitated their trauma and agony to have been continuously
+
+   threatened by the respondents and other State officials resulting in their
+
+   apprehension of life and property to be in extreme danger and peril.
+
+12. The petitioner no.1 claimed to have been physically molested by the
+
+   respondent no.13 and the State agencies constantly threatened and
+
+   harassed her preventing her to pursue her profession as a lawyer and to
+
+   fight for the cause demanding protection of women's life, right and dignity.
+                                          10
+
+   Petitioners appearing in person submitted the Learned Public Prosecutor on
+
+   his own accord had transferred the investigation to the CID agencies without
+
+   an order of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta to investigate the
+
+   Chatterjeehat Police Station Case being No.78 of 2023 as aforesaid to wreak
+
+   vengeance against them.
+
+13. The order dated 23.08.2024 passed by this Court is replicated hereinbelow:-
+
+             "The learned advocates for the respondent nos.3 to 11 and the
+
+          respondent no.13 are present.
+
+             The petitioner no.1 appeared online prior to the recess expressing
+          her extreme urgency for listing the matter for hearing. Accordingly, a
+          supplementary list was prepared fixing the matter at 2.00 p.m.
+             The petitioner no.1 did not appear before the Court either in-person
+          or online at the time of hearing though the petitioner no.2 appeared
+          online and submitted due to medical emergency, the petitioner no.1
+          could not appear before the Court.
+             It was further submitted by the petitioner no.2 that the Union of
+          India being the respondent no.1 and the Central Industrial Security
+          Force being the respondent no.2, should be providing proper security to
+          the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and their presence was required for
+          adjudication of the instant writ petition at the time of hearing.
+             The petitioner nos.1 and 2 are directed to serve a notice upon the
+          learned advocate for the respondent nos.1 and 2 intimating the next
+          date of hearing on 3rd September, 2024 and to file an affidavit of
+          service to that effect.
+             Next date be fixed on 3rd September, 2024 at 2.00 p.m. for further
+
+          hearing."
+
+14. Subsequently, on 03.09.2024 the petitioner no.1 and 2 appeared in person
+
+   and submitted the arbitrary action on the part of the Learned Public
+                                          11
+
+   Prosecutor to have initiated the investigation through CID, West Bengal
+
+   without the direction obtained from the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
+
+   Howrah based on a communication addressed to the same and referred to an
+
+   order dated 08th April, 2024 passed by an Hon'ble Co-Ordinate Bench of this
+
+   Court in CRR 1023 of 2024.
+
+15. Considering the submissions of the petitioners in person, this Court passed
+
+   an order dated 03.09.2024 as replicated hereinbelow:-
+
+             "The supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner no.1-in-person
+          be kept on record. Copies of the same have been served upon the
+          leaned advocates appearing for the other respective respondents.
+             The petitioners-in-person referred to the order dated 8 th April, 2024
+          passed by a Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of Court in CRR 1023 of 2024
+          as well as to the communication addressed to the learned Chief
+          Judicial Magistrate, Howrah Court, marked as "annexure P-10" to the
+          writ petition. The petitioners as aforesaid further submitted that the
+          communication to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah Court
+          referring to CID investigation was not directed through an order of this
+          Court, as aforesaid.
+             The learned advocate for the State refers to the Police Regulation
+          Bengal, 1943 whereby the CID can on its own take up the
+          investigation. The learned advocate for the State is requested to inform
+          the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Debasis Ray to be present before
+          this Court on the next date of hearing to explain as to what prompted
+          him to submit before the Coordinate Bench that the investigations were
+          to be conducted up by the CID, West Bengal.
+             The learned advocate for the respondents are to file respective reply
+          to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners-in-person before
+          the Court on the next date with regard to the possibility of security to
+          be provided to the petitioner no.1 as claimed in the instant writ petition.
+                                         12
+
+             Heard the submission of the learned advocate representing the
+          respondent no.13.
+             The status report filed by the learned advocate for the State be kept
+          on record. A copy of the same has been served upon the petitioner
+          nos.1 and 2 in Court.
+             Next date be fixed on 17th September, 2024."
+16. Vide order dated 17.09.2024, this Court had appointed Learned Senior
+
+   Advocate Mr. Milon Mukherjee, the Learned Advocate Mr. Souvik Mitter and
+
+   Learned Advocate Ms. Sutapa Sanyal to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae in
+
+   order to dispose of the instant writ petition which was accepted by the
+
+   aforesaid Learned Advocates. The order dated 17.09.2024 passed by this
+
+   Court replicated as follows:-
+
+             "The learned senior advocate Mr. Milon Mukherjee, the learned
+          advocate Mr. Souvik Mitter and the learned advocate Ms. Sutapa
+          Sanyal have been requested to assist the Court as amicus curiae in
+          order to dispose of the instant writ petition and the same has been
+          accepted by the aforesaid learned advocates.
+             The learned advocate representing the respondent no.13 submits to
+          serve a copy of the writ petition along with the annexed documents and
+          the orders to the learned advocates appointed as amicus curiae in this
+          matter.
+             The learned advocate representing respondent nos.1 and 2 are
+          present and submitted the opinion of the Union of India with regard to
+          the provision of safety and security, generally accorded to specific
+          individuals subject to certain circumstances.
+             It is further submitted that the Ministry of Home Affairs is the
+          appropriate authority to provide safety and security to an individual
+          considering the threat perception after thorough assessment of the
+          facts and circumstances of a distinct case.
+                                          13
+
+                Heard the submissions of the learned advocates appointed as
+          amicus curiae and also the submissions of the petitioner no.1 and 2
+          appearing in-person.
+                The learned advocate representing the respondent no.13 seeks time
+          to file an affidavit-in-opposition to the supplementary affidavit filed by
+          the petitioner nos.1 and 2 appearing in-person after the processes for
+          filing the same gets endorsed through the concerned authority
+          pertaining to Bangladesh and the same is allowed.
+                Next date be fixed on 4th October, 2024 at 2.00 p.m. for further
+          hearing."
+17. On 04th October, 2024, the petitioner no.2 appeared online and submitted to
+
+   have preferred an appeal before the Division Bench presided over by the
+
+   Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court at Calcutta and sought for time on
+
+   that ground. PW-1 did not appear before the Court. Petitioner no.1 and
+
+   petitioner no.2 were directed to file an affidavit preferring an appeal as
+
+   aforesaid.
+
+18. On 18th November, 2024, petitioner no.1 did not appear before this Court
+
+   either in person or online. Petitioner no.2 appeared online and filed a
+
+   supplementary affidavit through is concerned Learned Advocate Mr. Arkadeb
+
+   Nag in open Court which, inter alia, stated the grievance of the petitioners
+
+   against the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by this Court in WPA 15260 of
+
+   2024 for seeking assistance of the Learned Advocates of this Court to act as
+
+   Amicus Curiae as aforesaid.
+
+19. The appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Division Bench presided over by
+
+   the Hon'ble the Chief Justice being MAT 2051 of 2024 on 6 th of November,
+
+   2024. Moreover, the fate of the said appeal had not been communicated to
+
+   this Court, if at all the hearing had been conducted. On 18 th November,
+                                            14
+
+   2024, the Learned Public Prosecutor appeared before this Court in
+
+   compliance with the order dated 03.09.2024 whereby this Court had sought
+
+   for an explanation as to what prompted him to submit before the Co-
+
+   ordinate Bench that the investigation of the Chatterjeehat Police Station
+
+   Case Nos.86 of 2024, 78 of 2023 and 23 of 2024 was to be conducted by the
+
+   CID, West Bengal.
+
+20. The Learned Public Prosecutor submitted several complaints and allegations
+
+   against two Hon'ble Judges of this Court and the officials of the
+
+   Chatterjeehat Police Station by the petitioners compelled him to ensure the
+
+   investigation to be carried out by an agency not comprising of the said
+
+   officials   of   the   Chatterjeehat   Police   Station   and   to   obliterate   the
+
+   apprehension of partial and biased investigation, the same was asked to be
+
+   conducted by the CID, State of West Bengal.
+
+21. On 19th of December, 2024, the Learned Public Prosecutor in compliance
+
+   with the order dated 18th November, 2024 filed a report stating the status of
+
+   investigation concerning the aforesaid police station cases. On 19 th
+
+   December, 2024, the Learned Public Prosecutor filed the report as aforesaid
+
+   along with an explanation as sought for. The petitioner no.1 was neither
+
+   present before the Court nor appeared online. Petitioner no.2 appeared
+
+   online and stated the appeal filed before the Division Bench was appearing
+
+   in the Daily List to be called for hearing. The petitioner no.1 and 2 had been
+
+   time and again asked by this Court to produce the details of the complaint or
+
+   G.D. Entry number which they claimed to have filed in the concerned police
+
+   station on several occasions for being threatened, physically manhandled,
+                                             15
+
+   molested and harassed. The petitioners did not produce any reference to that
+
+   effect before this Court.
+
+22. An order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in
+
+   WPA 23711 of 2023 is replicated as follows:-
+
+               "The respondent no. 12 appears in-person and tries to out shout
+             others. In spite of request made by the Court to calm down, she does
+             not relent and continues with her belligerent demeanour.
+               In view of this, I am not inclined to take up this matter.
+               Accordingly, the matter is released from my list."
+23. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners and the respondent no.13 who
+
+   had been the erstwhile client of the petitioners who sought for legal
+
+   assistance of the petitioners engaging them to be his advocates had filed writ
+
+   petitions being No.WPA 23711 of 2023 and WPA 21868 of 2023 wherein
+
+   several complaints had been filed against each other. Vide an order dated
+
+   16.04.2024, a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following
+
+   order:-
+
+               "Both these writ petitions are taken up for hearing together. It
+             appears that the petitioners in both the cases have filed several
+             complaints against each other.
+                                In Re: W.P.A. No.23711 of 2023
+               The petitioners in WPA No.23711 of 2023 lodged several complaints
+             against the petitioner in WPA No.21868 of 2023 before the Criminal
+             Investigation Department, West Bengal. In this writ petition, some of
+             the complaints have been annexed at annexure P/15. The petitioners
+             allege that no case has been registered or investigation has been
+             initiated following the said complaints.
+               I am of the view that the petitioners should lodge complaint before
+             the concerned police station at the first instance.
+                               16
+
+  Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty upon the
+petitioners to lodge complaint before the concerned police station. If the
+complaint discloses any cognizable offence, the relevant police station
+shall take steps to register F.I.R. and investigate the matter in
+accordance with law.
+  Accordingly,    W.P.A.    No.23711      of    2023     and    connected
+applications, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024 and CAN 2 of 2024 are
+disposed of.
+                   In Re: W.P.A. No.21868 of 2023
+  The petitioner in this case is a lady advocate. It appears that she
+also filed several complaints against the petitioners in WPA No.23711
+of 2023.
+  Following the complaints, the Investigating Agency has filed
+Chatterjeehat P.S. charge sheet no.191/23 dated 31.10.2022 under
+Sections 420/406/448/341/ 323/307/379/354B/376/506/34 of the
+Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Howrah P.S. charge sheet no.277/23
+dated 30.09.2023 under Sections 195A/506/34 of the 3 Indian Penal
+Code, 1860, before the jurisdictional Court. The trials have not yet
+commenced.
+  It is the grievance of the petitioner that while attending the Courts in
+connection with the aforesaid criminal cases, she is being harassed
+and even attacked by the petitioners in WPA No.23711 of 2023. These
+allegations have been vehemently denied by the petitioners in WPA
+No.23711 of 2023.
+  This Court is not in a position to appreciate the factual disputes. It is
+only expected that if the petitioner approaches the learned Trial Court
+seeking her protection, to ensure a free and fair trial, her prayer shall
+be considered by the Court below by passing necessary order.
+  Accordingly,    W.P.A.    No.21868      of    2023     and    connected
+applications, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2023 and CAN 2 of 2024 are
+disposed of."
+                                           17
+
+24. The present petitioners in the instant writ petition had filed an appeal
+
+   against the order dated 16.04.2024 passed in WPA 23711 of 2023 and WPA
+
+   21868 of 2023 before the Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble the
+
+   Chief Justice of this Court. By a judgment dated 21.05.2024 in MAT 831 of
+
+   2024, the Hon'ble Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice
+
+   of this Court had passed a judgment replicated as follows:-
+
+          "1. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties.
+          2. The appellant no.2, who is appearing online and he had sent a
+          message in the chat box praying that the live streaming of the
+          proceedings be paused. Acceding to the request made by the appellant
+          no.2, live streaming of the proceeding was paused.
+          3. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order passed in
+          W.P.A. No.23711 of 2023. The said writ petition was filed by the
+          respondent herein stating that several complaints have been lodged
+          against the respondents before the Criminal Investigation Department,
+          West Bengal and some of the complaints were annexed to the writ
+          petition. Further, the writ petitioners allege that no case has been
+          registered or investigated based on the complaints lodged by the
+          respondents/writ petitioners.
+          4. The learned Single Bench did not go into the merits of the matter but
+          disposed of the writ petition by the impugned order observing that the
+          writ petitioners, if aggrieved, should lodge complaint before the
+          concerned police station, at the first instance. Accordingly, the writ
+          petition was disposed of granting liberty to the writ petitioners to lodge
+          complaint before the concerned police station with an observation that
+          if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the relevant police
+          station shall take steps to register F.I.R. and investigate the matter in
+          accordance with law.
+          5. We failed to understand as to how the appellants before us, whose
+          names have been masked at their request, are aggrieved by the order
+                                          18
+
+          passed in the writ petition as the learned Writ Court has not gone into
+          the merits of the matter and left it open to the writ petitioners to work
+          out their remedy before the concerned police station.
+          6. The appellant no.2, who is appearing online, submitted that several
+          cases have been registered against them and there is a threat of
+          arrest. If that be so, it is well open to the appellants to invoke the
+          provisions of law available to them and approach the competent forum
+          for necessary relief.
+          7. Thus, we find no ground has been made out to interfere with the
+          order passed in the writ petition.
+          8. With the above observations/directions, appeal as well as the
+          connected application (IA No. CAN 1 of 2024) stand dismissed.
+          9. No costs.
+          10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
+          furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal
+          formalities."
+25. Subsequent to the aforesaid orders passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench and
+
+   the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner no.1 and 2 failed to
+
+   place any document of complaint filed by them before the concerned police
+
+   authorities claiming threat to their personal life and property and of any
+
+   action restricting their liberty to pursue their profession with dignity.
+
+26. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.1 and 2 submitted the
+
+   opinion of the Union of India specifically the Ministry of Home Affairs to be
+
+   the appropriate authority to provide safety and security to an individual
+
+   considering the threat perception after thorough assessment of the facts and
+
+   circumstances of a distinct case. It was further urged neither the police
+
+   authorities concerned nor this Court can assess whether the petitioners
+
+   required to be provided safety and security on the basis of personal claim of
+                                            19
+
+   a threat perception since it was within the absolute domain of the Ministry of
+
+   Home Affairs to ascertain and decide the seriousness and gravity of the
+
+   situation to provide safety and security to any individual.
+
+27. The Learned Advocate representing the State-respondents submitted despite
+
+   the order of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioners did not co-
+
+   operate with the investigation and suspected the investigating agency of
+
+   biasedness, arbitrariness and to wreck vengeance against the petitioners for
+
+   having dealt with a Public Interest Litigation against the State authorities
+
+   concerning an incident at Sandeshkhali. The petitioners were of the opinion
+
+   to be prejudicially prevented and impartial hearing and failed a transfer
+
+   petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India being Transfer Petitions
+
+   Criminal Nos.701/702 of 2024 which was dismissed as the Hon'ble Supreme
+
+   Court observed no case for transfer to have been made out vide its order
+
+   dated September 2, 2024.
+
+28. The petitioners had also filed writ petition criminal No.236 of 2024 before the
+
+   Supreme Court of India which was withdrawn by the petitioners. The
+
+   petitioners had accused the police personnels and other officials and had
+
+   impleaded them in the instant writ petition without plausible reasons and
+
+   did   not   deliberately   co-operate    with   the   investigation   citing   their
+
+   dissatisfaction as the same had been conducted by the CID, West Bengal
+
+   further stating to the Investigating Officer that the investigation should be
+
+   conducted by the CBI.
+
+29. The Learned Advocate representing the State further submitted it would not
+
+   be possible for the Writ Court to quash the proceedings since the complaint
+                                         20
+
+   as well as the FIR delineated commission of cognizable offences and the
+
+   charge-sheet had been submitted with further prayer on the part of the
+
+   Investigating Officer to file a supplementary charge-sheet. The Writ Court in
+
+   case of the offences being cognizable and the conundrum between the
+
+   parties should be decided through trial by the competent court. The Writ
+
+   Court should not exercise its jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.
+
+30. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 submitted the
+
+   petitioners to have instituted false and malicious complaints against the
+
+   respondent no.13 with an intention to incriminate him in serious offences of
+
+   rape, theft etc. The father of the respondent no.13 being a nonagenarian
+
+   person had been dragged mercilessly into humiliation, despair, agony and
+
+   trauma. The petitioners on being asked to be relieved of their professional
+
+   responsibility to represent the respondent no.13 and to withdraw the cases
+
+   on account of reconciliation between the respondent no.13 and his wife
+
+   infuriated the petitioners to lodge frivolous and baseless complaints against
+
+   the respondent no.13 whereby the same being a professional oncologist
+
+   practising in Bangladesh had been arrested and was released on bail. It was
+
+   further submitted the respondent no.13 to have been kidnapped by the
+
+   petitioners, physically assaulted and captivated.
+
+31. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 submitted that the
+
+   petitioner no.1 had instituted complaint cases against her and the same had
+
+   not been taken cognizance of by the CMM vide order dated 13.07.2023
+
+   passed in CS/71375/2023.
+                                         21
+
+32. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 further submitted
+
+   to have been repeatedly threatened and abused by the petitioners on the
+
+   corridor of this Court along with her junior who happened to be a practising
+
+   advocate in this Court. Against complaints registered as FIR, criminal
+
+   revisional applications have been pending before the respective Co-Ordinate
+
+   Bench of this Court.
+
+33. The petitioners were trying to frustrate the proceedings by delaying the
+
+   hearing of the same on several pretexts to the predicament of the respondent
+
+   no.13. Moreover, since the investigation had proceeded to a considerable
+
+   extent, the writ petition should not be entertained.
+
+34. The relationship between the petitioners and the respondent no.13
+
+   apparently had been cordial at the inception whereby the petitioners
+
+   accorded legal assistance to respondent no.13 to defend him in several cases
+
+   instituted against him in the Court of law, which gradually might have
+
+   evolved to be trustworthy and amicable to the extent the petitioners
+
+   accompanied the respondent no.13 to his parents' house at Tamil Nadu to
+
+   assist the respondent no.13 and his father in property related issues and its
+
+   assessment thereof. In course of time, the professional and congenial
+
+   relationship seemingly transformed into resentment and hostility.
+
+35. The petitioner no.1 subsequently on 28.04.2023 was asked to withdraw the
+
+   following cases pending before the respective Courts as stated below:-
+
+          "(i) Divorce Case 1647 of 2022 pending at 13 th ADJ, Alipore
+          (ii) Objection in Restitution Case 1535 of 2022 pending at 6 th ADJ,
+          Alipore
+                                              22
+
+             (iii) All my objection petitions and non maintainability petitions filed by
+             me in Maintenance Case 613 of 2021 pending at 6 th JM, Alipore
+             (iv) Non-maintainability petition in DV Case 561 of 2023 pending at 6 th
+             JM, Alipore"
+36. Respondent no.13 asked the petitioner no.1 through a communication dated
+
+   03.05.2023 for relieving her to take any further steps in the following legal
+
+   matters pending before the various Courts alleging the petitioner no.1 and 2,
+
+   inter alia, to have failed to maintain their professional ethics and discipline
+
+   as mentioned therein:-
+
+             "(i) 613/2021 - 6th JM, Alipore
+             (ii) 1535/2022 - 6th ADJ, Alipore
+             (iii) 1647/2022 - 13th ADJ, Alipore
+             (iv) 561/2023 - 6th JM, Alipore
+             (v) 38867/2023 - 14th Metropolitan Magistrate, Bankshall Court"
+
+37. The relationship between the disputants worsened with lapse of time and the
+
+   petitioner filed complaints against the respondent no.13 and his associates.
+
+38. Based on the complaint filed by the petitioner herein Chatterjeehat Police
+
+   Station     Case    No.23    of    2024     dated   05.02.2024    under    Sections
+
+   341/323/325/326B/354A/354B/509/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code
+
+   anticipatory bail was granted in favour of the accused therein vide order
+
+   dated 13.03.2024 passed by this Court in CRM(A) 880 of 2024.
+
+39. Based on the complaint of the petitioner herein Chatterjeehat Police Station
+
+   Case       No.78      of    2023      dated     04.05.2023       under     Sections
+
+   420/406/448/341/323/307/379/354B/376/506(2)/34 of the Indian Penal
+
+   Code had been instituted against the accused persons mentioned therein.
+                                            23
+
+40. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 submitted the
+
+   complaint filed by the respondent no.13 dated 28 th April, 2024 accused the
+
+   petitioners of abduction, extortion, physical assault, threat to murder,
+
+   defamation, confiscation of passport, ATM card and other official documents
+
+   perjury, forgery implicating in false and fabricated criminal cases to extort
+
+   money.
+
+41. Records further reveal an FIR to have been instituted by the Sathuvachari
+
+   Police Station, Vellore, on the basis of the complaint received from one Dr.
+
+   Debidas Rai who alleged that his son was missing referring to the present
+
+   petitioners to have visited his house claiming for further money to defend his
+
+   sons petitioners' case.
+
+42. The respondent no.13 who had been an accused in Chatterjeehat Police
+
+   Station       Case     No.78      of         2023   filed   under    Sections
+
+   420/406/448/341/323/379/354B/307/376/506/34 of the Indian Penal
+
+   Code was granted bail vide order dated 03.08.2023 passed by this Court in
+
+   CRM (DB) 3080 of 2023.
+
+43. The Learned Public Prosecutor had submitted the status report prepared by
+
+   the concerned Investigating Officer:-
+
+             "1. Case No. and date of registration: Chatterjeehat (Howrah Police
+             Commissionerate) PS Case No 78/2023 dt 04/05/2023
+             2. Sections of law: U/S 420/ 406/ 448/ 341/ 323/ 379/ 354B/
+             307/376/506/34 IPC.
+             3. Control order No. & Date: The case was assumed by CID W.B.
+             Vide Org No 618/CS. Dt. 06/08/24.
+                               24
+
+4. Name and rank of investigating officer: (i) SI Sudipta Kar of
+Chatterjeehat (Howrah Police Commissionerate) PS (ii) Inspector
+Swapna Ghosh O/C, POWC Cell, CID, WB.
+5. Gist of FIR: On 04/05/2023 at 17.25 hrs to the Officer In-Charge of
+Chatterjeehat PS received a written complaint from the complainant
+and perused the complaint properly. On the basis of a written
+complaint of the Victim Lady against one Deepak Shankar Ray and
+others to the effect that she was appointed as an advocate by the
+alleged person since month of December, 2021. The accused person
+was very reluctant to pay her professional fees as per norms of several
+Vakalatnamas executed by him in several cases. Till date the
+complainant owes Rs 1000000/- to the alleged person as her
+professional fees. But in spite of several reminders, he refused to pay
+her the same and threatened her with dire consequences. Thereafter
+on 29.04.2023 at around 20.30 hrs the alleged person came at the
+chamber of the complainant situated at 93 Abinash Banerjee Lane, PS-
+Chatterjeehat, Howrah and forcefully entered in to the chamber and
+committed theft in respect of some cash and mobile phone, then on
+being protest the alleged person outrage her female modesty and also
+trying to kill her by grabbing her throat. Then while the complainant
+felt down on the floor, the alleged person kicked in her lower private
+part and also forcibly inserted one of his left-hand finger at her lower
+private part. Over the complaint of the complainant Chatterjeehat PS
+Case No. 78/23 dated 04.05.2023 u/s 420/406/448/341/323/379
+3548/307/376/506/34 IPC has been started.
+6. Details of FIR named accused: (i) Deepak Shankar Ray(53yrs),
+S/O Debidas Ray of S-3, 2nd street, Sathuvachari, CMC Colony, Vellore,
+Tamil
+Nadu- 632009 and Flat No - 303, Sailagreen, 1137 Kalikapur,
+Purbalok, PS Purba Jadavpur, Kolkatta- 700099 (ii) Kanad Saha- S/O
+Lt Kunal Saha of Block - D2, Flat No - 402, Kendriya Vihar, Phase - II,
+PO- Birati, Dist North 24 Prgns, Kolkata - 700051. (iii) Debidas Ray
+                              25
+
+s/o of Lt. Nagendranath Ray of S-3, 2nd street, Sathuvachari, CMC
+Colony, Vellore, Tamil Nadu- 632009.
+7. Details of arrest: (i) Deepak Shankar Ray(53yrs), s/o Debidas Ray
+of S-3, 2nd street, Sathuvachari, CMC Colony, Vellore, Tamil Nadu-
+632009 and Flat No - 303, Sailagreen, 1137 Kalikapur, Purbalok, PS
+Purba Jadavpur, Kolkatta- 700099, was arrested on 11.07.2023 and
+forwarded before Ld. CJM, Howrah Sadar Court on 12.07.2023. (ii)
+Kanad Saha - S/O Lt Kunal Saha of Block - D2, Flat No - 402,
+Kendriya Vihar, Phase - II, PO- Birati, Dist North 24 Prgns, Kolkata -
+700051 was released on bail by Hon'ble High Court Calcutta on
+21.08.2023 and Ld. CJM, Howrah Sadar Court on 25.09.23. (iii)
+Debidas Ray s/o of Lt. Nagendranath Ray of S-3, 2nd street,
+Sathuvachari, CMC Colony, Vellore, Tamil Nadu- 632009 was granted
+anticipatory Bail by Hon'ble High Court Calcutta on 25.09.2023.
+8. Steps Taken During Investigation by the District Police:
+During investigation of the case I Sudipta Kar of Chatterjeehat PS
+visited the place of Occurrence and prepared a details index of the PO
+and prepared a rough sketch map. The IO examined the complainant
+and others available witnesses and recorded their statement U/S 161
+Cr.P.C. Medico legal examination of Victim Lady was performed by the
+Dr. Debhina Ghosal of Howrah District Hospital. He also arranged to
+record the Judicial Statement of the victim lady with the help of LSI
+Nitu Biswas of Howrah Women PS and produced the victim lady before
+the Ld Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 4th Court, Howrah, recorded her
+statement judicially U/S 164 Cr.P.C and also collected the copy of
+judicial statement from Ld Court, Howrah District.
+Previous IO collected the medico legal report along with one sealed
+envelope containing one glass tube & one glass slide containing the
+swab/ spermatozoa from Howrah District Hospital. IO sent prayer to
+ACP DD, HPC for providing the CDR of the accused person's mobile
+number which was provided by the VG to trace them out and also
+prayed for IMEI searching of the complainant's mobile phone which
+                                26
+
+was taken away by the accused from the PO. In course of
+investigation, IO seized the wearing apparels of the victim lady which
+were worn by her at the time of incident and also seized the bill of the
+alleged mobile which was taken away by the accused and one
+prescription of Dr Souvik Roy who examined the victim lady after the
+incident. In course of investigation, IO held several raids under Purba
+Jadavpur PS area & Naihati PS area to arrest the accused persons but
+no fruitful result achieved. Then IO collected the Passport details and
+prayed to the concerned authority after following all legal procedures
+for issuing Look Out Circular' against the principal accused namely
+Deepak Shankar Ray on 01.07.2023 LOC was initiated by the
+concerned authority against the accused person. On 11.07.2023
+received information that in the immigration Centre of Haridaspur
+under Petrapole PS, North 24 Pgs, said accused person was detained
+as LOC subject. IO along with force went to Haridaspur Immigration
+Centre and with the assistance of Petrapole PS police team, arrested
+the FIR named principle accused person namely Deepak Shankar Ray
+and brought him to PS and forwarded him before Ld. Court and took
+him into Police Custody for 02 days as per kind order of Ld. CJM,
+Howrah. During PC period after obtaining necessary orders from Ld.
+Court,   IO   produced   the   arrested   accused   person   before   the
+Superintendent of Howrah District Hospital for his medico legal
+examination. Dr. Chitta Ranjan Bhattacharya of Howrah District
+Hospital, has done the medico legal examination of the accused
+Deepak Shankar Ray and collected one sealed envelope containing one
+glass tube & one glass slide containing Urethral Swab/smears of said
+accused person. IO along with force and PC accused held raid to
+recover the alleged stolen articles and to arrest the other co accused
+persons, but no fruitful result was achieved. On 19.07.2023 IO sent the
+exhibits before Ld. C.JM. Howrah Sadar Court and collected CMR No.
+vide CMR No. 427/2023 dated 19.07.2023. On 31.08.2023 IO sent the
+exhibits to FSL Kolkata for examination and Expert Opinion. IO further
+                                 27
+
+contacted with the FSL authority over phone regarding the expert
+opinion but informed that the expert opinion is not ready yet. IO
+submitted Charge Sheet vide Chatterjehat PS C.S. No- 191/23 dated-
+31/10/2023 u/s 420/406/448/341/323/379/354B /307/376/506
+IPC against the Principal accused person namely Deepak Shankar Ray,
+53 yrs s/o Debidas Ray and u/s 509/506/34 IPC against the other 2
+FIR named accused persons namely (1) Kanad Saha - S/O Lt Kunal
+Saha (2) Debidas Ray s/o of Lt. Nagendranath Ray and IO also
+submitted prayer before the Ld. Court for allowing to submit
+Supplementary Charge Sheet after receiving the FSL report.
+  9. Steps Taken During Investigation by CID W.B:
+The investigation of the said case was taken up by CID W.B. as per
+order of Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta vide order CRR 1023 of
+2024, dt 08.04.2024 in compliance of the Order passed by Hon'ble
+High Court is "Quote" "Mr. Debasish Roy, learned Public Prosecutor
+appearing for the State submits that State would take up all the
+investigations for being investigated by the CID, West Bengal.
+However, it is the prerogative of the State at this stage as the de facto
+complainant has expressed her apprehension as she has complained
+to different dignitaries in respect of this Court.
+Targeting the Courts are a soft option as has been settled in several
+judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Article 219 of the
+Constitution of India states that court of law is supposed to act without
+any fear or favour. A professional having claimed herself to be a victim
+of sexual assault has raised issues not only in respect of this Court but
+also in respect of four other senior Judges of this Court. There cannot
+be any issue regarding the Court to proceed with the present case as
+the only issue which was expressed is that all the cases of
+Chatterjeehat Police Station in between the self same parties are to be
+transmitted to the CID or any Women Grievance Cell connected with
+the CID so that under the same umbrella investigation and in respect of
+different cases could be conducted.
+                                 28
+
+However, having regard to the attitude and approach of the de facto
+complainant and for preserving the sobriety of the judicial system, I
+intend to leave the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court for
+deciding the issue.
+Let the matter go out of the list and be placed before the Hon'ble Chief
+Justice for assignment.
+All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded
+from the official website of this Court.
+In respect of the said order CID WB has assumed investigation of the
+case vide Org No 618/CS. Dt. 06/08/24. I Inspector Swapna Ghosh,
+OC, POWC Cell was detailed as the Investigating officer.
+During investigation, I submitted a prayer and collected the Case
+Docket from learned CJM, Court, Howrah on 7/05/2024. I perused the
+case diary and learnt that the previous I/0 had submitted charge sheet
+with provision for submitting Supplementary Charge sheet on receipt of
+the FSL report. I submitted a prayer to FSL Kolkata vide memo no-
+79/POWC/CID WB on 14/05/2024 to hand over the FSL report and
+exhibits to me for the interest of investigation.
+On 22/05/2024 I received the exhibits and report from FSL Kolkata
+vide report no- BIO/5783/2023/3606/FSL dated 22/05/2024 and the
+opinion of the examination is "Quote" "No semen (no spermatozoon), no
+Gonococcus could be detected on the contents of the items marked A
+(vaginal swab & vaginal smears) and B (urethral swab & smears).
+"Unquote.
+Hon'ble High Court Calcutta vide order dated 08.04.2024 in CRR 1023
+OF 2024 had directed that all FIR's lodged against the complainants
+and accused persons at Chatterjeehat Police Station be investigated by
+CID, WB.
+O/C Chatterjeehat Police Station informed that along with the current
+case, there are 2 (two) more cases that have been lodged against both
+complainant and accused i.e Chatterjeehat PS case no- 23/2024
+dated-05/02/2024 u/S 341/ 323/ 325/ 326B/ 354A/ 354B/ 354/
+                                29
+
+509/ 506/34 IPC against (i) Dr. Deepak Shankar Roy s/o Dr. Debidas
+Roy (ii) Kanad Saha s/o Late Kunal Saha and (2) Chatterjeehat PS
+case no 86/2024 dated- 04/05/2024 u/s 341/363/468/420/506 IPC
+against Sanjukta Samanta w/o Romit Dutta.
+I had sent message to the complainant through Chatterjeehat PS for
+meeting her in c/w the investigation of the case, this refers to org no
+70/ POWC/CID WB dated 20/05/2024 and org no 73/ POWC/CID
+WB dated 25/05/2024 • However no response was received her till
+date. I also contacted with her over telephone and she told me that she
+don't want to meet investigation by CID, as rather she want CBI
+investigation.
+The complainant on 20/05/2024 had filed a WP (S) (Criminal) No (S)
+236/2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. But later the
+complainant withdrew her petition, this refers to Order dated
+03/06/2024 in WP (CL).
+Later, I came to learn from Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated
+1/07/2024 in c/w WPA Number 15260 of 2024 that "Quote" Let the
+case diary with the progress report of Chatterjeehat PS case no
+78/2023 be produced before this Court as because the petitioners
+apprehend arrest in c/w Chatterjeehat PS case no 86/2024.
+For the ends of justice the police is restrained from taking any coercive
+steps against the petitioner till 12th July, 2024 or until further order,
+which is earlier. "Unquote".
+Later, I came to learn from Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated
+30/07/2024 in c/w WPA Number 15260 of 2024 that "Quote"
+Petitioner No. 1 appears in-person and prays for release of the matter.
+Let this matter be released and placed before the Hon'ble the Chief
+Justice for appropriate assignment. "Unquote".
+In course of investigation, it is necessary to examine the complainant
+for which I have communicated with her over the telecommunication of
+CID West Bengal vide org no-144/ POWC dated 25/11/24.
+Reason for pending of investigation
+                                         30
+
+          Investigation is almost complete and will end in submission of
+          supplementary charge sheet.
+          The Investigation is pending as the complainant is not cooperating with
+          the investigation. During investigation several messages were sent to
+          the complainant but she did not respond. As per latest status dated
+          25/11/24 message was sent to the petitioner whose response was
+          recived by me vide Chatterjeehat PS org no - CHT/9033/24 which was
+          serviced dated 27/11/2024. Chatterjeehat PS. Received the following
+          response in writing against the above petition from the complainant
+          Quote "strongly objected to matter pending for challenging the
+          false FIR filed & counter case to harass me". Unquote.
+          This is submitted for your kind perusal."
+
+44. In compliance with the order dated 18.11.2024 of this Court, the report of
+
+   the Learned Public Prosecutor stated as follows:-
+
+             "The petitioner has initiated multiple proceedings before this Hon'ble
+          Court, asserting various grievances. Her claims are diverse, yet a
+          recurring theme is her assertion that the investigating agency has
+          failed to conduct its investigation impartially, thereby causing her
+          significant injustice. She has gone further to allege that the opposing
+          party is being supported by state machinery. According to her, the
+          advocates representing the state, acting in collusion, have sought to
+          suppress her voice and prevent her from receiving a fair hearing.
+             The petitioner's conduct has been noted on numerous occasions, and
+          there have been several instances where her matters have been
+          released by the Hon'ble Justices of this Court. In WPA 23711/2023, by
+          an order dated October 3, 2023, Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
+          observed the petitioner's belligerent demeanor and subsequently
+          released the matter. Similarly, in CRR 1023/2024, by an order dated
+          April 8, 2024, Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh reflected upon the
+          petitioner's attitude, noting her conduct as targeting the sanctity of the
+          judicial system, and consequently released the matter. This matter
+                                31
+
+was earlier released by Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh on April 4,
+2024.
+   In WPA 15260 of 2024, the petitioner herself sought the release of
+the matter before Hon'ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj, as indicated in
+the order dated July 30, 2024. Subsequently, by an order dated
+August 5, 2024, Hon'ble Justice Amrita Sinha released the same
+matter, attributing the decision to the petitioner's unruly behaviour
+during the proceedings. The petitioner has also alleged that during the
+hearing of the Sandeshkhali matter, WPA(P) 78/2024, she was
+subjected to abuse and threats by state advocates, which she claims
+were motivated by her political affiliations.
+   It is pertinent to mention herein that the aforesaid allegations have
+found place in the Special Leave Petition filed by the Writ Petitioner
+herein before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Writ Petition
+(Criminal) No 236/2024.
+   The petitioner has consistently expressed distrust in the police
+officials involved in the investigations of her matters. She alleges that
+these officials are influenced and biased, undermining her confidence
+in the fairness of the ongoing investigations.
+   Under such circumstances, I was constrained to direct the CID to
+take up the investigation of the cases filed by the instant writ petitioner
+as well as the case filed against her to ensure neutral investigation
+devoid of any blemish, as alleged by her.
+   The petitioner's allegations, demeanor, and conduct across various
+proceedings have drawn attention and have been noted by various
+benches this Hon'ble Court. These observations reflect a pattern of
+dissatisfaction on the part of the petitioner with the judicial and
+investigative processes, alongside allegations of undue influence and
+partiality.
+   It is however, necessary to bring to the notice of this Hon'ble Court
+that the Writ petitioner has consistently refrained from co operating
+with the CID to get her statement recorded or for any other purpose, as
+                                            32
+
+           required by the Investigating Agency thus rendering them incapable of
+           continuation and/or completion of the investigation of the cases
+           instituted by the instant writ petitioner.
+              This report has been prepared in pursuance to paragraph no. 5 of
+           the order dated November 18, 2024 passed by Her Ladyship Hon'ble
+           Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay."
+45. The petitioner no.1 appearing before the Court submitted her plight, agony
+
+   and helplessness being subjected to physical molestation, outrage of
+
+   modesty, theft of mobile and cash sum of Rs.65,000/- on the part of
+
+   respondent no.13 and his associates and non-payment of professional fees.
+
+   The petitioner no.1 submitted her associates. The petitioner no.1 submitted
+
+   her lawyer's chamber to have been impaired and damaged by the respondent
+
+   no.13 and his associates with continuous threat to both the petitioners and
+
+   their family members disrupting mental peace causing physical trauma and
+
+   being indignified with insinuations and ignominies. Both the petitioners
+
+   could not repose faith and trust on the investigating agencies whose actions
+
+   had been suspiciously frustrating to deliberately deprive the petitioners of
+
+   fair justice.
+
+46. The respondent no.13 filed a complaint dated 28 th April, 2024 accusing the
+
+   petitioners of abduction, extortion, physical assault, threat to murder,
+
+   defamation, confiscation of passport, ATM card and other official documents,
+
+   perjury, forgery implicating in false and fabricated criminal cases to extort
+
+   money etc. which had been serious allegations.
+
+47. The serious allegations by the petitioners the counter allegations resulting in
+
+   the institution of the aforementioned criminal cases being registered through
+
+   formal FIRs had been challenged through filing of Criminal Revisional
+                                              33
+
+   Applications pending before the co-ordinate bench of this Court for quashing
+
+   of the proceedings/FIRs being Nos. Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.86
+
+   of 2024 and No.78 of 2023.
+
+48. The allegations of the petitioner no.1 are indubitably grave and deprecated in
+
+   nature which can only be tested in terms of its veracity through trial to
+
+   inculpate the perpetrator. Contrarily the allegations of the respondent no.13
+
+   whether to have been genuine or a counterblast to the allegations of the
+
+   petitioners cannot be decided unless the investigation of the respective cases
+
+   are concluded and the process of trial being conducted by the court of
+
+   competent    jurisdiction   to   arrive    at   a   conclusive   determination   for
+
+   incrimination or exculpation.
+
+49. A web-search on the query as to who decides to provide security to private
+
+   individual in India and on what ground, the following answer has been
+
+   received by this Court:-
+
+
+           "The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), on the recommendation of
+           intelligence agencies, decides to provide security to private individuals
+           in India, based on perceived threats to life or injury from groups or
+           terrorists. While government officials typically receive security based
+           on their position, a call on security for private citizens is made by the
+           MHA using information from bodies like the Intelligence Bureau (IB)
+           and Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW). The Central Reserve Police
+           Force (CRPF) and other forces then provide this security.
+           The Process
+
+             1) Intelligence Gathering: Intelligence Agencies like the IB and R&AW
+                monitor potential threats and gather information from various
+                                           34
+
+               sources, including phone intercepts, human intelligence, and
+               threat analysis.
+             2) Threat   Assessment:      These   agencies   provide   a   subjective
+               assessment of the threat to an individual's life or safety from
+               potential attackers like terrorists or other groups.
+             3) Decision by the MHA: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) reviews
+               the intelligence inputs and decides whether a private individual
+               requires security cover.
+             4) Deployment of Forces: If security is granted, a central agency,
+               often the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), is tasked with
+               providing the security.
+50. The petitioners herein despite the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench of this
+
+   Court in WPA 23711 of 2023 and the Hon'ble Division Bench in MAT 831 of
+
+   2024 presiding over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court at Calcutta,
+
+   having directed to file complaints at the concerned police station for being
+
+   threatened as claimed by the petitioners reiterated by this Court during
+
+   consecutive hearings failed to provide the copy of the complaint or the G.D.
+
+   Entry number concerning such complaints claimed to have been lodged by
+
+   the petitioners.
+
+51. Considering the role of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the submissions of
+
+   the Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.1 and 2 Union of
+
+   India, the prayer of the petitioner for providing personal security on the
+
+   ground of their perception cannot be allowed. The petitioners could not
+
+   establish a case serious and strong enough to be granted protection as
+
+   sought for which otherwise had to be decided by the Ministry of Home Affairs
+
+   on the basis of imminent and persistent threat. The petitioners could not
+
+   justify inaction on the part of the police administration or the investigating
+                                           35
+
+   agency, however, claimed the same to be biased and revengetic in its attitude
+
+   towards the petitioners primarily petitioner no.1 for her active role against
+
+   the State administration defending injustice to women's rights concerning an
+
+   unfortunate event at Sandeshkhali through a Public Interest Litigation.
+
+52. The status report of the Learned Public Prosecutor as aforesaid explaining
+
+   the course of investigation did not endorse police inaction.
+
+53. Vide Order dated 08.07.2024, the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in WPA
+
+   15260 of 2024 observed as follows:-
+
+             "As per the request of the petitioners, the live streaming has been
+          paused.
+             Learned advocate representing the State respondents submits, upon
+          instruction that, the petitioners are not cooperating with the police in
+          the process of investigation.
+             From the documents handed over by the learned advocate
+          representing the State respondents it appears that, after protection
+          was granted to the petitioners vide the order passed by this Court on
+          1st July, 2024, no notice was served upon the petitioners directing their
+          appearance for investigation.
+             The respondents are directed to proceed with the investigation but
+          not take any coercive steps against the petitioners without the leave of
+          the Court.
+             The petitioners and all other parties are directed to cooperate with
+          the police for the sake of investigation.
+             List on 12th August, 2024.
+             Liberty to mention.
+             Report dated 08.07.2024 be kept with the records."
+54. The petitioners despite an order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this
+
+   Court to co-operate in the investigation refrained from participating in the
+
+   investigation as claimed by the Learned Advocate representing the State
+                                          36
+
+   respondents suspecting the Investigating Officers and accusing them of
+
+   arbitrary, biasedness being capricious and revengeful. The Co-Ordinate
+
+   Bench of this Court directed the investigating agency not to take any
+
+   coercive steps against the petitioners. Despite such an order, the petitioners
+
+   denied to co-operate with the investigating agency as had been stated in the
+
+   report filed by the Learned Public Prosecutor as aforesaid.
+
+55. The Learned Public Prosecutor on an explanation sought by this Court for
+
+   transferring the case of investigation to the CID, West Bengal anxiously
+
+   stated for the purpose of an impartial and unbiased investigation, the same
+
+   had been entrusted to the CID, West Bengal conforming to the police
+
+   regulations stated as follows:-
+
+          "II.- Control and assistance in enquiries and investigations.
+          ....
+

618. Method of assuming control. +

(a) The Deputy Inspector-General, Criminal Investigation. Department, + may assume control 0f an enquiry or investigation at any stage. On + assuming control he shall inform the Deputy Inspector-General of the + Range forthwith, sending a copy 0f his intimation direct to the + Superintendent Or Superintendents concerned. +
(b) In excise cases in which the investigation must extend to more than + one district, or in which there are intricacies which cannot be dealt with + without the aid of a specially skilled detective, the services of an officer + of the Criminal Investigation Department, shall be requisitioned by the + Commissioner of Excise. In emergencies such requisition may also be + made by an officer of lower rank. The Deputy Inspector-General, + Criminal Investigation Department, shall, if he thinks fit and if he has + an officer available, depute one and also decide whether the officer + deputed shall be placed at the disposal of the Commissioner of Excise + 37 + + or whether the control of the enquiry shall be taken over by the + Criminal Investigation Department." +

56. It was further submitted several Judges of this Hon'ble High Court had been + + accused along with the police officers and the Learned Public Prosecutor + + himself which compelled him to transfer the responsibilities of conducting + + investigation on the CID, State of West Bengal without any other alternative + + or option being third party to conduct the investigation independently + + without the involvement of the police officers of the concerned police station + + against whose conduct several objections had been raised by the petitioners. + +

57. The status report filed by the Learned Public Prosecutor as aforesaid did not + + reveal police inaction to the detriment of the petitioners' interest. The + + petitioners had filed a transfer petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + + India being Transfer Petitions Criminal No.701/702 of 2024 being Sanjukta + + Samanta vs. the State of West Bengal and Ors. etc. whereby the petitioners + + appeared in person. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated + + 02.09.2024 observed: "No case for transfer is made out. The transfer petitions + + are dismissed." +

+

58. The petitioners, therefore, cannot refuse to participate in the investigation + + violating the order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court on + + 08.07.2024 in WPA 15260 of 2024. Both the parties have filed criminal + + revisional applications before the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court, the + + criminal revisional applications being CRR 1023 of 2024 and CRR 3203 of + + 2023. The petitioners as well as the respondent no.13 have availed the + + jurisdiction to redress their grievances in an alternative form under Section + + 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner no.1 being a + 38 + + complainant in connection with Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.78 of + + 2023 filed under Sections + + 420/406/448/341/323/379/354B/307/376/506/34 sought for stay of the + + investigation in the said case further seeking the investigation to be + + conducted by the State respondent no.4 whose actions had been challenged + + by the petitioners to be against her interest intending to deprive her of fair + + trial and natural justice. +

+

59. In the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajanlal and Others 1, + + the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- +

+
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant + provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law + enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise + of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers + under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and + reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of + illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent + abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of + justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly + defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid + formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases + wherein such power should be exercised. +
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the + complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in + their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a + case against the accused. +
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other + materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable + offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section + + 1 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 + 39 + + 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the + purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. +

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint + and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the + commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. + (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable + offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is + permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as + contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. +

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd + and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can + ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for + proceeding against the accused. +

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the + provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal + proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the + proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or + the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the + aggrieved party. +

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide + and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior + motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite + him due to private and personal grudge." +

60. Since the contents of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet claimed to have + + been filed by the investigating agency as per the report filed by the Learned + + Public Prosecutor in Case No.78 of 2023 and the complaint as well as the + + FIR in Case No.86 of 2024 to have revealed allegations of cognizable offences + + in both the aforesaid cases, this Court is not inclined to stay the further + + proceedings in the aforesaid cases. +

40

+ +

61. The petitioners being young, responsible and bright advocates practising in + + this Hon'ble Court as well as in the Supreme Court, out of shock and + + displeasure probably by the turn of events cannot trust the investigating + + agencies at the moment perhaps due to mental agony. One has to confide in + + the prevailing justice delivery system to attain a finality to a dispute which + + definitely can be assailed at a Higher Forum statutorily. The petitioners did + + not appear before this Court on the dates fixed for hearing as reflected in the + + order-sheets of the instant writ petition and the case was reserved for + + judgment on 17.02.2025. Subsequently the petitioners filed several CAN + + applications in the Court and directly addressed the same in the name of the + + presiding judge of this Court as would be evident from the postal envelopes + + on record. Considering the context of the CAN applications, this Court + + thought it prudent to grant a further opportunity to the petitioners to + + address this Court for a final hearing and recalled the order dated + + 17.02.2025 on 16.05.2025, fixing the next date of hearing on 11.07.2025. + + The petitioner no.2 appeared online only to contradict the court proceedings + + without submissions on merits. Finally on 11.07.2025 the instant writ + + petition was reserved for pronouncing judgment. +

+

62. The contention of the petitioner no.1 to have been a victim of rape and her + + name and presence to be masked is contrary to the cause title of the instant + + writ petition where the name of the petitioner no.1 had been mentioned by + + herself conspicuously claiming the relief sought for revealing her identity for + + quashing of the aforesaid Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.86 of 2024 + + dated 04.05.2024 under Sections 341/365/468/420/506/34 of the Indian + 41 + + Penal Code. The petitioner no.1 appeared before the Hon'ble Supreme Court + + in person to move the Transfer Petition as aforesaid without seeking her + + presence to be masked as the same would not transpire from the order of the + + Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioners did not appear before the Court on + + the dates fixed for hearing and subsequently could not blame this Court for + + not granting them an opportunity of hearing. This Court did hear the + + submissions of the petitioners on earlier dates and recorded the same in the + + order-sheets as well as in the instant judgment. +

+

63. Moreover, the petitioners as well as the respondent no.13 have already + + sought for relief of quashing the proceedings of the criminal cases instituted + + against each other under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as + + stated above before the Co-Ordinate Benches of this Court. The allegations + + and counter-allegations in the complaints do not reveal the same to be prima + + facie frivolous which are in the facts and circumstances of the case serious + + in nature with grave implications and ramifications. + +

64. The Writ Court can quash the criminal proceedings if the same has been + + frivolously instituted, however, in the instant case, the gamut of allegations + + and counter-allegations are complex in terms of severity necessitating to + + unravel the authenticity and credibility of the same which in the facts and + + circumstances of the instant writ petition shall be subjected to the process of + + trial by the competent Court. +

+

65. In view of the above discussions, the instant writ petition being WPA + + No.15260 of 2024 along with its connected CAN applications stand + + dismissed. +

42

+ +

66. There is no order as to costs. +

+

67. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on + + priority basis on compliance of all formalities. +

+

+

(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.) +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_176256783.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_176256783.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2b0e33b9a336b7e9c11617526fbc50131ebb31a0 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_176256783.html @@ -0,0 +1,564 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Amit Madhukar Bhogale vs State Of Maharashtra on 22 December, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

According to the learned counsel, if the charge-sheet is not + +filed within the extended period provided by sub-section 2 + +of Section 21 of the MCOCA, right accrues in favour of the + +applicants to claim the default bail. The concern expressed + +by the learned senior advocate is that there may be a + +deliberate delay in invoking provisions of the MCOCA by the + +investigating agency, to defeat the statutory right of the + +applicants to claim the default bail. The submission is that + +as the investigation into the MCOCA takes time, the + +investigating agency may file the charge-sheet in the IPC + +offence within the period prescribed by Section 167(2) so + +that the statutory right to claim default bail comes to an + +end and thereafter invoke MCOCA. This would enable the + +investigating agency to file the charge-sheet at their sweet + +will thereby virtually circumventing the fundamental right of + +the accused to claim default bail. It is submitted that the + + + + Diksha Rane/Darshan Patil ba 154323 & 57223.doc + + +applicants are literally pushed to a situation where they will + +be required to apply for regular bail before the Special + +Court by satisfying the twin conditions of Section 21(4)(b) + +of the MCOCA making it difficult to obtain bail. The + +submission, therefore, is that even if the cognizance has + +been taken by the Sessions Court pursuant to the filing of + +the charge-sheet for the IPC offence upon the approval + +being granted under Section 21(1)(a) of the MCOCA the + +same will have to be regarded as an independent + +investigation and therefore, the statutory right under + +Section 167(2) will revive. +

+
+ +
+

18. It is the submission that once the investigating agency + +starts an investigation into the offence under the MCOCA + +upon obtaining prior approval, the custody under Section + +309 will have to be read as one in respect of the offence + +under the IPC, whereas the custody for the purpose of the + +investigation under the MCOCA will have to be regarded as + +one under Section 167 and hence the applicants are entitled + +to the facility of default bail if the investigation is not + +completed within the period prescribed under sub-section + +(2) of Section 21 of the MCOCA. Learned counsel for the + +applicants went to the extent of submitting that even if + +MCOCA is invoked after the filing of the charge-sheet in + +respect of IPC offence, nonetheless it is the first date of + +remand as held in Bharti Chandmal Varma's case (supra) + +will have to be regarded for the purpose of entitling the + +applicants for default bail. Learned counsel relied heavily on + +the decision in Fakhrey Alam (supra). +

+
+ +
+ +

21. In the present case, the charge-sheet was already + +filed within 90 days as the FIR initially was registered only + +under the provisions of the IPC. The MCOCA was invoked + +after filing of the charge-sheet. It is observed in Bikramjit + +Singh vs. State of Punjab24 that default bail under first + +proviso of Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. is a fundamental + +right and not merely a statutory right as it is, a procedure + +established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution. A + +fundamental right is granted to an accused person to be + +released on bail once the conditions of the first proviso to + +Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. are fulfilled. In my view, in the + +present case, as the charge-sheet was already filed within a + +period of 90 days, the condition of the first proviso to + +Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be fulfilled, + +therefore, the applicants are not entitled for default bail. If + +the subsequent invocation of MCOCA cannot have a effect of + +extending the time period under Section 167(2) of the +24 (2020) 10 SCC 616 + + + Diksha Rane/Darshan Patil ba 154323 & 57223.doc + + +Cr.P.C. it will have to be construed that the applicants + +cannot claim an entitlement for default bail after the + +charge-sheet is filed for the IPC offence. +

+
+ +
+ +

+

28. In the light of what is observed by the Supreme Court, + +I do not find any force in the submission of learned counsel + + + + Diksha Rane/Darshan Patil ba 154323 & 57223.doc + + +for the applicants that on the grant of prior approval under + +Section 23(1) of the MCOCA the investigation to be carried + +out is a new investigation. I am in respectful agreement + +with the observations of His Lordship Kotwal, J. in Suraj + +Arun Pote (supra) that the investigation carried from the + +point of prior approval was not a new investigation but only + +a further investigation. The investigation under the MCOCA + +was continuation of the earlier investigation for IPC offence. + +The provisions of MCOCA were invoked because the + +material under the MCOCA was found against the Applicant. + +The charge-sheet in the present case was already filed + +under IPC offence on 1/1/2022 in respect of some accused + +and on 23/2/2022 in respect of the other accused. The + +cognizance of the charge-sheet was taken and therefore, + +the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The + +application made by the investigation agency seeking + +custody under Section 21(7) of the MCOCA was rejected. + +The MCOCA was not invoked at the time of registration of + +the offence under IPC. The right to claim default bail under + +Section 167(2) of the Cr,P.C. will not revive as the + + + + + Diksha Rane/Darshan Patil ba 154323 & 57223.doc + + +invocation of the provisions of the MCOCA was not a new + +investigation but a continuation of the earlier investigation + +for IPC offence. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_178027307.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_178027307.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..072b52126a2fed99246a7bacfee4d6078062d6a1 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_178027307.html @@ -0,0 +1,380 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Of on 23 August, 2016 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

31. Defect in investigation is not fatal in present case, + + There is trustworthy, cogent and reliable evidence on record + + to hold that respondents have committed an offence under + + Sections 304 Part II, 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian + + +Penal Code. Therefore, the judgment passed by Lower Court + + is set aside. Respondents are convicted for the offences + + + + + . +

under Sections 304 Part II, 341 read with Section 34 of the + + + + + + Indian Penal Code. Bail bonds and surety bonds of + + respondents are cancelled. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_17837904.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_17837904.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..57f39981a58d3575497a3bc1e890f345af6568f1 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_17837904.html @@ -0,0 +1,424 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Girdhar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:11536) on 7 March, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

4. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.69/2024) +

5. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.69/2024) +

6. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.69/2024) + + +

8. Concerned Police Station Shreekaranpur +

+
+ +
+

12. Date of passing of 21.10.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.14884/2023) + +

14. Concerned Police Station Kotwali Barmer +

15. District Barmer +

16. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 420 and 406 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.14885/2023) +

17. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.14885/2023) +

+
+ +
+

34. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.15296/2023) +

35. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.15296/2023) +

36. Date of passing of 22.11.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.15296/2023) + +

38. Concerned Police Station Pratap Nagar +

+
+ +
+

76. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.90/2024) +

77. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.90/2024) +

78. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.90/2024) + + +

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no + + case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his + + incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in + + the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the + + accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based + + on conjectures and surmises. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_179201147.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_179201147.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..01af5b37382207232f6641649af12ac51fc2150a --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_179201147.html @@ -0,0 +1,364 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Samuel Boro vs The State Of Assam on 30 November, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

6. It is further alleged that the fraudulently procured funds have been laundered +through unsolicited sources via unconventional methods, dark web services and crypto +currencies for personal gain of the accused persons named in the FIR. +

+

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not +involved in the scam. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the +ground of parity as co-accused have been granted bail. No offence under Section 467 +IPC has been made out against the petitioner, but Section 467 IPC has been incorporated +with malafide to preclude the accused from being admitted to bail. Section 467 IPC +expounds that- +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_179358039.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_179358039.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..05c5e9f2241bc21ec0f9f759845e3fa6b3a1c95f --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_179358039.html @@ -0,0 +1,376 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ashish Bhalla vs State on 6 February, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. BAIL APPLN.1004/2019 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking bail + in FIR No.116/2016, dated 05.03.2016, registered at Police Station Sarita + Vihar for offences under Sections 406/420/34 IPC. +

2. BAIL APPLN.1005/2019 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking bail + in FIR No.114/2016, dated 04.03.2016, registered at Police Station Sarita + Vihar for offences under Sections 420/34 IPC. +

+
+ +
+

3. BAIL APPLN.1007/2019 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking bail + in FIR No.64/2016, dated 23.05.2016, registered at Police Station Economic + Offences Wing for offences under Sections 406/409/420/120B IPC. +

4. Since all the three bail applications arise from a common set of facts, + with the consent of the parties, all the three bail applications are being + + + + + + + + decided by this common order. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_180082019.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_180082019.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5aa109b43bdcb4d042b2121d8fc28cff01e2a2a6 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_180082019.html @@ -0,0 +1,361 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sanjeev @ Kallu Sethiya vs State Of U.P. on 17 October, 2022 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

46. This court has come across number of cases of bail where ingredients for constituting offence under Section 149 I.P.C were clearly made but accused was not implicated under Section 149 I.P.C. Conversely court has also come across cases where the allegation in the first information report and the statements of the witnesses clearly did not proved the presence of the necessary ingredients for constituting offence under Section 149 I.P.C but accused was implicated for the same. Court should be cautious of relying upon the Section 149 I.P.C while considering bail application. The investigating officer apply mostly section 149 I.P.C as it suits them. +

+
+ +
+ +

47. In view of the above factual position emerging from the record the applicant cannot be said to be rightly implicated under Section 149 I.P.C for the alleged offences. Two fire arm injuries were found on the body of the deceased, Once on abdomen and on on thigh of the deceased. The accused named are above five in numbers, therefore, only because they were more in numbers the offence alleged cannot be considered to be made out against them at this stage. It appears to be case of sudden provocation and all the members of the alleged unlawful assembly cannot be held liable for the offence committed by any one or two accused named in the first information report. More so because in this case also the investigating officer of police has not recorded the statement of a single witness from the accused side. All the statements recorded by the investigating officer are of the informant side for justifying the implication of all the accused. The version of accused side, as usual, is missing. Therefore, on the basis of one-sided and flawed investigation the implication of the applicant under Section 149 I.P.C cannot be justified. It could have been done after considering the versions of both sides by the investigating officer, which he was required to do as per law, but he has again miserably failed in performance of his legal duty. The three ingredients for constituting the offence under Section 149 I.P.C discussed in paragraph 12 of this judgement could have been ascertained only after considering the evidence of both sides by the investigating officer and not on the basis of one sided evidence collected by way of illegal investigation. In short, after considering the evidence lead before the trial court only definite opinion can be formed regarding commission of offence under Section 149 I.P.C. At the time of consideration of bail application of an accused, it would be unsafe to deny bail to an accused, implicated for committing offence under Section 149 I.P.C considering the state of investigation of crime by investigating agency in the state. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_180262845.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_180262845.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c50c267f9fdac8ed324bff93c84287aca7194f57 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_180262845.html @@ -0,0 +1,370 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Gurdial Singh vs Piara Singh & Ors on 25 May, 2015 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ 2015.05.30 14:01 +I attest to the accuracy and +authenticity of this document +Chandigarh +
CRM-A-1041-MA of 2013 + +
47. In view of my above said discussions, the + complainant has not been able to bring on record the + existence of entire circumstances which are sufficient to + prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. + Accordingly, by giving benefit of doubt, the accused Piara + Singh, Dilbag Singh, Rachhpal Singh, Malkiat Singh and + Balkar Singh are acquitted from the charges framed + against them under section 148, 452, 326, 323, 427 read + with section 149 of IPC. Bail bonds and surety bonds of 'all + the accused stand discharged from their liability. File be + consigned to the record room after due compliance." +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_180304271.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_180304271.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e6b8e034e50550e148645e4286f0ed2e066030bd --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_180304271.html @@ -0,0 +1,505 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + _________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 5 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

Hon'ble Supreme Court, as referred to above, this + + Court is of the considered view that the interim/pre- +

+

arrest bail granted by this Court on 13.02.2024, + + deserves to be made absolute for the following reasons:- +

+
10(i). The Prima facie the accusation under Sections + 378 and 379 of IPC is not made out against + the bail petitioner-accused [Balwant Singh]. +
+

10(ii). The accusation under Sections 378 & 379 of + IPC, in considered view of this Court, is not + prima facie made out and no reasonable + + + + grounds exists pointing out towards the + accusation against the bail petitioner [Balwant + + + + + Singh], for the reason, that the FIR or the + + + + + + Status Report does not point out, anything + that the bail petitioner had the intention to + + + + + + dishonestly take the alleged property out of the + possession of the another person without his + consent. In this case, once, the land in + question, is Shamilat Deh but is termed as + "Gair Marusi" in the possession of Vijay Puri + + + + + +

+
+ +
+

- 17 - +

+

and there is nothing on record to show that + the bail petitioner had the intention and had + acted dishonestly by removing any property + belonging to the Temple or Lands possessed by + + + + + . +

+

Vijay Puri, as aforesaid; then, the prima facie + accusation under Section 378/379 IPC does + + + + + + not point out towards the bail petitioner + [Balwant Singh]. +

+
+ +
+

In these circumstances, neither any + prima facie case nor reasonable grounds exist + pointing out towards accusation under + + + + + +

- 18 - +

+

Sections 441, 447 IPC, against the bail + petitioner, namely Balwant Singh, referred to + above. +

10(iv) Though the entire case of the prosecution story + + + + + . +

+
+ +
+ +

revolves upon the alleged felling of trees but in + considered view of this Court, the accusation + + + + + + under the Indian Forests Act has not been + invoked in the instant case. So far the + accusation under Section 441 and 447 IPC are + + + + + + concerned, the F.I.R. was lodged at the best of + one Shri Dharam Chand is of no avail and the + same cannot be made basis for accusation + + when the aforesaid complainant-Dharam + + Chand is neither the owner of the alleged + property nor such property has been taken up + + + dishonestly from his possession and therefore, + the invocation of Sections 378 and 379 and + even criminal jurisprudence under Sections + + + + + 441 and 447 IPC is not prima facie made out + + + + + + against the bail petitioner. Moreover, even Gair + Marusi occupancy of Mr. Vijay Puri Chela (the + + + + + + occupant/owner as per records) has also not + come up with accusation against the bail + petitioner and therefore, this Court is of the + prima facie view that neither any prima facie + or reasonable grounds exists against the bail + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_180377752.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_180377752.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..00fa7d45b21200a61855539ba279c1148f3126fe --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_180377752.html @@ -0,0 +1,389 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Krishna Alias Kikka vs State Of U.P. on 10 September, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
This application for bail has been filed by applicants-Niranjan, Krishna @ Kikka, Toni @ Dushyant and Deepak and Dharmendra Chaudhary, seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 325 of 2021, under sections 302 and 120-B IPC Police Station- Kakod, District Bulandshahar during the pendency of trial. +
+
Perused the record. +
+
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55751 of 2021 (Niranjan Vs. State of U.P.) came up for orders on 9.3.2022 and this Court passed the following order: +
+
"Heard Mr. Anurag Vajpeyi, learned counsel for the applicant, Niranjan, Mr. Virendra Mohan, learned counsel for the applicant, Dharmendra Chowdhary and the learned AGA for the State. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
+ +
+ +
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.325 of 2021, under Sections 302 and 120B IPC, Police Station-Kakod, District-Bulandshahar is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.07.2021. +
+
Contention raised by the counsel that for the incident of 01.07.2021 the FIR was registered on 02.07.2021 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 120B, 34 and 302 IPC. But after investigation the police has dropped all other sections except Sections 302 and 120B IPC. From the FIR it is clear that only role attributed to the applicant is of hatching the conspiracy and providing his place for meeting purpose except this there is no other role attributed to the applicant. +
+
+ +
+ +
A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No. 325 of 2021 at Police Station Kakod District Bulandshahr under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 120B, 34 and 302 I.P.C. +
+
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Bulandhshar on 04.01.2022. +
+
The applicant is in jail since 24.08.2021 pursuant to the said F.I.R. +
+
Shri Shikhar Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The prosecution case set out in the F.I.R. as well as the successive statements of the informant assign the role of exhortation to the applicant. The applicant was not named as one of the principal offenders who shot and killed the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_181134143.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_181134143.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..db62ea994cf2f7787d987d534c123a5c1a0101f1 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_181134143.html @@ -0,0 +1,387 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Mustqeem vs State Of U.P. on 26 August, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
"Heard Sri V. M. Zaidi, learned senior counsel for the applicant, Sri Hari Om, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A. G. A. for the State. +
+
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 505 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506, 336 IPC, Police Station Kharkhauda, District Meerut with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +
+
I have perused the FIR as well as the order by means of which the bail application has been rejected by the court below. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
+ +
+ +
(viii) The applicant has been granted bail by this Court in Case Crime No.684 of 2013, U/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 506, 307 I.P.C., P.S. Kharkhauda, District Meerut vide order dated 9.10.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.38767 of 2018. +
+
(ix) Another Case Crime No.656 of 2014 is U/s 174-A Cr.P.C., P.S. Kharkhauda, District Meerut, in which the applicant is on bail and the trial is going on. +
+
(x) The applicant was granted bail in Case Crime No.709 of 2014, U/s 2/3 of the UP Gangsters Act, P.S. Kharkhauda, District Meerut vide order dated 11.8.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (Gangsters Act)/ASJ, Court No.17, Meerut in Special Criminal Case No.77 of 2015. +
+
+ +
+ +
(xi) The applicant has been enlarged on bail by this Court in Case Crime No.502 of 2012, U/s 332, 504, 506, 323 I.P.C., P.S. Civil Lines, District Meerut vide order dated 6.11.2015 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.41045 of 2015. +
+
(xii) The applicant has been exonerated by the Investigating Officer in Case Crime No.301-A of 2005, U/s 452, 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C., P.S. Kharkhauda, District Meerut. +
+
(xiii) Subsequent to the instant case, the applicant was assaulted by the informant party and FIR No.37 of 2023 was instituted U/s 147, 148, 149, 352, 323, 452, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., P.S. Kharkhauda, District Meerut regarding the occurrence dated 26.1.2023. The applicant was injured in the said case. The police instituted the FIR in the said offences against the applicant as FIR No.38 of 2023, U/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 336, 341, 186, 427 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, but the applicant has been granted the benefit U/s 41-A Cr.P.C. by the police in the said case. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_181162241.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_181162241.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a082a489287d2c75628ca2c611b06bfbae1e83c8 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_181162241.html @@ -0,0 +1,462 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Kashi Nath Roy vs State Of Bihar Thr. Joint Secretary & ... on 6 May, 2010 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

Statement of allegations was also accordingly modified. +

+

5. The charges read as under:- +

+
(Article of Charge) + Charge - I + + Shri K.N. Roy while posted as incharge Sessions + Judge, Munger, granted bail to accused Lakshman + Ram on 17.8.1991 in Barbigha P.S. Case + No.48/91 regd. u/s 395 IPC, vide Bail applications + NO.1146/1991 and to other two FIR named + accused persons, namely, Naru Ram @ Narmad + Ram and Sato @ Satyendra Ram vide B.A. + No.1144/1991, although these accused persons + had been named by the informant and 10-12 + witnesses, and had also been identified by 9(nine) + + + witnesses in T.I. Parade. Further, the prayer for + bail of the said accused Lakshman Ram had been + rejected by the High Court on 8.5.1991 in Cr.Misc. + No.4880/1991. Subsequently, the bail granted by + him to the aforesaid accused persons were also + cancelled by the High Court by order dated + 28.1.1993 by Hon‟ble Mr. Justice Choudhary S.N. + Mishra in Cr.Misc.No.12034/1991 observing as + follows:- +
+
+ +
+

147/148/149/307/324/323/302 IPC, although + his prayer for anticipatory bail had been rejected + by the High Court on 19.12.1991 in Crl.Misc. + No.11331/1991 and he had been directed to + surrender before the Court concerned within four + weeks from the date of the order of the High Court + and apply for regular bail but he had not complied + with the said order of the High Court. +

+

(e) He granted anticipatory bail to accused + Jhulan Singh in Isuapur P.S. Case No.94/91, + regd. u/s 302/201/304(B)/34 IPC and u/s 3 and + + + 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He also granted + anticipatory bail to accused Renu Devi, wife of the + said accused Jhulan Singh on 16.7.1992 vide + A.B.P. No.391/92 after taking into account the + statements of husband of the victim girl, the + younger brother of accused Jhulan Singh, which + were recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. wherein he had + stated that his wife had been ailing since long and + she died of disease, although the allegations + against the accused persons were that they were + demanding T.V., VCP, etc. from the informant of + the case and were torturing Gyanwati Kumari the + victim girl.

+
+ +
+ +
(a)Charge No.1 related to grant of bail to + accused in a case registered under section 395 + of I.P.C., even though the accused had been + named by the informant and 10-12 witnesses + and had also been identified by 9 witnesses in + identification parade. Enquiry Officer held that + the order granting bail mentioned rejection of + bail by the predecessor Sessions Judge some + days earlier but there was no mention that bail + prayer was rejected by High Court on 8.5.1991 + in Criminal Misc. No. 4880/1991. Petitioner + admitted in his petition that due to inadvertence + he missed out the fact that bail application of + accused persons had been rejected by the + learned Sessions Judge and had committed + mistake in granting bail. However, the + allegation that bail order was procured from the + petitioner on extraneous consideration could not + be proved, as it was very difficult to get any + direct evidence. However, the petitioner was + held liable for judicial indiscretion. +
+
+ +
+ +

(f)Charges IV (c), (d), (e), (f) & V were held not + proved. +

+

(g)Charges IV (g),(h),(m) and (n) related to grant + of bail to accused persons for cases registered + under 304B/201/34 IPC and Section + 147/148/149/323/324/307/379 IPC and + staying the arrest of the accused. The Petitioner + had passed an interim order staying the arrest + in all these cases while considering the pre- + arrest bail under Section 438 of Criminal + Procedure Code. There was no scope of any + such interim order within the scope of Sec 438 + of Cr.P.C. as held by Patna High Court in the + case reported in 1987 PLJR 365. It was held + that a Senior Sessions Judge cannot take + shelter of ignorance of judgment of Patna High + Court when he is to deal with these matters on + day to day basis. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_181909687.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_181909687.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8970fdf789f8a471103571b8dab3506632a2bc43 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_181909687.html @@ -0,0 +1,354 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Senthoorpandi vs The Secretary To The Government on 5 November, 2014 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
"4.I am aware that Thiru.Daniel is in remand in T-13 Kundrathur Police Station Crime Nos.199/2014 and 245/2014. He has not moved any bail applications for T-13 Kundrathur Police Station Crime Nos.199/2014 and 245/2014 so far. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru Daniel is taking action to take him out on bail by filing bail application for T-13 Kundrathur Police Station Crime Nos.199/2014 and 245/2014 before the appropriate Court. In a similar case registered at V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station Cr.No.160/2013 under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.929/2013. Hence, I infer that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail in T-13 Kundrathur Police Station Crime Nos.199/2014 and 245/2014 by filing bail application before the appropriate Court since in similarly placed cases bails are granted by Courts after a lapse of time. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order..............." +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_1824399.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_1824399.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..05d16a7fada6c82a640a54740b179109760cc5ee --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_1824399.html @@ -0,0 +1,366 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Shishu Pal & Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 2 February, 2010 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned +A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of +sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. +

The accused-appellants Pankaj Kumar Tewari and Rakesh +Kumar Tewari have been convicted in Sessions Trial No.82 of 2002 +(Case Crime No.383/2001) for the offence punishable under Section +323/34 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo one year's simple +imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment +of fine to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment and have +have been acquitted to the charge for the offence punishable under +Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C. Accused-appellants were on bail during +trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on +record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_1829160.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_1829160.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..628831ea9f188d8c435ddc7624bee0c5c8945294 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_1829160.html @@ -0,0 +1,361 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Mahesh Tyagi vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 3 May, 1991 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

12. In para 18 of the counter affidavit it was submitted that one bail application on behalf of the petitioner was moved before the Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was rejected on 17-2-90 and thereafter the petitioner moved another bail application before the District and Sessions Judge which was listed for hearing on 7-8-90. It was further submitted that the petitioner annexed a copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad dated 9-8-90 under Section 355, I.P.C. a perusal of which indicates that the said bail application was allowed on 9-8-90 and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and resuisite sureties. It was further averred in para 4 to the supplementary counter-affidavit filed in reply to rejoinder affidavit that in crime No. 252 of 90 under Section 307, I.P.C. the bail application of the petitioner was accepted on 17-7-90 by the Sessions Judge Ghaziabad. It was further averred that in the counter-affidavit filed earlier it was mentioned by mistake that the bail application in the aforesaid crime was rejected on 15-7-90 when actually it was allowed. The mistake had occurred for the reason of the fact that the petitioner was wanted in cases of two crime numbers and in one crime number his bail application was rejected and in one it was under consideration. The District Magistrate has expressed regret for the said mistake. +

+
+ +
+ +

26. In the ground No. 1 of the detention order it was mentioned that the bail application preferred by the petitioner was rejected on 17-7-90 and thereafter the petitioner preferred the bail application before the District and Sessions Judge which was pending. In Ground No. 2 it was mentioned that in Crime Case No. 252 of 90 under Section 307, I.P.C. bail application was preferred by the petitioner on 7-8-90 which is pending in which 7-8-90 was fixed for hearing. The petitioner has averred in para 21 of his petition that the averment in grounds of detention that the bail application of the petitioner was pending and was fixed for hearing on 7-8-90 before the learned Sessions Judge Ghaziabad is contrary to record. The bail application was allowed on 17-7-90 by the learned Sessions Judge, Although in the counter affidavit-filed by the District Magistrate this fact was denied. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner again asserted that his bail application in case crime No. 252 of 90 was granted on 17-7-90 by the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad and in this connection he annexed the order dated 17-7-90 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad which reads as under :-- +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_183648185.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_183648185.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..af96598b6631103cb08c223613aa61111b940740 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_183648185.html @@ -0,0 +1,483 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + National Investigation Agency vs Menchu Sandeep A3 on 25 March, 2022 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The list of documents filed by NIA are verified, particulars + of witnesses in Annexure-A are verified, the case properties is + deposited vide P.I. No. 03/2020 in Annexure - C. The offices + charge sheeted against A1 to A4 are mentioned below for each + accused. +
A1 Maddileti @ Bandari Maddileti @ Manohar @ Sony + U/Sec. 120B IPC, Sec. 17, 18, 18B, 38, 39 and 40 of the UA (P) + Act 1967. A1 released on bail. +
A2 Yapa Narayana @ Haribhushan @ Jagan @ Alluri @ + Lakma @ HB @ H, U/Sec.120B IPC, Sec. 17, 18, 18B, 38, 39 and + 40 of UA (P) Act 1967. A2 is ABSCONDING. +
+
+ +
+

A3 Menchu Sandeep @ Praveen, U/Sec. 120B IPC, Sec. 17, + 18, 18B, 38, 39 and 40 of UA (P) Act 1967. A3 released on bail. +

A4 Nalamasa Krishna @ Rathnamala @ Ramsila @ Ram + U/Sec. 120B IPC, Sec. 17, 18, 18B, 38, 39 and 40 of UA (P) Act + 1967. A4 released on bail. +

As per our record, the accused No.1, A3 and A4 are + released on bail and A2 is Absconding. NBW may be issued + against A2. +

A2 died and A2 abated on 27.10.2020. +

+

+

9. Accordingly, the Presiding Officer of the Special Court took + +cognizance against A1, A3 and A4 for the offences under Section + +120B IPC, Sections 17, 18, 18B, 38, 39 and 40 of UAP Act 1967. + +The cognizance order, dated 02.11.2020, reads as follows: + + +

+
+ +
+

11. The circumstances are somewhat peculiar in this case. As + +seen from the material placed on record, the bail applications of + +A1, A3 and A4 were filed seeking bail for the offences under + +Section 120B of IPC, Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of TPS Act and + +Sections 18, 18B and 20 of the UAP Act for which, the + +respondents/A1, A3 and A4 were remanded. By the time the + +subject bail applications of A1, A3 and A4 came up for + +consideration before the Special Court for the second time, some + +offences were deleted and some offences were added against A1, + +A3 and A4. However, the Special Court completely ignored the + +said fact and proceeded to decide the bail applications of A1, A3 + +and A4 for the offences for which they were remanded i.e., Section + +120B of IPC, Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of TPS Act and Sections 18, + +18B and 20 of the UAP Act. None of the parties to the proceedings + +brought the fact of additions and deletions of certain offences + +alleged against the A1, A3 and A4 to the notice of the Special + 6 Dr.SA,J & KL, J + Crl.A.No.388, 389 & /2020 + + + + +Court, before passing the orders, dated 04.09.2021. Here, it is apt + +to state that while considering bail application(s) of the accused, + +the Court shall decide whether the accused is entitled for bail for + +all the offences alleged against him/her. Bail cannot be granted to + +the accused taking into consideration some of the offences alleged + +against him and omitting some of the offences, in the same crime. + +When the same was pointed out by this Court, all the learned + +counsel on record fairly conceded for remitting the matter to the + +Special Court for deciding the bail applications of A1, A3 and A4 for + +all the offences for which cognizance was taken against them. + +Further, the aspect as to whether there is prima facie case against + +A1, A3 and A4 for invoking Section 43D(5) of UAP Act is required + +to be examined and determined in relation to all the offences for + +which cognizance was taken against A1, A3 and A4, on filing of + +Police Report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. Section 439 of + +Cr.P.C. mandates filing application/s for bail for which, accusation + +of offence was made. On the date of determination of the bail + +applications for second time, the accusation against the + +respondents/A1, A3 and A4 was/is under Section 120B IPC, + +Sections 17, 18, 18B, 38, 39 and 40 of UAP Act 1967. The bail + +applications could have been heard and determined for those + +offences, taking into consideration the directions/observations + 7 Dr.SA,J & KL, J + Crl.A.No.388, 389 & /2020 + + + + +made by this Court vide common judgment, dated 20.07.2021, + +passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.419, 457 and 468 of 2020. + + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_1839434.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_1839434.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f664660dd677e7c74cb2d7e2a0de399ab0ef05c0 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_1839434.html @@ -0,0 +1,366 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Anit Kumar Awasthi vs State Of U.P. on 2 February, 2010 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned +A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of +sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. +

The accused-appellants Pankaj Kumar Tewari and Rakesh +Kumar Tewari have been convicted in Sessions Trial No.82 of 2002 +(Case Crime No.383/2001) for the offence punishable under Section +323/34 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo one year's simple +imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment +of fine to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment and have +have been acquitted to the charge for the offence punishable under +Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C. Accused-appellants were on bail during +trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on +record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_1843652.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_1843652.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..479bf48fb167dd4792c4e43fcfec1056f90fb950 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_1843652.html @@ -0,0 +1,366 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Munna Surti vs State Of U.P. on 29 January, 2010 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned +A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of +sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. +

The accused-appellants Pankaj Kumar Tewari and Rakesh +Kumar Tewari have been convicted in Sessions Trial No.82 of 2002 +(Case Crime No.383/2001) for the offence punishable under Section +323/34 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo one year's simple +imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment +of fine to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment and have +have been acquitted to the charge for the offence punishable under +Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C. Accused-appellants were on bail during +trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on +record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_184676025.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_184676025.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..20ac4d2155321fa8781a0ed5f32eb39f37cf50a8 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_184676025.html @@ -0,0 +1,424 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Girdhar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:11536) on 7 March, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

4. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.69/2024) +

5. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.69/2024) +

6. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.69/2024) + + +

8. Concerned Police Station Shreekaranpur +

+
+ +
+

12. Date of passing of 21.10.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.14884/2023) + +

14. Concerned Police Station Kotwali Barmer +

15. District Barmer +

16. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 420 and 406 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.14885/2023) +

17. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.14885/2023) +

+
+ +
+

34. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.15296/2023) +

35. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.15296/2023) +

36. Date of passing of 22.11.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.15296/2023) + +

38. Concerned Police Station Pratap Nagar +

+
+ +
+

76. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.90/2024) +

77. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.90/2024) +

78. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.90/2024) + + +

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no + + case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his + + incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in + + the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the + + accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based + + on conjectures and surmises. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_184855391.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_184855391.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f94c6a7b76cc3c887d69415812a5899d47b10d40 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_184855391.html @@ -0,0 +1,364 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sumit Singha vs The State Of Assam on 30 November, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

6. It is further alleged that the fraudulently procured funds have been laundered +through unsolicited sources via unconventional methods, dark web services and crypto +currencies for personal gain of the accused persons named in the FIR. +

+

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not +involved in the scam. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the +ground of parity as co-accused have been granted bail. No offence under Section 467 +IPC has been made out against the petitioner, but Section 467 IPC has been incorporated +with malafide to preclude the accused from being admitted to bail. Section 467 IPC +expounds that- +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_184948489.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_184948489.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b76e451037d26500e9531c1d90ebc65797ad6b0d --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_184948489.html @@ -0,0 +1,462 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Mohammad Kaif vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 12 March, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

12. To substantiate plea to enlarge the petitioners on bail, + +learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon order dated 5.7.2023 + +passed in Cr.MP (M) No. 1501 of 2023, titled as Ram Singh @ Kaka + +Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has been + +enlarged on bail on 5.7.2023 after remaining in jail for 3 years 2 months. + +

( 2025:HHC:5741 ) + +

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred order + +dated 16.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1494 of 2023, titled as + +Rampal @ Ramphal Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section + +302 IPC has been enlarged on bail after remaining in custody for 4 years + +9 months by considering plea of the petitioner regarding delay in trial. +

+
+ +
+

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners have referred order + +dated 20.10.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2481 of 2023, titled as + +Sanma Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has + +been released on bail after 3 years 3 months detention considering the + +fact that only 22 witnesses out of 30 witnesses were examined by that + +time. +

+

15. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further relied on + +order dated 4.11.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2618 of 2023, titled as + +Jasbir Singh Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC + +has been released on bail after 3 years 5 months detention considering + +the fact that only 16 witnesses out of 39 witnesses were examined by + +that time. +

+
+ +
+ +

18. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further referred + +order dated 1.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1216 of 2023, titled as + +Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 + +IPC has been released on bail after 4 years detention considering the + +fact that only 13 witnesses out of 47 witnesses were examined by that + +time. +

+

19. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further relied on + +order dated 24.7.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1217 of 2023, titled as + +Kulveer Singh Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 + +IPC has been released on bail after 1 year detention considering the fact + +that no witnesses out of 30 witnesses were examined by that time. +

+
+ +
+ +

30. Order dated 3rd September, 2024 passed in Cr.MP (M) No. + +1584 of 2024, titled as Krishan Kumar Vs. State of H.P. has also been + +referred by learned counsel for the petitioners, wherein petitioner an + +accused under Section 302 IPC was enlarged on bail after detention of 5 + +years 5 months by considering the fact that out of 48 witnesses only 16- + +18 witnesses had been examined and there was no likelihood of + +conclusion of trial in near future. +

+

31. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the + +petitioners on order dated 18.9.2024 passed in Cr.MP (M) No. 1804 of + +2024, titled as Suryakant Vs. State of H.P., wherein petitioner, an + +accused under Section 302 IPC, has been enlarged on bail by co- + +ordinate Bench on the ground of delay in trial after custody of more than + +3 years 10 months by taking into consideration the fact that there was no + +likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future as 23 witnesses were yet to + +be examined. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_185108137.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_185108137.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1d3bcc7df6d743e3b4577f20a498e357cccf9f80 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_185108137.html @@ -0,0 +1,359 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Shanmugam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 August, 2013 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. +

+

7. The detaining authority, in considering overall circumstances passed the detention orders dated 12.03.2013 in a mechanical manner and it is relevant to extract paragraph nos.4 to 7 of the detention order passed against the detenu in H.C.P.No.693 of 2013 as under: +

+
4) I am aware that Thiru.Shanmugam was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai on 10-02-2013 in Krishnagiri P.E.Wing Cr.No.116/2013 u/s.4(1)(aaa) r/w. 4(1-A) TNP Act, 1937 and 6, 7 of TNRS Rules 2000 and 379, 468, 471, 420 IPC and was remanded to judicial custody and lodged at Central Prison, Salem, as a remand prisoner till 22-02-2013. His remand has been extended upto 22-03-2013. He has filed a bail application to grant bail in the above said case before the District Principal Sessions Court, Krishnagiri in Crl.M.P.No.305/2013 and the same was dismissed on 13-02-2013. He has also filed a bail application to grant bail in the above said case before the Hon'ble High Court, Chenna in Crl.O.P.No.4183/2013 and the same is pending in the Court. I am also aware that in a similar case registered against an accused Thiru.Raman at Krishnagiri P.E.Wing Cr.No.702/2010, u/s. 4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1-A) TNP Act, 1937 and 6, 7 of TNRS Rules 2000 and 468, 471, 420 IPC, bail was granted by the Hon'ble High Court, Chennai, vide Crl.O.P.No.1931/2010, dt. 03-11-2011. Hence, I infer that it is very likely of his (Thiru Shanmugam) coming out on bail in the above ground case, by the pending bail application in the ground case before the Hon'ble High Court, Chennai, since bails are granted by the Courts in such cases. If he (Thiru.Shanmugam) comes out on bail, he will indulge in future activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health. Further the recourse to normal criminal will not have the desired effect of effectively presenting him from indulging in such activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health. On the materials placed before me and after coming to consideration the ground case as well as the past case together, I am satisfied that the said Thiru. Shanmugam is a Bootlegger as defined under clause 2(b) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and that there is a compelling necessity to detain him under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_185678891.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_185678891.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f948f6fa5c4da1c84f9985c4d36e3ab9f3672363 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_185678891.html @@ -0,0 +1,459 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Baba Vishal Giri vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 26 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

15. To substantiate plea to enlarge the petitioner on bail, + +learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon order dated + +5.7.2023 passed in Cr.MP (M) No. 1501 of 2023, titled as Ram Singh @ + +Kaka Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has + +been enlarged on bail on 5.7.2023 after remaining in jail for 3 years 2 + +months. +

+

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred order + +dated 16.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1494 of 2023, titled as + +Rampal @ Ramphal Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section + +302 IPC has been enlarged on bail after remaining in custody for 4 + +years 9 months by considering plea of the petitioner regarding delay + +in trial. +

+
+ +
+ +

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred order + +dated 20.10.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2481 of 2023, titled as + +Sanma Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has + +been released on bail after 3 years 3 months detention considering + +the fact that only 22 witnesses out of 30 witnesses were examined by + +that time. +

+

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on + +order dated 4.11.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2618 of 2023, titled + +as Jasbir Singh Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 + +IPC has been released on bail after 3 years 5 months detention + +considering the fact that only 16 witnesses out of 39 witnesses were + +examined by that time. +

+
+ +
+ +

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on + +order dated 6.10.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2461 of 2023, titled + +as Balwinder Singh @ Kadu Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under + +Section 302 IPC has been released on bail after 3 years 1 month + +detention considering the fact that only 12 witnesses out of 34 + +witnesses were examined by that time. +

+

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred +order dated 21.8.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1942 of 2023, titled +as Robin Patrwal Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 +IPC has been released on bail after 2 years 2 months detention +considering the fact that only 10 witnesses out of 51 witnesses were +examined by that time. +

+
+ +
+ +

+

21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred + +order dated 1.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1216 of 2023, titled as + +Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 + + + + +IPC has been released on bail after 4 years detention considering the + +fact that only 13 witnesses out of 47 witnesses were examined by + +that time. +

+

22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on + +order dated 24.7.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1217 of 2023, titled + +as Kulveer Singh Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 + +IPC has been released on bail after 1 year detention considering the + +fact that no witnesses out of 30 witnesses were examined by that + +time. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_186026289.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_186026289.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..49b0c17786671a49879760eb102440ab06797048 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_186026289.html @@ -0,0 +1,385 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Kuldeep Singh vs State Of U.P. on 9 July, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
"1. Heard and gone through the file. +
+
2. The present bail application under Section 439 CrPC has been filed seeking bail in Case Crime No.354 of 2022 under Section 419, 420, 114 IPC and Section 8 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Cantt District Ayodhya. +
+
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused appellant and other co-accused demanded and accepted Rs.50,000/- from Ex-Army Personnel for their recruitment in Defence Service Code. Having received this information, inquiries were made. Rs. 17 lacs were recovered from co-accused. This Rs.1 lacs was allegedly given to the accused applicant who is an Ex- Hawaldar in Indian Army. During interrogation, the accused applicant confessed that he had earlier collected Rs.34 lacs from 68 such Ex-Army personnel for securing their recruitment in DSC. +
+
+ +
+ +
2. The present bail application under Section 439 CrPC has been filed seeking bail in Case Crime No.354 of 2022 under Section 419, 420, 114 IPC and Section 8 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Cantt District Ayodhya. +
+
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused appellant and other co-accused demanded and accepted Rs.50,000/- from Ex-Army Personnel for their recruitment in Defence Service Code. Having received this information, inquiries were made. Rs. 17 lacs were recovered from co-accused. This Rs.1 lacs was allegedly given to the accused applicant who is an Ex- Hawaldar in Indian Army. During interrogation, the accused applicant confessed that he had earlier collected Rs.34 lacs from 68 such Ex-Army personnel for securing their recruitment in DSC. +
+
+ +
+ +
2. Perused the record. +
+
3. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant Janakraj seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 354 of 2022, under section 114 IPC and Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- Cantt. District- Ayodhya during the pendency of trial. +
+
4. The first bail application of applicant was rejected along with bail applications of co-accused by a detailed order dated 14.6.2023, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53317 of 2022 (Havaldar Nursing Sahayak Jitendra Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P) along with two other connected matters. For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under: +
+
+ +
+ +
2. The present bail application under Section 439 CrPC has been filed seeking bail in Case Crime No.354 of 2022 under Section 419, 420, 114 IPC and Section 8 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Cantt District Ayodhya. +
+
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused appellant and other co-accused demanded and accepted Rs.50,000/- from Ex-Army Personnel for their recruitment in Defence Service Code. Having received this information, inquiries were made. Rs. 17 lacs were recovered from co-accused. This Rs.1 lacs was allegedly given to the accused applicant who is an Ex- Hawaldar in Indian Army. During interrogation, the accused applicant confessed that he had earlier collected Rs.34 lacs from 68 such Ex-Army personnel for securing their recruitment in DSC. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_186042974.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_186042974.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fe51187a8aadfd6f2d8eade7d6b8c1481cc1e963 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_186042974.html @@ -0,0 +1,375 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Shivangouda S/O. Bhimashi @ ... vs The State Of Karnataka, on 19 August, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
The impugned judgment of conviction and order + +of sentence dated 27.01.2011 passed in + +S.C.No.85/2009 on the file of learned V-Addl.Sessions + +Judge, Belagavi is set aside. +
+
Accused is acquitted for the offences punishable + +under Sections 452, 376 and 506 of IPC. Bail bonds of + +the accused and that of the sureties stand canceled. +
+
Fine amount if any deposited by the accused is + +ordered to be refunded on due identification. +
+
Send back the trial Court records along with the + +copy of the judgment. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_186309561.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_186309561.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f868db2602638b052cedf11f81d9ee2ea07384ce --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_186309561.html @@ -0,0 +1,378 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Reserved On:- 14.12.2022 vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir on 30 January, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Ratio of the judgments of Lal Hussain's case & Baljinder Singh's case (Supra) + make the legal proposition manifestly clear that when all the witnesses have + been examined and the accused is lying in incarceration for longer period of + more than 8 years, he is entitled to bail. Ratios of the judgments (Supra) relied + by Ld. Counsel for petitioner are entirely distinguishable and inapplicable to + the facts of the case in hand. In the case in hand, all the prosecution witnesses + have not been examined till date, and out of total 40 prosecution witnesses + statements of only 22 have been recorded till 22-09-2020 as is depicted from + the bail order of the trial court whereby the bail application of petitioner was + rejected. In Satish Jaggi V/S State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. [decided by + Hon'ble Supreme Court on 30-04-2007 in appeal (Crl) 651 of 2007] relied by + Ld. Counsel for respondents, in a case of murder u/s 302/120 IPC bail of the + accused was rejected on the ground, that at the stage of granting bail court can + only go into the question of prima-facie case established for grant of bail, it + cannot got into the question of credibility and reliability of the witnesses + putforth by the prosecution. In the case in hand, at this stage, this court cannot + appreciate the quality of evidence and question of the credibility/reliability of + the 22 witnesses recorded by the prosecution. It is apt to reiterate here, that an + affidavit has been tendered by Mr. Sameer Jillani Inspector SHO P/S Rajouri + with the status report from which it is discernable that on many occasions + prosecution witnesses could not be examined by the trial court due to non- + availability of the counsel for the accused and the delay in conclusion of trial is + only attributable to petitioner/accused. Arguments portrayed by Ld. Counsel + for petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to bail, are legally unsustainable, + discarded and rejected. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_186652461.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_186652461.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2486d9500590383da71f29ecc6d321864d253c31 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_186652461.html @@ -0,0 +1,360 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Padmavathi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 August, 2014 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

3.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.P.K.Ilavarasan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention. +

4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the detenu has been in remand in the 2nd adverse case [Cr.No.1347/2013], 3rd adverse case [Cr.No.1351/2013] and also in the ground case in Cr.No.1356/2013 registered by T-11 Thirunindravur Police Station and he filed bail applications in the said cases before the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, in Cr.MP.Nos.3339, 3337 and 3338/2013 respectively and the same were said to have been pending as on the date of the passing of the detention order. Further, the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is very likely of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case, 2nd adverse case and 3rd adverse case by relying upon the similar case registered by T-1 Ambattur Police Station Cr.No.464/2011 u/s.341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC, wherein bail was granted to the accused by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, in Crl.MP.No.712/2012. The learned counsel would add that admittedly, in this case, the bail application filed by the detenu in the ground case, 2nd adverse case and 3rd adverse case are pending and he is in remand in the said case. When a bail application is pending, there is no presumption that the detenu would be granted bail. No cogent materials are available before the Detaining Authority to conclude / to apprehend that the detenu is likely to get bail in the ground case, 2nd adverse case and 3rd adverse case. He adds that the Detaining Authority though relied on the similar case particulars, he has furnished only the bail order of the said similar case in the Booklet and has not furnished the other relevant particulars. Therefore, there is no imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail on the basis of the bail granted in the similar case. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non-application of mind and the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is a mere ipse dixit without any cogent materials. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [a] 2006 [1] MLJ [Crl.] 539, [T.V.SARAVANAN @ S.A.R.PRASANNA VENKATACHARIAR CHATURVEDI V. STATE OF TAMILNADU THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER] ; [b]2005 [1] CTC 577 [VELMURUGAN @ VELU Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE] and [c] 2012 [7] SCC 181 [HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR] . +

+
+ +
+
"5.I am aware that Thiru Prabakaran is in remand in T.11 Thirunindravur Police Station Crime Nos.1347/2013, 1351/2013 and 1356/2013 and he has not moved a bail application for T.11 Thirunindravur Police Station Crime Nos.1347/2013, 1351/2013 and 1356/2013 so far before the Court of Principal District Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, in Crl.M.P.Nos.3339/2013, 3337/2013 and 3338/2013 respectively and the same were pending. Similarly, in a case registered at R-7 K.K.Nagar Police Station Crime No.301/2009 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted in Crl.O.P.No.13843/2009 by the Hon'ble High Court, Madras. It is pertinent to note that in a similar case registered at T-1 Ambattur Police Station Cr.No.464/2012 under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge at Thiruvallur in Crl.M.P.No.712/2012. Hence, I infer that it is very likely of his coming out on bail in T.11 Thirunindravur Police Station Crime Nos.1347/2013, 1351/2013 and 1356/2013 since in similarly placed cases bails are granted by courts after a lapse of time. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.................." +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_186782967.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_186782967.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3e86d3f7e43136617e436ea34751adcd07997453 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_186782967.html @@ -0,0 +1,381 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + __________________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 26 February, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Apprehending arrest in connection with FIR No. 04/18 dated + + + 8.1.2018, registered at P.S. Sadar Shimla, District Shimla, HP, under Sections + + 419, 420, 467, 471 and 120-B of IPC, bail petitioner has approached this + + + + + Court by way of instant bail petition. +

+

2. Sequel to order dated 22.1.2018, ASI Ajit Singh, PS Sadar + + Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., has come present along with records. Record + + + + + + perused and returned. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate + + General, has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of + + investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency till date, perusal + + + Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_186895992.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_186895992.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c94cfa7b2dea39b946edaea1bba3419c9f9b1dce --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_186895992.html @@ -0,0 +1,388 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Phool Singh And Another vs The State on 22 March, 2010 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

57. In my considered opinion, the trial court has committed a manifest error + + and there is nothing on record to suggest that any dowry was + + demanded from Rajbala by the appellants or that she was ever + + subjected to harassment in connection with the demand of dowry, or + + even otherwise. Having given a careful consideration to the above- + + stated submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and in + + the backdrop of the evidence discussed hereinabove and tested in the + + light of the principles of law, I am of the firm view that the evaluation of + + the findings recorded by the trial Court suffer from an improper + + appreciation of the evidence on record. For the reasons stated above, + + CrL. A. No.280/2001 is allowed and I find that no case is made out + + against appellants, Phool Singh and Kanta Devi under section 498-A, + + IPC. Accordingly the judgment and order on sentence passed against + + them by the trial Court is set aside. Further, CrL. A. No.333/2001 is also + + allowed and I find that no case is made out against appellants Smt. + + Dropadi; Sh. Sohan Lal; and Sh. Jai Prakash under section 304-B, IPC as + + well as section 498-A, IPC. Bail bonds be cancelled. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_187553072.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_187553072.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fcf9a0582ff42c0827e29ed12709a8eb3009b689 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_187553072.html @@ -0,0 +1,389 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sachin Bhati vs State Of U.P. on 14 May, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
ii) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 39394 of 2020, Case Crime No. 361 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
iii) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 41587 of 2020, Case Crime No. 586 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
iv) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 41588 of 2020, Case Crime No. 353 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
+ +
+ +
v) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 46289 of 2020, Case Crime No. 410 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
vi) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 46295 of 2020, Case Crime No. 386 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
vii) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 5326 of 2021, Case Crime No. 369 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
+ +
+ +
viii) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 5339 of 2021, Case Crime No. 440 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 506, 120-B IPC, 58-B (4A) of RBI Act, 1934 and 58-A of Company Act, 1956, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
ix) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 5354 of 2021, Case Crime No. 372 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
x) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 5370 of 2021, Case Crime No. 602 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
+ +
+ +
xi) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 6581 of 2021, Case Crime No. 370 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
xii) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 6585 of 2021, Case Crime No. 371 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
xiii) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 6588 of 2021, Case Crime No. 368 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_187727246.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_187727246.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e9115ed2bed63401c9bc3e4f4e8efe408b7a4f36 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_187727246.html @@ -0,0 +1,376 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Puneeth vs State Of Karnataka By on 19 February, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted of the charge + +for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section + +34 of IPC. +
+

Bail bonds of accused Nos.1 and 3 and their sureties shall + +stand discharged. +

+

Accused No.2 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if his + +detention is not required in any other cases. + +

The fine amount deposited, if any, by accused Nos.1 to 3 + +shall be refunded to them. +

+

Rest of the judgment and order of the trial Court is + +maintained. +

- 41 - +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_187914762.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_187914762.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e63aae4c651c4d5907940563137bc60287633bbf --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_187914762.html @@ -0,0 +1,383 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Amarjeet Singh Dhillon vs State Nct Of Delhi on 28 May, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

7. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, however, on considering + the Case Diary observed that, prima facie, the offence under Section + 467 of the IPC is not made out against the petitioner and, therefore, + proceeded to grant Statutory Bail to the petitioner. +

+

8. The State/prosecution challenged the said Order by way of the + abovementioned revision petition, which has been allowed by the + learned PD&SJ by the Impugned Order, observing therein that at the + stage of consideration of an application seeking Statutory Bail, the + learned Metropolitan Magistrate should not have come to the + conclusion that, prima facie, the offence under Section 467 of the IPC + is not made out and, thereafter, proceeded to grant Default/Statutory + Bail to the petitioner. +

+
+ +
+ +

16. They further submit that, in fact, while considering an + application for grant of Bail filed by the co-accused, namely, + Mr.Mandeep Singh, the same learned Metropolitan Magistrate, in the + Order dated 28.05.2022, had stated that, prima facie, a charge under + Section 467 of the IPC is also made out and, therefore, denied Bail to + the said co-accused. +

+

17. They further submit that, in fact, subsequently, a charge under + Section 467 of the IPC has been framed against the petitioner by the + learned Metropolitan Magistrate and he is facing trial on the said + charge. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_188646512.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_188646512.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6c710c440e8b81dd9d3f33dc1b672c543f6729ca --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_188646512.html @@ -0,0 +1,375 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + V.K. Prakash vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

+

9. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer had initially + +registered the crime alleging that the petitioner had + +committed the offence under Section 354A(1)(i) of the IPC, + BAIL APPL. NO. 7180 OF 2024 + + + + + 2024:KER:69330 +which is a bailable offence. Subsequently, after the Special + +Investigation Team was constituted, the Investigating + +Officer filed an additional report and incorporated Section + +354 of the IPC, which is a non-bailable offence. + + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_188648740.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_188648740.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8e45c0fe5e939cb5813be2b5b76f2101445a73d2 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_188648740.html @@ -0,0 +1,484 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Dhananjay Singh And Another vs State Of Up on 27 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. + +242/2010 + +302, 109 IPC + +Kerakat + +Jaunpur + +He has been granted bail on 13.03.2012 and trial is pending. + +

2. + +486/2011 + +3(1) U.P. Gangster Act + +Kerakat + +Jaunpur + +He has been granted bail on 20.03.2012 and trial is pending. + +

3. + +198/2013 + +109 r/w 302, 326, 324, 120B r/w 307, 370, 374, 201, 202 IPC + +Chanakyapuri + +New Delhi + +He has been discharged in Sections 202,109 r/w 302, 326, 324, 120B r/w 307, 370, 374 IPC and has been charged under Section 201 IPC. + + + +He has been granted bail on 30.10.2014 and the trial is pending. + +

+
+ +
+

4. + +0687/2017 + +147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 332, 353, 504, 506, 34, 427, 435 IPC + +Khuthan + +Jaunpur + +He has been granted bail on 15.04.2019 and the trial is pending. + +

5. + +526/2017 + +17H/188 IPC and Prevention to Damages to Public Property Act + +Kotwali + +Jaunpur + +He has been granted bail on 15.04.2019 and the trial is pending. + +

6. + +201/2017 + +188, 353 IPC and 126 Representation of Peoples Act + +Baksha + +Jaunpur + +The case is pending. +

+

7. + +445/2020 + +Section 5(2) of the Official Secret Act and 465 IPC + +Vibhuti Khand + +Lucknow + +The case is pending and is at the summoning stage whereas proceedings have been stayed. + +

+
+ +
+

8. + +15/2021 + +302, 307, 34, 120B IPC + +Vibhuti Khand + +Lucknow + +The appellant has been charged under Sections 176, 212 IPC and he has been granted bail on 21.01.2023 and the trial is pending. + +

9. + +110/2021 + +188, 269, 270 IPC and Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 + +Khuthan + +Jaunpur + +In this case, investigation is pending. +

+

10. + +0334 of 2023 + +Section 188 IPC and Section 5 of Sound Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000 + +Kotwali + +Jaunpur + +In this case, investigation is pending. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_18866859.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_18866859.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..86f8660af76695edcb110df2ebe633e67883a616 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_18866859.html @@ -0,0 +1,456 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Iqbal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 2 July, 2010 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner + +Iqbal Singh has given the details of cases against petitioner Iqbal Singh and + +their results as follows:- +

+
1. FIR No.193 dated 24.10.1998 under Sections 323, 324, 427 and 34 + +IPC - Acquitted. +
+
2. FIR No.299 dated 6.12.2000 under Sections 326, 324, 323 and 34 IPC + +
- Compromised/undergone. +
+
3. FIR No.65 dated 23.10.2001 under Sections 302, 326, 323, 324, 402, + +148 and 149 IPC - Appeal admitted/bail granted. + +
+
+ +
+
4. FIR No.20 dated 23.5.2007 under Sections 307, 148, 149, 326, 324 + +and 323 IPC and Sections 25 of the Arms Act. - Bail granted. + +
5. FIR No.116 dated 30.8.2007 under Sections 395, 307, 452, 323, 506, + +221, 148 and 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. - Compromised. + +
6. FIR No.112 dated 22.8.2007 under Sections 452, 380, 427, 323, 148 + +and 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27of the Arms Act. - Compromised. + +
7. FIR No.58 dated 29.6.2008 under Sections 188 and 34 IPC and + +Section 25 of the Arms Act. - Bail granted. +
+
+ +
+

Acquitted. +

+

2. FIR No.169 dated 13.6.2005 under Sections 323, 324, 201 and 34 + +IPC - Acquitted. +

+

3. FIR No.98 dated 9.4.2006 under Sections 452, 426, 506, 148 and 149 + +IPC - On bail. +

+

4. FIR No.12 dated 10.2.2007 under Sections 325, 342, 148 and 149 + +IPC - Acquitted. +

+

5. FIR No.117 dated 5.7.2008 under Sections 341, 324, 323 and 506 + +IPC. - On Bail. +

+

6. FIR No.23 dated 18.3.2007 under Sections 307, 326, 506, 341 and + +148 IPC - Acquitted. +

+ +
+ +
+

7. FIR No.43 dated 9.2.2008 under Sections 341, 148 and 149 IPC - + +

On Bail. +

+

8. FIR No.78 dated 12.4.2008 under Sections 24 of the Excise Act - + +

On Bail. +

+

9. FIR No.7 dated 13.1.2009 under Sections 452, 427, 506, 148, 149 + +and 120-B IPC - On Bail. +

+

10. FIR No.214 dated 26.12.2009 under Sections 307, 427, 324, 148 and + +149 IPC and Sections 27 of the Arms Act - Petitioner was taken on + +remand and is in jail. +

Cr. Misc. Nos.M-7714 of 2010 etc. + + + The above said cases indeed show that the petitioners have + +been involved in other cases. However, it may be noticed that in most of the + +cases they have been acquitted or the cases have been compromised. From + +the number of cases that are registered against the petitioners it can be said + +that they have propensity towards crime. It may, however, be noticed that in + +the present case the charges have been framed in the cases on 12.6.2010 and + +one PW has been examined. The prosecution is to examine 13 other + +witnesses. Therefore, the trial in the case is likely to take time. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_1887183.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_1887183.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ab6486326d40e94e19ceee6dfab11bd4ad334c30 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_1887183.html @@ -0,0 +1,364 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Umesh Chandra Son Of Late Sri Harish ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh Through ... on 24 October, 2005 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

8. In the inquiry, the following two charges had been framed against the petitioner: +

+
Charge No. 1. +
That the petitioner on 29.06.1993, while posted as 2nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, granted bail to main accused Atul Kumar Mehrotra in Criminal Case No. 3240 of 1992, State v. Atul Kumar Mehrotra and Ors., under + : 420, 467, 468 Indian Penal Code Crime No. 216 of 1996 Police Station Collectorganj, Kanpur Nagar, illegal, against all judicial norms and propriety, knowing that in this matter accused persons committed forgery in the Bank records and thereafter the accused Atul Kumar Mehrotra fraudulently withdrawn an excess amount of Rs. 9,78,969.00 from his bank account and offence under Section 467 Indian Penal Code, is punishable with life imprisonment. Therefore, he had no jurisdiction to grant bail under Section 467 IPC, thus the aforesaid bail order dated 29.6.1993 was passed by him for extraneous consideration, and he thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and complete devotion to duty, And thus, he committed mis-conducted with the meaning of Rule 3 of the Rules 1956. +
+
+ +
+
"Though there is no direct evidence of passing the order of bail on extraneous consideration and even if it is accepted that the charged officer was having jurisdiction to grant bail to the accused Atul Mehrotra, for the offences punishable Under Section 420, 467, 468 IPC a combined effect of charge No. 1 and 2 would make out that the officer first granted bail on the same day, to the main accused Atul Mehrotra i.e. 29.6.93, the day of his surrender and thereafter when the accused moved an application for discharge on 26.7.93 he was discharged within 10 days from the date of moving the application for discharge that too, by giving him a different treatment as against the two other co-accused and by little considering that Atul Mehrotra was the main accused who allegedly had opened the Bank account and was charged of committing forgery in the Bank Accounts resulting in misappropriation of an amount of more than Rs. 9.5 lacs. Both the aforesaid orders thus extended undue advantage to the accused Atul Mehrotra. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_18951897.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_18951897.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fae0cbb24cee13bdfae7c66ccd7a21b523aabe36 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_18951897.html @@ -0,0 +1,429 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rupendrs @ Bhupendra vs State on 5 November, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Order + +05/11/2020 + All the above mentioned bail applications shall stand decided + +by this common order as they arise out of same FIR. + +

The present bail applications have been filed under Section + +439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners who are in custody in + +connection with F.I.R. No.252/2020, Police Station Dovada, District + +Dungarpur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, + +394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B of I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12431/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 436, 394, + +384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of + +the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.11515/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, + +384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B of the I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.11861/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 384, + +284, 269, 270, 283 & 336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of + +P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11865/2020), + +under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 436, 394, 284, 269, 270, 283, + +336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11867/2020), under Sections + + (5 of 7) [CRLMB-12431/2020 + a/w connected nmatters] + + +147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, 384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336, + +120-B of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12205/2020), under Sections + +147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B + +of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. + +Bail Application No.12207/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, + +341, 394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 383, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and + +under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail + +Application No.12210/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, + +394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12433/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, + +284, 269, 270, 283, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 + +of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12436/2020). +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_189989526.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_189989526.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c7cb8dbe7d1ec670dd655c166cc9662aa16bf918 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_189989526.html @@ -0,0 +1,2203 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Manne Sundara Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 34, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

+

Manne Sundara Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025

+ +
        THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
+
+
+CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475,
+
+ 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839,
+
+                     5920 and 9083 of 2024
+
+
+COMMON ORDER:
+ + +

Crl.P.No.5197 of 2024 + + + This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A32 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

2

+ + + + +

2. Sri N. Harinadh, learned Counsel for petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, + +learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- + +State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.4896 of 2024 + + +

3. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A46 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

4. Sri Mukkamalla Rama Swamy, the learned counsel for + +petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + 3 + + + + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5230 of 2024 + + +

5. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A35 and A51 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

6. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + 4 + + + + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5256 of 2024 + + +

7. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A43 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

8. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + 5 + + + + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.5367 of 2024 + + +

9. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A4 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

10. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 6 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5475 of 2024 + + +

11. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A64 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

12. Sri Karanki Yaswanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, the learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

7

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5487 of 2024 + + +

13. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A47 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

14. Ms.P.Srilatha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 8 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5503 of 2024 + + +

15. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A19 and A20 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

16. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 9 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5550 of 2024 + + +

17. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A2, A16, A37 and A45 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

18. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

10

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5553 of 2024 + + +

19. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A7 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

20. Sri Peta Gnana Teja, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 11 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5585 of 2024 + + +

21. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A1 and A67 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

22. Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

12

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5652 of 2024 + + +

23. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A15 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

24. Sri Chalasani Venkat, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

13

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5718 of 2024 + + +

25. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A8, A22, A36 and A68 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

26. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 14 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5724 of 2024 + + +

27. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A3 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

28. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

15

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5752 of 2024 + + +

29. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A31, A53 and A65 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime + +No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna + +District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections + +143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) + +of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

30. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

16

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5839 of 2024 + + +

31. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A55 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

32. Sri B.V Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 17 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5920 of 2024 + + +

33. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A6, A13, A14, A17, A27, A28, A30, A39, A42, A52, + +A54, A56, A61 and A69 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

34. Ms.V.Devi Satya Sri, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

18

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.9083 of 2024 + + +

35. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A75 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

36. Sri G.L.Nageswar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor + +appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments. + + +

37. In all the above bail petitions, detailed counters were filed + +by the respondent-State. +

19

+ + + + +

38. All these criminal petitions pertain to Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station. By these petitions these + +accused pray for pre-arrest bail. All these petitions were heard + +together and by this common order they shall be disposed of. + +The crime incident allegedly occurred on 20.02.2023. Upon a + +written information dated 22.02.2023 F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was + +registered. The scene of offence was Telugu Desam Party office, + +Gannavaram. Sri Mudunuri Satyavardhan belonging to Madiga + +caste, which is a scheduled caste, was computer operator + +working in Telugu Desam Party office and living in the said office. + + +

39. During the time when this crime incident allegedly occurred + +the party in power was YSR Congress Party. Investigation + +commenced and went on for some time. Thereafter there were + +general elections and the then opposition party/Telugu Desam + +Party came into power. Thereafter investigation continued + +further. The allegations and counter allegations in this case + +disclosed the rift between both the political parties. Petitioners + +contend that this is a case falsely alleged against them out of + +political vendetta. According to State, for political reasons there + +was inadequate investigation soon after commission of the + +offence. By the time this crime incident occurred Sri Vallabhaneni + 20 + + + + +Vamsi Mohan was Member of Legislative Assembly for + +Gannavaram Assembly Constituency. He is one of the accused + +in the present crime. +

+

+

40. The version of the prosecution is that on 18.02.2023 during + +afternoon hours a press meet was held by Sri Vallabhaneni + +Vamsi Mohan wherein he allegedly made certain insulting + +remarks as against Sri N.Chandrababu Naidu, Sri Nara Lokesh + +and their family members and used indecent language. In + +response to it, certain leaders of Telugu Desam Party conducted + +a press meeting on 19.02.2023 in the morning hours and + +condemned the statements made by the opponent political party + +people. +

+

+

41. In the above backdrop of facts, the crime incident allegedly + +occurred. It is stated that on 20.02.2023 at about 5:00 P.M. + +Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan went to Telugu Desam Party + +office and on noticing followers of Telugu Desam Party he caused + +enquiries about Mr. Pattabhi of Telugu Desam Party and warned + +them that they would finish Telugu Desam Party and left the + +place. +

21

+ + + + +

42. In the next 30 minutes at about 5:30 P.M. about 100 + +persons belonging to YSR Congress Party came to Telugu + +Desam Party office wielding sticks, stones, petrol bottles and + +various other arms and while hailing Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi + +Mohan they attacked the party office. They threw stones, entered + +into the party office and destroyed the furniture, broke two + +computers and two televisions and caused tremendous panic + +among everyone available there. In the first information report + +the de facto complainant was able to mention the names of 44 + +accused. It also made a mention about four named accused who + +came upon him and abused him by his caste name. The further + +case of the prosecution is that these hooligans caused chaos and + +some of them using their sticks and cricket playing wickets + +seriously damaged three cars/AP 39 K 1999, AP 16 DJ 9499 and + +TS 10 EC 4099. It is also stated that one Mr. Rabbani poured + +petrol on the car bearing No.AP 16 DA 5555 and lit fire to it. The + +version of the de facto complainant is that there were police + +people at the Telugu Desam Party office and they remained mute + +spectators. During investigation it was found that some of the + +accused made attempts to burn the party office as walls in one + +room were found with charred marks. +

22

+ + + + +

43. Investigation has been in progress. Some of the accused + +were arrested and were remanded to judicial custody. According + +to prosecution, at least 44 accused were absconding. After + +gaining contact with about 28 accused they were questioned + +about their mobile phones and only seven out of them + +surrendered their mobile phones and 20 of the accused furnished + +false information with regard to the instruments they used and + +their mobile numbers. +

+

+

44. During the investigation, CCTV footage was collected. + +When the crime incident occurred, various people captured it on + +their mobile phones and all such material was collected. Based + +on these investigative efforts, allegations are made against all + +these petitioners by the prosecution that they are all involved in + +this crime incident. +

+

+

45. Broadly stated all these petitioners raised the following + +contentions: +

+

+

 That there was unexplained delay in registration of crime. + + The incident occurred on 20.02.2023 and F.I.R. was + + registered on 22.02.2023. That around the same time and + + place certain incidents occurred which resulted in + 23 + + + + + registration of multiple F.I.Rs. and many of which disclosed + + accusation of criminal acts of followers of Telugu Desam + + Party as against members of YSR Congress Party + + members and this case is in a way a counter blast to Crime + + Nos.132 of 2023 and 133 of 2023. +
+
+  F.I.R. does not contain any allegations of overt acts against + + these petitioners. +
+
+  After change in political party in power witnesses were + + planted and false evidence is created. +
+
+  The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. were bailable and + + many of these petitioners were served with Section 41A + + Cr.P.C. notice. However, after the change of political + + Government police have unlawfully brought additional + + penal provisions to nullify the rightful reliefs available to the + + petitioners. +
+
+

46. Plethora of precedent is cited on behalf of the petitioners + +and on behalf of some of the accused meticulous written + +arguments are filed leaving one to wonder that this to pronounce + +a judgment as if it is one after trial. +

24

+ + + + +

47. The following significant aspects are required to be noticed: + + +

F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was registered for the offences + +punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435 and 506 read with + +149 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989'). Since caste atrocity was one of + +the offences alleged, on the instructions of Superintendent of + +Police, Krishna, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gannavaram + +took up investigation. After recording the statements of about six + +witnesses, the investigation officer found that the provisions of the + +Act, 1989 were not applicable. Therefore, he applied to the + +Superintendent of Police to accord permission to delete those + +provisions. By proceedings dated 04.07.2023 the Superintendent + +of Police granted such permission. Investigation went further and + +scores of witnesses were examined. Thereafter by way of an + +alteration memo dated 07.08.2024 the investigation agency got + +added Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989. It + +also added Sections 436, 450 and 452 I.P.C. It is also to be + +noticed that in this case so far there are 71 accused. + 25 + + + + +

48. Since in the present crime incident not only offences under + +the Indian Penal Code but also offences under the Act, 1989 are + +alleged, the forceful argument raised by the State is that + +anticipatory bail petitions are not maintainable by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. The further argument is + +that the High Court does not now possess concurrent original + +jurisdiction for bails as well as anticipatory bails and it has only + +appellate jurisdiction by virtue of Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and + +therefore, these petitions are to be dismissed. In such + +circumstances, this Court on 13.11.2024 requested the learned + +counsels on both sides to address arguments in that regard since + +the jurisdictional bar has arisen. +

+

+

49. Valiant submissions are made by the learned counsels for + +petitioners wherein references are made to Sections 18 and 18A + +of the Act, 1989 and precedent is cited to show that if there is no + +prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989 is + +made out, anticipatory bail could be considered. It is also argued + +that this Court in these petitions during hearing granted interim + +protection and therefore, the same may be made absolute since + +these petitioners have not violated anything thereafter. + 26 + + + + +

50. The point that falls for consideration is: + + +

"What is the effect of Section 14A of the Scheduled + + Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the concurrent original + + jurisdiction of the High Court in considering bails + + and anticipatory bails where offences under the Act, + + 1989 are involved? +
+
+POINT: +
+
+

51. Offences under the Act, 1989 can be taken cognizance of + +and tried and be disposed of by Special Courts and Exclusive + +Special Courts as provided in Section 14 of the Act, 1989. Those + +Courts since now empowered to take cognizance hold power to + +take remand of the accused and consider bails. There is no + +provision in the Act, 1989 adverting to the aspects that are to be + +considered by those Courts when they entertain bail petitions. + +Therefore, those Courts draw their powers from the Code of + +Criminal Procedure. Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal + +Procedure is headed as provisions as to bail and bonds. It + +consists of Sections 436 to 450. They refer to bail in cases of + +bailable offences and bail in cases of non-bailable offences. + 27 + + + + +Section 438 Cr.P.C. is given heading direction for grant of bail to + +person apprehending arrest. To the extent the said provision is + +required alone is extracted here: +

+
"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending + arrest: +
+
(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be + arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- +

bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the + Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the + event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that + Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the + following factors, namely:- +

+
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; + +
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to + whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on + conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; + +
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and + +
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of + injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so + arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an + interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail: + +
Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, + the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order + under this sub-Section or has rejected the application for + grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer + 28 + + + + + incharge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the + applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in + such application." +
+

52. Thus, as per the above provision, those accused who + +anticipate their arrest may seek pre-arrest bail and they could + +move such applications either before this Court or before the + +Court of Sessions. It is in the light of such a provision the + +petitioners have straightaway moved this Court for their prayers + +for pre-arrest bail. +

+

+

53. The first submission of the State is that in cases of caste + +atrocities anticipatory bails cannot be maintained by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. Those provisions read as + +below: +

+

+

"18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons + committing an offence under the Act.-- Nothing in + section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case + involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of + having committed an offence under this Act. + + 18A. No enquiry or approval required.--(1) For the + purposes of this Act,-- (a) preliminary enquiry shall not be + required for registration of a First Information Report against + any person; or + 29 + + + + +
(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the + arrest, if necessary, of any person, + + against whom an accusation of having committed an + offence under this Act has been made and no procedure + other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall + apply. +
+
(2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply + to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or + order or direction of any Court." +
+

54. The crisp response from the learned counsels for the + +petitioners is that the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would + +apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist + +pointing towards the commission of an offence under the Act, + +1989. If the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under + +the Act, 1989 are not disclosed on the prima facie reading of the + +allegations levelled in the complaint or F.I.R. then in such + +circumstances, the bar of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would not + +apply and the Courts would not be absolutely precluded from + +granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons. In justification of + +this argument they cited ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + +India in Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala1. + +1 + 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601 + 30 + + + + +

55. If one goes by the contentions of the learned counsel for + +petitioners this Court is to take a view whether the allegations in + +the F.I.R./written information of the de facto complainant prima + +facie disclose caste atrocity or not. However, according to the + +State, even such a view cannot be taken by this Court by virtue of + +interdict contained in Section 14A of the Act, 1989. Therefore, it + +is required to notice what this provision says. The provision reads + +as below: +

+

+

"14A. Appeals:--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained + in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an + appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not + being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an + Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and + on law. +
+
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section + (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, + 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court + against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive + Special Court granting or refusing bail. + + (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for + the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall + be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of + the judgment, sentence or order appealed from: Provided + that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry + of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the + 31 + + + + + appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal + within the period of ninety days: Provided further that no + appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of + one hundred and eighty days. +
+
(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far + as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months + from the date of admission of the appeal." + +

56. As per Sub-Section (2) of Section 14Aof the Act, the + +petitions for bail are to be considered by the Special Court and in + +the event of their granting or refusing to grant such bails the + +aggrieved can prefer an appeal before this Court. Thus, the + +concurrent jurisdiction for consideration of anticipatory bails + +provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C. stood excluded. It is not as + +though the aggrieved is deprived of all the remedies. After + +inviting an order on the bail petition from the Special Court the + +aggrieved is entitled to prefer an appeal before this Court in terms + +of Section 14A of the Act, 1989. In the case at hand, the + +petitioners have moved bail petitions straightaway before this + +Court. At any rate, what is before this Court is not an appeal + +against an order passed by the Special Court with reference to + +bails. It shall be stated that on the same subject matter High + +Court could not be said to possess concurrent original jurisdiction + 32 + + + + +as well as appellate jurisdiction. If one is to state that a bail is + +different from anticipatory bail the result is that in anticipatory + +bails this Court holds original jurisdiction and in regular bails it + +holds only appellate jurisdiction. Assuming that in a case a + +petition for anticipatory bail being moved before the Special Court + +resulted in dismissal, then according to the logic applied by the + +petitioners the petitions would have to move only another bail + +petition before this Court and not an appeal. Such logic is in + +violation of what is clearly provided in Section 14A of the Act, + +1989. It is to be seen that the question of bail presupposes + +detention or custody of the person. In a case where a person is + +arrested he prays for a regular bail. In cases of anticipatory bail + +in the event of granting the relief, it has no effect unless and until + +the accused is arrested. In other words, the order of anticipatory + +bail comes into effect only after a person is arrested and not + +otherwise. In contrast to regular bail, in cases of anticipatory bail + +the order is obtained in advance. In regular bails it was obtained + +after arrest. The timing at which a prayer is made, and an order + +is granted, have no relevance when it comes to operation of + +those orders as in both the cases they come into operation only in + +those cases where a person is arrested. In such view of the + 33 + + + + +matter the word bail used in Section 14A of the Act, 1989 + +encompasses regular bail as well as anticipatory bail. Therefore, + +it must be stated that an application for bail or anticipatory bail + +can be filed only before the Special Court or the Exclusive + +Special Court as the case may be and not before the High Court. + +An order granting or refusing bail or anticipatory bail by the + +Special Court or Exclusive Special Court can be assailed before + +this Court invoking its appellate jurisdiction provided in Section + +14A of the Act, 1989. This Court had deliberated these aspects + +on earlier occasions when similar questions were raised and it + +reached to the same conclusions and reference can be made to + +the following: +

+

+

1. Nakka Nagireddy v. State of A.P.2 + + +
2. Deepak Kumar Tala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh3. + + +

57. Similar conclusions were reached at by other High Courts. + +Reference can be made to the following: +

+

+

1. K.M.Basheer v. Rajani K.T.4 + +2 + 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5322 Order dated 11.11.2024 +3 + Order dated 22.10.2024 in Criminal Petition No.6487 of 2024 +4 + 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 472 + 34 + + + + +
2. Lokesh v. State of Karnataka5 + + +
3. In re Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 v. Nil6 + + +
4. Atul Rajput v. The State of Madhya Pradesh7 + + +

58. At the bar, for petitioners, Abhishek Awasthi v. State of + +U.P.8 is cited. That is a case where other subsections of Section + +14A of the Act, 1989 fell for consideration and the powers of the + +High Court were considered under Section 482 of Code of + +Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings. + +Finally, it was held that with a view to prevent the misuse or + +abuse of the Court or law, the High Court holds inherent + +jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. + +Such question is not available before this Court. Even otherwise + +a brief reference to what was stated by their Lordships in Shajan + +Skaria's case9 would be sufficient here. At paragraph No.49 their + +Lordships stated that if the accused puts forward the case of + +malicious prosecution on account of political or private vendetta + +5 + 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15742 +6 + 2018 SCC OnLine ALL 2087 +7 + Order dated 10.04.2024 in Crl.A.No.3261 of 2024 of the High Court of +Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur +8 + MANU/UP/4595/2024 + 35 + + + + +such aspects can be considered only by the High Court in + +exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code or + +in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the + +Constitution of India. However, powers under Section 438 of the + +Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised once the + +contents of the complaint/F.I.R. disclose a prima facie case. In + +fact, in that case Section 14A of the Act, 1989 did not come up for + +consideration since the anticipatory bail petition was first moved + +before the trial Court and as against those orders appeal was + +preferred before the High Court. +

+

+

59. The plethora of precedent cited before this Court is not with + +reference to Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and therefore any + +reference to those cherished principles of those rulings is not + +required. This Court refrains from delving into other facts and the + +principles of law governing anticipatory bails since any such + +discussion may unnecessarily prejudice the contentions of both + +sides when appropriate applications are filed before appropriate + +Courts for the reliefs or when the maters come up before this + +Court in appeal. +

+

9 + Supra 1 + 36 + + + + +

60. Learned counsel for petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5920 + +of 2024 argued that this very Bench on earlier occasions + +considered and granted anticipatory bail and therefore, the same + +benefit can be extended to the present petitioners. The attention + +of this Court is brought to Sri Settipalli Raghurami Reddy v. + +The State of Andhra Pradesh10 and Julakanti Brahma Reddy + +@ Brahma Nanda Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 11. In + +both those matters the question about Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 was never raised by either side and therefore, there was no + +occasion for this Court to express itself on that aspect of the + +matter. After those orders it was in October and November 2024 + +only this Court had occasion to consider Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 and accordingly decided the earlier referred Nakka + +Nagireddy's case12 and Deepak Kumar Tala's case13. + +Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions of the learned + +counsel for the petitioners. +

+

+

61. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition + +No.5920 of 2024 further argued that the investigating agency is + +10 + Order dated 23.07.2024 in Criminal Petition No.3807 of 2024 +11 + Order dated 13.08.2024 in Criminal Petition No.10005 of 2023 +12 + supra 2 +13 + supra 3 + 37 + + + + +not entitled to add new penal provisions and cited State of + +Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde14. That was a case + +where on written information police registered a crime and + +investigating into it and filed charge sheet specifying certain penal + +provisions. At that stage the informant filed a petition to add + +Sections 364, 394 and 398 I.P.C. The question arose about the + +powers of the Magistrate at that stage as to whether he can + +incorporate those penal provisions as requested by the informant + +in a charge sheet filed by the police. Their Lordships stated that + +allowing incorporation of new provisions into the charge sheet as + +requested by the written informant at that stage is impermissible. + +However, the Court which is to try the case has to consider the + +first information report and all the other material collected and + +take a decision to frame appropriate charges under all the + +relevant penal provisions. Thus, the cited ruling has no relevance + +to the present case at hand. In the case at hand, the + +investigating police, exercising their right of investigation, have + +found it appropriate that the material on record do attract various + +provisions which were not originally mentioned in the F.I.R. Such + +power cannot be questioned. Informant would only put forth the + +14 + AIR 2014 SC 620 + 38 + + + + +facts before the registering officer and the Station House Officer + +on receiving such information using his own diligence + +incorporates the relevant penal provisions in the F.I.R. During + +investigation certain facts may be found incorrect and certain new + +facts may have been discovered and certain new accused may + +have been found having connection with the crime. There can be + +no legal hurdle in that regard since investigation is a voyage of + +truth. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsels for + +petitioners that provisions under the Act, 1989 were brought into + +effect during investigation and therefore have to be discarded is + +an argument that cannot be sustained. It may be recorded here + +that even to begin with in the case at hand the F.I.R. mentioned + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989. At the present also + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989 are alleged by the + +prosecution. Simply because at one stage such penal provisions + +were dropped does not mean that at a later stage they cannot be + +brought in. The argument that the new addition was not granted + +by the Superintendent of Police cannot be countenanced since + +the method of investigation is sole prerogative of the investigation + +officer. For the above reasons, the point is answered against the + +petitioners. +

39

+ + + + +

62. In the result, all these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. It is + +made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate + +petitions for appropriate reliefs before the appropriate Court. In + +the event such petitions are filed, the Court where they are filed is + +to consider the petitions on judicial side and dispose of them in + +accordance with law. Any observations made herein are confined + +to these petitions and they have no bearing on the merits or + +demerits of the case on either side. +

+

________________________ + Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J +Date: 06.01.2025 +Ivd + 40 + + + + + THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR + + + + +CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475, + 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839, + 5920 and 9083 of 2024 + + + + + Date: 06.01.2025 + + + +Ivd +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_191425971.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_191425971.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ae4175dbc16794a191bd4e105b3bdf6489ef6567 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_191425971.html @@ -0,0 +1,2184 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sanjukta Samanta & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 30, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

+

Sanjukta Samanta & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2025

+ +
                                        1
+
+                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
+                   CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
+                            APPELLATE SIDE
+
+
+Present:
+
+The Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
+
+                              W.P.A. 15260 of 2024
+
+                             Sanjukta Samanta & Anr.
+                                       -Vs-
+                               Union of India & Ors.
+
+
+Petitioner No. 1 in person           : Mrs. Sanjukta Samanta
+
+Petitioner No. 2 in person           : Mr. Romit Dutta
+
+For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2        : Mr. Rajdeep Majumdar
+                                       Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Chakraborty
+
+For the State                        : Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury
+                                       Mr. Manas Kumar Sadhu
+                                       Ms. Subhasree Patel
+
+For the Respondent No. 13            : Mr. Neeraj Sekhar
+                                       Ms. Malabika Saha
+
+Heard on                             : 13.03.2025, 28.03.2025,
+                                       25.06.2025, 11.07.2025
+
+Judgment on                          : 26.09.2025
+
+Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-
+
+1. The instant writ petition had been assigned to this Court by the Hon'ble the
+
+  Chief Justice, High Court at Calcutta, after the instant writ petition had
+
+  been released by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court presiding over in
+
+  Court No.14 vide its Order dated 05.08.2024 replicated as follows:-
+
+            "Live streaming of Court proceeding has been paused.
+                                          2
+
+              Heard submission of the petitioner no.2 and the learned advocate
+          representing the respondent no.13.
+              The petitioner no.1 behaves in an extremely unruly manner before
+          the Court. She is highly agitated. The Court is not inclined to hear the
+          matter.
+              Let this matter be released from the list of this Bench and be placed
+          before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for necessary order."
+
+2. The instant writ petition had been filed, inter alia, praying for following
+
+  reliefs:-
+
+          "........
+          B. Writ of an/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+          respondents to declare the impugned proceedings of Chatterjeehat
+          Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 under sections
+          341/365/468/420/506/34         IPC   is   illegal,   void   ab   initio   and
+          unconstitutional;
+
+          C. Writ in nature of mandamus to quash the entire proceedings in
+          connection with Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated
+          04.05.2024 under sections 341/365/468/420/506/34 IPC pending
+          before Learned CJM at Howrah and being investigated by state
+          respondents;
+
+          D. Writ in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondents
+          and its men, subordinates, assignees to unconditionally forthwith
+          withdraw, recall, rescind all steps taken in pursuance of the
+          Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 under
+          sections 341/365/468/420/506/34 IPC;
+
+          E. Writ of an/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+          respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates and each one
+          of them to quash/set aside the impugned Notification issued by the
+          office of Respondent 6 vide Org No.618/CS dated 06.05.2024 through
+                                3
+
+which the investigation of Chatterjeehat Police Station Case no.78 of
+2023 dated 04.05.2023 was taken up by respondent no.7;
+
+F. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents to render appropriate protection to life, liberty and
+possession to the writ petitioner no.1 by the respondents 1, 2;
+
+G. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates and each one
+of them to hand over the Case Diary of Chatterjeehat Police Station
+Case no.78 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 to the office of Respondent no.4
+forthwith;
+
+H. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates to stay the
+investigation of impugned FIR Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 86 of
+2024 dated 04.05.2024 under sections 341/365/468/420/506/34
+IPC by respondent no.9 with immediate effect;
+
+I. Writ of an/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates not to take any
+coercive steps against the petitioners in connection with Chatterjeehat
+Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 under sections
+341/365/468/420/506/34 IPC;
+
+J. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates not to take any
+coercive steps against the petitioners in connection with any frivolous
+FIRs against the Writ Petitioners by the accused respondent 13 and his
+associates;
+
+K. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates to stay the
+impugned further investigation of Chatterjeehat Police Station Case
+no.78 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 by State CID respondents;
+                                           4
+
+         L. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+         respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates not to register
+         any false FIR against the Writ Petitioners by the instant accused
+         respondents and his associates without any preliminary inquiry as
+         well as without leave of this Hon'ble Court;
+
+         M. A writ of and/or in nature of certiorari directing the concerned
+         respondents being respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 thereof to transmit
+         and/or produce all relevant records lying with them to this Hon'ble
+         Court so that conscionable justice may be done after hearing the
+         respective parties to this writ petition;
+
+         N. A writ of and/or in nature of Mandamus commanding the
+         respondent authorities 1, 2 to render appropriate protection to protect
+         life and possession of the petitioner;
+         ......."
+3. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 contended to be the Learned Advocates practising
+
+  in the High Court at Calcutta as well as the Supreme Court of India. The
+
+  petitioners, on invitation by the respondent No.13, visited his house at
+
+  Tamilnadu to hold a conference with the father of respondent No.13
+
+  concerning the filing of affidavit-of-assets and liabilities in connection with a
+
+  dispute regarding domestic violence instituted against the respondent No.13
+
+  pending at the District Court of South 24-Parganas at Alipore.
+
+4. Petitioner No.1 learnt of certain false information presented through an
+
+  affidavit-on-oath before the Court of Learned 6 th Judicial Magistrate at
+
+  Alipore, South 24-Parganas concerning the occupation of respondent No.13
+
+  and confronted the same. The respondent No.13 consequently insulted the
+
+  petitioner, indignifying her with threats, defamation and dire consequences.
+
+  Subsequently, the petitioner No.1 was threatened by an associate of
+                                         5
+
+  respondent no.13 as narrated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the writ petition. The
+
+  petitioners, thereafter, forwarded a complaint through e-mail to the
+
+  respondent no.8 being the Commissioner of Police, Howrah and Kolkata
+
+  Police on 23rd of April, 2023 at 21:44 hours.
+
+5. On 29th of April, 2023 at about 08:30 P.M., the respondent no.13
+
+  accompanied by his associate forcefully entering the chamber of petitioner
+
+  no.1, physically molested and harassed her as stated in paragraph 8 of the
+
+  writ petition. Meanwhile, the unknown associate vandalized the chamber of
+
+  the petitioner and escaped therefrom along with a mobile of model Vivo -
+
+  Y100 and a sum of Rs.65,000/- in cash.
+
+6. The petitioners initially refrained to proceed against the criminal acts of
+
+  respondent no.13, however, ultimately lodged a complaint against the
+
+  aforesaid respondents at the office of respondent no.8 and 9, i.e., Officer-in-
+
+  Charge of Chatterjeehat Police Station at Howrah on 03.05.2023 at 20:21
+
+  hours and the complaint was registered as Chatterjeehat Police Station Case
+
+  No.78      of      2023       dated       04.05.2023      under       Sections
+
+  420/406/448/341/323/354B/307/376/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal
+
+  Code. The respondent no.13 was, thereafter, arrested by the office of the
+
+  respondent no.9 who later on obtained an order of bail from the Hon'ble
+
+  Court.
+
+7. The petitioners had filed a complaint registered by the police being Howrah
+
+  P.S. Case No.262 of 2023 dated 27.07.2023 under Sections 195A/506/34 of
+
+  the Indian Penal Code against the associates of respondent no.13 for being
+
+  threatened as mentioned in paragraph 15 of the writ petition.
+                                          6
+
+8. The petitioners contended to have been insinuated through various means
+
+  as stated in paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the writ petition. The
+
+  predicaments of the petitioners had been vividly described in paragraphs 25,
+
+  26, 27, 28, and 29 of the writ petition. The petitioner no.1 claimed herself to
+
+  be a member of a political party, who had dealt with a Public Interest
+
+  Litigation in person addressing the grievances in connection with an incident
+
+  which occurred at Sandeshkhali in West Bengal through a writ petition
+
+  being No.WPA(P) 78 of 2024 before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and
+
+  SLP(C ) No.9462/9465 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
+
+  The petitioner no.1's combat and opposition against injustice towards
+
+  general women through the aforesaid writ petition rendered her aged senior
+
+  citizen parents to suffer from trauma and threats at the behest of her
+
+  competitive political party. The petitioner no.1 narrated the conduct of the
+
+  Learned Public Prosecutor of the State of West Bengal in paragraphs 35 and
+
+  36 of the writ petition.
+
+9. The petitioners in the instant writ petition further stated as follows:-
+
+       (i) The State respondents in collusion and conspiracy with the accused
+
+          respondent no. 13 had registered the said FIR being Chatterjeehat PS
+
+          Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 against the petitioner no.1 and
+
+          petitioner no.2, who was prime witness of the heinous crime
+
+          happened to her in the form of Chatterjeehat PS Case No.78 of 2023
+
+          dated 04.05.2023 to achieve their ulterior motive to put the instant
+
+          petitioner no.1 and 2, behind the bar for restraining the petitioner
+
+          no.1 from representing herself for the sexual assault victims of
+                                    7
+
+   Sandeshkhali, West Bengal as in person PIL Writ petitioner therein
+
+   before Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in WPA (P) 78 of 2024.
+
+(ii) The instant false and fabricated FIR being Chatterjeehat PS Case
+
+   No.86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 was the delayed counterblast of the
+
+   Chargesheeted Case being Chatterjeehat Police Station Case no 78 of
+
+   2023 dated 04.05.2023, Howrah PS Case 262 of 2023 dated
+
+   27.07.2023 and Chatterjeehat PS Case 23 of 2024 dated 05.02.2024.
+
+(iii) The instant false FIR against Writ Petitioners was lodged by complete
+
+   misusing the liberty granted by Hon'ble High Court in WPA 23711 of
+
+   2023 while the Hon'ble High Court while disposing WPA 23711 of
+
+   2023 vide order dated 16.04.2024 never granted liberty to the
+
+   accused respondent 13 to lodge a fresh /de novo complaint before
+
+   police against petitioners with inordinate delay for registration of FIR.
+
+(iv) The accused respondent no.13 in collusion and conspiracy with the
+
+   State police had misused and abused the Hon'ble High Court given
+
+   liberty to fabricate instant petitioners into a false, fabricated FIR.
+
+(v) The respondent no.3, being clubbed up with the state respondents
+
+   had been actively involved in terrorizing the victim writ petitioner and
+
+   prime eye witness her husband of the case being Chatterjeehat PS
+
+   Case No.78 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 by way of taking up
+
+   investigation of the case by CID in completely mala fide manner
+
+   totally contradictory as mandated by law as well as by way of filing
+
+   such false and fabricated FIR against the petitioner and her husband.
+                                  8
+
+(vi) After coming out of judicial custody and police custody for
+
+   commission of crime of sexual violence against petitioner in
+
+   connection with Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 78 of 2923 dated
+
+   04.05.2023, to wreak personal vengeance the prime               accused
+
+   respondent 13 had created a false, fabricated story of his alleged
+
+   abduction of himself at same time while he committed crime and had
+
+   lodged FIR against writ petitioner after one year of inordinate delay.
+
+(vii) She, being the de-facto complainant of Chatterjeehat PS Case 78 of
+
+   2023 dated 04.05.2023, was not being able to return at her home city
+
+   Calcutta as well as she had not been able to represent the sexual
+
+   assault victims of Sandeshkhali, West Bengal in the PIL WPA(P) 78 of
+
+   2024 (physically , which was the PIL filed by her as in person at first
+
+   instance for protection of Vulnerable victims therein) before the
+
+   Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and before this Hon'ble Supreme
+
+   Court as SLP (C) No. 9462-9465 of 2024 .
+
+ (viii) Due to registration of said false FIR being Chatterjeehat PS Case
+
+   86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 upon a deviated version of original
+
+   crime incident happened to the writ petitioner no. 1, she would not be
+
+   able to represent herself as in person petitioner de-facto complainant
+
+   before the Learned Trial Courts and before Hon'ble High Court in
+
+   several proceedings under severe threat of her and her husband's
+
+   arrest by the State police machineries upon said false FIR registered
+
+   against the Writ Petitioner and her husband.
+                                         9
+
+       (ix) The petitioner stated that the FIR being Chatterjeehat PS Case 86 of
+
+          2024 dated 04.05.2024 was registered to wreak personal vengeance
+
+          against the writ petitioner and her husband by the state police
+
+          respondents in collusion and conspiracy with the accused respondent
+
+          no.13.
+
+10. The investigation in Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.78 of 2023 dated
+
+   04.05.2023 was entrusted upon respondent no.6 C.I.D., West Bengal at the
+
+   instance of the Learned Public Prosecutor, State of West Bengal unilaterally
+
+   without an order passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta to the
+
+   astonishment of the petitioners which, according to the petitioners, had been
+
+   biased and politically motivated.
+
+11. The petitioners are of the firm conviction to be betrayed with right to fair
+
+   investigation and fair trial to their utter detriment and prejudice. The
+
+   petitioners, being intimidated by the action on the part of the State agencies,
+
+   further sought for personal protection as she had been constantly threatened
+
+   by the police offices, CID officials etc. The petitioners, as would appear from
+
+   the order-sheets of the instant writ petition, appeared before this Court in
+
+   person and agitated their trauma and agony to have been continuously
+
+   threatened by the respondents and other State officials resulting in their
+
+   apprehension of life and property to be in extreme danger and peril.
+
+12. The petitioner no.1 claimed to have been physically molested by the
+
+   respondent no.13 and the State agencies constantly threatened and
+
+   harassed her preventing her to pursue her profession as a lawyer and to
+
+   fight for the cause demanding protection of women's life, right and dignity.
+                                          10
+
+   Petitioners appearing in person submitted the Learned Public Prosecutor on
+
+   his own accord had transferred the investigation to the CID agencies without
+
+   an order of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta to investigate the
+
+   Chatterjeehat Police Station Case being No.78 of 2023 as aforesaid to wreak
+
+   vengeance against them.
+
+13. The order dated 23.08.2024 passed by this Court is replicated hereinbelow:-
+
+             "The learned advocates for the respondent nos.3 to 11 and the
+
+          respondent no.13 are present.
+
+             The petitioner no.1 appeared online prior to the recess expressing
+          her extreme urgency for listing the matter for hearing. Accordingly, a
+          supplementary list was prepared fixing the matter at 2.00 p.m.
+             The petitioner no.1 did not appear before the Court either in-person
+          or online at the time of hearing though the petitioner no.2 appeared
+          online and submitted due to medical emergency, the petitioner no.1
+          could not appear before the Court.
+             It was further submitted by the petitioner no.2 that the Union of
+          India being the respondent no.1 and the Central Industrial Security
+          Force being the respondent no.2, should be providing proper security to
+          the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and their presence was required for
+          adjudication of the instant writ petition at the time of hearing.
+             The petitioner nos.1 and 2 are directed to serve a notice upon the
+          learned advocate for the respondent nos.1 and 2 intimating the next
+          date of hearing on 3rd September, 2024 and to file an affidavit of
+          service to that effect.
+             Next date be fixed on 3rd September, 2024 at 2.00 p.m. for further
+
+          hearing."
+
+14. Subsequently, on 03.09.2024 the petitioner no.1 and 2 appeared in person
+
+   and submitted the arbitrary action on the part of the Learned Public
+                                          11
+
+   Prosecutor to have initiated the investigation through CID, West Bengal
+
+   without the direction obtained from the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
+
+   Howrah based on a communication addressed to the same and referred to an
+
+   order dated 08th April, 2024 passed by an Hon'ble Co-Ordinate Bench of this
+
+   Court in CRR 1023 of 2024.
+
+15. Considering the submissions of the petitioners in person, this Court passed
+
+   an order dated 03.09.2024 as replicated hereinbelow:-
+
+             "The supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner no.1-in-person
+          be kept on record. Copies of the same have been served upon the
+          leaned advocates appearing for the other respective respondents.
+             The petitioners-in-person referred to the order dated 8 th April, 2024
+          passed by a Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of Court in CRR 1023 of 2024
+          as well as to the communication addressed to the learned Chief
+          Judicial Magistrate, Howrah Court, marked as "annexure P-10" to the
+          writ petition. The petitioners as aforesaid further submitted that the
+          communication to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah Court
+          referring to CID investigation was not directed through an order of this
+          Court, as aforesaid.
+             The learned advocate for the State refers to the Police Regulation
+          Bengal, 1943 whereby the CID can on its own take up the
+          investigation. The learned advocate for the State is requested to inform
+          the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Debasis Ray to be present before
+          this Court on the next date of hearing to explain as to what prompted
+          him to submit before the Coordinate Bench that the investigations were
+          to be conducted up by the CID, West Bengal.
+             The learned advocate for the respondents are to file respective reply
+          to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners-in-person before
+          the Court on the next date with regard to the possibility of security to
+          be provided to the petitioner no.1 as claimed in the instant writ petition.
+                                         12
+
+             Heard the submission of the learned advocate representing the
+          respondent no.13.
+             The status report filed by the learned advocate for the State be kept
+          on record. A copy of the same has been served upon the petitioner
+          nos.1 and 2 in Court.
+             Next date be fixed on 17th September, 2024."
+16. Vide order dated 17.09.2024, this Court had appointed Learned Senior
+
+   Advocate Mr. Milon Mukherjee, the Learned Advocate Mr. Souvik Mitter and
+
+   Learned Advocate Ms. Sutapa Sanyal to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae in
+
+   order to dispose of the instant writ petition which was accepted by the
+
+   aforesaid Learned Advocates. The order dated 17.09.2024 passed by this
+
+   Court replicated as follows:-
+
+             "The learned senior advocate Mr. Milon Mukherjee, the learned
+          advocate Mr. Souvik Mitter and the learned advocate Ms. Sutapa
+          Sanyal have been requested to assist the Court as amicus curiae in
+          order to dispose of the instant writ petition and the same has been
+          accepted by the aforesaid learned advocates.
+             The learned advocate representing the respondent no.13 submits to
+          serve a copy of the writ petition along with the annexed documents and
+          the orders to the learned advocates appointed as amicus curiae in this
+          matter.
+             The learned advocate representing respondent nos.1 and 2 are
+          present and submitted the opinion of the Union of India with regard to
+          the provision of safety and security, generally accorded to specific
+          individuals subject to certain circumstances.
+             It is further submitted that the Ministry of Home Affairs is the
+          appropriate authority to provide safety and security to an individual
+          considering the threat perception after thorough assessment of the
+          facts and circumstances of a distinct case.
+                                          13
+
+                Heard the submissions of the learned advocates appointed as
+          amicus curiae and also the submissions of the petitioner no.1 and 2
+          appearing in-person.
+                The learned advocate representing the respondent no.13 seeks time
+          to file an affidavit-in-opposition to the supplementary affidavit filed by
+          the petitioner nos.1 and 2 appearing in-person after the processes for
+          filing the same gets endorsed through the concerned authority
+          pertaining to Bangladesh and the same is allowed.
+                Next date be fixed on 4th October, 2024 at 2.00 p.m. for further
+          hearing."
+17. On 04th October, 2024, the petitioner no.2 appeared online and submitted to
+
+   have preferred an appeal before the Division Bench presided over by the
+
+   Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court at Calcutta and sought for time on
+
+   that ground. PW-1 did not appear before the Court. Petitioner no.1 and
+
+   petitioner no.2 were directed to file an affidavit preferring an appeal as
+
+   aforesaid.
+
+18. On 18th November, 2024, petitioner no.1 did not appear before this Court
+
+   either in person or online. Petitioner no.2 appeared online and filed a
+
+   supplementary affidavit through is concerned Learned Advocate Mr. Arkadeb
+
+   Nag in open Court which, inter alia, stated the grievance of the petitioners
+
+   against the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by this Court in WPA 15260 of
+
+   2024 for seeking assistance of the Learned Advocates of this Court to act as
+
+   Amicus Curiae as aforesaid.
+
+19. The appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Division Bench presided over by
+
+   the Hon'ble the Chief Justice being MAT 2051 of 2024 on 6 th of November,
+
+   2024. Moreover, the fate of the said appeal had not been communicated to
+
+   this Court, if at all the hearing had been conducted. On 18 th November,
+                                            14
+
+   2024, the Learned Public Prosecutor appeared before this Court in
+
+   compliance with the order dated 03.09.2024 whereby this Court had sought
+
+   for an explanation as to what prompted him to submit before the Co-
+
+   ordinate Bench that the investigation of the Chatterjeehat Police Station
+
+   Case Nos.86 of 2024, 78 of 2023 and 23 of 2024 was to be conducted by the
+
+   CID, West Bengal.
+
+20. The Learned Public Prosecutor submitted several complaints and allegations
+
+   against two Hon'ble Judges of this Court and the officials of the
+
+   Chatterjeehat Police Station by the petitioners compelled him to ensure the
+
+   investigation to be carried out by an agency not comprising of the said
+
+   officials   of   the   Chatterjeehat   Police   Station   and   to   obliterate   the
+
+   apprehension of partial and biased investigation, the same was asked to be
+
+   conducted by the CID, State of West Bengal.
+
+21. On 19th of December, 2024, the Learned Public Prosecutor in compliance
+
+   with the order dated 18th November, 2024 filed a report stating the status of
+
+   investigation concerning the aforesaid police station cases. On 19 th
+
+   December, 2024, the Learned Public Prosecutor filed the report as aforesaid
+
+   along with an explanation as sought for. The petitioner no.1 was neither
+
+   present before the Court nor appeared online. Petitioner no.2 appeared
+
+   online and stated the appeal filed before the Division Bench was appearing
+
+   in the Daily List to be called for hearing. The petitioner no.1 and 2 had been
+
+   time and again asked by this Court to produce the details of the complaint or
+
+   G.D. Entry number which they claimed to have filed in the concerned police
+
+   station on several occasions for being threatened, physically manhandled,
+                                             15
+
+   molested and harassed. The petitioners did not produce any reference to that
+
+   effect before this Court.
+
+22. An order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in
+
+   WPA 23711 of 2023 is replicated as follows:-
+
+               "The respondent no. 12 appears in-person and tries to out shout
+             others. In spite of request made by the Court to calm down, she does
+             not relent and continues with her belligerent demeanour.
+               In view of this, I am not inclined to take up this matter.
+               Accordingly, the matter is released from my list."
+23. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners and the respondent no.13 who
+
+   had been the erstwhile client of the petitioners who sought for legal
+
+   assistance of the petitioners engaging them to be his advocates had filed writ
+
+   petitions being No.WPA 23711 of 2023 and WPA 21868 of 2023 wherein
+
+   several complaints had been filed against each other. Vide an order dated
+
+   16.04.2024, a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following
+
+   order:-
+
+               "Both these writ petitions are taken up for hearing together. It
+             appears that the petitioners in both the cases have filed several
+             complaints against each other.
+                                In Re: W.P.A. No.23711 of 2023
+               The petitioners in WPA No.23711 of 2023 lodged several complaints
+             against the petitioner in WPA No.21868 of 2023 before the Criminal
+             Investigation Department, West Bengal. In this writ petition, some of
+             the complaints have been annexed at annexure P/15. The petitioners
+             allege that no case has been registered or investigation has been
+             initiated following the said complaints.
+               I am of the view that the petitioners should lodge complaint before
+             the concerned police station at the first instance.
+                               16
+
+  Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty upon the
+petitioners to lodge complaint before the concerned police station. If the
+complaint discloses any cognizable offence, the relevant police station
+shall take steps to register F.I.R. and investigate the matter in
+accordance with law.
+  Accordingly,    W.P.A.    No.23711      of    2023     and    connected
+applications, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024 and CAN 2 of 2024 are
+disposed of.
+                   In Re: W.P.A. No.21868 of 2023
+  The petitioner in this case is a lady advocate. It appears that she
+also filed several complaints against the petitioners in WPA No.23711
+of 2023.
+  Following the complaints, the Investigating Agency has filed
+Chatterjeehat P.S. charge sheet no.191/23 dated 31.10.2022 under
+Sections 420/406/448/341/ 323/307/379/354B/376/506/34 of the
+Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Howrah P.S. charge sheet no.277/23
+dated 30.09.2023 under Sections 195A/506/34 of the 3 Indian Penal
+Code, 1860, before the jurisdictional Court. The trials have not yet
+commenced.
+  It is the grievance of the petitioner that while attending the Courts in
+connection with the aforesaid criminal cases, she is being harassed
+and even attacked by the petitioners in WPA No.23711 of 2023. These
+allegations have been vehemently denied by the petitioners in WPA
+No.23711 of 2023.
+  This Court is not in a position to appreciate the factual disputes. It is
+only expected that if the petitioner approaches the learned Trial Court
+seeking her protection, to ensure a free and fair trial, her prayer shall
+be considered by the Court below by passing necessary order.
+  Accordingly,    W.P.A.    No.21868      of    2023     and    connected
+applications, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2023 and CAN 2 of 2024 are
+disposed of."
+                                           17
+
+24. The present petitioners in the instant writ petition had filed an appeal
+
+   against the order dated 16.04.2024 passed in WPA 23711 of 2023 and WPA
+
+   21868 of 2023 before the Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble the
+
+   Chief Justice of this Court. By a judgment dated 21.05.2024 in MAT 831 of
+
+   2024, the Hon'ble Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice
+
+   of this Court had passed a judgment replicated as follows:-
+
+          "1. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties.
+          2. The appellant no.2, who is appearing online and he had sent a
+          message in the chat box praying that the live streaming of the
+          proceedings be paused. Acceding to the request made by the appellant
+          no.2, live streaming of the proceeding was paused.
+          3. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order passed in
+          W.P.A. No.23711 of 2023. The said writ petition was filed by the
+          respondent herein stating that several complaints have been lodged
+          against the respondents before the Criminal Investigation Department,
+          West Bengal and some of the complaints were annexed to the writ
+          petition. Further, the writ petitioners allege that no case has been
+          registered or investigated based on the complaints lodged by the
+          respondents/writ petitioners.
+          4. The learned Single Bench did not go into the merits of the matter but
+          disposed of the writ petition by the impugned order observing that the
+          writ petitioners, if aggrieved, should lodge complaint before the
+          concerned police station, at the first instance. Accordingly, the writ
+          petition was disposed of granting liberty to the writ petitioners to lodge
+          complaint before the concerned police station with an observation that
+          if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the relevant police
+          station shall take steps to register F.I.R. and investigate the matter in
+          accordance with law.
+          5. We failed to understand as to how the appellants before us, whose
+          names have been masked at their request, are aggrieved by the order
+                                          18
+
+          passed in the writ petition as the learned Writ Court has not gone into
+          the merits of the matter and left it open to the writ petitioners to work
+          out their remedy before the concerned police station.
+          6. The appellant no.2, who is appearing online, submitted that several
+          cases have been registered against them and there is a threat of
+          arrest. If that be so, it is well open to the appellants to invoke the
+          provisions of law available to them and approach the competent forum
+          for necessary relief.
+          7. Thus, we find no ground has been made out to interfere with the
+          order passed in the writ petition.
+          8. With the above observations/directions, appeal as well as the
+          connected application (IA No. CAN 1 of 2024) stand dismissed.
+          9. No costs.
+          10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
+          furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal
+          formalities."
+25. Subsequent to the aforesaid orders passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench and
+
+   the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner no.1 and 2 failed to
+
+   place any document of complaint filed by them before the concerned police
+
+   authorities claiming threat to their personal life and property and of any
+
+   action restricting their liberty to pursue their profession with dignity.
+
+26. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.1 and 2 submitted the
+
+   opinion of the Union of India specifically the Ministry of Home Affairs to be
+
+   the appropriate authority to provide safety and security to an individual
+
+   considering the threat perception after thorough assessment of the facts and
+
+   circumstances of a distinct case. It was further urged neither the police
+
+   authorities concerned nor this Court can assess whether the petitioners
+
+   required to be provided safety and security on the basis of personal claim of
+                                            19
+
+   a threat perception since it was within the absolute domain of the Ministry of
+
+   Home Affairs to ascertain and decide the seriousness and gravity of the
+
+   situation to provide safety and security to any individual.
+
+27. The Learned Advocate representing the State-respondents submitted despite
+
+   the order of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioners did not co-
+
+   operate with the investigation and suspected the investigating agency of
+
+   biasedness, arbitrariness and to wreck vengeance against the petitioners for
+
+   having dealt with a Public Interest Litigation against the State authorities
+
+   concerning an incident at Sandeshkhali. The petitioners were of the opinion
+
+   to be prejudicially prevented and impartial hearing and failed a transfer
+
+   petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India being Transfer Petitions
+
+   Criminal Nos.701/702 of 2024 which was dismissed as the Hon'ble Supreme
+
+   Court observed no case for transfer to have been made out vide its order
+
+   dated September 2, 2024.
+
+28. The petitioners had also filed writ petition criminal No.236 of 2024 before the
+
+   Supreme Court of India which was withdrawn by the petitioners. The
+
+   petitioners had accused the police personnels and other officials and had
+
+   impleaded them in the instant writ petition without plausible reasons and
+
+   did   not   deliberately   co-operate    with   the   investigation   citing   their
+
+   dissatisfaction as the same had been conducted by the CID, West Bengal
+
+   further stating to the Investigating Officer that the investigation should be
+
+   conducted by the CBI.
+
+29. The Learned Advocate representing the State further submitted it would not
+
+   be possible for the Writ Court to quash the proceedings since the complaint
+                                         20
+
+   as well as the FIR delineated commission of cognizable offences and the
+
+   charge-sheet had been submitted with further prayer on the part of the
+
+   Investigating Officer to file a supplementary charge-sheet. The Writ Court in
+
+   case of the offences being cognizable and the conundrum between the
+
+   parties should be decided through trial by the competent court. The Writ
+
+   Court should not exercise its jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.
+
+30. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 submitted the
+
+   petitioners to have instituted false and malicious complaints against the
+
+   respondent no.13 with an intention to incriminate him in serious offences of
+
+   rape, theft etc. The father of the respondent no.13 being a nonagenarian
+
+   person had been dragged mercilessly into humiliation, despair, agony and
+
+   trauma. The petitioners on being asked to be relieved of their professional
+
+   responsibility to represent the respondent no.13 and to withdraw the cases
+
+   on account of reconciliation between the respondent no.13 and his wife
+
+   infuriated the petitioners to lodge frivolous and baseless complaints against
+
+   the respondent no.13 whereby the same being a professional oncologist
+
+   practising in Bangladesh had been arrested and was released on bail. It was
+
+   further submitted the respondent no.13 to have been kidnapped by the
+
+   petitioners, physically assaulted and captivated.
+
+31. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 submitted that the
+
+   petitioner no.1 had instituted complaint cases against her and the same had
+
+   not been taken cognizance of by the CMM vide order dated 13.07.2023
+
+   passed in CS/71375/2023.
+                                         21
+
+32. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 further submitted
+
+   to have been repeatedly threatened and abused by the petitioners on the
+
+   corridor of this Court along with her junior who happened to be a practising
+
+   advocate in this Court. Against complaints registered as FIR, criminal
+
+   revisional applications have been pending before the respective Co-Ordinate
+
+   Bench of this Court.
+
+33. The petitioners were trying to frustrate the proceedings by delaying the
+
+   hearing of the same on several pretexts to the predicament of the respondent
+
+   no.13. Moreover, since the investigation had proceeded to a considerable
+
+   extent, the writ petition should not be entertained.
+
+34. The relationship between the petitioners and the respondent no.13
+
+   apparently had been cordial at the inception whereby the petitioners
+
+   accorded legal assistance to respondent no.13 to defend him in several cases
+
+   instituted against him in the Court of law, which gradually might have
+
+   evolved to be trustworthy and amicable to the extent the petitioners
+
+   accompanied the respondent no.13 to his parents' house at Tamil Nadu to
+
+   assist the respondent no.13 and his father in property related issues and its
+
+   assessment thereof. In course of time, the professional and congenial
+
+   relationship seemingly transformed into resentment and hostility.
+
+35. The petitioner no.1 subsequently on 28.04.2023 was asked to withdraw the
+
+   following cases pending before the respective Courts as stated below:-
+
+          "(i) Divorce Case 1647 of 2022 pending at 13 th ADJ, Alipore
+          (ii) Objection in Restitution Case 1535 of 2022 pending at 6 th ADJ,
+          Alipore
+                                              22
+
+             (iii) All my objection petitions and non maintainability petitions filed by
+             me in Maintenance Case 613 of 2021 pending at 6 th JM, Alipore
+             (iv) Non-maintainability petition in DV Case 561 of 2023 pending at 6 th
+             JM, Alipore"
+36. Respondent no.13 asked the petitioner no.1 through a communication dated
+
+   03.05.2023 for relieving her to take any further steps in the following legal
+
+   matters pending before the various Courts alleging the petitioner no.1 and 2,
+
+   inter alia, to have failed to maintain their professional ethics and discipline
+
+   as mentioned therein:-
+
+             "(i) 613/2021 - 6th JM, Alipore
+             (ii) 1535/2022 - 6th ADJ, Alipore
+             (iii) 1647/2022 - 13th ADJ, Alipore
+             (iv) 561/2023 - 6th JM, Alipore
+             (v) 38867/2023 - 14th Metropolitan Magistrate, Bankshall Court"
+
+37. The relationship between the disputants worsened with lapse of time and the
+
+   petitioner filed complaints against the respondent no.13 and his associates.
+
+38. Based on the complaint filed by the petitioner herein Chatterjeehat Police
+
+   Station     Case    No.23    of    2024     dated   05.02.2024    under    Sections
+
+   341/323/325/326B/354A/354B/509/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code
+
+   anticipatory bail was granted in favour of the accused therein vide order
+
+   dated 13.03.2024 passed by this Court in CRM(A) 880 of 2024.
+
+39. Based on the complaint of the petitioner herein Chatterjeehat Police Station
+
+   Case       No.78      of    2023      dated     04.05.2023       under     Sections
+
+   420/406/448/341/323/307/379/354B/376/506(2)/34 of the Indian Penal
+
+   Code had been instituted against the accused persons mentioned therein.
+                                            23
+
+40. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 submitted the
+
+   complaint filed by the respondent no.13 dated 28 th April, 2024 accused the
+
+   petitioners of abduction, extortion, physical assault, threat to murder,
+
+   defamation, confiscation of passport, ATM card and other official documents
+
+   perjury, forgery implicating in false and fabricated criminal cases to extort
+
+   money.
+
+41. Records further reveal an FIR to have been instituted by the Sathuvachari
+
+   Police Station, Vellore, on the basis of the complaint received from one Dr.
+
+   Debidas Rai who alleged that his son was missing referring to the present
+
+   petitioners to have visited his house claiming for further money to defend his
+
+   sons petitioners' case.
+
+42. The respondent no.13 who had been an accused in Chatterjeehat Police
+
+   Station       Case     No.78      of         2023   filed   under    Sections
+
+   420/406/448/341/323/379/354B/307/376/506/34 of the Indian Penal
+
+   Code was granted bail vide order dated 03.08.2023 passed by this Court in
+
+   CRM (DB) 3080 of 2023.
+
+43. The Learned Public Prosecutor had submitted the status report prepared by
+
+   the concerned Investigating Officer:-
+
+             "1. Case No. and date of registration: Chatterjeehat (Howrah Police
+             Commissionerate) PS Case No 78/2023 dt 04/05/2023
+             2. Sections of law: U/S 420/ 406/ 448/ 341/ 323/ 379/ 354B/
+             307/376/506/34 IPC.
+             3. Control order No. & Date: The case was assumed by CID W.B.
+             Vide Org No 618/CS. Dt. 06/08/24.
+                               24
+
+4. Name and rank of investigating officer: (i) SI Sudipta Kar of
+Chatterjeehat (Howrah Police Commissionerate) PS (ii) Inspector
+Swapna Ghosh O/C, POWC Cell, CID, WB.
+5. Gist of FIR: On 04/05/2023 at 17.25 hrs to the Officer In-Charge of
+Chatterjeehat PS received a written complaint from the complainant
+and perused the complaint properly. On the basis of a written
+complaint of the Victim Lady against one Deepak Shankar Ray and
+others to the effect that she was appointed as an advocate by the
+alleged person since month of December, 2021. The accused person
+was very reluctant to pay her professional fees as per norms of several
+Vakalatnamas executed by him in several cases. Till date the
+complainant owes Rs 1000000/- to the alleged person as her
+professional fees. But in spite of several reminders, he refused to pay
+her the same and threatened her with dire consequences. Thereafter
+on 29.04.2023 at around 20.30 hrs the alleged person came at the
+chamber of the complainant situated at 93 Abinash Banerjee Lane, PS-
+Chatterjeehat, Howrah and forcefully entered in to the chamber and
+committed theft in respect of some cash and mobile phone, then on
+being protest the alleged person outrage her female modesty and also
+trying to kill her by grabbing her throat. Then while the complainant
+felt down on the floor, the alleged person kicked in her lower private
+part and also forcibly inserted one of his left-hand finger at her lower
+private part. Over the complaint of the complainant Chatterjeehat PS
+Case No. 78/23 dated 04.05.2023 u/s 420/406/448/341/323/379
+3548/307/376/506/34 IPC has been started.
+6. Details of FIR named accused: (i) Deepak Shankar Ray(53yrs),
+S/O Debidas Ray of S-3, 2nd street, Sathuvachari, CMC Colony, Vellore,
+Tamil
+Nadu- 632009 and Flat No - 303, Sailagreen, 1137 Kalikapur,
+Purbalok, PS Purba Jadavpur, Kolkatta- 700099 (ii) Kanad Saha- S/O
+Lt Kunal Saha of Block - D2, Flat No - 402, Kendriya Vihar, Phase - II,
+PO- Birati, Dist North 24 Prgns, Kolkata - 700051. (iii) Debidas Ray
+                              25
+
+s/o of Lt. Nagendranath Ray of S-3, 2nd street, Sathuvachari, CMC
+Colony, Vellore, Tamil Nadu- 632009.
+7. Details of arrest: (i) Deepak Shankar Ray(53yrs), s/o Debidas Ray
+of S-3, 2nd street, Sathuvachari, CMC Colony, Vellore, Tamil Nadu-
+632009 and Flat No - 303, Sailagreen, 1137 Kalikapur, Purbalok, PS
+Purba Jadavpur, Kolkatta- 700099, was arrested on 11.07.2023 and
+forwarded before Ld. CJM, Howrah Sadar Court on 12.07.2023. (ii)
+Kanad Saha - S/O Lt Kunal Saha of Block - D2, Flat No - 402,
+Kendriya Vihar, Phase - II, PO- Birati, Dist North 24 Prgns, Kolkata -
+700051 was released on bail by Hon'ble High Court Calcutta on
+21.08.2023 and Ld. CJM, Howrah Sadar Court on 25.09.23. (iii)
+Debidas Ray s/o of Lt. Nagendranath Ray of S-3, 2nd street,
+Sathuvachari, CMC Colony, Vellore, Tamil Nadu- 632009 was granted
+anticipatory Bail by Hon'ble High Court Calcutta on 25.09.2023.
+8. Steps Taken During Investigation by the District Police:
+During investigation of the case I Sudipta Kar of Chatterjeehat PS
+visited the place of Occurrence and prepared a details index of the PO
+and prepared a rough sketch map. The IO examined the complainant
+and others available witnesses and recorded their statement U/S 161
+Cr.P.C. Medico legal examination of Victim Lady was performed by the
+Dr. Debhina Ghosal of Howrah District Hospital. He also arranged to
+record the Judicial Statement of the victim lady with the help of LSI
+Nitu Biswas of Howrah Women PS and produced the victim lady before
+the Ld Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 4th Court, Howrah, recorded her
+statement judicially U/S 164 Cr.P.C and also collected the copy of
+judicial statement from Ld Court, Howrah District.
+Previous IO collected the medico legal report along with one sealed
+envelope containing one glass tube & one glass slide containing the
+swab/ spermatozoa from Howrah District Hospital. IO sent prayer to
+ACP DD, HPC for providing the CDR of the accused person's mobile
+number which was provided by the VG to trace them out and also
+prayed for IMEI searching of the complainant's mobile phone which
+                                26
+
+was taken away by the accused from the PO. In course of
+investigation, IO seized the wearing apparels of the victim lady which
+were worn by her at the time of incident and also seized the bill of the
+alleged mobile which was taken away by the accused and one
+prescription of Dr Souvik Roy who examined the victim lady after the
+incident. In course of investigation, IO held several raids under Purba
+Jadavpur PS area & Naihati PS area to arrest the accused persons but
+no fruitful result achieved. Then IO collected the Passport details and
+prayed to the concerned authority after following all legal procedures
+for issuing Look Out Circular' against the principal accused namely
+Deepak Shankar Ray on 01.07.2023 LOC was initiated by the
+concerned authority against the accused person. On 11.07.2023
+received information that in the immigration Centre of Haridaspur
+under Petrapole PS, North 24 Pgs, said accused person was detained
+as LOC subject. IO along with force went to Haridaspur Immigration
+Centre and with the assistance of Petrapole PS police team, arrested
+the FIR named principle accused person namely Deepak Shankar Ray
+and brought him to PS and forwarded him before Ld. Court and took
+him into Police Custody for 02 days as per kind order of Ld. CJM,
+Howrah. During PC period after obtaining necessary orders from Ld.
+Court,   IO   produced   the   arrested   accused   person   before   the
+Superintendent of Howrah District Hospital for his medico legal
+examination. Dr. Chitta Ranjan Bhattacharya of Howrah District
+Hospital, has done the medico legal examination of the accused
+Deepak Shankar Ray and collected one sealed envelope containing one
+glass tube & one glass slide containing Urethral Swab/smears of said
+accused person. IO along with force and PC accused held raid to
+recover the alleged stolen articles and to arrest the other co accused
+persons, but no fruitful result was achieved. On 19.07.2023 IO sent the
+exhibits before Ld. C.JM. Howrah Sadar Court and collected CMR No.
+vide CMR No. 427/2023 dated 19.07.2023. On 31.08.2023 IO sent the
+exhibits to FSL Kolkata for examination and Expert Opinion. IO further
+                                 27
+
+contacted with the FSL authority over phone regarding the expert
+opinion but informed that the expert opinion is not ready yet. IO
+submitted Charge Sheet vide Chatterjehat PS C.S. No- 191/23 dated-
+31/10/2023 u/s 420/406/448/341/323/379/354B /307/376/506
+IPC against the Principal accused person namely Deepak Shankar Ray,
+53 yrs s/o Debidas Ray and u/s 509/506/34 IPC against the other 2
+FIR named accused persons namely (1) Kanad Saha - S/O Lt Kunal
+Saha (2) Debidas Ray s/o of Lt. Nagendranath Ray and IO also
+submitted prayer before the Ld. Court for allowing to submit
+Supplementary Charge Sheet after receiving the FSL report.
+  9. Steps Taken During Investigation by CID W.B:
+The investigation of the said case was taken up by CID W.B. as per
+order of Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta vide order CRR 1023 of
+2024, dt 08.04.2024 in compliance of the Order passed by Hon'ble
+High Court is "Quote" "Mr. Debasish Roy, learned Public Prosecutor
+appearing for the State submits that State would take up all the
+investigations for being investigated by the CID, West Bengal.
+However, it is the prerogative of the State at this stage as the de facto
+complainant has expressed her apprehension as she has complained
+to different dignitaries in respect of this Court.
+Targeting the Courts are a soft option as has been settled in several
+judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Article 219 of the
+Constitution of India states that court of law is supposed to act without
+any fear or favour. A professional having claimed herself to be a victim
+of sexual assault has raised issues not only in respect of this Court but
+also in respect of four other senior Judges of this Court. There cannot
+be any issue regarding the Court to proceed with the present case as
+the only issue which was expressed is that all the cases of
+Chatterjeehat Police Station in between the self same parties are to be
+transmitted to the CID or any Women Grievance Cell connected with
+the CID so that under the same umbrella investigation and in respect of
+different cases could be conducted.
+                                 28
+
+However, having regard to the attitude and approach of the de facto
+complainant and for preserving the sobriety of the judicial system, I
+intend to leave the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court for
+deciding the issue.
+Let the matter go out of the list and be placed before the Hon'ble Chief
+Justice for assignment.
+All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded
+from the official website of this Court.
+In respect of the said order CID WB has assumed investigation of the
+case vide Org No 618/CS. Dt. 06/08/24. I Inspector Swapna Ghosh,
+OC, POWC Cell was detailed as the Investigating officer.
+During investigation, I submitted a prayer and collected the Case
+Docket from learned CJM, Court, Howrah on 7/05/2024. I perused the
+case diary and learnt that the previous I/0 had submitted charge sheet
+with provision for submitting Supplementary Charge sheet on receipt of
+the FSL report. I submitted a prayer to FSL Kolkata vide memo no-
+79/POWC/CID WB on 14/05/2024 to hand over the FSL report and
+exhibits to me for the interest of investigation.
+On 22/05/2024 I received the exhibits and report from FSL Kolkata
+vide report no- BIO/5783/2023/3606/FSL dated 22/05/2024 and the
+opinion of the examination is "Quote" "No semen (no spermatozoon), no
+Gonococcus could be detected on the contents of the items marked A
+(vaginal swab & vaginal smears) and B (urethral swab & smears).
+"Unquote.
+Hon'ble High Court Calcutta vide order dated 08.04.2024 in CRR 1023
+OF 2024 had directed that all FIR's lodged against the complainants
+and accused persons at Chatterjeehat Police Station be investigated by
+CID, WB.
+O/C Chatterjeehat Police Station informed that along with the current
+case, there are 2 (two) more cases that have been lodged against both
+complainant and accused i.e Chatterjeehat PS case no- 23/2024
+dated-05/02/2024 u/S 341/ 323/ 325/ 326B/ 354A/ 354B/ 354/
+                                29
+
+509/ 506/34 IPC against (i) Dr. Deepak Shankar Roy s/o Dr. Debidas
+Roy (ii) Kanad Saha s/o Late Kunal Saha and (2) Chatterjeehat PS
+case no 86/2024 dated- 04/05/2024 u/s 341/363/468/420/506 IPC
+against Sanjukta Samanta w/o Romit Dutta.
+I had sent message to the complainant through Chatterjeehat PS for
+meeting her in c/w the investigation of the case, this refers to org no
+70/ POWC/CID WB dated 20/05/2024 and org no 73/ POWC/CID
+WB dated 25/05/2024 • However no response was received her till
+date. I also contacted with her over telephone and she told me that she
+don't want to meet investigation by CID, as rather she want CBI
+investigation.
+The complainant on 20/05/2024 had filed a WP (S) (Criminal) No (S)
+236/2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. But later the
+complainant withdrew her petition, this refers to Order dated
+03/06/2024 in WP (CL).
+Later, I came to learn from Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated
+1/07/2024 in c/w WPA Number 15260 of 2024 that "Quote" Let the
+case diary with the progress report of Chatterjeehat PS case no
+78/2023 be produced before this Court as because the petitioners
+apprehend arrest in c/w Chatterjeehat PS case no 86/2024.
+For the ends of justice the police is restrained from taking any coercive
+steps against the petitioner till 12th July, 2024 or until further order,
+which is earlier. "Unquote".
+Later, I came to learn from Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated
+30/07/2024 in c/w WPA Number 15260 of 2024 that "Quote"
+Petitioner No. 1 appears in-person and prays for release of the matter.
+Let this matter be released and placed before the Hon'ble the Chief
+Justice for appropriate assignment. "Unquote".
+In course of investigation, it is necessary to examine the complainant
+for which I have communicated with her over the telecommunication of
+CID West Bengal vide org no-144/ POWC dated 25/11/24.
+Reason for pending of investigation
+                                         30
+
+          Investigation is almost complete and will end in submission of
+          supplementary charge sheet.
+          The Investigation is pending as the complainant is not cooperating with
+          the investigation. During investigation several messages were sent to
+          the complainant but she did not respond. As per latest status dated
+          25/11/24 message was sent to the petitioner whose response was
+          recived by me vide Chatterjeehat PS org no - CHT/9033/24 which was
+          serviced dated 27/11/2024. Chatterjeehat PS. Received the following
+          response in writing against the above petition from the complainant
+          Quote "strongly objected to matter pending for challenging the
+          false FIR filed & counter case to harass me". Unquote.
+          This is submitted for your kind perusal."
+
+44. In compliance with the order dated 18.11.2024 of this Court, the report of
+
+   the Learned Public Prosecutor stated as follows:-
+
+             "The petitioner has initiated multiple proceedings before this Hon'ble
+          Court, asserting various grievances. Her claims are diverse, yet a
+          recurring theme is her assertion that the investigating agency has
+          failed to conduct its investigation impartially, thereby causing her
+          significant injustice. She has gone further to allege that the opposing
+          party is being supported by state machinery. According to her, the
+          advocates representing the state, acting in collusion, have sought to
+          suppress her voice and prevent her from receiving a fair hearing.
+             The petitioner's conduct has been noted on numerous occasions, and
+          there have been several instances where her matters have been
+          released by the Hon'ble Justices of this Court. In WPA 23711/2023, by
+          an order dated October 3, 2023, Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
+          observed the petitioner's belligerent demeanor and subsequently
+          released the matter. Similarly, in CRR 1023/2024, by an order dated
+          April 8, 2024, Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh reflected upon the
+          petitioner's attitude, noting her conduct as targeting the sanctity of the
+          judicial system, and consequently released the matter. This matter
+                                31
+
+was earlier released by Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh on April 4,
+2024.
+   In WPA 15260 of 2024, the petitioner herself sought the release of
+the matter before Hon'ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj, as indicated in
+the order dated July 30, 2024. Subsequently, by an order dated
+August 5, 2024, Hon'ble Justice Amrita Sinha released the same
+matter, attributing the decision to the petitioner's unruly behaviour
+during the proceedings. The petitioner has also alleged that during the
+hearing of the Sandeshkhali matter, WPA(P) 78/2024, she was
+subjected to abuse and threats by state advocates, which she claims
+were motivated by her political affiliations.
+   It is pertinent to mention herein that the aforesaid allegations have
+found place in the Special Leave Petition filed by the Writ Petitioner
+herein before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Writ Petition
+(Criminal) No 236/2024.
+   The petitioner has consistently expressed distrust in the police
+officials involved in the investigations of her matters. She alleges that
+these officials are influenced and biased, undermining her confidence
+in the fairness of the ongoing investigations.
+   Under such circumstances, I was constrained to direct the CID to
+take up the investigation of the cases filed by the instant writ petitioner
+as well as the case filed against her to ensure neutral investigation
+devoid of any blemish, as alleged by her.
+   The petitioner's allegations, demeanor, and conduct across various
+proceedings have drawn attention and have been noted by various
+benches this Hon'ble Court. These observations reflect a pattern of
+dissatisfaction on the part of the petitioner with the judicial and
+investigative processes, alongside allegations of undue influence and
+partiality.
+   It is however, necessary to bring to the notice of this Hon'ble Court
+that the Writ petitioner has consistently refrained from co operating
+with the CID to get her statement recorded or for any other purpose, as
+                                            32
+
+           required by the Investigating Agency thus rendering them incapable of
+           continuation and/or completion of the investigation of the cases
+           instituted by the instant writ petitioner.
+              This report has been prepared in pursuance to paragraph no. 5 of
+           the order dated November 18, 2024 passed by Her Ladyship Hon'ble
+           Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay."
+45. The petitioner no.1 appearing before the Court submitted her plight, agony
+
+   and helplessness being subjected to physical molestation, outrage of
+
+   modesty, theft of mobile and cash sum of Rs.65,000/- on the part of
+
+   respondent no.13 and his associates and non-payment of professional fees.
+
+   The petitioner no.1 submitted her associates. The petitioner no.1 submitted
+
+   her lawyer's chamber to have been impaired and damaged by the respondent
+
+   no.13 and his associates with continuous threat to both the petitioners and
+
+   their family members disrupting mental peace causing physical trauma and
+
+   being indignified with insinuations and ignominies. Both the petitioners
+
+   could not repose faith and trust on the investigating agencies whose actions
+
+   had been suspiciously frustrating to deliberately deprive the petitioners of
+
+   fair justice.
+
+46. The respondent no.13 filed a complaint dated 28 th April, 2024 accusing the
+
+   petitioners of abduction, extortion, physical assault, threat to murder,
+
+   defamation, confiscation of passport, ATM card and other official documents,
+
+   perjury, forgery implicating in false and fabricated criminal cases to extort
+
+   money etc. which had been serious allegations.
+
+47. The serious allegations by the petitioners the counter allegations resulting in
+
+   the institution of the aforementioned criminal cases being registered through
+
+   formal FIRs had been challenged through filing of Criminal Revisional
+                                              33
+
+   Applications pending before the co-ordinate bench of this Court for quashing
+
+   of the proceedings/FIRs being Nos. Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.86
+
+   of 2024 and No.78 of 2023.
+
+48. The allegations of the petitioner no.1 are indubitably grave and deprecated in
+
+   nature which can only be tested in terms of its veracity through trial to
+
+   inculpate the perpetrator. Contrarily the allegations of the respondent no.13
+
+   whether to have been genuine or a counterblast to the allegations of the
+
+   petitioners cannot be decided unless the investigation of the respective cases
+
+   are concluded and the process of trial being conducted by the court of
+
+   competent    jurisdiction   to   arrive    at   a   conclusive   determination   for
+
+   incrimination or exculpation.
+
+49. A web-search on the query as to who decides to provide security to private
+
+   individual in India and on what ground, the following answer has been
+
+   received by this Court:-
+
+
+           "The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), on the recommendation of
+           intelligence agencies, decides to provide security to private individuals
+           in India, based on perceived threats to life or injury from groups or
+           terrorists. While government officials typically receive security based
+           on their position, a call on security for private citizens is made by the
+           MHA using information from bodies like the Intelligence Bureau (IB)
+           and Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW). The Central Reserve Police
+           Force (CRPF) and other forces then provide this security.
+           The Process
+
+             1) Intelligence Gathering: Intelligence Agencies like the IB and R&AW
+                monitor potential threats and gather information from various
+                                           34
+
+               sources, including phone intercepts, human intelligence, and
+               threat analysis.
+             2) Threat   Assessment:      These   agencies   provide   a   subjective
+               assessment of the threat to an individual's life or safety from
+               potential attackers like terrorists or other groups.
+             3) Decision by the MHA: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) reviews
+               the intelligence inputs and decides whether a private individual
+               requires security cover.
+             4) Deployment of Forces: If security is granted, a central agency,
+               often the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), is tasked with
+               providing the security.
+50. The petitioners herein despite the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench of this
+
+   Court in WPA 23711 of 2023 and the Hon'ble Division Bench in MAT 831 of
+
+   2024 presiding over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court at Calcutta,
+
+   having directed to file complaints at the concerned police station for being
+
+   threatened as claimed by the petitioners reiterated by this Court during
+
+   consecutive hearings failed to provide the copy of the complaint or the G.D.
+
+   Entry number concerning such complaints claimed to have been lodged by
+
+   the petitioners.
+
+51. Considering the role of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the submissions of
+
+   the Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.1 and 2 Union of
+
+   India, the prayer of the petitioner for providing personal security on the
+
+   ground of their perception cannot be allowed. The petitioners could not
+
+   establish a case serious and strong enough to be granted protection as
+
+   sought for which otherwise had to be decided by the Ministry of Home Affairs
+
+   on the basis of imminent and persistent threat. The petitioners could not
+
+   justify inaction on the part of the police administration or the investigating
+                                           35
+
+   agency, however, claimed the same to be biased and revengetic in its attitude
+
+   towards the petitioners primarily petitioner no.1 for her active role against
+
+   the State administration defending injustice to women's rights concerning an
+
+   unfortunate event at Sandeshkhali through a Public Interest Litigation.
+
+52. The status report of the Learned Public Prosecutor as aforesaid explaining
+
+   the course of investigation did not endorse police inaction.
+
+53. Vide Order dated 08.07.2024, the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in WPA
+
+   15260 of 2024 observed as follows:-
+
+             "As per the request of the petitioners, the live streaming has been
+          paused.
+             Learned advocate representing the State respondents submits, upon
+          instruction that, the petitioners are not cooperating with the police in
+          the process of investigation.
+             From the documents handed over by the learned advocate
+          representing the State respondents it appears that, after protection
+          was granted to the petitioners vide the order passed by this Court on
+          1st July, 2024, no notice was served upon the petitioners directing their
+          appearance for investigation.
+             The respondents are directed to proceed with the investigation but
+          not take any coercive steps against the petitioners without the leave of
+          the Court.
+             The petitioners and all other parties are directed to cooperate with
+          the police for the sake of investigation.
+             List on 12th August, 2024.
+             Liberty to mention.
+             Report dated 08.07.2024 be kept with the records."
+54. The petitioners despite an order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this
+
+   Court to co-operate in the investigation refrained from participating in the
+
+   investigation as claimed by the Learned Advocate representing the State
+                                          36
+
+   respondents suspecting the Investigating Officers and accusing them of
+
+   arbitrary, biasedness being capricious and revengeful. The Co-Ordinate
+
+   Bench of this Court directed the investigating agency not to take any
+
+   coercive steps against the petitioners. Despite such an order, the petitioners
+
+   denied to co-operate with the investigating agency as had been stated in the
+
+   report filed by the Learned Public Prosecutor as aforesaid.
+
+55. The Learned Public Prosecutor on an explanation sought by this Court for
+
+   transferring the case of investigation to the CID, West Bengal anxiously
+
+   stated for the purpose of an impartial and unbiased investigation, the same
+
+   had been entrusted to the CID, West Bengal conforming to the police
+
+   regulations stated as follows:-
+
+          "II.- Control and assistance in enquiries and investigations.
+          ....
+

618. Method of assuming control. +

(a) The Deputy Inspector-General, Criminal Investigation. Department, + may assume control 0f an enquiry or investigation at any stage. On + assuming control he shall inform the Deputy Inspector-General of the + Range forthwith, sending a copy 0f his intimation direct to the + Superintendent Or Superintendents concerned. +
(b) In excise cases in which the investigation must extend to more than + one district, or in which there are intricacies which cannot be dealt with + without the aid of a specially skilled detective, the services of an officer + of the Criminal Investigation Department, shall be requisitioned by the + Commissioner of Excise. In emergencies such requisition may also be + made by an officer of lower rank. The Deputy Inspector-General, + Criminal Investigation Department, shall, if he thinks fit and if he has + an officer available, depute one and also decide whether the officer + deputed shall be placed at the disposal of the Commissioner of Excise + 37 + + or whether the control of the enquiry shall be taken over by the + Criminal Investigation Department." +

56. It was further submitted several Judges of this Hon'ble High Court had been + + accused along with the police officers and the Learned Public Prosecutor + + himself which compelled him to transfer the responsibilities of conducting + + investigation on the CID, State of West Bengal without any other alternative + + or option being third party to conduct the investigation independently + + without the involvement of the police officers of the concerned police station + + against whose conduct several objections had been raised by the petitioners. + +

57. The status report filed by the Learned Public Prosecutor as aforesaid did not + + reveal police inaction to the detriment of the petitioners' interest. The + + petitioners had filed a transfer petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + + India being Transfer Petitions Criminal No.701/702 of 2024 being Sanjukta + + Samanta vs. the State of West Bengal and Ors. etc. whereby the petitioners + + appeared in person. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated + + 02.09.2024 observed: "No case for transfer is made out. The transfer petitions + + are dismissed." +

+

58. The petitioners, therefore, cannot refuse to participate in the investigation + + violating the order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court on + + 08.07.2024 in WPA 15260 of 2024. Both the parties have filed criminal + + revisional applications before the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court, the + + criminal revisional applications being CRR 1023 of 2024 and CRR 3203 of + + 2023. The petitioners as well as the respondent no.13 have availed the + + jurisdiction to redress their grievances in an alternative form under Section + + 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner no.1 being a + 38 + + complainant in connection with Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.78 of + + 2023 filed under Sections + + 420/406/448/341/323/379/354B/307/376/506/34 sought for stay of the + + investigation in the said case further seeking the investigation to be + + conducted by the State respondent no.4 whose actions had been challenged + + by the petitioners to be against her interest intending to deprive her of fair + + trial and natural justice. +

+

59. In the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajanlal and Others 1, + + the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- +

+
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant + provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law + enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise + of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers + under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and + reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of + illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent + abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of + justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly + defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid + formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases + wherein such power should be exercised. +
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the + complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in + their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a + case against the accused. +
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other + materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable + offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section + + 1 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 + 39 + + 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the + purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. +

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint + and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the + commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. + (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable + offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is + permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as + contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. +

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd + and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can + ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for + proceeding against the accused. +

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the + provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal + proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the + proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or + the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the + aggrieved party. +

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide + and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior + motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite + him due to private and personal grudge." +

60. Since the contents of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet claimed to have + + been filed by the investigating agency as per the report filed by the Learned + + Public Prosecutor in Case No.78 of 2023 and the complaint as well as the + + FIR in Case No.86 of 2024 to have revealed allegations of cognizable offences + + in both the aforesaid cases, this Court is not inclined to stay the further + + proceedings in the aforesaid cases. +

40

+ +

61. The petitioners being young, responsible and bright advocates practising in + + this Hon'ble Court as well as in the Supreme Court, out of shock and + + displeasure probably by the turn of events cannot trust the investigating + + agencies at the moment perhaps due to mental agony. One has to confide in + + the prevailing justice delivery system to attain a finality to a dispute which + + definitely can be assailed at a Higher Forum statutorily. The petitioners did + + not appear before this Court on the dates fixed for hearing as reflected in the + + order-sheets of the instant writ petition and the case was reserved for + + judgment on 17.02.2025. Subsequently the petitioners filed several CAN + + applications in the Court and directly addressed the same in the name of the + + presiding judge of this Court as would be evident from the postal envelopes + + on record. Considering the context of the CAN applications, this Court + + thought it prudent to grant a further opportunity to the petitioners to + + address this Court for a final hearing and recalled the order dated + + 17.02.2025 on 16.05.2025, fixing the next date of hearing on 11.07.2025. + + The petitioner no.2 appeared online only to contradict the court proceedings + + without submissions on merits. Finally on 11.07.2025 the instant writ + + petition was reserved for pronouncing judgment. +

+

62. The contention of the petitioner no.1 to have been a victim of rape and her + + name and presence to be masked is contrary to the cause title of the instant + + writ petition where the name of the petitioner no.1 had been mentioned by + + herself conspicuously claiming the relief sought for revealing her identity for + + quashing of the aforesaid Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.86 of 2024 + + dated 04.05.2024 under Sections 341/365/468/420/506/34 of the Indian + 41 + + Penal Code. The petitioner no.1 appeared before the Hon'ble Supreme Court + + in person to move the Transfer Petition as aforesaid without seeking her + + presence to be masked as the same would not transpire from the order of the + + Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioners did not appear before the Court on + + the dates fixed for hearing and subsequently could not blame this Court for + + not granting them an opportunity of hearing. This Court did hear the + + submissions of the petitioners on earlier dates and recorded the same in the + + order-sheets as well as in the instant judgment. +

+

63. Moreover, the petitioners as well as the respondent no.13 have already + + sought for relief of quashing the proceedings of the criminal cases instituted + + against each other under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as + + stated above before the Co-Ordinate Benches of this Court. The allegations + + and counter-allegations in the complaints do not reveal the same to be prima + + facie frivolous which are in the facts and circumstances of the case serious + + in nature with grave implications and ramifications. + +

64. The Writ Court can quash the criminal proceedings if the same has been + + frivolously instituted, however, in the instant case, the gamut of allegations + + and counter-allegations are complex in terms of severity necessitating to + + unravel the authenticity and credibility of the same which in the facts and + + circumstances of the instant writ petition shall be subjected to the process of + + trial by the competent Court. +

+

65. In view of the above discussions, the instant writ petition being WPA + + No.15260 of 2024 along with its connected CAN applications stand + + dismissed. +

42

+ +

66. There is no order as to costs. +

+

67. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on + + priority basis on compliance of all formalities. +

+

+

(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.) +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_191628726.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_191628726.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..24670e964b4a64a31964ca05785ca4a67d3acecc --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_191628726.html @@ -0,0 +1,455 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Shailendra Yadav @ Shalendra Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The petitioner is in custody for about 4 years. + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 665 of 2023 + + The instant Revision is filed by CICL himself, + + challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order, + + dated 9th of August, 2023, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2023 + + by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum- + + Children's Court, Banka. The CICL was arrested in connection + + with Banduwa Kurawa P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023, corresponding + + to G.R. No. 1202 of 2023, for the offences punishable under + + Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 + + of the Arms Act. However, later on, Sections 34 of the IPC and + + Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section + + 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes + + (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added. Prayer for + + bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Appeal in + + exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Juvenile + + Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter + + referred to as 'said Act') vide order, dated 15th of June, 2023. + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 687 of 2023 + + The petitioner/CICL was arrested in connection + + with Fesar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, + + 325, 307, 34, 504, 506 and 379 of the IPC along with his father + + and uncle. The petitioner prayed for regular bail before the JJB, + + Aurangabad. In JJB Case No. 932 of 2023, prayer for bail was + + rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 41 + + of 2023 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children's Court, + + Aurangabad. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal + + and affirmed the order of the JJB. The petitioner has assailed the + + said order of the Appellate Court on various grounds, specially + + on the ground that the father and uncle of the petitioner have + + already been granted bail for the same offence. + +
+
+ +
+

Reg. Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2024 + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + The petitioner was booked along with other major + + accused persons in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 237 of + + 2022, dated 13th of August, 2022, under Section 302 and 34 of + + the IPC. The petitioner being a CICL prayed for bail before the + + Juvenile Justice Board, but his prayer for bail was rejected. He + + preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the said Act before the + + learned Special Judge, Children's Court and the said appeal was + + also dismissed and the order of rejection of bail passed by the + + JJB was affirmed. It is stated by the petitioner that the accused + + persons who are major, namely, Sushil Kumar Yadav and Anil + + Yadav were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on + + 26th of April, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 4091 of 2023. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_1921231.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_1921231.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8e9b9fdc72446a1a8a7aa6090ccc5e0956bbea24 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_1921231.html @@ -0,0 +1,367 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Yogendra Singh vs State Of M.P. Through P.S. on 6 September, 1999 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

2. The debate, in detail. Yogendra, the applicant in MCrC No. 5921/99 was arrested for an offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the 'IPC'). He was admitted to bail and thereafter, he faced trial in Criminal Case No. 397/88 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagod in the Distt. of Satna. As averred in the petition he used to appear on each date when the case was posted for hearing. However, due to his ill health he could not appear on 4-7-1998 and through his counsel an application for condonation of his absence and for representation was filed. The said application was rejected and a non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued. In this backdrop he moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge for grant of anticipatory bail who negatived the prayer. Being dissatisfied he has approached this Court for grant of said relief. Many a justification has been enumerated explaining the absence of the petitioner on 4-7-1998 and number of grounds have been put forth for grant of anticipatory bail. +

+
+ +
+ +

Mr. G.S. Ahaluwalia, learned Govt. Advocate has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the applications on the ground that an accused who has jumped bail is not entitled in law to prefer an application under Section 438 of the Code inasmuch as he has already been arrested and released on bail. Elaborating his stand he has contended that it may be understandable in a given case that if a person is initially arrested under Section 326 of IPC and released on bail but later on the offence is converted to Section 307 of IPC he may, if there is apprehension of his arrest, move for grant of anticipatory bail and again after recording of evidence if the person is arraigned as an accused under Section 319 of the Code and a non-bailable warrant of arrest is issued for his arrest he may be entitled to move the Court for grant of anticipatory bail but an accused who has been released on bail either under Section 438 or 439 of the Code and after appearing on some dates does not appear thereafter and his application for representation is rejected, at his instance, an application for anticipatory bail would not be maintainable. +

+
+ +
+ +

10. I have quoted in extenso from the aforesaid decision, as I am in respectful agreement in the law laid down therein. I may hasten to add that emphasis has to be given not only on stage but also on self same accusation. To elaborate if initially the accused is being sought to be arrested for an offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and has been granted anticipatory bail but later on Section 307 of IPC is added and the Magistrate issues summons to him and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested once he surrenders before the Court an application under Section 438 of the Code at his instance may stand in a different footing but supposing an accused who has been granted benefit of anticipatory bail after a warrant of arrest has been issued under Section 319 of the Code and he after availing the privilege and obtaining the concession of bail does not appear during trial and jumps bail and the Court issues a non-bailable warrant of arrest for his production, in that case the apprehension may ensure but that will not give him right to approach the Court for grant of anticipatory for the simple reason, at his behest an application for anticipatory bail would not lie. The concept of 'Ex paritate rationis' will not be attracted inasmuch as the first limb, the apprehension of arrest exists, but the second limb 'self-same accusations' is not amputated. No accused should forget the basic principle that he who seeks liberty must conduct himself with propriety as liberty blossoms in an atmosphere of composite restraint and collective good. Section 438 of the Code can not be given an interpretation to guillotin other provisions of the Code. It is hereby made clear that it would be open to him to take appropriate steps under Section 70(2) of the Code for recall/cancellation of the warrant so issued against him or, he may, if he so chooses, assail the order issuing warrant as illegal or improper by preferring appropriate application before the higher Courts, wherein the propriety of issuance of warrant may be gone into. The justifiability or the defensibility of the order would be a matter of scrutiny by the Court exercising power and that is a different arena altogether. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_192261629.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_192261629.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..426427cabae12920667d900096aa115c16a48d52 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_192261629.html @@ -0,0 +1,354 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sumathi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 August, 2014 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
"4.I am aware that Thiru Parthiban @ Pallu Parthiban is in remand in T.11 Thirunindravur Police Station Crime Nos.1347/2013, 1351/2013 and 1356/2013. He has not moved any bail application for T.11 Thirunindravur Police Station Crime Nos.1347/2013, 1351/2013 and 1356/2013 so far. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru Parthiban @ Pallu Parthiban is taking action to take him out on bail by filing bail application for T.11 Thirunindravur Police Station Crime Nos.1347/2013, 1351/2013 and 1356/2013 before the appropriate court. Similarly, in a case registered at R-7 K.K.Nagar Police Station Crime No.301/2009 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted in Crl.O.P.No.13843/2009 by the Hon'ble High Court, Madras. It is pertinent to note that in a similar case registered at T-1 Ambattur Police Station Cr.No.464/2012 under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge at Thiruvallur in Crl.M.P.No.712/2012. Hence, I infer that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail applications for T.11 Thirunindravur Police Station Crime Nos.1347/2013, 1351/2013 and 1356/2013 before the appropriate court since in similarly placed cases bails are granted by courts after a lapse of time. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order................" +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_192496210.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_192496210.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..327f7c8078218f7c31e6308ac6f2bef835294592 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_192496210.html @@ -0,0 +1,461 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Mahavir vs State Of Haryana And Others on 11 December, 2012 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

The present petition has been filed under Section + +439(2) CrPC for seeking cancellation of bail to respondent + +Nos.2 to 5 in case FIR No.326 dated 3.12.2011 under + +Sections 148,149,307,506 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms + +Act at Police Station Chandhut granted by the learned + +Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal. +

+

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that + +anticipatory bail has been granted to the accused- + +respondents only on the ground that no specific opinion was + + + +given by the doctor, whereas, specific opinion was given but + +still the same has been ignored. +

+
+ +
+ +

After obtaining opinion of Board of Doctors, + +Section 307 IPC was added. Thereafter, respondent Nos.2 + +to 5 applied for anticipatory bail before Additional Sessions + +Judge, Palwal which was allowed. +

+

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the + +present petition for cancellation of bail on the ground that + +concession of anticipatory bail was granted to the accused, + +whereas, as per opinion, the offence under Section 307 IPC + + + +was added. The accused-respondents were roaming freely in + +the village and are threatening the petitioner and his family + +members to face dire consequences. The petitioner is under + +threat and fear and is not in a position to move freely in the + +village. +

+
+ +
+ +

Heard arguments of learned counsel for the + +parties and have also perused the order of granting bail to + +the accused respondents. +

+

It has come in the order itself that nature of injury + +on the person of petitioner was dangerous to life as opined + +by the doctor. The injury was on the head of the + + + +complainant and because of that section 307 IPC was + +added. The bail was granted by the lower court only on the + +ground that no illicit arms were recovered from the accused + +and section 25 of the Arms Act was also deleted. There is a + +reference of injury to the accused party but nothing has + +been mentioned as to how the opinion given by the Doctor + +to the injury attributed to the petitioner. Simply it has been + +mentioned that being a cross case, it is not possible to + +determine as to which of the parties was aggressor. + +Nothing has been said regarding injury and opinion of the + +doctor as to how section 307 IPC was added. Without + +discussing anything about nature of injury and the + +allegations of offence under Section 307 IPC, anticipatory + +bail has been granted to the accused. The injuries caused to + +the petitioner as well as other party have been discussed + +and only by taking note of the injuries caused to the + +accused party, the bail has been granted. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_1928655.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_1928655.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7041de2394094b5b0c31fb032313e3577e12cc82 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_1928655.html @@ -0,0 +1,431 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Pradeep vs State on 28 October, 2010 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

9. Mr. +PK Jani, learned Public Prosecutor, referred to the FIR and also +referred to the arrest memo, which is produced at page 20 of the +paper-book. and submitted that as it is evident from the arrest memo, +the applicant has been arrested in connection with the alleged +offences under the IPC in connection with M. Case No. 1/2008. +Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Jani submitted that it is required to +be mentioned that it was in respect of offences under IPC only. He +pointedly referred to the sequence of events and also the affidavit +filed on behalf of the respondent with the details enclosed produced +on record and submitted that as stated in this, an application was +made to add offences under the PC Act on 19.2.2010 which came to be +withdrawn as per the application dated 1.4.2010 (Annexure-B). +Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Jani submitted that an application for +bail in the meantime was preferred by the applicant before the +Sessions Court and thereafter an application for bail was preferred +before the High Court being Criminal Misc. Application No. 604 of +2010 which came to be rejected vide order dated 3.3.2010. The said +application was with regard to grant of bail for the alleged offences +under the IPC in connection with M. Case No. 1/2008 registered with +CID Crime, Rajkot Zone. Thereafter, the petitioner again moved an +application under sec. 439 of CrPC for grant of regular bail which +came to be rejected on 30.6.2010 against which he preferred an +application before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned Public +Prosecutor Mr. Jani submitted that pursuant to the order of the +Hon'ble Apex Court, the chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj, as per the +report produced at page 188, released the applicant on bail which he +pointedly referred and submitted that it was with regard to offences +under sec. 200, 203, 216, 465, 468, 471, 472, 474, 475, 406, 409, +120B of IPC in connection with M. Case No. 1/2008. +

+
+ +
+ +

16. In +view of rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether +the present application can e entertained or not. +

+

17. As +it transpires from the facts, admittedly, the applicant has been +released pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP +(Cri.) No. 6166 of 2010 vide order dated 16.9.2010 and he has been +enlarged on bail for which the report is also produced. It clearly +refers to the fact it was in connection with M. Case No. 1/2008 for +the alleged offences under the IPC. Further, even in an application +for bail being Criminal Misc. Application No. 4604 of 2010 after +charge sheet before the High Court, the application itself makes it +clear that it was preferred under sec. 439 for bail in connection +with M. Case No. 1/2008 registered with CID Crime, for the alleged +offences under sec. 200, 203, 217, 465, 468, 471 etc. of IPC. +Admittedly, the applicant has not been in custody. Admittedly, the +applicant had preferred an application for anticipatory bail being +Criminal Misc. Application No. 237 of 2010 before the Special Judge +(ACB), Kutch at Bhuj under sec. 438 in connection with C.R. No. +I-3/2010 registered with CID Crime, Rajkot Zone, for the alleged +offences under the PC Act, which has been withdrawn by him. +

+
+ +
+ +

20. The +conduct of the applicant is also required to be appreciated that +thereafter when he has filed regular bail application before the High +Court as well as before the Hon'ble Apex Court, he has confined +the application for bail under sec. 439(2) for the offences under IPC +in connection with M. Case No. 1/2008 and not a whisper has been made +with regard to this aspect. Even thereafter he has filed +anticipatory bail application under sec. 438 before the Special Judge +being Criminal Misc. Application No. 237 of 2010 in connection with +the subsequent FIR being C.R. No. 3/2010 registered with CID Crime, +Rajkot Zone, which has been withdrawn. If there was any +misconception, he could have taken further recourse as may be advised +for anticipatory bail and in fact it would suggest that the applicant +petitioner has also admitted about the separate FIR for the alleged +offences under the PC Act against him. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_192924254.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_192924254.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f162e17369009c95c080f94b0c1e9917a5f185e2 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_192924254.html @@ -0,0 +1,2203 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Gonthena Lovaraj Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 34, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

+

Gonthena Lovaraj Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025

+ +
        THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
+
+
+CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475,
+
+ 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839,
+
+                     5920 and 9083 of 2024
+
+
+COMMON ORDER:
+ + +

Crl.P.No.5197 of 2024 + + + This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A32 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

2

+ + + + +

2. Sri N. Harinadh, learned Counsel for petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, + +learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- + +State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.4896 of 2024 + + +

3. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A46 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

4. Sri Mukkamalla Rama Swamy, the learned counsel for + +petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + 3 + + + + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5230 of 2024 + + +

5. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A35 and A51 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

6. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + 4 + + + + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5256 of 2024 + + +

7. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A43 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

8. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + 5 + + + + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.5367 of 2024 + + +

9. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A4 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

10. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 6 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5475 of 2024 + + +

11. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A64 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

12. Sri Karanki Yaswanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, the learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

7

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5487 of 2024 + + +

13. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A47 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

14. Ms.P.Srilatha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 8 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5503 of 2024 + + +

15. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A19 and A20 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

16. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 9 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5550 of 2024 + + +

17. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A2, A16, A37 and A45 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

18. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

10

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5553 of 2024 + + +

19. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A7 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

20. Sri Peta Gnana Teja, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 11 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5585 of 2024 + + +

21. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A1 and A67 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

22. Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

12

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5652 of 2024 + + +

23. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A15 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

24. Sri Chalasani Venkat, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

13

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5718 of 2024 + + +

25. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A8, A22, A36 and A68 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

26. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 14 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5724 of 2024 + + +

27. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A3 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

28. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

15

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5752 of 2024 + + +

29. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A31, A53 and A65 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime + +No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna + +District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections + +143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) + +of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

30. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

16

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5839 of 2024 + + +

31. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A55 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

32. Sri B.V Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 17 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5920 of 2024 + + +

33. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A6, A13, A14, A17, A27, A28, A30, A39, A42, A52, + +A54, A56, A61 and A69 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

34. Ms.V.Devi Satya Sri, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

18

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.9083 of 2024 + + +

35. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A75 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

36. Sri G.L.Nageswar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor + +appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments. + + +

37. In all the above bail petitions, detailed counters were filed + +by the respondent-State. +

19

+ + + + +

38. All these criminal petitions pertain to Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station. By these petitions these + +accused pray for pre-arrest bail. All these petitions were heard + +together and by this common order they shall be disposed of. + +The crime incident allegedly occurred on 20.02.2023. Upon a + +written information dated 22.02.2023 F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was + +registered. The scene of offence was Telugu Desam Party office, + +Gannavaram. Sri Mudunuri Satyavardhan belonging to Madiga + +caste, which is a scheduled caste, was computer operator + +working in Telugu Desam Party office and living in the said office. + + +

39. During the time when this crime incident allegedly occurred + +the party in power was YSR Congress Party. Investigation + +commenced and went on for some time. Thereafter there were + +general elections and the then opposition party/Telugu Desam + +Party came into power. Thereafter investigation continued + +further. The allegations and counter allegations in this case + +disclosed the rift between both the political parties. Petitioners + +contend that this is a case falsely alleged against them out of + +political vendetta. According to State, for political reasons there + +was inadequate investigation soon after commission of the + +offence. By the time this crime incident occurred Sri Vallabhaneni + 20 + + + + +Vamsi Mohan was Member of Legislative Assembly for + +Gannavaram Assembly Constituency. He is one of the accused + +in the present crime. +

+

+

40. The version of the prosecution is that on 18.02.2023 during + +afternoon hours a press meet was held by Sri Vallabhaneni + +Vamsi Mohan wherein he allegedly made certain insulting + +remarks as against Sri N.Chandrababu Naidu, Sri Nara Lokesh + +and their family members and used indecent language. In + +response to it, certain leaders of Telugu Desam Party conducted + +a press meeting on 19.02.2023 in the morning hours and + +condemned the statements made by the opponent political party + +people. +

+

+

41. In the above backdrop of facts, the crime incident allegedly + +occurred. It is stated that on 20.02.2023 at about 5:00 P.M. + +Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan went to Telugu Desam Party + +office and on noticing followers of Telugu Desam Party he caused + +enquiries about Mr. Pattabhi of Telugu Desam Party and warned + +them that they would finish Telugu Desam Party and left the + +place. +

21

+ + + + +

42. In the next 30 minutes at about 5:30 P.M. about 100 + +persons belonging to YSR Congress Party came to Telugu + +Desam Party office wielding sticks, stones, petrol bottles and + +various other arms and while hailing Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi + +Mohan they attacked the party office. They threw stones, entered + +into the party office and destroyed the furniture, broke two + +computers and two televisions and caused tremendous panic + +among everyone available there. In the first information report + +the de facto complainant was able to mention the names of 44 + +accused. It also made a mention about four named accused who + +came upon him and abused him by his caste name. The further + +case of the prosecution is that these hooligans caused chaos and + +some of them using their sticks and cricket playing wickets + +seriously damaged three cars/AP 39 K 1999, AP 16 DJ 9499 and + +TS 10 EC 4099. It is also stated that one Mr. Rabbani poured + +petrol on the car bearing No.AP 16 DA 5555 and lit fire to it. The + +version of the de facto complainant is that there were police + +people at the Telugu Desam Party office and they remained mute + +spectators. During investigation it was found that some of the + +accused made attempts to burn the party office as walls in one + +room were found with charred marks. +

22

+ + + + +

43. Investigation has been in progress. Some of the accused + +were arrested and were remanded to judicial custody. According + +to prosecution, at least 44 accused were absconding. After + +gaining contact with about 28 accused they were questioned + +about their mobile phones and only seven out of them + +surrendered their mobile phones and 20 of the accused furnished + +false information with regard to the instruments they used and + +their mobile numbers. +

+

+

44. During the investigation, CCTV footage was collected. + +When the crime incident occurred, various people captured it on + +their mobile phones and all such material was collected. Based + +on these investigative efforts, allegations are made against all + +these petitioners by the prosecution that they are all involved in + +this crime incident. +

+

+

45. Broadly stated all these petitioners raised the following + +contentions: +

+

+

 That there was unexplained delay in registration of crime. + + The incident occurred on 20.02.2023 and F.I.R. was + + registered on 22.02.2023. That around the same time and + + place certain incidents occurred which resulted in + 23 + + + + + registration of multiple F.I.Rs. and many of which disclosed + + accusation of criminal acts of followers of Telugu Desam + + Party as against members of YSR Congress Party + + members and this case is in a way a counter blast to Crime + + Nos.132 of 2023 and 133 of 2023. +
+
+  F.I.R. does not contain any allegations of overt acts against + + these petitioners. +
+
+  After change in political party in power witnesses were + + planted and false evidence is created. +
+
+  The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. were bailable and + + many of these petitioners were served with Section 41A + + Cr.P.C. notice. However, after the change of political + + Government police have unlawfully brought additional + + penal provisions to nullify the rightful reliefs available to the + + petitioners. +
+
+

46. Plethora of precedent is cited on behalf of the petitioners + +and on behalf of some of the accused meticulous written + +arguments are filed leaving one to wonder that this to pronounce + +a judgment as if it is one after trial. +

24

+ + + + +

47. The following significant aspects are required to be noticed: + + +

F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was registered for the offences + +punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435 and 506 read with + +149 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989'). Since caste atrocity was one of + +the offences alleged, on the instructions of Superintendent of + +Police, Krishna, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gannavaram + +took up investigation. After recording the statements of about six + +witnesses, the investigation officer found that the provisions of the + +Act, 1989 were not applicable. Therefore, he applied to the + +Superintendent of Police to accord permission to delete those + +provisions. By proceedings dated 04.07.2023 the Superintendent + +of Police granted such permission. Investigation went further and + +scores of witnesses were examined. Thereafter by way of an + +alteration memo dated 07.08.2024 the investigation agency got + +added Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989. It + +also added Sections 436, 450 and 452 I.P.C. It is also to be + +noticed that in this case so far there are 71 accused. + 25 + + + + +

48. Since in the present crime incident not only offences under + +the Indian Penal Code but also offences under the Act, 1989 are + +alleged, the forceful argument raised by the State is that + +anticipatory bail petitions are not maintainable by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. The further argument is + +that the High Court does not now possess concurrent original + +jurisdiction for bails as well as anticipatory bails and it has only + +appellate jurisdiction by virtue of Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and + +therefore, these petitions are to be dismissed. In such + +circumstances, this Court on 13.11.2024 requested the learned + +counsels on both sides to address arguments in that regard since + +the jurisdictional bar has arisen. +

+

+

49. Valiant submissions are made by the learned counsels for + +petitioners wherein references are made to Sections 18 and 18A + +of the Act, 1989 and precedent is cited to show that if there is no + +prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989 is + +made out, anticipatory bail could be considered. It is also argued + +that this Court in these petitions during hearing granted interim + +protection and therefore, the same may be made absolute since + +these petitioners have not violated anything thereafter. + 26 + + + + +

50. The point that falls for consideration is: + + +

"What is the effect of Section 14A of the Scheduled + + Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the concurrent original + + jurisdiction of the High Court in considering bails + + and anticipatory bails where offences under the Act, + + 1989 are involved? +
+
+POINT: +
+
+

51. Offences under the Act, 1989 can be taken cognizance of + +and tried and be disposed of by Special Courts and Exclusive + +Special Courts as provided in Section 14 of the Act, 1989. Those + +Courts since now empowered to take cognizance hold power to + +take remand of the accused and consider bails. There is no + +provision in the Act, 1989 adverting to the aspects that are to be + +considered by those Courts when they entertain bail petitions. + +Therefore, those Courts draw their powers from the Code of + +Criminal Procedure. Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal + +Procedure is headed as provisions as to bail and bonds. It + +consists of Sections 436 to 450. They refer to bail in cases of + +bailable offences and bail in cases of non-bailable offences. + 27 + + + + +Section 438 Cr.P.C. is given heading direction for grant of bail to + +person apprehending arrest. To the extent the said provision is + +required alone is extracted here: +

+
"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending + arrest: +
+
(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be + arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- +

bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the + Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the + event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that + Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the + following factors, namely:- +

+
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; + +
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to + whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on + conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; + +
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and + +
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of + injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so + arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an + interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail: + +
Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, + the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order + under this sub-Section or has rejected the application for + grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer + 28 + + + + + incharge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the + applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in + such application." +
+

52. Thus, as per the above provision, those accused who + +anticipate their arrest may seek pre-arrest bail and they could + +move such applications either before this Court or before the + +Court of Sessions. It is in the light of such a provision the + +petitioners have straightaway moved this Court for their prayers + +for pre-arrest bail. +

+

+

53. The first submission of the State is that in cases of caste + +atrocities anticipatory bails cannot be maintained by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. Those provisions read as + +below: +

+

+

"18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons + committing an offence under the Act.-- Nothing in + section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case + involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of + having committed an offence under this Act. + + 18A. No enquiry or approval required.--(1) For the + purposes of this Act,-- (a) preliminary enquiry shall not be + required for registration of a First Information Report against + any person; or + 29 + + + + +
(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the + arrest, if necessary, of any person, + + against whom an accusation of having committed an + offence under this Act has been made and no procedure + other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall + apply. +
+
(2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply + to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or + order or direction of any Court." +
+

54. The crisp response from the learned counsels for the + +petitioners is that the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would + +apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist + +pointing towards the commission of an offence under the Act, + +1989. If the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under + +the Act, 1989 are not disclosed on the prima facie reading of the + +allegations levelled in the complaint or F.I.R. then in such + +circumstances, the bar of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would not + +apply and the Courts would not be absolutely precluded from + +granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons. In justification of + +this argument they cited ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + +India in Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala1. + +1 + 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601 + 30 + + + + +

55. If one goes by the contentions of the learned counsel for + +petitioners this Court is to take a view whether the allegations in + +the F.I.R./written information of the de facto complainant prima + +facie disclose caste atrocity or not. However, according to the + +State, even such a view cannot be taken by this Court by virtue of + +interdict contained in Section 14A of the Act, 1989. Therefore, it + +is required to notice what this provision says. The provision reads + +as below: +

+

+

"14A. Appeals:--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained + in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an + appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not + being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an + Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and + on law. +
+
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section + (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, + 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court + against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive + Special Court granting or refusing bail. + + (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for + the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall + be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of + the judgment, sentence or order appealed from: Provided + that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry + of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the + 31 + + + + + appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal + within the period of ninety days: Provided further that no + appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of + one hundred and eighty days. +
+
(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far + as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months + from the date of admission of the appeal." + +

56. As per Sub-Section (2) of Section 14Aof the Act, the + +petitions for bail are to be considered by the Special Court and in + +the event of their granting or refusing to grant such bails the + +aggrieved can prefer an appeal before this Court. Thus, the + +concurrent jurisdiction for consideration of anticipatory bails + +provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C. stood excluded. It is not as + +though the aggrieved is deprived of all the remedies. After + +inviting an order on the bail petition from the Special Court the + +aggrieved is entitled to prefer an appeal before this Court in terms + +of Section 14A of the Act, 1989. In the case at hand, the + +petitioners have moved bail petitions straightaway before this + +Court. At any rate, what is before this Court is not an appeal + +against an order passed by the Special Court with reference to + +bails. It shall be stated that on the same subject matter High + +Court could not be said to possess concurrent original jurisdiction + 32 + + + + +as well as appellate jurisdiction. If one is to state that a bail is + +different from anticipatory bail the result is that in anticipatory + +bails this Court holds original jurisdiction and in regular bails it + +holds only appellate jurisdiction. Assuming that in a case a + +petition for anticipatory bail being moved before the Special Court + +resulted in dismissal, then according to the logic applied by the + +petitioners the petitions would have to move only another bail + +petition before this Court and not an appeal. Such logic is in + +violation of what is clearly provided in Section 14A of the Act, + +1989. It is to be seen that the question of bail presupposes + +detention or custody of the person. In a case where a person is + +arrested he prays for a regular bail. In cases of anticipatory bail + +in the event of granting the relief, it has no effect unless and until + +the accused is arrested. In other words, the order of anticipatory + +bail comes into effect only after a person is arrested and not + +otherwise. In contrast to regular bail, in cases of anticipatory bail + +the order is obtained in advance. In regular bails it was obtained + +after arrest. The timing at which a prayer is made, and an order + +is granted, have no relevance when it comes to operation of + +those orders as in both the cases they come into operation only in + +those cases where a person is arrested. In such view of the + 33 + + + + +matter the word bail used in Section 14A of the Act, 1989 + +encompasses regular bail as well as anticipatory bail. Therefore, + +it must be stated that an application for bail or anticipatory bail + +can be filed only before the Special Court or the Exclusive + +Special Court as the case may be and not before the High Court. + +An order granting or refusing bail or anticipatory bail by the + +Special Court or Exclusive Special Court can be assailed before + +this Court invoking its appellate jurisdiction provided in Section + +14A of the Act, 1989. This Court had deliberated these aspects + +on earlier occasions when similar questions were raised and it + +reached to the same conclusions and reference can be made to + +the following: +

+

+

1. Nakka Nagireddy v. State of A.P.2 + + +
2. Deepak Kumar Tala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh3. + + +

57. Similar conclusions were reached at by other High Courts. + +Reference can be made to the following: +

+

+

1. K.M.Basheer v. Rajani K.T.4 + +2 + 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5322 Order dated 11.11.2024 +3 + Order dated 22.10.2024 in Criminal Petition No.6487 of 2024 +4 + 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 472 + 34 + + + + +
2. Lokesh v. State of Karnataka5 + + +
3. In re Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 v. Nil6 + + +
4. Atul Rajput v. The State of Madhya Pradesh7 + + +

58. At the bar, for petitioners, Abhishek Awasthi v. State of + +U.P.8 is cited. That is a case where other subsections of Section + +14A of the Act, 1989 fell for consideration and the powers of the + +High Court were considered under Section 482 of Code of + +Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings. + +Finally, it was held that with a view to prevent the misuse or + +abuse of the Court or law, the High Court holds inherent + +jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. + +Such question is not available before this Court. Even otherwise + +a brief reference to what was stated by their Lordships in Shajan + +Skaria's case9 would be sufficient here. At paragraph No.49 their + +Lordships stated that if the accused puts forward the case of + +malicious prosecution on account of political or private vendetta + +5 + 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15742 +6 + 2018 SCC OnLine ALL 2087 +7 + Order dated 10.04.2024 in Crl.A.No.3261 of 2024 of the High Court of +Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur +8 + MANU/UP/4595/2024 + 35 + + + + +such aspects can be considered only by the High Court in + +exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code or + +in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the + +Constitution of India. However, powers under Section 438 of the + +Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised once the + +contents of the complaint/F.I.R. disclose a prima facie case. In + +fact, in that case Section 14A of the Act, 1989 did not come up for + +consideration since the anticipatory bail petition was first moved + +before the trial Court and as against those orders appeal was + +preferred before the High Court. +

+

+

59. The plethora of precedent cited before this Court is not with + +reference to Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and therefore any + +reference to those cherished principles of those rulings is not + +required. This Court refrains from delving into other facts and the + +principles of law governing anticipatory bails since any such + +discussion may unnecessarily prejudice the contentions of both + +sides when appropriate applications are filed before appropriate + +Courts for the reliefs or when the maters come up before this + +Court in appeal. +

+

9 + Supra 1 + 36 + + + + +

60. Learned counsel for petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5920 + +of 2024 argued that this very Bench on earlier occasions + +considered and granted anticipatory bail and therefore, the same + +benefit can be extended to the present petitioners. The attention + +of this Court is brought to Sri Settipalli Raghurami Reddy v. + +The State of Andhra Pradesh10 and Julakanti Brahma Reddy + +@ Brahma Nanda Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 11. In + +both those matters the question about Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 was never raised by either side and therefore, there was no + +occasion for this Court to express itself on that aspect of the + +matter. After those orders it was in October and November 2024 + +only this Court had occasion to consider Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 and accordingly decided the earlier referred Nakka + +Nagireddy's case12 and Deepak Kumar Tala's case13. + +Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions of the learned + +counsel for the petitioners. +

+

+

61. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition + +No.5920 of 2024 further argued that the investigating agency is + +10 + Order dated 23.07.2024 in Criminal Petition No.3807 of 2024 +11 + Order dated 13.08.2024 in Criminal Petition No.10005 of 2023 +12 + supra 2 +13 + supra 3 + 37 + + + + +not entitled to add new penal provisions and cited State of + +Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde14. That was a case + +where on written information police registered a crime and + +investigating into it and filed charge sheet specifying certain penal + +provisions. At that stage the informant filed a petition to add + +Sections 364, 394 and 398 I.P.C. The question arose about the + +powers of the Magistrate at that stage as to whether he can + +incorporate those penal provisions as requested by the informant + +in a charge sheet filed by the police. Their Lordships stated that + +allowing incorporation of new provisions into the charge sheet as + +requested by the written informant at that stage is impermissible. + +However, the Court which is to try the case has to consider the + +first information report and all the other material collected and + +take a decision to frame appropriate charges under all the + +relevant penal provisions. Thus, the cited ruling has no relevance + +to the present case at hand. In the case at hand, the + +investigating police, exercising their right of investigation, have + +found it appropriate that the material on record do attract various + +provisions which were not originally mentioned in the F.I.R. Such + +power cannot be questioned. Informant would only put forth the + +14 + AIR 2014 SC 620 + 38 + + + + +facts before the registering officer and the Station House Officer + +on receiving such information using his own diligence + +incorporates the relevant penal provisions in the F.I.R. During + +investigation certain facts may be found incorrect and certain new + +facts may have been discovered and certain new accused may + +have been found having connection with the crime. There can be + +no legal hurdle in that regard since investigation is a voyage of + +truth. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsels for + +petitioners that provisions under the Act, 1989 were brought into + +effect during investigation and therefore have to be discarded is + +an argument that cannot be sustained. It may be recorded here + +that even to begin with in the case at hand the F.I.R. mentioned + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989. At the present also + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989 are alleged by the + +prosecution. Simply because at one stage such penal provisions + +were dropped does not mean that at a later stage they cannot be + +brought in. The argument that the new addition was not granted + +by the Superintendent of Police cannot be countenanced since + +the method of investigation is sole prerogative of the investigation + +officer. For the above reasons, the point is answered against the + +petitioners. +

39

+ + + + +

62. In the result, all these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. It is + +made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate + +petitions for appropriate reliefs before the appropriate Court. In + +the event such petitions are filed, the Court where they are filed is + +to consider the petitions on judicial side and dispose of them in + +accordance with law. Any observations made herein are confined + +to these petitions and they have no bearing on the merits or + +demerits of the case on either side. +

+

________________________ + Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J +Date: 06.01.2025 +Ivd + 40 + + + + + THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR + + + + +CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475, + 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839, + 5920 and 9083 of 2024 + + + + + Date: 06.01.2025 + + + +Ivd +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_193387898.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_193387898.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a1b778a509548299b9830a02324369fdc2c77e73 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_193387898.html @@ -0,0 +1,376 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ashish Bhalla vs State on 6 February, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. BAIL APPLN.1004/2019 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking bail + in FIR No.116/2016, dated 05.03.2016, registered at Police Station Sarita + Vihar for offences under Sections 406/420/34 IPC. +

2. BAIL APPLN.1005/2019 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking bail + in FIR No.114/2016, dated 04.03.2016, registered at Police Station Sarita + Vihar for offences under Sections 420/34 IPC. +

+
+ +
+

3. BAIL APPLN.1007/2019 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking bail + in FIR No.64/2016, dated 23.05.2016, registered at Police Station Economic + Offences Wing for offences under Sections 406/409/420/120B IPC. +

4. Since all the three bail applications arise from a common set of facts, + with the consent of the parties, all the three bail applications are being + + + + + + + + decided by this common order. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_193469753.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_193469753.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..65e3de8df3d3fc2a9a4091a327fcbcbe802c5b86 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_193469753.html @@ -0,0 +1,373 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Yadav Singh vs Cbi And Another on 19 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

On the above submissions, this Court vide order dated 13.03.2024 granted time to CBI to file specific reply along with order-sheet of the trial Court and complete copy of the supplementary charge-sheet dated 06.10.2021. +

+

5-Pursuant to above order dated 13.03.2024, C.B.I. has filed supplementary counter affidavit dated 09.04.2024 in the Court itself, which was taken on record. +

+

6-Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is already on bail in previous two cases of similar nature pursuant to charge sheet No. 2 of 2016 dated 15.03.2016, under Sections 120-B IPC r/w 420, 109, 468, 471 IPC & Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act and charge sheet No. 6 of 2017 dated 31.05.2017, under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 IPC & Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act arising out of F.I.R. dated 30.07.2015, therefore, applicant is not required to seek regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in the present case pursuant to impugned supplementary charge-sheet No. 5 of 2021 dated 06.10.2021 under Sections 120-B IPC r/w 420, 465, 471 IPC & Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988, even after rejection of his anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the above Sections by the High Court. Much emphasis has been given by contending that since new Section 465 IPC has been added in supplementary charge-sheet No. 5 of 2021 dated 06.10.2021, therefore the applicant is required to furnish bail bond only in terms of Section 88 Cr.P.C. for the alleged offence under Section 465 IPC. Several other allied submissions have been made by contending that facts mentioned in paragraph No. (11) (1) (xiii) of the supplementary charge-sheet dated 06.10.2021 stating that applicant arrested in the same case in other instances is incorrect. The Sections of the alleged offence as mentioned in paragraph No. (11) (1) (xvi) and in Paragraph No. 16 (xxiii) of the supplementary charge-sheet dated 06.10.2021 are self contradictory. The Trial Court after receiving and going through the supplementary charge sheet No. 05 of 2021 dated 06.10.2021 has passed the order dated 06.10.2021 for registering the same as miscellaneous case mentioning that the charge sheet has been filed under Sections 120-B IPC r/w 409, 420, 466, 467, 469, 471 IPC & Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988, whereas vide order dated 14.12.2021, applicant has been summoned under Sections 120-B IPC, 420, 465, 471 IPC & Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988. The Trial court has wrongly and illegally rejected the application dated 11.05.2022 of the applicant vide impugned order dated 21.12.2023 which is not sustainable. It is also submitted that co-accused Rakesh Kumar Jain has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 03.02.2023 in SLP (Crl.) No. 11208 of 2022. Lastly it is submitted that pursuant to supplementary charge-sheet No. 5 of 2021 dated 06.10.2021, applicant may be allowed to furnish bail bonds for the alleged offence under Section 465 IPC in terms of Section 88 Cr.P.C. and direction be issued to the trial Court also to accept the bail bond of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his submission has placed reliance upon following judgments:- +

+
+ +
+ +
8.4-I also find that it is not a case of addition of new section 465 IPC in the previous two charge sheets No. 02 of 2016 dated 15.03.2016 and 06 of 2017 dated 31.05.2017. +
+
8.5-Applicant is not on bail in the present case arising out supplementary charge sheet No. 05 of 2021 dated 06.10.2021. Hence submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that he is already on bail in the present case in all the Sections except under Section 465 IPC and he is not required to seek regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in the present case even after rejection of his anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the instant case is a misleading argument and is not sustainable, hence same is liable to be rejected. +
+
+ +
+ +

9.3-So far as case of Sureshpal and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (Natural Citation No. AHC 211099 ) is concerned, I find that in the said case First Information Report was registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 and 352 IPC and subsequently on further medical examination during the course of investigation, the offence under Section 325 and 308 IPC were added. The accused preferred anticipatory bail application on apprehension that in view of the addition of non bailable offences, he can be arrested. The High Court considering the case of Pradeep Ram (supra) dismissed the said anticipatory bail application of the accused leaving it open to him to adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_193653.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_193653.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..501d5dfd793c31700e069ba16011dc5deb56903c --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_193653.html @@ -0,0 +1,897 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Bhagwan Singh And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 4 October, 2004 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 44, Cited by 2] + +
+ +

Patna High Court

+

Bhagwan Singh And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 4 October, 2004

+ +

Equivalent citations: AIR2005PAT109, [2005(2)JCR131(PAT)]

+ +
JUDGMENT
+ 
+
+Nagendra Rai, A.C.J.
+ 
+
+1. In these writ applications, the vires of Rule 122, as amended by notification dated 28.2.2002, has been challenged primarily on the ground that the same is ultra vires Article 243-O of the Constitution of India and Sections 140 and 143 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). They have also challenged the orders passed by the State Election Commission in exercise of the said power disqualifying the office bearers of the Panchayat as well as the orders by which the State Election Commission has rejected the prayer in some cases to disqualify the candidates on merit. In some cases, the elected members have incurred disqualification after election and the State Election Commission has also passed orders declaring them disqualified under the aforesaid Rule, read with Section 139(2) of the Act.
+ 
+
+2. To appreciate the point, it is first necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Act, at the very beginning. Para IX dealing with the Panchayats was inserted in the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Seventy third Amendment) Act, 1992. Part IX is a complete chapter dealing with the Panchayats starting from is definitions, constitution, compositions, reservation of seats, duration, disqualification, finance and other ancillary provisions. Article 243-B of the Constitution defines panchayat, according to which there shall be constituted in every State, Panchayats at the village intermediate and district levels in accordance with the provisions of this Part. Article 243-K of the Constitution contains a provision with regard to election of the Panchayats, which runs as follows :
+  
+
+"243-K. Election of the Panchayats.-- 
+  
+
+(1) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the panchayats shall be vested in a State Election Commission consisting of a State Election Commissioner to be appointed by the Governor.
+ 
+
+(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of a State, the conditions of service and tenure of office of the State Election Commissioner shall be such as the Governor may by rule determine : 
+ 
+
+Provided that the State Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of a High Court and the conditions of service of Court and the conditions of service of the State Election Commissioner shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment.
+  
+
+(3) The Governor of a State shall, when so requested by the State Election Commission, make available to the State Election Commission such Staff as may be necessary for the discharge of the functions conferred on the State Election Commission by clause (1).
+ 
+
+(4) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the panchayat."
+ 
+
+It vests power of superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for the conduct of, all elections to the panchayats in the State Election Commission to be appointed by the Governor. It is akin to Article 324 of the Constitution of India, which provides for constitution of Election Commission for the purpose of election to the Parliament and Legislature of every State.
+ 
+
+3. Article 243-O provides that no election to any panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition. This is similar to Article 329(b) of the Constitution. The relevant portion of Article 243-O (b) is as follows :
+ "243-O(b). No election to any panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State." 
+ 
+
+4. Article 243-F deals with the disqualifications for membership of gram-panchayat, which is akin to Article 191 of the Constitution of India, which contains a provision for disqualification of the Member of Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council.
+ 
+
+5. Consequent upon all the changes brought by the aforesaid amendment in the Constitution and in conformity with the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution, the Bihar Legislative Assembly enacted Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, which was published on 23.8.1993. Section 139 of the Act, which has been enacted in conformity with the constitutional provision under Article 243-F, contains provisions regarding disqualification of a person, who is disqualified for election or after election for holding the post of the member and office bearers of the Panchayat. The said Section 139 runs as follows :
+  
+
+"Disqualification.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a person shall be disqualified for election or after election for holding the post as mukhiya, member of the gram-panchayat, sarpanch, panch of the Gram Katchari member of the panchayat samiti and member of Zila Parishad, if such person :
+  
+
+(a) Is not citizen of India;
+ 
+
+(b) Is so disqualified by or under any law of the time being in force for the purposes of elections to the Legislature of the State. 
+ 
+
+Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than twenty-five years of age, if he has attained the age of twenty one years.
+ 
+
+(c) Is in the service of Central or State Government or any local authority;
+ 
+
+(d) Is in service of any such institution receiving aids from Central or State Government or any local authority ;
+ 
+
+(e) Has been adjudged by a competent Court to be of unsound mind;
+ 
+
+(f) Has been dismissed from the service of Central or State Government or any local authority for misconduct and has been declared to be disqualified for employment in the public service;
+ 
+
+(g) Has been sentenced by a criminal Court whether within or out of India to imprisonment for an offence, other than a political offence, for a term exceeding six months or has been ordered to furnish security for good behaviour under Section 109, or Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2, 1974) and such sentence or order not having subsequently been reversed;
+ 
+
+(h) Has under any law for the time being inforce become ineligible to be a member of any local authority;
+ 
+
+(i) Holds any salaried office or office of profit under the Panchayat;
+ 
+
+(j) Has been found guilty of corrupt practices;
+ 
+
+Provided that on being found guilty of corrupt practices, the disqualification shall ceases after six years of general election.
+ 
+
+(2) If any question arises as to whether a member of a panchayat at any level has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in subsection (1), the question shall be referred for the decision of such authority and in such manner as the Government may by law provide.
+ 
+
+(3) If a person, who is chosen as a member of panchayat, a mukhiya, a sarpanch, is or becomes a member of the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, Legislative Assembly, Legislative Council, or is or becomes a municipal councillor or a councillor of a Municipal Corporation or a member of Sanitary Board or a member of a Notified Area Committee or a member of any other panchayat, mukhia, sarpanch, then within fifteen days from the date of commencement of the term of office of a member  of Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha,  Legislative Assembly, Legislative Council or of a Councillor of municipality or municipal corporation or a member of Sanitary Board or notified area committee or a member of other panchayat, or mukhiya or sarpanch, his seat in the panchayat shall become vacant unless he has previously resigned his seat in the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha,  Legislative Assembly, Legislative Council, Municipality or the Municipal Corporation, Sanitary Board or the Notified Area Committee or of any such panchayat as the case may be."
+ 
+
+6.  Section  136 deals with the constitution of the Election Commission for Panchayat in terms of Article 243-K and Sections 140 and 143 deal with the election petition and bar to interference by the Courts with electoral matter, which are as follows
+  
+
+"140. Election petition.--The election to any office of a panchayat or a gram katchahry shall not be called in question except by an election petition as prescribed :
+  
+
+Provided that if an election to an office of a gram panchayat or gram katchahry is under dispute the election petition shall lie before such Munsif within whose jurisdiction such gram panchayat or gram katchahry, as the case may be, is situated and if the election to any office of panchayat samiti or to a zila parishad is under dispute, the election petition shall lie before such Sub-Judge within whose jurisdiction such panchayat samiti or zila parishad, as the case may be, is situated.
+ 
+
+143. Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters.--Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act :
+  
+
+(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies of the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243-K of the Constitution of India shall not be called in question in any Court.
+ 
+
+(b) No election to any panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to the prescribed authority under this Act." 
+ 
+
+7. On 28.2.2002, Rule 122 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 1995, was amended empowering the State Election Commission to decide as to whether a member of the panchayat at any level has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 139(1) of the Act. The State Election Commission was given power to decide such matters suo motu or on being brought to its notice. The said Rule runs as follows :
+ "Rule 122.--Under provisions of Section 139(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, the State Election Commission shall be the competent authority to decide whether a member of a panchayat at any level has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 139(1) of the Act. The matter of disqualification may be brought to the notice of the State Election Commission in the form of a complaint, application or information by any person or authority. The State Election Commission may also take suo motu recognizance of such matters and decide such matters expeditiously after allowing sufficient opportunity to the affected parties of being heard." 
+ 
+
+8. The State Election Commission, in exercise of the said power, has passed the orders as indicated above. Individual cases will be considered after the legal points raised in the cases are decided.
+ 
+
+9. Sir Winston-Churchill in matchless words stated about the importance of the voter in these words : "At the bottom of all tributes paid to democracy is the little man walking into a little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly dismish the overwhelming importance of the point." While quoting these words in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held as follows :
+ "If we may add, the little, large Indian shall not be hijacked from the course of free and fair elections by mob muscle methods, or subtle preversion of discretion by men 'dressed in little, brief authority.' For be you ever so high, the law is above you."
+ 
+
+10. In a democracy the voters are of paramount importance. They have right to know their candidate before casting their votes. They have also right to know antecedent, qualification and performance of the candidate before casting vote in the election. Purity of an election in a democratic set up is equally of paramount importance. To maintain the purity in the election in the panchayats. Part IX has been inserted in the Constitution and it provides that the persons incurring disqualification should not enter into the election arena. Even if they have not incurred disqualification at the time of election, but have incurred disqualification after election, they should not continue to hold the office. The matter is to be decided by the authority as provided by the Legislature and for that an elaborate provision has been made by the Legislature under Section 139(2) with regard to post-election disqualification.
+ 
+
+11. According to the Constitutional mandate as well as the Legislative mandate, the disqualifications have been incorporated in Section 139 and if a candidate, who is disqualified, is not entitled to enter into election arena, his nomination is to be rejected. A disqualified candidate is not entitled to contest the election. Similarly, if the disqualification is incurred later on as stated above, a provision has been made to decide the said question and to disqualify a candidate if the disqualification is proved. Question for consideration in this case is as to whether if a candidate, though disqualified, files a nomination paper, but his nomination is not rejected on the ground of disqualification and he is elected then who will decide the question as to whether he was disqualified or not at the time of filing of nomination paper. The other question is regarding disqualification incurred after election.
+ 
+
+12. So far as the word 'election' is concerned, it is clear that the election begins from the issuance of the notification and ends with the declaration of the result.
+ 
+
+13. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, once election is over and result is declared, then election can be called in question only by election petition and no authority, however his height may be, including the State Election Commission, can decide the question of disqualification, whether incurred before or after election and as such the Election Commissioner has no such power to disqualify the candidates.
+ 
+
+14. Learned counsel for the State as well as the Commission submitted that the State Election Commission is vested with the powers of superintendence, direction and control, which have a wide connotation and even if such powers are not specially provided, the Commission can exercise those powers for accomplishing the task for which it has been constituted. Rule 122, also vests power in the Commission to decide the question, for which no specific provision has been made in the Constitution and the Act, if the same is necessary for the purity of the election.
+ 
+
+15. As stated above, the question falls into two categories; one is with regard to disqualification prior to the election and the other disqualification post election. So far as the disqualification prior to election is concerned, Section 140 of the Act, clearly says that election to any office of a panchayat or gram katchahri shall not be called in question except by an election petition as prescribed and Section 143 of the Act, says that no election of any panchayat shall be called in question except by election petition presented to the prescribed authority under this Act, and the authority has been prescribed. Section 144 contains grounds for declaring Election to be void. Thus, after the election is over, challenge to the election on any of the grounds, including the grounds of disqualification, has to be made by an election petition presented in terms of the aforesaid provisions, which have been enacted in the light of the provisions contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution.
+ 
+
+16. So far as the post election disqualification is concerned, Rule 139(2) provides that such question shall be referred for decision to such authority and in such manner the Government may by law provides under Rule 122 for dealing with such matters. Similar question came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Election Commission v. Venkata Rao, reported in AIR 1953 S.C. 210. There, prior to election the elected candidate was convicted and sentenced to a term of seven years rigorous imprisonment. He was released on the occasion of celebration of the Independence Day and five years had not elapsed from his release and as such according to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, he was not eligible to contest the election. However, he contested the election and was elected. The matter was brought to the notice of the Speaker and the Speaker referred the matter to the Governor in terms of the provision contained in Article 192 of the Constitution, which is similar to the provision contained in Section 139(2) of the Act. The Apex Court held that Articles 190(3) and 203(1) are applicable only to disqualifications to which a member becomes subject after he is elected as such, and neither the Governor nor the Commission has jurisdiction to enquire into a member's disqualification which arose long before his election.
+ 
+
+17. The said view has also been taken in a Single Judge Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Hoti Lal v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 2002 All 257, where a similar provision like Rule 122 was held to be invalid in so fa" as it authorised the authority to determine the pre-election disqualification on the ground that this is contrary to the provisions contained in Article 243-O.
+ 
+
+18. Thus, it is clear that those candidates, who have incurred disqualification prior to election, their cases cannot be considered in terms of Section 139(2) and only mode of challenging their election is by filing an election petition. The provision as contained in Rule 122, which authorities the State Election Commission to decide even the matter of disqualification prior to the election, is, thus, ultra-vires the provisions contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution and Sections 140 and 143 of the Act, to the extent, it is declared ultra vires.
+ 
+
+19. So far as the provision of Rule 122, which authorities the State Election Commission to decide the question of disqualification, which was incurred by a member of the panchayat after election, is concerned, it is valid one and consistent with the provision of Section 139(2) of the Act, and this view is fully supported by the aforesaid Constitution Bench judgment where similar provision under Article 192(1) was under consideration.
+ 
+
+20. Thus, Rule 122" is held to be invalid to the extent indicated above. However, that does not end the matter. The question remains that even if the State Election Commission has no power, whether this Court should interfere in such matters or not when the election is over, on the ground of availability of remedy of election petition in terms of Sections 140 and 143 of the Act. According to the provisions, a disqualified person cannot contest the election and as such he cannot be representative of the people. Such person cannot become a member of a panchayat. If a disqualified person is holding the post, then his election is void. Section 144(a) clearly mentions that if a disqualified person is chosen as a member, his election is to be declared as void.
+ 
+
+21. Thus, if a candidate, who is disqualified but has been elected by suppressing the fact of his disqualification, specially disqualification with regard to conviction and sentence in criminal case, then his election is void. If a candidate suppresses the fact of his disqualification and gets himself elected and the factum of his disqualification is not known to other candidate, he may not file an election petition within a period of 30 days, in such a situation the disqualified person will occupy the office despite under the law he is prohibited from occupying the office.
+ 
+
+22. The question arises as to whether in such a case the office-bearer of a panchayat should be allowed to hold the office on the sole ground that the same has not been challenged by filing an election petition or this Court under Article 226, should interfere and prevent the public injury. My answer is that the Court is not debarred from considering the question of disqualification, specially after the election on the ground of availability of an effective remedy of election petition. In this connection, I am tamped to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar, reported in (2000) 8 S.C.C. 216, where the Apex Court has dealt with these questions with reference to Article 329 of the Constitution of India, which is similar to Article 243-O and Sections 141 and 143 of the Act. Dealing with the aforesaid matter, the Apex Court in paragraph 15 held that the High Courts in India are superior Courts of record. They have original and appellate jurisdiction. They have inherent and supplementary powers. Unless expressly or impliedly barred from exercising jurisdiction, they have unlimited jurisdiction including the jurisdiction to determine their own powers. However, their power is subject to the appellate or discretionary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Apex Court further held that in view of the provisions contained in Article 329(b), the Court under Article 226 should not interfere at the intermediate stage but cannot shut the doors of the Courts when the election proceeding is over. In paragraph 30 of the said judgment, it was held as follows :
+ "To what extent Article 329(b) has an overriding effect on Article 226 of the Constitution? The two Constitution Benches have held that Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides for only one remedy; that remedy being by an election petition to be presented after the election is over and there is no remedy provided at any intermediate stage. The non obstante clause with which Article 329 opens, pushes out Article 226, where the dispute takes the form of calling in question an election (see para 25 of Mohinder Singh Gill case). The provisions of the Constitution and the Act, read together do not totally exclude the right of a citizen to approach the Court so as to have the wrong done remedied by invoking the judicial forum; nevertheless the lesson is that the election rights and remedies are statutory, ignore the triffles even if there are irregularities or illegalities, and knock the doors of the Courts when the election proceedings in question are over. Two pronged attack on anything done during the election proceedings is to be avoided-one during the course of the proceedings and the other at its termination, for such two-pronged attack, if allowed, would unduly protract or obstruct the functioning of democracy." 
+ 
+
+23. In paragraph 32 of the said judgment, it was further held that the judicial review of the elections is possible provided it does not retard, interrupt, protract or stall the election proceedings and the conclusions arrived at by the Apex Court are as follows :
+  
+
+"32. For convenience sake we would now generally sum up our conclusions by partly restating what the two Constitution Benches have already said and then adding by clarifying what follows therefrom in view of the analysis made by us hereinabove :
+  
+
+(1) If an election, (the term election being widely interpreted so as to include all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the date of notification of election till the date of declaration of result) is to be called in question and which questioning may have the effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election proceedings in any manner, the invoking of judicial remedy has to be postponed till after the completing of proceedings in elections.
+ 
+
+(2) Any decision sought and rendered will not amount to "calling in question an election" if it subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election. Anything done towards completing or in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be described as questioning the election.
+ 
+
+(3) Subject to the above, the action taken or orders issued by Election Commission are open to judicial review on the well-settled parameters which enable judicial review of decisions of statutory bodies such as on a case of mala fide of arbitrary exercise of power being made out or the statutory body being shown to have acted in reach of law.
+ 
+
+(4) Without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings, judicial intervention is available is assistance if the Court has been sought for merely to correct or smoothen the progress of the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles therein, or to preserve a vital piece of evidence if the same would be lost or destroyed or rendered irretrievable by the time the results are declared and stage is set for invoking the jurisdiction of the Court.
+ 
+
+(5) The Court must be very circumspect and act, with caution while entertaining any election dispute though not hit by the bar of Article 329(b) but brought to it during the pendency of election proceedings. The Court must guard against any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings. Care has to be taken to see that there is no attempt to utilise the Court's indulgence by filing a petition outwardly innocuous but essentially a subterfuge or pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden end. Need less to say that in the very nature of the things the Court would act with reluctance and shall not act, except on a clear and strong case for its intervention having been made out by raising the pleas with particulars and precision and supporting the same by necessary material. 
+ 
+
+24. Thus, once this Court comes to know on being moved by any of the parties that a person holding the office is disqualified then this Court cannot sleep over the matter and allow the office bearer of a panchayat to hold the office though he is not eligible and his election is void one. This matter requires attention by this Court, In cases where the candidates, having been convicted and sentenced for more than six months, are elected by suppressing the fact of their conviction and sentence and the disqualified persons holding the office of the Panchayat or as a matter of fact usurper of the office, though they have no right to hold the office and because of their disqualification, by suppression, fraud and misrepresentation, they have managed to get elected, in such a case this Court will be failing in duty in preventing the public injury in case of refusal to interfere in such case. In such cases, this Court will issue a writ of quo warranto restraining the office bearers to function as members of the panchayat.
+ 
+
+25. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 231 held that if a disqualified person is appointed as Chief Minister by the Governor, the same can be challenged in a writ of quo warranto. Thus, if a disqualified person is holding an office, his matter can be challenged by a writ of quo warranto for maintaining purity and perfection in the democratic process.
+ 
+
+26. Coming to the present cases, it appears that in regard to the cases where the State Election Commission has disqualified the candidates on the ground that they have been convicted and sentenced for more than a period of six months, which is disqualification in terms of Section 139(1)(g) of the Act, even though I have held that the State Election Commission has no power to decide disqualification with regard to pre-election matters, the fact is that these candidates have suppressed the factum of their conviction and sentence and by playing a fraud, they got their nomination papers accepted as valid and were elected to the election. The fraud vitiates everything even the solemn proceedings of the Court. The fraud is sworn enemy of justice and equity. In exercise of equitable jurisdiction, this Court will not interfere with the order of the State Election Commission as that will amount to perpetuating an illegality and allowing a person not authorised to continue to hold the office.
+ 
+
+27. In the following cases, the petitioners had incurred disqualification prior to election and have already been disqualified by the State Election Commission as admittedly they were convicted under Sections 302, 395, 307 and 396 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment exceeding six months.
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C. No. 10697 of 2002
+ 
+
+The petitioner-Bhagwan Singh was elected as mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Pokharahan in the district of Buxar. Prior to the election he was convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. His appeal against the conviction was admitted and is pending in this Court and he has been released on bail.
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C. No. 11536 of 2002
+ 
+
+Petitioner Harhar Singh was elected mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Bijhaura within Itarhi Block in the district of Buxar. Prior to election he was convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in the year 1996. He has preferred an appeal in this Court. The appeal has been admitted and he has been released on bail. 
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C. No. 10975 of 2002
+ 
+
+The petitioner Bimal Kumar Yadav was elected mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Kaithi within Brahampur Block in the district of Buxar. Prior to election, he was convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in the year 1990 and against that he has preferred an appeal. The appeal has been admitted and he has been released on bail.
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C. No. 9361 of 2002
+ 
+
+The petitioner Rama Nand Mandal was elected as mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Dhanchhiha within Laukahi Block in the district of Madhubani, Prior to election, he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in the year 1988 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He preferred an appeal in this Court, which has been admitted and he has been released on bail.
+ 
+
+CWJC No. 9364 of 2002
+ 
+
+Petitioner Krishna Murari Rai was elected as mukhiya of Gram Panchayat No. 13, Kalyanpur. Prior to election, he was convicted under Sections 307/114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years in the year 1995 and he filed an appeal before this Court, which has been admitted and he has been released on bail.
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C No. 9471 of 2002
+ 
+
+Petitioner Amrendra Prasad Singh was elected as mukhiya of Kalyanpur Gram Panchayat. Prior to this election, he was convicted under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years in the year 1997. He has preferred an appeal before this Court, which has been admitted and he has been released on bail.
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C. No. 11154 of 2002
+ 
+
+The petitioner Nawal Kishore Singh alias Nawal Mandal was elected as mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Manjosh, Block Sikandara in the district of Jamui. Prior to his election, he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life in the year 1993. He preferred an appeal, which has been admitted and he has been released on bail.
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C. No. 10831 of 2002
+ 
+
+The petitioner Rama Nandan Yadav was elected as mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Baniya under Madanpur Block, in the district of Aurangabad. Prior to his election, he was convicted under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 8 years in the year 1997. He has preferred an appeal, which has been admitted and he has been released on bail.
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C. No. 13205 of 2002
+ 
+
+The petitioner Sushil Singh alias Sushil Kumar Singh was elected as mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Gajipur Farhada within Badahara Block in the district of Bhojpur. Prior to his election, he was convicted under Sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 8 years in the year 1989. His conviction has been upheld by the High Court and an S.L.P. pending before the Supreme Court. 
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C. No. 11919 of 2002
+ 
+
+The petitioner Narendra Kumar alias Narendra Kumar Yadav was elected as mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Bichhaw, Sikandara, Block Sikandara in the district of Jamui. Prior to his election, he was convicted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years in the year 1992.
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C. No. 12580 of 2002
+ 
+
+Petitioner Indrajeet Prasad was elected as a Member of Nalanda Zila Parishad from Ward No. 25. Prior to his election, he was convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in 1988. He has preferred an appeal before this Court and has been released on bail.
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C. No. 12696 of 2002
+ 
+
+Petitioner Shailendra Kumar alias Shailendra Mahto was elected as Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Brandi-Rahui within Rahui Block in the district of Nalanda. Prior to his election, he was convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1988. He has preferred an appeal before this Court and has been released on bail.
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C. No. 13141 of 2002
+ 
+
+Petitioner Ranjit Yadav was elected as Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Chhanaun under Block Ron, District Nalanda, Prior to his election, he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and 27 of the Arms Act, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in 1994. He has preferred an appeal before this Court, which has been admitted and he is on bail.
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C. No. 13388 of 2002
+ 
+
+Petitioner Mahesh Mandal was elected as mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Ismailpur Purvi Bhitta in the district of Bhagalpur. Prior to his election, he was convicted under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in 1993. He has preferred an appeal before this Court, which has been admitted and he is on bail.
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C. No. 13576 of 2002
+ 
+
+Petitioner Shree Kant Singh was elected as a Member from Ward No. 21 of Nautan Panchayat Samiti in the district of West Champaran. Prior to his election, he was convicted under Sections 394/397 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years in the year 1997. He has preferred an appeal before this Court, which has been admitted and he is on bail.
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C. No. 2377 of 2003
+ 
+
+Petitioner Sheo Shankar Singh was elected mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Manik Chawk, Runnisaidpur within Runnisaidpur Block in the district of Sitamarhi. Prior to his election, he was convicted under Sections 302, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in the year 1990. He has preferred an appeal before this Court, which has been admitted and he is on bail.
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C. No. 9230 of 2004
+ 
+
+Petitioner Rajendra Yadav was elected as mukhiya of Roshanpur Gram Panchayat in the district of Bhagalpur. Prior to his election, he was convicted under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in the year 1993.
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C. No. 9853 of 2003
+ 
+
+Petitioner Sunil Kumar Singh was elected as mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Muradpur Block Dumra in the district of Sitamarhi. Prior to his election, he was convicted under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of four years in the year 1989. He preferred an appeal and his conviction was maintained but sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. He remained in judicial custody for about 14 months and as such the Election Commission disqualified him. His case, thus, falls in the aforesaid category.
+ 
+
+28. Thus, in all the said cases, though the Election Commission has no power as they related to pre-election conviction and sentence, but this Court is not inclined to interfere as that will amount to allowing them to take benefit of their own fraud and misrepresentation. Even if the Election Commission has no power to disqualify them, the matter has been brought to the notice of this Court then this Court would issue a writ of quo warranto against them. Accordingly, a declaration be made that the election of the petitioners of the said cases on the posts concerned was void and not legal and valid and they cannot continue to function as such and, accordingly, they are restrained from functioning on the posts held by them. Let steps be taken for filling up the posts by holding election to the said offices.
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C Nos. 10101/2002 & 10646/2003
+ 
+
+29. So far as CWJC No. 10101 of 2002 is concerned, the same has been filed by petitioner Santosh Kumar Choudhary for disqualifying respondent No. 5, Naresh Mohan Mishra (petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 10646/2003) on the ground that prior to election he was convicted and sentenced under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. His appeal before this Court was dismissed and he preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court and his sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. He has remained in jail from 23.7.1974 to 4.6.1975 before conviction and from 20.5.1978 to 20.6.1978 after conviction. Thus, the total period under gone by him in custody is eleven months and twelve days. The Election Commission has rejected the prayer of the petitioner by order dated 9.7.2000 to disqualify respondent No. 5.
+ 
+
+Admittedly, said Naresh Mohan Mishra has remained in jail for a period exceeding six months and as such his case is also a case of disqualification prior to election and he is not competent to hold the post of Mukhiya of the said Gram Panchayat Accordingly, a declaration be made that the appointment of Naresh Mohan Mishra as Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Singhupur West, District Bhagalpur was not legal and valid and he cannot continue to function as such. Let steps be taken for filling up the post by holding an election to the said office.
+ 
+
+30. Thus, CWJC No. 10101 of 2002 is allowed and C.W.J.C. No. 10646 of 2003 filed by petitioner Naresh Mohan Mishra (respondent No. 5 in C.W.J.C. No. 10101 of 2002) challenging the vires of the Rule is decided in the manner as stated above that the Election Commission has no power to decide the pre-election disqualification in terms of Section 139(1)(g) of the Act, but the result is that his election has been held to be void as indicated above.
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C. No. 12954 of 2003
+ 
+
+31. In this writ petition, the petitioner Manoj Kumar alias Manoj Kumar Singh had originally challenged the notice issued by the State Election Commission to disqualify him under Section 139(1)(g) of the Act. Subsequently, he admitted that he has been convicted and sentenced for more than six months. Accordingly, his election is held to be void and he is restrained from continuing to on the post held by him. Let steps be taken for filling up the post by holding fresh election to the said office.
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C. No. 4647 of 2003
+ 
+
+32. In this writ petition, petitioner Suchit Sharma has challenged the order dated 16.7.2002 passed by the State Election Commission, by which respondent No. 4 Jagannath Sharma, Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Bhori in the district of Gaya has not been disqualified on the ground of his conviction under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, as the appellate Court released him on execution of bond only. There is no merit in this writ petition as, admittedly, once the person has been released on bond disqualification under Section 139(1)(g) of the Act, is not attracted.	
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C. Nos. 9509/03 & 246/03
+ 
+
+33. In these two writ petitions, the disqualification incurred after election. Petitioner Pankaj Yadav (C.W.J.C. No. 9509/03) and Petitioner Satya Narayan Dubey (C.W.J.C. No. 246/03) were elected as upmukhia of Gram Panchayat Chikni under Gamharia Block in the district of Madhepura and a Member of the Simari Panhayat Samiti, in the district of Buxar, respectively. They have been convicted under Sections 395 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and life, respectively, by the trial Court. In both the cases, the State Election Commission has disqualified them on the ground that they have incurred disqualification under Section 139(1)(g) after election. The Election Commission has power to decide the disqualification in terms of the amended Rule 122 of the Rules and Section 139(1)(g), read with 22 Sub-section (2) of the Act, as indicated above.
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C. No. 9013 of 2002
+ 
+
+34. In this case, the State Election Commission has rejected the prayer made by petitioner Ram Sagar Mahto to disqualify respondent No. 5 Dilip Kumar Yadav under Section 139(1)(g) of the Act, on the ground of his conviction as, admittedly, he (respondent No. 5), who was elected as mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Mauzi Hari Singh, District Begusarai, has been subsequently acquitted by the appellate Court by order dated 18.10.2001.
+ 
+
+Once an order of acquittal has been passed, it will be treated as if no conviction and sentence were passed. Thus, there is no reason to interfere with the aforesaid order of the Election Commission.
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C No. 8145 of 2002
+ 
+
+35. In this case, petitioner Jay Narayan Sahi has challenged the show-cause notice issued by the State Election Commission to disqualify him for having been convicted under Sections 302/149 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, against which he has filed an appeal before this Court being Cr. Appeal No. 553/97. His appeal has been admitted and sentence has been suspended.
+ 
+
+The Election Commission has no such power to pre-election disqualification and, accordingly, the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner is quashed. However, admittedly, the petitioner has incurred disqualification under Section 138(1)(g) of the Act. Let a writ of quo warranto be issued and a declaration be made that the. appointment of petitioner Jay Narayan Sahi on the post of mukhiya of Majhora Gram-panchayat in the district of West Champaran. Bettiah, was not legal and valid and he cannot continue to function as such. Let steps be taken for filling up the post by holding an election to the said office.
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C. No. 3205 of 2003
+ 
+
+36. In this case, the Election Commission has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for pre-election disqualification of respondent No. 6 Arun Singh @ Arun Kumar Singh, who has been elected as a Member of the Nawahatta Panchayat Samiti from Ward No. 17 District Saharsa through according to the petitioner he was disqualified under Section 139(1)(f) of the Act, as he has been dismissed from service on the ground of misconduct.
+ 
+
+The Election Commission has taken an erroneous view of the matter. Though the word 'misconduct' has not been defined but when an employee, who has to do public work, has absented himself from duty and that allegation has been proved and he has been dismissed, then his such dismissal is on the ground of misconduct and, accordingly, the election of respondent No. 6 is held to be void. Let a writ of quo warranto be issued and a declaration be made that the appointment of respondent No. 6 Arun Singh alias Arun Kumar Singh as a Member of the Nawhatta Panchayat Samiti from Ward No. 17 District Saharsa was not legal and valid and he cannot continue to function as such. Let steps be taken for filling up the post by holding an election to the said office.
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C. No. 13589 of 2002
+ 
+
+37. In this case, the petitioner Nazir Ahmad alias Md. Nazir Alam was elected as mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Jhirwan in the district of Gopalganj. He has been disqualified under Section 139(1)(d) of the Act, by the State Election Commission. Admittedly, he is a Reader in a College receiving hundred per cent financial aids from the State Government and as such his case is fully covered under the said section and there is no ground to interfere with the order of the Election Commission. Accordingly, though he has incurred pre-election disqualification and the Election Commission has no power, but he cannot hold the office and, accordingly, his election as a mukhiya of the said Gram Panchayat is held to be void. Accordingly, let a writ of quo warranto be issued and a declaration be made that the appointment of the petitioner on the said post was not legal and valid and he cannot continue to function as such. Let steps be taken for filling up the post by holding an election to the said office.
+ 
+
+C.W.J.C. No. 12390 of 2003
+ 
+
+38. In this case, the petitioner Smt. Chandra Devi was elected as a Member and Chairman of Zila Parishad, Lakhisarai. Admittedly, she has been debarred by the Election Commission of India from contesting any election to the State Legislature for three years with effect from the date of order i.e. 8.3.1999. The election of the Zila Parishad was held within the aforesaid period of three years. The Election Commission disqualified her under Section 139(1)(b) of the Act, according to which if a candidate is disqualified by or under any law for the time being in force for the purposes of elections to the Legislature of the State, he/she is debarred from contesting the election.
+ 
+
+In that view of the matter, the petitioner was disqualified to be a candidate. As the matter relates to pre-election disqualification and though the Election Commission has no such power, but her election is also held void. Let a writ of quo warranto be issued and a declaration be made that the appointment of the petitioner on the said post was not legal and valid and she cannot continue to function as such. Let steps to be taken for filling up the post by holding an election to the said office.
+ 
+
+39. In the result, CWJC Nos. 10697. 11536, 10975, 9361, 9364, 9471, 11154, 10831, 13205, 11919, 12580, 12696, 13141, 13388, 13576 all of 2002, 2377 of 2003, 9853 of 2003, 9230 of 2004, 12954 of 2003, 9013 of 2002, 8145 of 2002, 13589 of 2002, 12390 of 2003 are dismissed. CWJC Nos. 10101 of 2002 and 3205 of 2003 are allowed. CWJC No. 10646 of 2003 stands disposed of.
+ 
+
+S.N. Hussain, J.
+ 
+
+

40. I agree. + + +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_193771877.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_193771877.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..be41a1e34d0afdbd8b5519b59a8133e31cda9b2c --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_193771877.html @@ -0,0 +1,386 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ishaq vs State Of U.P. on 28 November, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Heard Mr. A.Z. Khan, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State. +

+

Perused the record. +

+

This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Ishaq seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 46 of 2022, under sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC, P.S. Behat, District Saharnapur, now pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Saharanpur. +

+

The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 23.12.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23087 of 2022 (Ishaq Vs. State of U.P) along with Criminal misc. Bail Application No. 19190 of 2022 (Firoz Vs. State of U.P.). Subsequent to above, the applicant filed his repeat application for bail which was registered as Bail Application No. 13816 of 2024 (Ishaq Vs. State of U.P.). This repeat application for bail also came to be rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.4.2024.The same is reproduced herein under: +

+
+ +
+ +
This is repeat application for bail filed by applicant Firoz seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0046 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC, P.S. Behat, District Saharanpur during the pendency of trial. +
+
The first bail application of applicant Firoz was decided along with bail application of co-accused Ishaq by a detailed order, dated 23.12.2022, whereby both the bail applications were rejected. For ready reference, the order dated 23.12.2022 is reproduced herein under:- +
+
"1. Heard Mr. Prabha Shanker Mishra, the learned counsel for applicants-Ishaq and Firoz, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Avanish Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for first informant. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_193955785.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_193955785.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..59bf101f068bf4ce068c1242cad5885d235b66db --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_193955785.html @@ -0,0 +1,455 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Abhishek Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The petitioner is in custody for about 4 years. + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 665 of 2023 + + The instant Revision is filed by CICL himself, + + challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order, + + dated 9th of August, 2023, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2023 + + by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum- + + Children's Court, Banka. The CICL was arrested in connection + + with Banduwa Kurawa P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023, corresponding + + to G.R. No. 1202 of 2023, for the offences punishable under + + Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 + + of the Arms Act. However, later on, Sections 34 of the IPC and + + Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section + + 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes + + (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added. Prayer for + + bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Appeal in + + exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Juvenile + + Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter + + referred to as 'said Act') vide order, dated 15th of June, 2023. + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 687 of 2023 + + The petitioner/CICL was arrested in connection + + with Fesar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, + + 325, 307, 34, 504, 506 and 379 of the IPC along with his father + + and uncle. The petitioner prayed for regular bail before the JJB, + + Aurangabad. In JJB Case No. 932 of 2023, prayer for bail was + + rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 41 + + of 2023 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children's Court, + + Aurangabad. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal + + and affirmed the order of the JJB. The petitioner has assailed the + + said order of the Appellate Court on various grounds, specially + + on the ground that the father and uncle of the petitioner have + + already been granted bail for the same offence. + +
+
+ +
+

Reg. Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2024 + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + The petitioner was booked along with other major + + accused persons in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 237 of + + 2022, dated 13th of August, 2022, under Section 302 and 34 of + + the IPC. The petitioner being a CICL prayed for bail before the + + Juvenile Justice Board, but his prayer for bail was rejected. He + + preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the said Act before the + + learned Special Judge, Children's Court and the said appeal was + + also dismissed and the order of rejection of bail passed by the + + JJB was affirmed. It is stated by the petitioner that the accused + + persons who are major, namely, Sushil Kumar Yadav and Anil + + Yadav were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on + + 26th of April, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 4091 of 2023. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_1946477.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_1946477.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a7ebda95d1d74df36fa67876f0da8c3c6f23aa6a --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_1946477.html @@ -0,0 +1,493 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Mr. Ishan Vasant Deshmukh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 October, 2010 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ + ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:32:57 ::: + 5 +

5. On behalf of intervenor, two objections + + have been raised to the tenability of this + + + + + + application. The first is that unless the + + + + + + applicant is in custody, he cannot apply for bail + + either under Section 437 or 439 of the Indian +Penal Code. The second objection is that this + + Court, while disposing of the Criminal Application + + + + + + No.4356 of 2009 by order dated 28th June, 2009, had + + specifically directed that the present applicant + + shall apply for regular bail before the concerned + + Court which is seized of the matter, and that the + + concerned Court shall deal with such application + + + + for regular bail according to law. It was, + + + + + therefore, submitted that the applicant ought to + + have approached the concerned Court which is + + + + + + seized of the matter. Consequently, an + + application should have been made before the Trial + + + + + + Magistrate and not before the Court of Sessions or + + even before this Court. +

+
+ +
+ +
17. It may be noted here that + + + + the learned Counsel for + intervener contended that the + + + + + Magistrate did not have + jurisdiction to grant bail + because the offences under + Section 467 and 409, IPC, carry + + + + + + punishment which may be life + imprisonment. According to the + learned Counsel, if the offence + is punishable with sentence of + death or life imprisonment, the + + + + + + Magistrate cannot grant bail + under Section 437(1), Cr.P.C. +
+
+ +
+ +
(1926)27Cr.L.J.1063). +
+

8. The reasoning applies with + equal force in interpreting the + + + + phrase offence punishable with + death or imprisonment for life + + + + + So long as an offence under + section 326 is triable by a + Magistrate of the First Class + there is no reason why it should + + + + + + be viewed differently in the + matter of granting bail from an + offence under Section 420, I.P.C. + for which the punishment extends + imprisonment for 7 years or any + + + + + + other non-bailable offence for + which the punishment is a term of + imprisonment. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_194670366.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_194670366.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3a92d20601d83d1d083cf6e8dc2ece02d2ba6222 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_194670366.html @@ -0,0 +1,2184 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sanjukta Samanta & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 30, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

+

Sanjukta Samanta & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2025

+ +
                                        1
+
+                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
+                   CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
+                            APPELLATE SIDE
+
+
+Present:
+
+The Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
+
+                              W.P.A. 15260 of 2024
+
+                             Sanjukta Samanta & Anr.
+                                       -Vs-
+                               Union of India & Ors.
+
+
+Petitioner No. 1 in person           : Mrs. Sanjukta Samanta
+
+Petitioner No. 2 in person           : Mr. Romit Dutta
+
+For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2        : Mr. Rajdeep Majumdar
+                                       Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Chakraborty
+
+For the State                        : Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury
+                                       Mr. Manas Kumar Sadhu
+                                       Ms. Subhasree Patel
+
+For the Respondent No. 13            : Mr. Neeraj Sekhar
+                                       Ms. Malabika Saha
+
+Heard on                             : 13.03.2025, 28.03.2025,
+                                       25.06.2025, 11.07.2025
+
+Judgment on                          : 26.09.2025
+
+Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-
+
+1. The instant writ petition had been assigned to this Court by the Hon'ble the
+
+  Chief Justice, High Court at Calcutta, after the instant writ petition had
+
+  been released by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court presiding over in
+
+  Court No.14 vide its Order dated 05.08.2024 replicated as follows:-
+
+            "Live streaming of Court proceeding has been paused.
+                                          2
+
+              Heard submission of the petitioner no.2 and the learned advocate
+          representing the respondent no.13.
+              The petitioner no.1 behaves in an extremely unruly manner before
+          the Court. She is highly agitated. The Court is not inclined to hear the
+          matter.
+              Let this matter be released from the list of this Bench and be placed
+          before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for necessary order."
+
+2. The instant writ petition had been filed, inter alia, praying for following
+
+  reliefs:-
+
+          "........
+          B. Writ of an/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+          respondents to declare the impugned proceedings of Chatterjeehat
+          Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 under sections
+          341/365/468/420/506/34         IPC   is   illegal,   void   ab   initio   and
+          unconstitutional;
+
+          C. Writ in nature of mandamus to quash the entire proceedings in
+          connection with Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated
+          04.05.2024 under sections 341/365/468/420/506/34 IPC pending
+          before Learned CJM at Howrah and being investigated by state
+          respondents;
+
+          D. Writ in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondents
+          and its men, subordinates, assignees to unconditionally forthwith
+          withdraw, recall, rescind all steps taken in pursuance of the
+          Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 under
+          sections 341/365/468/420/506/34 IPC;
+
+          E. Writ of an/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+          respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates and each one
+          of them to quash/set aside the impugned Notification issued by the
+          office of Respondent 6 vide Org No.618/CS dated 06.05.2024 through
+                                3
+
+which the investigation of Chatterjeehat Police Station Case no.78 of
+2023 dated 04.05.2023 was taken up by respondent no.7;
+
+F. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents to render appropriate protection to life, liberty and
+possession to the writ petitioner no.1 by the respondents 1, 2;
+
+G. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates and each one
+of them to hand over the Case Diary of Chatterjeehat Police Station
+Case no.78 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 to the office of Respondent no.4
+forthwith;
+
+H. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates to stay the
+investigation of impugned FIR Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 86 of
+2024 dated 04.05.2024 under sections 341/365/468/420/506/34
+IPC by respondent no.9 with immediate effect;
+
+I. Writ of an/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates not to take any
+coercive steps against the petitioners in connection with Chatterjeehat
+Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 under sections
+341/365/468/420/506/34 IPC;
+
+J. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates not to take any
+coercive steps against the petitioners in connection with any frivolous
+FIRs against the Writ Petitioners by the accused respondent 13 and his
+associates;
+
+K. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates to stay the
+impugned further investigation of Chatterjeehat Police Station Case
+no.78 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 by State CID respondents;
+                                           4
+
+         L. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+         respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates not to register
+         any false FIR against the Writ Petitioners by the instant accused
+         respondents and his associates without any preliminary inquiry as
+         well as without leave of this Hon'ble Court;
+
+         M. A writ of and/or in nature of certiorari directing the concerned
+         respondents being respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 thereof to transmit
+         and/or produce all relevant records lying with them to this Hon'ble
+         Court so that conscionable justice may be done after hearing the
+         respective parties to this writ petition;
+
+         N. A writ of and/or in nature of Mandamus commanding the
+         respondent authorities 1, 2 to render appropriate protection to protect
+         life and possession of the petitioner;
+         ......."
+3. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 contended to be the Learned Advocates practising
+
+  in the High Court at Calcutta as well as the Supreme Court of India. The
+
+  petitioners, on invitation by the respondent No.13, visited his house at
+
+  Tamilnadu to hold a conference with the father of respondent No.13
+
+  concerning the filing of affidavit-of-assets and liabilities in connection with a
+
+  dispute regarding domestic violence instituted against the respondent No.13
+
+  pending at the District Court of South 24-Parganas at Alipore.
+
+4. Petitioner No.1 learnt of certain false information presented through an
+
+  affidavit-on-oath before the Court of Learned 6 th Judicial Magistrate at
+
+  Alipore, South 24-Parganas concerning the occupation of respondent No.13
+
+  and confronted the same. The respondent No.13 consequently insulted the
+
+  petitioner, indignifying her with threats, defamation and dire consequences.
+
+  Subsequently, the petitioner No.1 was threatened by an associate of
+                                         5
+
+  respondent no.13 as narrated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the writ petition. The
+
+  petitioners, thereafter, forwarded a complaint through e-mail to the
+
+  respondent no.8 being the Commissioner of Police, Howrah and Kolkata
+
+  Police on 23rd of April, 2023 at 21:44 hours.
+
+5. On 29th of April, 2023 at about 08:30 P.M., the respondent no.13
+
+  accompanied by his associate forcefully entering the chamber of petitioner
+
+  no.1, physically molested and harassed her as stated in paragraph 8 of the
+
+  writ petition. Meanwhile, the unknown associate vandalized the chamber of
+
+  the petitioner and escaped therefrom along with a mobile of model Vivo -
+
+  Y100 and a sum of Rs.65,000/- in cash.
+
+6. The petitioners initially refrained to proceed against the criminal acts of
+
+  respondent no.13, however, ultimately lodged a complaint against the
+
+  aforesaid respondents at the office of respondent no.8 and 9, i.e., Officer-in-
+
+  Charge of Chatterjeehat Police Station at Howrah on 03.05.2023 at 20:21
+
+  hours and the complaint was registered as Chatterjeehat Police Station Case
+
+  No.78      of      2023       dated       04.05.2023      under       Sections
+
+  420/406/448/341/323/354B/307/376/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal
+
+  Code. The respondent no.13 was, thereafter, arrested by the office of the
+
+  respondent no.9 who later on obtained an order of bail from the Hon'ble
+
+  Court.
+
+7. The petitioners had filed a complaint registered by the police being Howrah
+
+  P.S. Case No.262 of 2023 dated 27.07.2023 under Sections 195A/506/34 of
+
+  the Indian Penal Code against the associates of respondent no.13 for being
+
+  threatened as mentioned in paragraph 15 of the writ petition.
+                                          6
+
+8. The petitioners contended to have been insinuated through various means
+
+  as stated in paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the writ petition. The
+
+  predicaments of the petitioners had been vividly described in paragraphs 25,
+
+  26, 27, 28, and 29 of the writ petition. The petitioner no.1 claimed herself to
+
+  be a member of a political party, who had dealt with a Public Interest
+
+  Litigation in person addressing the grievances in connection with an incident
+
+  which occurred at Sandeshkhali in West Bengal through a writ petition
+
+  being No.WPA(P) 78 of 2024 before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and
+
+  SLP(C ) No.9462/9465 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
+
+  The petitioner no.1's combat and opposition against injustice towards
+
+  general women through the aforesaid writ petition rendered her aged senior
+
+  citizen parents to suffer from trauma and threats at the behest of her
+
+  competitive political party. The petitioner no.1 narrated the conduct of the
+
+  Learned Public Prosecutor of the State of West Bengal in paragraphs 35 and
+
+  36 of the writ petition.
+
+9. The petitioners in the instant writ petition further stated as follows:-
+
+       (i) The State respondents in collusion and conspiracy with the accused
+
+          respondent no. 13 had registered the said FIR being Chatterjeehat PS
+
+          Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 against the petitioner no.1 and
+
+          petitioner no.2, who was prime witness of the heinous crime
+
+          happened to her in the form of Chatterjeehat PS Case No.78 of 2023
+
+          dated 04.05.2023 to achieve their ulterior motive to put the instant
+
+          petitioner no.1 and 2, behind the bar for restraining the petitioner
+
+          no.1 from representing herself for the sexual assault victims of
+                                    7
+
+   Sandeshkhali, West Bengal as in person PIL Writ petitioner therein
+
+   before Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in WPA (P) 78 of 2024.
+
+(ii) The instant false and fabricated FIR being Chatterjeehat PS Case
+
+   No.86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 was the delayed counterblast of the
+
+   Chargesheeted Case being Chatterjeehat Police Station Case no 78 of
+
+   2023 dated 04.05.2023, Howrah PS Case 262 of 2023 dated
+
+   27.07.2023 and Chatterjeehat PS Case 23 of 2024 dated 05.02.2024.
+
+(iii) The instant false FIR against Writ Petitioners was lodged by complete
+
+   misusing the liberty granted by Hon'ble High Court in WPA 23711 of
+
+   2023 while the Hon'ble High Court while disposing WPA 23711 of
+
+   2023 vide order dated 16.04.2024 never granted liberty to the
+
+   accused respondent 13 to lodge a fresh /de novo complaint before
+
+   police against petitioners with inordinate delay for registration of FIR.
+
+(iv) The accused respondent no.13 in collusion and conspiracy with the
+
+   State police had misused and abused the Hon'ble High Court given
+
+   liberty to fabricate instant petitioners into a false, fabricated FIR.
+
+(v) The respondent no.3, being clubbed up with the state respondents
+
+   had been actively involved in terrorizing the victim writ petitioner and
+
+   prime eye witness her husband of the case being Chatterjeehat PS
+
+   Case No.78 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 by way of taking up
+
+   investigation of the case by CID in completely mala fide manner
+
+   totally contradictory as mandated by law as well as by way of filing
+
+   such false and fabricated FIR against the petitioner and her husband.
+                                  8
+
+(vi) After coming out of judicial custody and police custody for
+
+   commission of crime of sexual violence against petitioner in
+
+   connection with Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 78 of 2923 dated
+
+   04.05.2023, to wreak personal vengeance the prime               accused
+
+   respondent 13 had created a false, fabricated story of his alleged
+
+   abduction of himself at same time while he committed crime and had
+
+   lodged FIR against writ petitioner after one year of inordinate delay.
+
+(vii) She, being the de-facto complainant of Chatterjeehat PS Case 78 of
+
+   2023 dated 04.05.2023, was not being able to return at her home city
+
+   Calcutta as well as she had not been able to represent the sexual
+
+   assault victims of Sandeshkhali, West Bengal in the PIL WPA(P) 78 of
+
+   2024 (physically , which was the PIL filed by her as in person at first
+
+   instance for protection of Vulnerable victims therein) before the
+
+   Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and before this Hon'ble Supreme
+
+   Court as SLP (C) No. 9462-9465 of 2024 .
+
+ (viii) Due to registration of said false FIR being Chatterjeehat PS Case
+
+   86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 upon a deviated version of original
+
+   crime incident happened to the writ petitioner no. 1, she would not be
+
+   able to represent herself as in person petitioner de-facto complainant
+
+   before the Learned Trial Courts and before Hon'ble High Court in
+
+   several proceedings under severe threat of her and her husband's
+
+   arrest by the State police machineries upon said false FIR registered
+
+   against the Writ Petitioner and her husband.
+                                         9
+
+       (ix) The petitioner stated that the FIR being Chatterjeehat PS Case 86 of
+
+          2024 dated 04.05.2024 was registered to wreak personal vengeance
+
+          against the writ petitioner and her husband by the state police
+
+          respondents in collusion and conspiracy with the accused respondent
+
+          no.13.
+
+10. The investigation in Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.78 of 2023 dated
+
+   04.05.2023 was entrusted upon respondent no.6 C.I.D., West Bengal at the
+
+   instance of the Learned Public Prosecutor, State of West Bengal unilaterally
+
+   without an order passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta to the
+
+   astonishment of the petitioners which, according to the petitioners, had been
+
+   biased and politically motivated.
+
+11. The petitioners are of the firm conviction to be betrayed with right to fair
+
+   investigation and fair trial to their utter detriment and prejudice. The
+
+   petitioners, being intimidated by the action on the part of the State agencies,
+
+   further sought for personal protection as she had been constantly threatened
+
+   by the police offices, CID officials etc. The petitioners, as would appear from
+
+   the order-sheets of the instant writ petition, appeared before this Court in
+
+   person and agitated their trauma and agony to have been continuously
+
+   threatened by the respondents and other State officials resulting in their
+
+   apprehension of life and property to be in extreme danger and peril.
+
+12. The petitioner no.1 claimed to have been physically molested by the
+
+   respondent no.13 and the State agencies constantly threatened and
+
+   harassed her preventing her to pursue her profession as a lawyer and to
+
+   fight for the cause demanding protection of women's life, right and dignity.
+                                          10
+
+   Petitioners appearing in person submitted the Learned Public Prosecutor on
+
+   his own accord had transferred the investigation to the CID agencies without
+
+   an order of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta to investigate the
+
+   Chatterjeehat Police Station Case being No.78 of 2023 as aforesaid to wreak
+
+   vengeance against them.
+
+13. The order dated 23.08.2024 passed by this Court is replicated hereinbelow:-
+
+             "The learned advocates for the respondent nos.3 to 11 and the
+
+          respondent no.13 are present.
+
+             The petitioner no.1 appeared online prior to the recess expressing
+          her extreme urgency for listing the matter for hearing. Accordingly, a
+          supplementary list was prepared fixing the matter at 2.00 p.m.
+             The petitioner no.1 did not appear before the Court either in-person
+          or online at the time of hearing though the petitioner no.2 appeared
+          online and submitted due to medical emergency, the petitioner no.1
+          could not appear before the Court.
+             It was further submitted by the petitioner no.2 that the Union of
+          India being the respondent no.1 and the Central Industrial Security
+          Force being the respondent no.2, should be providing proper security to
+          the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and their presence was required for
+          adjudication of the instant writ petition at the time of hearing.
+             The petitioner nos.1 and 2 are directed to serve a notice upon the
+          learned advocate for the respondent nos.1 and 2 intimating the next
+          date of hearing on 3rd September, 2024 and to file an affidavit of
+          service to that effect.
+             Next date be fixed on 3rd September, 2024 at 2.00 p.m. for further
+
+          hearing."
+
+14. Subsequently, on 03.09.2024 the petitioner no.1 and 2 appeared in person
+
+   and submitted the arbitrary action on the part of the Learned Public
+                                          11
+
+   Prosecutor to have initiated the investigation through CID, West Bengal
+
+   without the direction obtained from the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
+
+   Howrah based on a communication addressed to the same and referred to an
+
+   order dated 08th April, 2024 passed by an Hon'ble Co-Ordinate Bench of this
+
+   Court in CRR 1023 of 2024.
+
+15. Considering the submissions of the petitioners in person, this Court passed
+
+   an order dated 03.09.2024 as replicated hereinbelow:-
+
+             "The supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner no.1-in-person
+          be kept on record. Copies of the same have been served upon the
+          leaned advocates appearing for the other respective respondents.
+             The petitioners-in-person referred to the order dated 8 th April, 2024
+          passed by a Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of Court in CRR 1023 of 2024
+          as well as to the communication addressed to the learned Chief
+          Judicial Magistrate, Howrah Court, marked as "annexure P-10" to the
+          writ petition. The petitioners as aforesaid further submitted that the
+          communication to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah Court
+          referring to CID investigation was not directed through an order of this
+          Court, as aforesaid.
+             The learned advocate for the State refers to the Police Regulation
+          Bengal, 1943 whereby the CID can on its own take up the
+          investigation. The learned advocate for the State is requested to inform
+          the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Debasis Ray to be present before
+          this Court on the next date of hearing to explain as to what prompted
+          him to submit before the Coordinate Bench that the investigations were
+          to be conducted up by the CID, West Bengal.
+             The learned advocate for the respondents are to file respective reply
+          to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners-in-person before
+          the Court on the next date with regard to the possibility of security to
+          be provided to the petitioner no.1 as claimed in the instant writ petition.
+                                         12
+
+             Heard the submission of the learned advocate representing the
+          respondent no.13.
+             The status report filed by the learned advocate for the State be kept
+          on record. A copy of the same has been served upon the petitioner
+          nos.1 and 2 in Court.
+             Next date be fixed on 17th September, 2024."
+16. Vide order dated 17.09.2024, this Court had appointed Learned Senior
+
+   Advocate Mr. Milon Mukherjee, the Learned Advocate Mr. Souvik Mitter and
+
+   Learned Advocate Ms. Sutapa Sanyal to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae in
+
+   order to dispose of the instant writ petition which was accepted by the
+
+   aforesaid Learned Advocates. The order dated 17.09.2024 passed by this
+
+   Court replicated as follows:-
+
+             "The learned senior advocate Mr. Milon Mukherjee, the learned
+          advocate Mr. Souvik Mitter and the learned advocate Ms. Sutapa
+          Sanyal have been requested to assist the Court as amicus curiae in
+          order to dispose of the instant writ petition and the same has been
+          accepted by the aforesaid learned advocates.
+             The learned advocate representing the respondent no.13 submits to
+          serve a copy of the writ petition along with the annexed documents and
+          the orders to the learned advocates appointed as amicus curiae in this
+          matter.
+             The learned advocate representing respondent nos.1 and 2 are
+          present and submitted the opinion of the Union of India with regard to
+          the provision of safety and security, generally accorded to specific
+          individuals subject to certain circumstances.
+             It is further submitted that the Ministry of Home Affairs is the
+          appropriate authority to provide safety and security to an individual
+          considering the threat perception after thorough assessment of the
+          facts and circumstances of a distinct case.
+                                          13
+
+                Heard the submissions of the learned advocates appointed as
+          amicus curiae and also the submissions of the petitioner no.1 and 2
+          appearing in-person.
+                The learned advocate representing the respondent no.13 seeks time
+          to file an affidavit-in-opposition to the supplementary affidavit filed by
+          the petitioner nos.1 and 2 appearing in-person after the processes for
+          filing the same gets endorsed through the concerned authority
+          pertaining to Bangladesh and the same is allowed.
+                Next date be fixed on 4th October, 2024 at 2.00 p.m. for further
+          hearing."
+17. On 04th October, 2024, the petitioner no.2 appeared online and submitted to
+
+   have preferred an appeal before the Division Bench presided over by the
+
+   Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court at Calcutta and sought for time on
+
+   that ground. PW-1 did not appear before the Court. Petitioner no.1 and
+
+   petitioner no.2 were directed to file an affidavit preferring an appeal as
+
+   aforesaid.
+
+18. On 18th November, 2024, petitioner no.1 did not appear before this Court
+
+   either in person or online. Petitioner no.2 appeared online and filed a
+
+   supplementary affidavit through is concerned Learned Advocate Mr. Arkadeb
+
+   Nag in open Court which, inter alia, stated the grievance of the petitioners
+
+   against the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by this Court in WPA 15260 of
+
+   2024 for seeking assistance of the Learned Advocates of this Court to act as
+
+   Amicus Curiae as aforesaid.
+
+19. The appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Division Bench presided over by
+
+   the Hon'ble the Chief Justice being MAT 2051 of 2024 on 6 th of November,
+
+   2024. Moreover, the fate of the said appeal had not been communicated to
+
+   this Court, if at all the hearing had been conducted. On 18 th November,
+                                            14
+
+   2024, the Learned Public Prosecutor appeared before this Court in
+
+   compliance with the order dated 03.09.2024 whereby this Court had sought
+
+   for an explanation as to what prompted him to submit before the Co-
+
+   ordinate Bench that the investigation of the Chatterjeehat Police Station
+
+   Case Nos.86 of 2024, 78 of 2023 and 23 of 2024 was to be conducted by the
+
+   CID, West Bengal.
+
+20. The Learned Public Prosecutor submitted several complaints and allegations
+
+   against two Hon'ble Judges of this Court and the officials of the
+
+   Chatterjeehat Police Station by the petitioners compelled him to ensure the
+
+   investigation to be carried out by an agency not comprising of the said
+
+   officials   of   the   Chatterjeehat   Police   Station   and   to   obliterate   the
+
+   apprehension of partial and biased investigation, the same was asked to be
+
+   conducted by the CID, State of West Bengal.
+
+21. On 19th of December, 2024, the Learned Public Prosecutor in compliance
+
+   with the order dated 18th November, 2024 filed a report stating the status of
+
+   investigation concerning the aforesaid police station cases. On 19 th
+
+   December, 2024, the Learned Public Prosecutor filed the report as aforesaid
+
+   along with an explanation as sought for. The petitioner no.1 was neither
+
+   present before the Court nor appeared online. Petitioner no.2 appeared
+
+   online and stated the appeal filed before the Division Bench was appearing
+
+   in the Daily List to be called for hearing. The petitioner no.1 and 2 had been
+
+   time and again asked by this Court to produce the details of the complaint or
+
+   G.D. Entry number which they claimed to have filed in the concerned police
+
+   station on several occasions for being threatened, physically manhandled,
+                                             15
+
+   molested and harassed. The petitioners did not produce any reference to that
+
+   effect before this Court.
+
+22. An order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in
+
+   WPA 23711 of 2023 is replicated as follows:-
+
+               "The respondent no. 12 appears in-person and tries to out shout
+             others. In spite of request made by the Court to calm down, she does
+             not relent and continues with her belligerent demeanour.
+               In view of this, I am not inclined to take up this matter.
+               Accordingly, the matter is released from my list."
+23. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners and the respondent no.13 who
+
+   had been the erstwhile client of the petitioners who sought for legal
+
+   assistance of the petitioners engaging them to be his advocates had filed writ
+
+   petitions being No.WPA 23711 of 2023 and WPA 21868 of 2023 wherein
+
+   several complaints had been filed against each other. Vide an order dated
+
+   16.04.2024, a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following
+
+   order:-
+
+               "Both these writ petitions are taken up for hearing together. It
+             appears that the petitioners in both the cases have filed several
+             complaints against each other.
+                                In Re: W.P.A. No.23711 of 2023
+               The petitioners in WPA No.23711 of 2023 lodged several complaints
+             against the petitioner in WPA No.21868 of 2023 before the Criminal
+             Investigation Department, West Bengal. In this writ petition, some of
+             the complaints have been annexed at annexure P/15. The petitioners
+             allege that no case has been registered or investigation has been
+             initiated following the said complaints.
+               I am of the view that the petitioners should lodge complaint before
+             the concerned police station at the first instance.
+                               16
+
+  Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty upon the
+petitioners to lodge complaint before the concerned police station. If the
+complaint discloses any cognizable offence, the relevant police station
+shall take steps to register F.I.R. and investigate the matter in
+accordance with law.
+  Accordingly,    W.P.A.    No.23711      of    2023     and    connected
+applications, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024 and CAN 2 of 2024 are
+disposed of.
+                   In Re: W.P.A. No.21868 of 2023
+  The petitioner in this case is a lady advocate. It appears that she
+also filed several complaints against the petitioners in WPA No.23711
+of 2023.
+  Following the complaints, the Investigating Agency has filed
+Chatterjeehat P.S. charge sheet no.191/23 dated 31.10.2022 under
+Sections 420/406/448/341/ 323/307/379/354B/376/506/34 of the
+Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Howrah P.S. charge sheet no.277/23
+dated 30.09.2023 under Sections 195A/506/34 of the 3 Indian Penal
+Code, 1860, before the jurisdictional Court. The trials have not yet
+commenced.
+  It is the grievance of the petitioner that while attending the Courts in
+connection with the aforesaid criminal cases, she is being harassed
+and even attacked by the petitioners in WPA No.23711 of 2023. These
+allegations have been vehemently denied by the petitioners in WPA
+No.23711 of 2023.
+  This Court is not in a position to appreciate the factual disputes. It is
+only expected that if the petitioner approaches the learned Trial Court
+seeking her protection, to ensure a free and fair trial, her prayer shall
+be considered by the Court below by passing necessary order.
+  Accordingly,    W.P.A.    No.21868      of    2023     and    connected
+applications, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2023 and CAN 2 of 2024 are
+disposed of."
+                                           17
+
+24. The present petitioners in the instant writ petition had filed an appeal
+
+   against the order dated 16.04.2024 passed in WPA 23711 of 2023 and WPA
+
+   21868 of 2023 before the Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble the
+
+   Chief Justice of this Court. By a judgment dated 21.05.2024 in MAT 831 of
+
+   2024, the Hon'ble Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice
+
+   of this Court had passed a judgment replicated as follows:-
+
+          "1. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties.
+          2. The appellant no.2, who is appearing online and he had sent a
+          message in the chat box praying that the live streaming of the
+          proceedings be paused. Acceding to the request made by the appellant
+          no.2, live streaming of the proceeding was paused.
+          3. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order passed in
+          W.P.A. No.23711 of 2023. The said writ petition was filed by the
+          respondent herein stating that several complaints have been lodged
+          against the respondents before the Criminal Investigation Department,
+          West Bengal and some of the complaints were annexed to the writ
+          petition. Further, the writ petitioners allege that no case has been
+          registered or investigated based on the complaints lodged by the
+          respondents/writ petitioners.
+          4. The learned Single Bench did not go into the merits of the matter but
+          disposed of the writ petition by the impugned order observing that the
+          writ petitioners, if aggrieved, should lodge complaint before the
+          concerned police station, at the first instance. Accordingly, the writ
+          petition was disposed of granting liberty to the writ petitioners to lodge
+          complaint before the concerned police station with an observation that
+          if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the relevant police
+          station shall take steps to register F.I.R. and investigate the matter in
+          accordance with law.
+          5. We failed to understand as to how the appellants before us, whose
+          names have been masked at their request, are aggrieved by the order
+                                          18
+
+          passed in the writ petition as the learned Writ Court has not gone into
+          the merits of the matter and left it open to the writ petitioners to work
+          out their remedy before the concerned police station.
+          6. The appellant no.2, who is appearing online, submitted that several
+          cases have been registered against them and there is a threat of
+          arrest. If that be so, it is well open to the appellants to invoke the
+          provisions of law available to them and approach the competent forum
+          for necessary relief.
+          7. Thus, we find no ground has been made out to interfere with the
+          order passed in the writ petition.
+          8. With the above observations/directions, appeal as well as the
+          connected application (IA No. CAN 1 of 2024) stand dismissed.
+          9. No costs.
+          10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
+          furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal
+          formalities."
+25. Subsequent to the aforesaid orders passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench and
+
+   the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner no.1 and 2 failed to
+
+   place any document of complaint filed by them before the concerned police
+
+   authorities claiming threat to their personal life and property and of any
+
+   action restricting their liberty to pursue their profession with dignity.
+
+26. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.1 and 2 submitted the
+
+   opinion of the Union of India specifically the Ministry of Home Affairs to be
+
+   the appropriate authority to provide safety and security to an individual
+
+   considering the threat perception after thorough assessment of the facts and
+
+   circumstances of a distinct case. It was further urged neither the police
+
+   authorities concerned nor this Court can assess whether the petitioners
+
+   required to be provided safety and security on the basis of personal claim of
+                                            19
+
+   a threat perception since it was within the absolute domain of the Ministry of
+
+   Home Affairs to ascertain and decide the seriousness and gravity of the
+
+   situation to provide safety and security to any individual.
+
+27. The Learned Advocate representing the State-respondents submitted despite
+
+   the order of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioners did not co-
+
+   operate with the investigation and suspected the investigating agency of
+
+   biasedness, arbitrariness and to wreck vengeance against the petitioners for
+
+   having dealt with a Public Interest Litigation against the State authorities
+
+   concerning an incident at Sandeshkhali. The petitioners were of the opinion
+
+   to be prejudicially prevented and impartial hearing and failed a transfer
+
+   petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India being Transfer Petitions
+
+   Criminal Nos.701/702 of 2024 which was dismissed as the Hon'ble Supreme
+
+   Court observed no case for transfer to have been made out vide its order
+
+   dated September 2, 2024.
+
+28. The petitioners had also filed writ petition criminal No.236 of 2024 before the
+
+   Supreme Court of India which was withdrawn by the petitioners. The
+
+   petitioners had accused the police personnels and other officials and had
+
+   impleaded them in the instant writ petition without plausible reasons and
+
+   did   not   deliberately   co-operate    with   the   investigation   citing   their
+
+   dissatisfaction as the same had been conducted by the CID, West Bengal
+
+   further stating to the Investigating Officer that the investigation should be
+
+   conducted by the CBI.
+
+29. The Learned Advocate representing the State further submitted it would not
+
+   be possible for the Writ Court to quash the proceedings since the complaint
+                                         20
+
+   as well as the FIR delineated commission of cognizable offences and the
+
+   charge-sheet had been submitted with further prayer on the part of the
+
+   Investigating Officer to file a supplementary charge-sheet. The Writ Court in
+
+   case of the offences being cognizable and the conundrum between the
+
+   parties should be decided through trial by the competent court. The Writ
+
+   Court should not exercise its jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.
+
+30. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 submitted the
+
+   petitioners to have instituted false and malicious complaints against the
+
+   respondent no.13 with an intention to incriminate him in serious offences of
+
+   rape, theft etc. The father of the respondent no.13 being a nonagenarian
+
+   person had been dragged mercilessly into humiliation, despair, agony and
+
+   trauma. The petitioners on being asked to be relieved of their professional
+
+   responsibility to represent the respondent no.13 and to withdraw the cases
+
+   on account of reconciliation between the respondent no.13 and his wife
+
+   infuriated the petitioners to lodge frivolous and baseless complaints against
+
+   the respondent no.13 whereby the same being a professional oncologist
+
+   practising in Bangladesh had been arrested and was released on bail. It was
+
+   further submitted the respondent no.13 to have been kidnapped by the
+
+   petitioners, physically assaulted and captivated.
+
+31. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 submitted that the
+
+   petitioner no.1 had instituted complaint cases against her and the same had
+
+   not been taken cognizance of by the CMM vide order dated 13.07.2023
+
+   passed in CS/71375/2023.
+                                         21
+
+32. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 further submitted
+
+   to have been repeatedly threatened and abused by the petitioners on the
+
+   corridor of this Court along with her junior who happened to be a practising
+
+   advocate in this Court. Against complaints registered as FIR, criminal
+
+   revisional applications have been pending before the respective Co-Ordinate
+
+   Bench of this Court.
+
+33. The petitioners were trying to frustrate the proceedings by delaying the
+
+   hearing of the same on several pretexts to the predicament of the respondent
+
+   no.13. Moreover, since the investigation had proceeded to a considerable
+
+   extent, the writ petition should not be entertained.
+
+34. The relationship between the petitioners and the respondent no.13
+
+   apparently had been cordial at the inception whereby the petitioners
+
+   accorded legal assistance to respondent no.13 to defend him in several cases
+
+   instituted against him in the Court of law, which gradually might have
+
+   evolved to be trustworthy and amicable to the extent the petitioners
+
+   accompanied the respondent no.13 to his parents' house at Tamil Nadu to
+
+   assist the respondent no.13 and his father in property related issues and its
+
+   assessment thereof. In course of time, the professional and congenial
+
+   relationship seemingly transformed into resentment and hostility.
+
+35. The petitioner no.1 subsequently on 28.04.2023 was asked to withdraw the
+
+   following cases pending before the respective Courts as stated below:-
+
+          "(i) Divorce Case 1647 of 2022 pending at 13 th ADJ, Alipore
+          (ii) Objection in Restitution Case 1535 of 2022 pending at 6 th ADJ,
+          Alipore
+                                              22
+
+             (iii) All my objection petitions and non maintainability petitions filed by
+             me in Maintenance Case 613 of 2021 pending at 6 th JM, Alipore
+             (iv) Non-maintainability petition in DV Case 561 of 2023 pending at 6 th
+             JM, Alipore"
+36. Respondent no.13 asked the petitioner no.1 through a communication dated
+
+   03.05.2023 for relieving her to take any further steps in the following legal
+
+   matters pending before the various Courts alleging the petitioner no.1 and 2,
+
+   inter alia, to have failed to maintain their professional ethics and discipline
+
+   as mentioned therein:-
+
+             "(i) 613/2021 - 6th JM, Alipore
+             (ii) 1535/2022 - 6th ADJ, Alipore
+             (iii) 1647/2022 - 13th ADJ, Alipore
+             (iv) 561/2023 - 6th JM, Alipore
+             (v) 38867/2023 - 14th Metropolitan Magistrate, Bankshall Court"
+
+37. The relationship between the disputants worsened with lapse of time and the
+
+   petitioner filed complaints against the respondent no.13 and his associates.
+
+38. Based on the complaint filed by the petitioner herein Chatterjeehat Police
+
+   Station     Case    No.23    of    2024     dated   05.02.2024    under    Sections
+
+   341/323/325/326B/354A/354B/509/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code
+
+   anticipatory bail was granted in favour of the accused therein vide order
+
+   dated 13.03.2024 passed by this Court in CRM(A) 880 of 2024.
+
+39. Based on the complaint of the petitioner herein Chatterjeehat Police Station
+
+   Case       No.78      of    2023      dated     04.05.2023       under     Sections
+
+   420/406/448/341/323/307/379/354B/376/506(2)/34 of the Indian Penal
+
+   Code had been instituted against the accused persons mentioned therein.
+                                            23
+
+40. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 submitted the
+
+   complaint filed by the respondent no.13 dated 28 th April, 2024 accused the
+
+   petitioners of abduction, extortion, physical assault, threat to murder,
+
+   defamation, confiscation of passport, ATM card and other official documents
+
+   perjury, forgery implicating in false and fabricated criminal cases to extort
+
+   money.
+
+41. Records further reveal an FIR to have been instituted by the Sathuvachari
+
+   Police Station, Vellore, on the basis of the complaint received from one Dr.
+
+   Debidas Rai who alleged that his son was missing referring to the present
+
+   petitioners to have visited his house claiming for further money to defend his
+
+   sons petitioners' case.
+
+42. The respondent no.13 who had been an accused in Chatterjeehat Police
+
+   Station       Case     No.78      of         2023   filed   under    Sections
+
+   420/406/448/341/323/379/354B/307/376/506/34 of the Indian Penal
+
+   Code was granted bail vide order dated 03.08.2023 passed by this Court in
+
+   CRM (DB) 3080 of 2023.
+
+43. The Learned Public Prosecutor had submitted the status report prepared by
+
+   the concerned Investigating Officer:-
+
+             "1. Case No. and date of registration: Chatterjeehat (Howrah Police
+             Commissionerate) PS Case No 78/2023 dt 04/05/2023
+             2. Sections of law: U/S 420/ 406/ 448/ 341/ 323/ 379/ 354B/
+             307/376/506/34 IPC.
+             3. Control order No. & Date: The case was assumed by CID W.B.
+             Vide Org No 618/CS. Dt. 06/08/24.
+                               24
+
+4. Name and rank of investigating officer: (i) SI Sudipta Kar of
+Chatterjeehat (Howrah Police Commissionerate) PS (ii) Inspector
+Swapna Ghosh O/C, POWC Cell, CID, WB.
+5. Gist of FIR: On 04/05/2023 at 17.25 hrs to the Officer In-Charge of
+Chatterjeehat PS received a written complaint from the complainant
+and perused the complaint properly. On the basis of a written
+complaint of the Victim Lady against one Deepak Shankar Ray and
+others to the effect that she was appointed as an advocate by the
+alleged person since month of December, 2021. The accused person
+was very reluctant to pay her professional fees as per norms of several
+Vakalatnamas executed by him in several cases. Till date the
+complainant owes Rs 1000000/- to the alleged person as her
+professional fees. But in spite of several reminders, he refused to pay
+her the same and threatened her with dire consequences. Thereafter
+on 29.04.2023 at around 20.30 hrs the alleged person came at the
+chamber of the complainant situated at 93 Abinash Banerjee Lane, PS-
+Chatterjeehat, Howrah and forcefully entered in to the chamber and
+committed theft in respect of some cash and mobile phone, then on
+being protest the alleged person outrage her female modesty and also
+trying to kill her by grabbing her throat. Then while the complainant
+felt down on the floor, the alleged person kicked in her lower private
+part and also forcibly inserted one of his left-hand finger at her lower
+private part. Over the complaint of the complainant Chatterjeehat PS
+Case No. 78/23 dated 04.05.2023 u/s 420/406/448/341/323/379
+3548/307/376/506/34 IPC has been started.
+6. Details of FIR named accused: (i) Deepak Shankar Ray(53yrs),
+S/O Debidas Ray of S-3, 2nd street, Sathuvachari, CMC Colony, Vellore,
+Tamil
+Nadu- 632009 and Flat No - 303, Sailagreen, 1137 Kalikapur,
+Purbalok, PS Purba Jadavpur, Kolkatta- 700099 (ii) Kanad Saha- S/O
+Lt Kunal Saha of Block - D2, Flat No - 402, Kendriya Vihar, Phase - II,
+PO- Birati, Dist North 24 Prgns, Kolkata - 700051. (iii) Debidas Ray
+                              25
+
+s/o of Lt. Nagendranath Ray of S-3, 2nd street, Sathuvachari, CMC
+Colony, Vellore, Tamil Nadu- 632009.
+7. Details of arrest: (i) Deepak Shankar Ray(53yrs), s/o Debidas Ray
+of S-3, 2nd street, Sathuvachari, CMC Colony, Vellore, Tamil Nadu-
+632009 and Flat No - 303, Sailagreen, 1137 Kalikapur, Purbalok, PS
+Purba Jadavpur, Kolkatta- 700099, was arrested on 11.07.2023 and
+forwarded before Ld. CJM, Howrah Sadar Court on 12.07.2023. (ii)
+Kanad Saha - S/O Lt Kunal Saha of Block - D2, Flat No - 402,
+Kendriya Vihar, Phase - II, PO- Birati, Dist North 24 Prgns, Kolkata -
+700051 was released on bail by Hon'ble High Court Calcutta on
+21.08.2023 and Ld. CJM, Howrah Sadar Court on 25.09.23. (iii)
+Debidas Ray s/o of Lt. Nagendranath Ray of S-3, 2nd street,
+Sathuvachari, CMC Colony, Vellore, Tamil Nadu- 632009 was granted
+anticipatory Bail by Hon'ble High Court Calcutta on 25.09.2023.
+8. Steps Taken During Investigation by the District Police:
+During investigation of the case I Sudipta Kar of Chatterjeehat PS
+visited the place of Occurrence and prepared a details index of the PO
+and prepared a rough sketch map. The IO examined the complainant
+and others available witnesses and recorded their statement U/S 161
+Cr.P.C. Medico legal examination of Victim Lady was performed by the
+Dr. Debhina Ghosal of Howrah District Hospital. He also arranged to
+record the Judicial Statement of the victim lady with the help of LSI
+Nitu Biswas of Howrah Women PS and produced the victim lady before
+the Ld Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 4th Court, Howrah, recorded her
+statement judicially U/S 164 Cr.P.C and also collected the copy of
+judicial statement from Ld Court, Howrah District.
+Previous IO collected the medico legal report along with one sealed
+envelope containing one glass tube & one glass slide containing the
+swab/ spermatozoa from Howrah District Hospital. IO sent prayer to
+ACP DD, HPC for providing the CDR of the accused person's mobile
+number which was provided by the VG to trace them out and also
+prayed for IMEI searching of the complainant's mobile phone which
+                                26
+
+was taken away by the accused from the PO. In course of
+investigation, IO seized the wearing apparels of the victim lady which
+were worn by her at the time of incident and also seized the bill of the
+alleged mobile which was taken away by the accused and one
+prescription of Dr Souvik Roy who examined the victim lady after the
+incident. In course of investigation, IO held several raids under Purba
+Jadavpur PS area & Naihati PS area to arrest the accused persons but
+no fruitful result achieved. Then IO collected the Passport details and
+prayed to the concerned authority after following all legal procedures
+for issuing Look Out Circular' against the principal accused namely
+Deepak Shankar Ray on 01.07.2023 LOC was initiated by the
+concerned authority against the accused person. On 11.07.2023
+received information that in the immigration Centre of Haridaspur
+under Petrapole PS, North 24 Pgs, said accused person was detained
+as LOC subject. IO along with force went to Haridaspur Immigration
+Centre and with the assistance of Petrapole PS police team, arrested
+the FIR named principle accused person namely Deepak Shankar Ray
+and brought him to PS and forwarded him before Ld. Court and took
+him into Police Custody for 02 days as per kind order of Ld. CJM,
+Howrah. During PC period after obtaining necessary orders from Ld.
+Court,   IO   produced   the   arrested   accused   person   before   the
+Superintendent of Howrah District Hospital for his medico legal
+examination. Dr. Chitta Ranjan Bhattacharya of Howrah District
+Hospital, has done the medico legal examination of the accused
+Deepak Shankar Ray and collected one sealed envelope containing one
+glass tube & one glass slide containing Urethral Swab/smears of said
+accused person. IO along with force and PC accused held raid to
+recover the alleged stolen articles and to arrest the other co accused
+persons, but no fruitful result was achieved. On 19.07.2023 IO sent the
+exhibits before Ld. C.JM. Howrah Sadar Court and collected CMR No.
+vide CMR No. 427/2023 dated 19.07.2023. On 31.08.2023 IO sent the
+exhibits to FSL Kolkata for examination and Expert Opinion. IO further
+                                 27
+
+contacted with the FSL authority over phone regarding the expert
+opinion but informed that the expert opinion is not ready yet. IO
+submitted Charge Sheet vide Chatterjehat PS C.S. No- 191/23 dated-
+31/10/2023 u/s 420/406/448/341/323/379/354B /307/376/506
+IPC against the Principal accused person namely Deepak Shankar Ray,
+53 yrs s/o Debidas Ray and u/s 509/506/34 IPC against the other 2
+FIR named accused persons namely (1) Kanad Saha - S/O Lt Kunal
+Saha (2) Debidas Ray s/o of Lt. Nagendranath Ray and IO also
+submitted prayer before the Ld. Court for allowing to submit
+Supplementary Charge Sheet after receiving the FSL report.
+  9. Steps Taken During Investigation by CID W.B:
+The investigation of the said case was taken up by CID W.B. as per
+order of Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta vide order CRR 1023 of
+2024, dt 08.04.2024 in compliance of the Order passed by Hon'ble
+High Court is "Quote" "Mr. Debasish Roy, learned Public Prosecutor
+appearing for the State submits that State would take up all the
+investigations for being investigated by the CID, West Bengal.
+However, it is the prerogative of the State at this stage as the de facto
+complainant has expressed her apprehension as she has complained
+to different dignitaries in respect of this Court.
+Targeting the Courts are a soft option as has been settled in several
+judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Article 219 of the
+Constitution of India states that court of law is supposed to act without
+any fear or favour. A professional having claimed herself to be a victim
+of sexual assault has raised issues not only in respect of this Court but
+also in respect of four other senior Judges of this Court. There cannot
+be any issue regarding the Court to proceed with the present case as
+the only issue which was expressed is that all the cases of
+Chatterjeehat Police Station in between the self same parties are to be
+transmitted to the CID or any Women Grievance Cell connected with
+the CID so that under the same umbrella investigation and in respect of
+different cases could be conducted.
+                                 28
+
+However, having regard to the attitude and approach of the de facto
+complainant and for preserving the sobriety of the judicial system, I
+intend to leave the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court for
+deciding the issue.
+Let the matter go out of the list and be placed before the Hon'ble Chief
+Justice for assignment.
+All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded
+from the official website of this Court.
+In respect of the said order CID WB has assumed investigation of the
+case vide Org No 618/CS. Dt. 06/08/24. I Inspector Swapna Ghosh,
+OC, POWC Cell was detailed as the Investigating officer.
+During investigation, I submitted a prayer and collected the Case
+Docket from learned CJM, Court, Howrah on 7/05/2024. I perused the
+case diary and learnt that the previous I/0 had submitted charge sheet
+with provision for submitting Supplementary Charge sheet on receipt of
+the FSL report. I submitted a prayer to FSL Kolkata vide memo no-
+79/POWC/CID WB on 14/05/2024 to hand over the FSL report and
+exhibits to me for the interest of investigation.
+On 22/05/2024 I received the exhibits and report from FSL Kolkata
+vide report no- BIO/5783/2023/3606/FSL dated 22/05/2024 and the
+opinion of the examination is "Quote" "No semen (no spermatozoon), no
+Gonococcus could be detected on the contents of the items marked A
+(vaginal swab & vaginal smears) and B (urethral swab & smears).
+"Unquote.
+Hon'ble High Court Calcutta vide order dated 08.04.2024 in CRR 1023
+OF 2024 had directed that all FIR's lodged against the complainants
+and accused persons at Chatterjeehat Police Station be investigated by
+CID, WB.
+O/C Chatterjeehat Police Station informed that along with the current
+case, there are 2 (two) more cases that have been lodged against both
+complainant and accused i.e Chatterjeehat PS case no- 23/2024
+dated-05/02/2024 u/S 341/ 323/ 325/ 326B/ 354A/ 354B/ 354/
+                                29
+
+509/ 506/34 IPC against (i) Dr. Deepak Shankar Roy s/o Dr. Debidas
+Roy (ii) Kanad Saha s/o Late Kunal Saha and (2) Chatterjeehat PS
+case no 86/2024 dated- 04/05/2024 u/s 341/363/468/420/506 IPC
+against Sanjukta Samanta w/o Romit Dutta.
+I had sent message to the complainant through Chatterjeehat PS for
+meeting her in c/w the investigation of the case, this refers to org no
+70/ POWC/CID WB dated 20/05/2024 and org no 73/ POWC/CID
+WB dated 25/05/2024 • However no response was received her till
+date. I also contacted with her over telephone and she told me that she
+don't want to meet investigation by CID, as rather she want CBI
+investigation.
+The complainant on 20/05/2024 had filed a WP (S) (Criminal) No (S)
+236/2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. But later the
+complainant withdrew her petition, this refers to Order dated
+03/06/2024 in WP (CL).
+Later, I came to learn from Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated
+1/07/2024 in c/w WPA Number 15260 of 2024 that "Quote" Let the
+case diary with the progress report of Chatterjeehat PS case no
+78/2023 be produced before this Court as because the petitioners
+apprehend arrest in c/w Chatterjeehat PS case no 86/2024.
+For the ends of justice the police is restrained from taking any coercive
+steps against the petitioner till 12th July, 2024 or until further order,
+which is earlier. "Unquote".
+Later, I came to learn from Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated
+30/07/2024 in c/w WPA Number 15260 of 2024 that "Quote"
+Petitioner No. 1 appears in-person and prays for release of the matter.
+Let this matter be released and placed before the Hon'ble the Chief
+Justice for appropriate assignment. "Unquote".
+In course of investigation, it is necessary to examine the complainant
+for which I have communicated with her over the telecommunication of
+CID West Bengal vide org no-144/ POWC dated 25/11/24.
+Reason for pending of investigation
+                                         30
+
+          Investigation is almost complete and will end in submission of
+          supplementary charge sheet.
+          The Investigation is pending as the complainant is not cooperating with
+          the investigation. During investigation several messages were sent to
+          the complainant but she did not respond. As per latest status dated
+          25/11/24 message was sent to the petitioner whose response was
+          recived by me vide Chatterjeehat PS org no - CHT/9033/24 which was
+          serviced dated 27/11/2024. Chatterjeehat PS. Received the following
+          response in writing against the above petition from the complainant
+          Quote "strongly objected to matter pending for challenging the
+          false FIR filed & counter case to harass me". Unquote.
+          This is submitted for your kind perusal."
+
+44. In compliance with the order dated 18.11.2024 of this Court, the report of
+
+   the Learned Public Prosecutor stated as follows:-
+
+             "The petitioner has initiated multiple proceedings before this Hon'ble
+          Court, asserting various grievances. Her claims are diverse, yet a
+          recurring theme is her assertion that the investigating agency has
+          failed to conduct its investigation impartially, thereby causing her
+          significant injustice. She has gone further to allege that the opposing
+          party is being supported by state machinery. According to her, the
+          advocates representing the state, acting in collusion, have sought to
+          suppress her voice and prevent her from receiving a fair hearing.
+             The petitioner's conduct has been noted on numerous occasions, and
+          there have been several instances where her matters have been
+          released by the Hon'ble Justices of this Court. In WPA 23711/2023, by
+          an order dated October 3, 2023, Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
+          observed the petitioner's belligerent demeanor and subsequently
+          released the matter. Similarly, in CRR 1023/2024, by an order dated
+          April 8, 2024, Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh reflected upon the
+          petitioner's attitude, noting her conduct as targeting the sanctity of the
+          judicial system, and consequently released the matter. This matter
+                                31
+
+was earlier released by Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh on April 4,
+2024.
+   In WPA 15260 of 2024, the petitioner herself sought the release of
+the matter before Hon'ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj, as indicated in
+the order dated July 30, 2024. Subsequently, by an order dated
+August 5, 2024, Hon'ble Justice Amrita Sinha released the same
+matter, attributing the decision to the petitioner's unruly behaviour
+during the proceedings. The petitioner has also alleged that during the
+hearing of the Sandeshkhali matter, WPA(P) 78/2024, she was
+subjected to abuse and threats by state advocates, which she claims
+were motivated by her political affiliations.
+   It is pertinent to mention herein that the aforesaid allegations have
+found place in the Special Leave Petition filed by the Writ Petitioner
+herein before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Writ Petition
+(Criminal) No 236/2024.
+   The petitioner has consistently expressed distrust in the police
+officials involved in the investigations of her matters. She alleges that
+these officials are influenced and biased, undermining her confidence
+in the fairness of the ongoing investigations.
+   Under such circumstances, I was constrained to direct the CID to
+take up the investigation of the cases filed by the instant writ petitioner
+as well as the case filed against her to ensure neutral investigation
+devoid of any blemish, as alleged by her.
+   The petitioner's allegations, demeanor, and conduct across various
+proceedings have drawn attention and have been noted by various
+benches this Hon'ble Court. These observations reflect a pattern of
+dissatisfaction on the part of the petitioner with the judicial and
+investigative processes, alongside allegations of undue influence and
+partiality.
+   It is however, necessary to bring to the notice of this Hon'ble Court
+that the Writ petitioner has consistently refrained from co operating
+with the CID to get her statement recorded or for any other purpose, as
+                                            32
+
+           required by the Investigating Agency thus rendering them incapable of
+           continuation and/or completion of the investigation of the cases
+           instituted by the instant writ petitioner.
+              This report has been prepared in pursuance to paragraph no. 5 of
+           the order dated November 18, 2024 passed by Her Ladyship Hon'ble
+           Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay."
+45. The petitioner no.1 appearing before the Court submitted her plight, agony
+
+   and helplessness being subjected to physical molestation, outrage of
+
+   modesty, theft of mobile and cash sum of Rs.65,000/- on the part of
+
+   respondent no.13 and his associates and non-payment of professional fees.
+
+   The petitioner no.1 submitted her associates. The petitioner no.1 submitted
+
+   her lawyer's chamber to have been impaired and damaged by the respondent
+
+   no.13 and his associates with continuous threat to both the petitioners and
+
+   their family members disrupting mental peace causing physical trauma and
+
+   being indignified with insinuations and ignominies. Both the petitioners
+
+   could not repose faith and trust on the investigating agencies whose actions
+
+   had been suspiciously frustrating to deliberately deprive the petitioners of
+
+   fair justice.
+
+46. The respondent no.13 filed a complaint dated 28 th April, 2024 accusing the
+
+   petitioners of abduction, extortion, physical assault, threat to murder,
+
+   defamation, confiscation of passport, ATM card and other official documents,
+
+   perjury, forgery implicating in false and fabricated criminal cases to extort
+
+   money etc. which had been serious allegations.
+
+47. The serious allegations by the petitioners the counter allegations resulting in
+
+   the institution of the aforementioned criminal cases being registered through
+
+   formal FIRs had been challenged through filing of Criminal Revisional
+                                              33
+
+   Applications pending before the co-ordinate bench of this Court for quashing
+
+   of the proceedings/FIRs being Nos. Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.86
+
+   of 2024 and No.78 of 2023.
+
+48. The allegations of the petitioner no.1 are indubitably grave and deprecated in
+
+   nature which can only be tested in terms of its veracity through trial to
+
+   inculpate the perpetrator. Contrarily the allegations of the respondent no.13
+
+   whether to have been genuine or a counterblast to the allegations of the
+
+   petitioners cannot be decided unless the investigation of the respective cases
+
+   are concluded and the process of trial being conducted by the court of
+
+   competent    jurisdiction   to   arrive    at   a   conclusive   determination   for
+
+   incrimination or exculpation.
+
+49. A web-search on the query as to who decides to provide security to private
+
+   individual in India and on what ground, the following answer has been
+
+   received by this Court:-
+
+
+           "The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), on the recommendation of
+           intelligence agencies, decides to provide security to private individuals
+           in India, based on perceived threats to life or injury from groups or
+           terrorists. While government officials typically receive security based
+           on their position, a call on security for private citizens is made by the
+           MHA using information from bodies like the Intelligence Bureau (IB)
+           and Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW). The Central Reserve Police
+           Force (CRPF) and other forces then provide this security.
+           The Process
+
+             1) Intelligence Gathering: Intelligence Agencies like the IB and R&AW
+                monitor potential threats and gather information from various
+                                           34
+
+               sources, including phone intercepts, human intelligence, and
+               threat analysis.
+             2) Threat   Assessment:      These   agencies   provide   a   subjective
+               assessment of the threat to an individual's life or safety from
+               potential attackers like terrorists or other groups.
+             3) Decision by the MHA: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) reviews
+               the intelligence inputs and decides whether a private individual
+               requires security cover.
+             4) Deployment of Forces: If security is granted, a central agency,
+               often the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), is tasked with
+               providing the security.
+50. The petitioners herein despite the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench of this
+
+   Court in WPA 23711 of 2023 and the Hon'ble Division Bench in MAT 831 of
+
+   2024 presiding over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court at Calcutta,
+
+   having directed to file complaints at the concerned police station for being
+
+   threatened as claimed by the petitioners reiterated by this Court during
+
+   consecutive hearings failed to provide the copy of the complaint or the G.D.
+
+   Entry number concerning such complaints claimed to have been lodged by
+
+   the petitioners.
+
+51. Considering the role of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the submissions of
+
+   the Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.1 and 2 Union of
+
+   India, the prayer of the petitioner for providing personal security on the
+
+   ground of their perception cannot be allowed. The petitioners could not
+
+   establish a case serious and strong enough to be granted protection as
+
+   sought for which otherwise had to be decided by the Ministry of Home Affairs
+
+   on the basis of imminent and persistent threat. The petitioners could not
+
+   justify inaction on the part of the police administration or the investigating
+                                           35
+
+   agency, however, claimed the same to be biased and revengetic in its attitude
+
+   towards the petitioners primarily petitioner no.1 for her active role against
+
+   the State administration defending injustice to women's rights concerning an
+
+   unfortunate event at Sandeshkhali through a Public Interest Litigation.
+
+52. The status report of the Learned Public Prosecutor as aforesaid explaining
+
+   the course of investigation did not endorse police inaction.
+
+53. Vide Order dated 08.07.2024, the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in WPA
+
+   15260 of 2024 observed as follows:-
+
+             "As per the request of the petitioners, the live streaming has been
+          paused.
+             Learned advocate representing the State respondents submits, upon
+          instruction that, the petitioners are not cooperating with the police in
+          the process of investigation.
+             From the documents handed over by the learned advocate
+          representing the State respondents it appears that, after protection
+          was granted to the petitioners vide the order passed by this Court on
+          1st July, 2024, no notice was served upon the petitioners directing their
+          appearance for investigation.
+             The respondents are directed to proceed with the investigation but
+          not take any coercive steps against the petitioners without the leave of
+          the Court.
+             The petitioners and all other parties are directed to cooperate with
+          the police for the sake of investigation.
+             List on 12th August, 2024.
+             Liberty to mention.
+             Report dated 08.07.2024 be kept with the records."
+54. The petitioners despite an order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this
+
+   Court to co-operate in the investigation refrained from participating in the
+
+   investigation as claimed by the Learned Advocate representing the State
+                                          36
+
+   respondents suspecting the Investigating Officers and accusing them of
+
+   arbitrary, biasedness being capricious and revengeful. The Co-Ordinate
+
+   Bench of this Court directed the investigating agency not to take any
+
+   coercive steps against the petitioners. Despite such an order, the petitioners
+
+   denied to co-operate with the investigating agency as had been stated in the
+
+   report filed by the Learned Public Prosecutor as aforesaid.
+
+55. The Learned Public Prosecutor on an explanation sought by this Court for
+
+   transferring the case of investigation to the CID, West Bengal anxiously
+
+   stated for the purpose of an impartial and unbiased investigation, the same
+
+   had been entrusted to the CID, West Bengal conforming to the police
+
+   regulations stated as follows:-
+
+          "II.- Control and assistance in enquiries and investigations.
+          ....
+

618. Method of assuming control. +

(a) The Deputy Inspector-General, Criminal Investigation. Department, + may assume control 0f an enquiry or investigation at any stage. On + assuming control he shall inform the Deputy Inspector-General of the + Range forthwith, sending a copy 0f his intimation direct to the + Superintendent Or Superintendents concerned. +
(b) In excise cases in which the investigation must extend to more than + one district, or in which there are intricacies which cannot be dealt with + without the aid of a specially skilled detective, the services of an officer + of the Criminal Investigation Department, shall be requisitioned by the + Commissioner of Excise. In emergencies such requisition may also be + made by an officer of lower rank. The Deputy Inspector-General, + Criminal Investigation Department, shall, if he thinks fit and if he has + an officer available, depute one and also decide whether the officer + deputed shall be placed at the disposal of the Commissioner of Excise + 37 + + or whether the control of the enquiry shall be taken over by the + Criminal Investigation Department." +

56. It was further submitted several Judges of this Hon'ble High Court had been + + accused along with the police officers and the Learned Public Prosecutor + + himself which compelled him to transfer the responsibilities of conducting + + investigation on the CID, State of West Bengal without any other alternative + + or option being third party to conduct the investigation independently + + without the involvement of the police officers of the concerned police station + + against whose conduct several objections had been raised by the petitioners. + +

57. The status report filed by the Learned Public Prosecutor as aforesaid did not + + reveal police inaction to the detriment of the petitioners' interest. The + + petitioners had filed a transfer petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + + India being Transfer Petitions Criminal No.701/702 of 2024 being Sanjukta + + Samanta vs. the State of West Bengal and Ors. etc. whereby the petitioners + + appeared in person. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated + + 02.09.2024 observed: "No case for transfer is made out. The transfer petitions + + are dismissed." +

+

58. The petitioners, therefore, cannot refuse to participate in the investigation + + violating the order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court on + + 08.07.2024 in WPA 15260 of 2024. Both the parties have filed criminal + + revisional applications before the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court, the + + criminal revisional applications being CRR 1023 of 2024 and CRR 3203 of + + 2023. The petitioners as well as the respondent no.13 have availed the + + jurisdiction to redress their grievances in an alternative form under Section + + 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner no.1 being a + 38 + + complainant in connection with Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.78 of + + 2023 filed under Sections + + 420/406/448/341/323/379/354B/307/376/506/34 sought for stay of the + + investigation in the said case further seeking the investigation to be + + conducted by the State respondent no.4 whose actions had been challenged + + by the petitioners to be against her interest intending to deprive her of fair + + trial and natural justice. +

+

59. In the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajanlal and Others 1, + + the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- +

+
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant + provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law + enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise + of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers + under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and + reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of + illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent + abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of + justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly + defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid + formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases + wherein such power should be exercised. +
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the + complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in + their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a + case against the accused. +
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other + materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable + offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section + + 1 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 + 39 + + 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the + purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. +

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint + and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the + commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. + (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable + offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is + permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as + contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. +

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd + and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can + ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for + proceeding against the accused. +

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the + provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal + proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the + proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or + the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the + aggrieved party. +

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide + and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior + motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite + him due to private and personal grudge." +

60. Since the contents of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet claimed to have + + been filed by the investigating agency as per the report filed by the Learned + + Public Prosecutor in Case No.78 of 2023 and the complaint as well as the + + FIR in Case No.86 of 2024 to have revealed allegations of cognizable offences + + in both the aforesaid cases, this Court is not inclined to stay the further + + proceedings in the aforesaid cases. +

40

+ +

61. The petitioners being young, responsible and bright advocates practising in + + this Hon'ble Court as well as in the Supreme Court, out of shock and + + displeasure probably by the turn of events cannot trust the investigating + + agencies at the moment perhaps due to mental agony. One has to confide in + + the prevailing justice delivery system to attain a finality to a dispute which + + definitely can be assailed at a Higher Forum statutorily. The petitioners did + + not appear before this Court on the dates fixed for hearing as reflected in the + + order-sheets of the instant writ petition and the case was reserved for + + judgment on 17.02.2025. Subsequently the petitioners filed several CAN + + applications in the Court and directly addressed the same in the name of the + + presiding judge of this Court as would be evident from the postal envelopes + + on record. Considering the context of the CAN applications, this Court + + thought it prudent to grant a further opportunity to the petitioners to + + address this Court for a final hearing and recalled the order dated + + 17.02.2025 on 16.05.2025, fixing the next date of hearing on 11.07.2025. + + The petitioner no.2 appeared online only to contradict the court proceedings + + without submissions on merits. Finally on 11.07.2025 the instant writ + + petition was reserved for pronouncing judgment. +

+

62. The contention of the petitioner no.1 to have been a victim of rape and her + + name and presence to be masked is contrary to the cause title of the instant + + writ petition where the name of the petitioner no.1 had been mentioned by + + herself conspicuously claiming the relief sought for revealing her identity for + + quashing of the aforesaid Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.86 of 2024 + + dated 04.05.2024 under Sections 341/365/468/420/506/34 of the Indian + 41 + + Penal Code. The petitioner no.1 appeared before the Hon'ble Supreme Court + + in person to move the Transfer Petition as aforesaid without seeking her + + presence to be masked as the same would not transpire from the order of the + + Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioners did not appear before the Court on + + the dates fixed for hearing and subsequently could not blame this Court for + + not granting them an opportunity of hearing. This Court did hear the + + submissions of the petitioners on earlier dates and recorded the same in the + + order-sheets as well as in the instant judgment. +

+

63. Moreover, the petitioners as well as the respondent no.13 have already + + sought for relief of quashing the proceedings of the criminal cases instituted + + against each other under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as + + stated above before the Co-Ordinate Benches of this Court. The allegations + + and counter-allegations in the complaints do not reveal the same to be prima + + facie frivolous which are in the facts and circumstances of the case serious + + in nature with grave implications and ramifications. + +

64. The Writ Court can quash the criminal proceedings if the same has been + + frivolously instituted, however, in the instant case, the gamut of allegations + + and counter-allegations are complex in terms of severity necessitating to + + unravel the authenticity and credibility of the same which in the facts and + + circumstances of the instant writ petition shall be subjected to the process of + + trial by the competent Court. +

+

65. In view of the above discussions, the instant writ petition being WPA + + No.15260 of 2024 along with its connected CAN applications stand + + dismissed. +

42

+ +

66. There is no order as to costs. +

+

67. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on + + priority basis on compliance of all formalities. +

+

+

(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.) +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_1948814.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_1948814.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6bdc9457dcf28740ae2dea31e1baf1a8efa21657 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_1948814.html @@ -0,0 +1,370 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Chandra Pal Singh Choudhary vs Vijit Singh And Anr on 3 March, 2009 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

5. Since the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC and Section 134/187 of Motor Vehicle Act were bailable. The Investigating Officer released the respondent Vijit Singh on bail on furnishing bail bonds on 16 December, 2008 itself. The offence under Section 304 of IPC being of grave nature and non-bailable, the revisionists applied for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, who dismissed the same on 9 January, 2009. The revisionist felt aggrieved with this impugned orders and hence these revisions. +

+
+ +
+

34. Similarly, in Utsav Bhasin's case, the accused approached Delhi High Court for grant of anticipatory bail. In this case initially, the case was registered under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC but after the death of one of the victims namely Anuj, Section 304-A of IPC was added. Subsequently, under the media pressure Section 304 of IPC was also added to the FIR. Delhi High Court did not given any finding in this case as to whether the facts of the case constituted an offence under Section 304 or Section 304-A of IPC but considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, refused to grant anticipatory bail and rejected the petition. It is very interesting to note that in both the cases of Sanjiv Nanda VS. State ('BMW Accident Case') and Utsav Bhasin, the case was initially registered in the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC and thereafter under media pressure Section 304 of IPC was also added. To my utter surprise in both the cases the police investigated for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 304-A and 304 of IPC. In the instant case also the police has observed in the case diary on 21st December, 2008 that from the statements of the witnesses, site-plan and the F.S.L. Report relating to the blood and urine sample of respondent Vijit Singh and all the evidence collected so far, the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304 of IPC and 134/187, 185 of M.V. Act are established. +

+
+ +
+
(Emphasis supplied) +

40. At the time of hearing arguments, this Court expressed that at this stage, the Court shall not give any observation or finding to the effect as to whether the facts of the case do constitute an offence under Section 304 of IPC or not but after peeping into the case diary, the manner in which the investigation of the offence under Section 304-A of IPC has been converted into the offence under Section 304 of IPC, it has compelled me to ruminate as to whether the investigation of the case conducted by the Police is going in a right direction? Usually, the Courts do not interfere in the investigation of a case conducted by Police but the state has created circumstances before me by way of making a prayer that the bail granted by the Police for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC should be cancelled as the offence of Section 304-A of IPC has been converted into Section 304 of IPC which is not bailable. This is the prayer of the revisionists which has led me to make above observations. +

+
+ +
+

53. In the ultimate analysis, nowt has been brought to my notice either from which any inference may possibly be drawn that the respondent has in any manner, whatsoever, abused the concession of bail during intervening period. The impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge is cogent and well merited. It does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. I am in unison with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge and in my view, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Memorizing the facts and law discussed as above, I do not find any strong ground to cancel the bail already granted to the respondent merely on the ground that the offence of Section 304-A of IPC has been converted into Section 304 of IPC which is non-bailable. The bail already granted to the respondent cannot be directed to be cancelled. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_195743245.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_195743245.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e4a5d8e1bf85525fa4e79e5d635b00aa2edf0b61 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_195743245.html @@ -0,0 +1,369 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Kavitha Velmurugan vs The Secretary To Government Of Tamil ... on 21 June, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

7.Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Detaining Authority had failed to appreciate that the Detenu had not obtained or moved any bail in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th adverse cases and that apart, the bail petition moved and granted in the 1st and 2nd adverse cases were not identical with the ground case in Crime No.458 of 2017 in which the Detenu was arrested on 14.11.2017. +

+

8.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that the ground case in Crime No.458 of 2017 relates to an offence under Section 395 r/w 397 I.P.C. on the file of the Namagiripettai Police Station. But the bail granted in the 1st adverse case pertains to the offence under Sections 341, 392, 397, 427 and 506(ii) I.P.C. However, these aspects were not considered by the 2nd Respondent/Detaining Authority and however, a mechanical order of detention was passed. Added further, the 2nd Respondent/Detaining Authority, by mentioning a bail granted by this Court on 01.06.2017 in Crl.O.P.No.9421 of 2017 (Crime No.66/2017), had passed the detention order without perusing any material. +

+
+ +
+ +

50.In so far as the aspect of the 2nd Respondent/Detaining Authority mentioning in the grounds of detention order dated 18.12.2017 at paragraph 3, inter alia, to the effect that '... He has not filed bail application so far. Even though he is not filing bail applications, his relatives takes steps to file bail application before the appropriate court. In a similar case registered at Elachipalayam Police Station Cr.No.66/2017, u/s.394 r/w 397 IPC bail was granted to the accused in Crl.No.9421 on 01.06.2017 by the High Court Madras. Hence, there is a real possibility of Thiru.Mungiladi Prabhu @ Prabhu coming out on bail in this case also. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Peace. Further the recourse to normal Criminal law will not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Peace', it is to be pointed out that in the instant case, according to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the detenu had not filed any bail application and his relatives had not taken steps to file bail application before the appropriate Court. Further that, the reference to Crime No.66/2017 on the file of Elachipalayam Police Station under Section 394 read with 397 I.P.C. wherein bail was granted to the accused therein by this Court, is not a similar case, because of the reason that the accused in that case is different [other than the Detenu]. As such, to say that there is a real possibility of Thiru Mungiladi Prabhu @ Prabhu coming out on bail in this case also, as mentioned by the Detaining Authority in the detention order is legally untenable one, in the absence of any cogent materials in this regard. In short, the the apprehension/observation of the Detaining Authority that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in this case also in the absence of any material and also when the detenu had not filed any bail application and these would constitute non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority, which necessarily vitiates the order of detention dated 18.12.2017. +

+
+ +
+ +

52.Be that as it may, in view of the fact that in respect of the ground case in Crime No.458/2017 under Section 395 read with 397 I.P.C., no bail application admittedly was filed on behalf of the detenu and in the absence of tangible materials to show before this Court that even though the detenu is not filing bail applications, his relatives takes place to file bail application before the appropriate Court, there is absence of subjective satisfaction about the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and in this regard, there is lack of subjective satisfaction by the Detaining Authority at the time of passing the detention order dated 18.12.2017 and on this score, this Court sets aside the detention order dated 18.12.2017 to prevent an aberration of Justice and to promote substantial cause of Justice. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_195838831.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_195838831.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..58bd5af21ab0d8eea0336ae142faaf8a62945e5a --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_195838831.html @@ -0,0 +1,385 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Kaushal Prasad & Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 January, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
1) and Laxmi Bai (PW-2) have made omnibus statements +that Shyam Lal had assaulted the deceased by lathi. But, +other eye witness Ram Gopal (PW-6) and Raj Kali (PW-8) +denied this fact and deposed that only Kaushal had + +Cr.A.No.449/2006 Kaushal Prasad and + Others Vs. State of + M.P. + +beaten the deceased, this creates the doubt on +involvement of Shyam Lal in commission of crime. +

Therefore, it is not proved beyond doubt that appellant +Shyam Lal was present on the spot and he had also +caused injuries to deceased Ram Lal or Laxmi Bai. The +trial Court has committed error in convicting Shyam Lal +for commission of offence under Sections 148, 323/149 +and 302/149 of IPC. His bail bond stands discharged. +

+
+ +
+ +

30. The case of Brij Bhan is also similar to Shyam Lal. +Jhingai (PW-1) deposed that Brij Bhan had assaulted +Laxmi Bai by lathi but Laxmi Bai does not say so and +deposed that only Ram Lal had beaten her. Therefore, +we cannot believe the statement of Jhingai in this regard. +It is not proved that Brij Bhan had assaulted Laxmi Bai. +The trial Court has committed error in convicting Brij +Bhan for commission of offence under Sections 148, +323/149 and 302/149 of IPC. His bail bond stands +discharged. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_19630861.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_19630861.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..835f47a753d0d63e245b17e4583de479292b877a --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_19630861.html @@ -0,0 +1,376 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sriharsha vs State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted of the charge + +for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section + +34 of IPC. +
+

Bail bonds of accused Nos.1 and 3 and their sureties shall + +stand discharged. +

+

Accused No.2 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if his + +detention is not required in any other cases. + +

The fine amount deposited, if any, by accused Nos.1 to 3 + +shall be refunded to them. +

+

Rest of the judgment and order of the trial Court is + +maintained. +

- 41 - +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_196646518.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_196646518.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d298c859b4eb4b0af0d1a2894274f11ee672c25b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_196646518.html @@ -0,0 +1,389 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Pushpendra Singh vs State Of U.P. on 28 October, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
ii) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 39394 of 2020, Case Crime No. 361 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
iii) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 41587 of 2020, Case Crime No. 586 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
iv) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 41588 of 2020, Case Crime No. 353 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
+ +
+ +
v) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 46289 of 2020, Case Crime No. 410 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
vi) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 46295 of 2020, Case Crime No. 386 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
vii) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 5326 of 2021, Case Crime No. 369 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
+ +
+ +
viii) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 5339 of 2021, Case Crime No. 440 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 506, 120-B IPC, 58-B (4A) of RBI Act, 1934 and 58-A of Company Act, 1956, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
ix) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 5354 of 2021, Case Crime No. 372 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
x) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 5370 of 2021, Case Crime No. 602 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
+ +
+ +
xi) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 6581 of 2021, Case Crime No. 370 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
xii) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 6585 of 2021, Case Crime No. 371 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
xiii) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 6588 of 2021, Case Crime No. 368 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_197462005.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_197462005.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8b02fd4d839e6bfe3367d7ca36e9086dc1a3834d --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_197462005.html @@ -0,0 +1,361 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Vijayaprabhu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 August, 2014 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the detenu has been in remand in the ground case in Cr.No.448/2013 registered by the Central Crime Branch and the bail application filed by the detenu in the said case before the learned Special Judge for Land Grabbing Cases  I, Chennai, in Crl.MP.No.279/2013 was pending as on the date of the passing of the detention order. Further, the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is very likely of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case by relying upon a similar case, registered by the R7 K K Nagar Police Station, in Cr.No.642/2013 u/s 465, 467, 468, 471 & 420 IPC, wherein the accused was granted bail by the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidpaet, Chenaii in Crl.M.P.No.1102/2013. But, the offences of the said similar case are not that of the offences in the ground case. The learned counsel would add that admittedly, in this case, the bail application filed by the detenu in the ground case was pending and he is in remand in the said case. When a bail application is pending, there is no presumption that he would come out on bail. No cogent materials are available before the Detaining Authority to conclude / to apprehend that the detenu is likely to get bail in the ground case and there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said case. The apprehension entertained in the mind of the detaining authority that there is a real possibility of detenu coming out on bail as the bail application in the ground case is pending is not justifiable for the reason that he has pre-judged the matter. Concedingly he could not foresee the nature of the order that would be passed by the Court. By the reason of pendency of the application, one could not easily come to the conclusion that the Court would certainly grant bail to the accused. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non-application of mind and the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority that is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case is a mere ipse dixit without any cogent materials. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [a] 2006 [1] MLJ [Crl.] 539, [T.V.SARAVANAN @ S.A.R.PRASANNA VENKATACHARIAR CHATURVEDI V. STATE OF TAMILNADU THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER] ; [b]2005 [1] CTC 577 [VELMURUGAN @ VELU Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE] ; [c] 2012 [7] SCC 181 [HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGH VS. STATE OF GanesanPUR] and [d] 2008 [3] MLJ (Crl.) 144 [S.ANDAL VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MADURAI DISTRICT, MADURAI AND ANOTHER]. +

+
+ +
+
"4.I am aware that Thiru Dhanabalakrishnan is in remand in Central Crime Branch Crime No.448/2013 and he has moved a bail application for Central Crime Branch Cr.No.448/2013 before the Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases  I, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.279/2013 and the same is pending. For a similar offence registered at R7 K K Nagar Police Station, Cr.No.642/2013 u/s 465, 467, 468, 471 & 420 IPC bail was granted by the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet in Crl.M.P.No.1102/2013. Hence, I infer that it it very likely of his coming out of bail in Central Crime Branch Cr.No.448/2013 since in similarly placed cases, bails are granted by the courts after a lapse of time. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.......................  + +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_197567896.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_197567896.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3d704e7d81b38b3db8f415b9089168a7472adbfd --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_197567896.html @@ -0,0 +1,375 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Abhai Nath Chaubey vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 December, 2019 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

30. In Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. (2014)16 SCC 508, this Court had granted bail to accused for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 394, 411, 454, 506, 120B and 34 IPC on the ground of parity as another accused Ashok was already enlarged on bail. The wife of deceased filed appeal for setting aside order of bail granted by this Court. Court considered various earlier authorities and said in para 13 of judgment as under : +

+
"...It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail and have not been taken note of bail or it is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the Court does not dwell upon the violation of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the Court." +
+
+ +
+ +

31. Thereafter, referring to 15 cases registered again accused showing that he was a history-sheeter and mostly under Section 302 IPC, order of bail was set aside. Court observed that there has to be a balance between personal liberty of an individual and peace and harmony of Society. No individual interest can be allowed to create a concavity in the stem of social stream otherwise it would bring chaos and anarchy in the Society. Relevant observations made in this regard are reproduced as under : +

+
+ +
+ +

36. In X vs. The State of Telangana and Ors. (2018)16 SCC 511, accused, a Film Producer, based in Mumbai, was charged of offences under Sections 376, 342, 493, 506, 354(C) of IPC. Accused got anticipatory bail from Sessions Judge on 13.01.2017 and had advantage of that order for about eight months. The said order was cancelled by Sessions Judge on the ground that accused has not disclosed that he was also accused in 2G Spectrum case. This cancellation order was affirmed by High Court and also by Supreme Court. Thereafter accused moved a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by High Court and accused was released on bail. This order was challenged in appeal before Supreme Court. Upholding the said order, Court said that bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case, based on supervening event has been made out. +

+
+ +
+ +

37. In Seema Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. (2018) 16 SCC 10 bail granted to accused by High Court in the case registered under Sections 498-A, 302, 120-B IPC was challenged in appeal before Supreme Court. Court noticed that accused-2's bail application was rejected by Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ghaziabad and thereafter bail was granted by High Court. Court said that gravity of offence is a relevant factor but not the sole ground to deny bail if there are other overwhelming circumstances justifying grant of bail. Noticing special feature, Court upheld order of High Court granting bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_198180024.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_198180024.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7241e50c84c0df7d7838305b9e4604b256affca4 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_198180024.html @@ -0,0 +1,429 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Arvind Singh @ Sanju vs Amod Kumar Sonakiya on 21 August, 2014 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Considering such prayer IA No.28061/2013 is dismissed as +withdrawn and not pressed. +

+
       (U. C. Maheshwari)                   (Subhash Kakade)
+              Judge                               Judge
+k
+                               Cr. A. No.711/10.
+25.7.2014.
+

Shri Pranay Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Brahmdatt, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. + Heard on I. A. No.26903/13, appellant's application for +suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail, as he has +been convicted under Section 302 of IPC for life imprisonment with +fine of Rs.1,000/-. +

+
+ +
+

After making his presence on the record he is directed to +appear before the Registry of this Court firstly on 8.12.2014 and also +on such other dates as are fixed by the office in this regard till +disposal of this appeal. +

+

(U. C. Maheshwari) + Judge +k + Cr. A. No.1395/2014. +

06.08.2014. +

Shri A. L. Patel learned counsel for the the appellant. + Shri Umesh Pandey, learned G. A. for the respondent/State. + Heard on IA No.11820/2014, appellant's application for +suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail, as he has +been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and 25 (1-B) (B) of Arms +Act RI for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and RI for three +years with fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively. +

+
+ +
+

Shri Rajnish Pandey, learned counsel for the the appellants. + Shri C. K. Mishra, learned G. A. for the respondent/State. + Heard on I. A. No.9213/14, an application filed on behalf of +appellant No.2, Mallo Bai, for suspension of her remaining jail +sentence and grant of bail, as she has been convicted under Section +201 of IPC, RI for three years with fine of Rs.1,000/-. +

As per available record as stated in para 46 of the impugned +judgment she is in jail since 9.11.2012. +

Having heard keeping in view the arguments advanced, after +perusing the record of the trial court, taking into consideration the +nature of evidence in respect of this appellant, so also short term +sentence along with the circumstance that she has already suffered +near about one year and ten months out of the awarded sentence, +without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, I. A. is +allowed and subject to verification of depositing the fine amount, her +remaining jail sentence is hereby suspended. +

+
+ +
+

This petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for +grant of bail to the applicant, as he is in custody since 12.2.2014 in +connection with Crime No.710/2013, registered at Police Station +Madhav Nagar, Katni for the offence punishable under Section 302, +120-B and 201/34 of IPC. +

Senior counsel of the applicant after taking me through the +papers of the charge sheet argued that entire case of the prosecution +is based on circumstantial evidence but the case as projected by the +prosecution agency is not establishing the complete chain to connect +the applicant with the offence. He further said that mere on account +of memorandum of the applicant himself recorded under Section 27 +of Evidence Act and recovery of some articles on the basis of such +memorandum at the instance of the applicant he has been implicated +in the case. In continuation he said that in the available +circumstances prima-facie the ingredients of the offence of Section +302 of IPC is not made out and prayed for extending the benefit of +bail by allowing this petition. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_198436308.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_198436308.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7bf78155bf817d765602d6a1d28ac1ab53cb2a15 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_198436308.html @@ -0,0 +1,375 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Umesh Kumar Gautam Alias Gabbar vs State Of U.P. on 21 October, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. +
+
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant has no motive to cause this incident. It is further submitted that wife of deceased Nandini had been examined as PW-1 on 20.03.2023 and she had not supported prosecution case with regard to Om Prakash Pal and stated that there was money transaction with Umesh Kumar Gautam @ Gabbar. It is also submitted that her husband had not told the name of Om Prakash Pal. PW-1 had been declared hostile. It is also submitted that co-accused Anand Pal had been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21641/2023 on 29.05.2023. Initially case was registered under Section 307 I.P.C. and later it was converted in 302 I.P.C. Applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. There is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witness. Applicant is in custody since 28.07.2022. +
+
+ +
+ +
7. Learned counsel for applicant contends that co-accused Om Prakash Pal had already been enlarged on bail by this coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.06.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23130 of 2023 (Om Prakash Pal Vs. State of U.P.) for ready reference the order dated 06.06.2023 is reproduced here-in-above :- +
+
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. +
+
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant has no motive to cause this incident. It is further submitted that wife of deceased Nandini had been examined as PW-1 on 20.03.2023 and she had not supported prosecution case with regard to Om Prakash Pal and stated that there was money transaction with Umesh Kumar Gautam @ Gabbar. It is also submitted that her husband had not told the name of Om Prakash Pal. PW-1 had been declared hostile. It is also submitted that co-accused Anand Pal had been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21641/2023 on 29.05.2023. Initially case was registered under Section 307 I.P.C. and later it was converted in 302 I.P.C. Applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. There is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witness. Applicant is in custody since 28.07.2022. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_199447231.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_199447231.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..374e9ed1b46f0daad86b4c558ed91fd9ba772b3b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_199447231.html @@ -0,0 +1,376 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sirat Sood vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 22 October, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

Resultantly, present petition is allowed. Judgment dated 25.5.2018 + + + + + passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in + + + + + + Cr. Appeal No. 03 of 2018 is quashed and set aside. Accused is + + acquitted of the offences punishable under Ss. 337 and 338 IPC. +

+

Bail bonds, if any, furnished by him are discharged. Fine amount, + + if any, paid by him, is ordered to be refunded to him. +

+

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. Interim + + directions, if any, are vacated. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_20434271.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_20434271.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7dca4c495ea2a6f86ed4d52ec55c1b4560e94f5a --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_20434271.html @@ -0,0 +1,421 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Parveen Alias Dada vs Union Of India And Others on 20 December, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

18.04.2022 u/s 384, accomplice in this case of acquitted by the Court + 506 IPC, PS Rohtak extortion and criminal of Smt. Deepti, CJM + City. intimidation to a property Rohtak on + dealer. 04.12.2023. +

17 FIR No.459 dated When the complainant in Petitioner was + 01.07.2022 u/s 307, FIR No.264 dated arrested and granted + 34 IPC & 25 Arms 18.04.2022, PS Rohtak bail by the Court of + + + + 5 of 24 + + Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:171783-DB + + +CWP-18054-2024 (O&M) -6- + + + + Act, PS City, Rohtak. City, u/s 384, 506 IPC did Sh. Rakesh Kumar + not give the extortion Yadav, Sessions + amount, two masked men Judge, Rohtak on + came to his house on a 01.11.2022 and the + motorbike and incessantly case is adjourned for + fired at him. 15.01.2025. +

+
+ +
+ +

+18 FIR No.7 dated On 04.01.2023, when the Petitioner was + 04.01.2023 u/s 148, complainant was present arrested and granted + 149, 323, 506 IPC on his plot, petitioner bail by the Court of + PS IMT, Rohtak. came there along with his Smt. Deepti, CJM, + associates and beat him Rohtak on + and threatened him to kill. 30.11.2023 and next + date 17.02.2025 is + fixed for hearing. +

+
+ +
+ +

+

14. Whereas the remaining offences, where trial is pending, are as + +follows: - +

+
Sr. FIR No. & details Brief case summary Arrest Status +No. +1 FIR No.55 dated Petitioner and co-accused Petitioner was + 08.03.2023 u/s 148, Rahul along with 20-25 arrested and granted + 149, 307, 506, 120B other people fired multiple bail by the Court. +

IPC & Sec 25 & 27 bullets upon complainant Next date is + Arms Act, PS Bahu Ashish. 16.01.2025 fixed for + Akbarpur, Rohtak. hearing. +

+
+ +
+

34 IPC & 25 Arms 18.04.2022, PS Rohtak bail by the Court of + Act, PS City, Rohtak. City, u/s 384, 506 IPC did Sh. Rakesh Kumar + not give the extortion Yadav, Sessions + amount, two masked men Judge, Rohtak on + came to his house on a 01.11.2022 and the + motorbike and incessantly case is adjourned for + fired at him. 15.01.2025. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_20628975.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_20628975.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fdadc1435ac3405dfaa44026db6f6886558ee00e --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_20628975.html @@ -0,0 +1,367 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Arif vs State on 18 December, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. By way of the present applications, the applicants seek regular bail in +FIR No. 75/2020 dated 28th February, 2020 under Sections +302/149/147/148/436/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) +registered at Police Station Dayalpur. BAIL APPLN. 958/2022 has been filed + + + + Digitally Signed By:DINESH + KUMAR + Signing Date:18.12.2023 +BAIL APPLN. 958/2022 & connected matter + + on behalf of Arif and BAIL APPLN. 1115/2023 has been filed on behalf of +Anish Qureshi. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_209472.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_209472.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..edb58027fa5b980c45aa3717afbb97e505af12b2 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_209472.html @@ -0,0 +1,561 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Shahid Mohd. Yusuf Shaikh vs Shri M.N. Singh, Commissioner Of ... on 26 February, 2003 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

To put in other words, the only limited +ground on which the learned Counsel for the Petitioner +has challenged the detention order in this case is +that, as the Petitioner detenue was already in custody +on the date when the detention order passed, and +there was no likelihood of the Petitioner being +released on bail in the near future, especially when he +was involved in the case charged with the offence +punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code +with regard to the first incident. According to +Mr. Tripathi, there was no necessity on the part of the +Detaining Authority to issue the detention order as the +Petitioner was in custody and there was no likelihood +of his getting released on bail. Mr. Tripathi also +contended that the Detaining Authority has not applied +his mind properly to the facts and circumstances of the +case and has totally ignored the fact that the +petitioner has been charged with the offence punishable +under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The +learned Counsel Mr. Tripathi has submitted that there +was no likelihood of the Petitioner getting released +on bail in the near future, however, the Detaining +Authority without any cogent material or compelling +reasons has passed the detention order. Mr. Tripathi +also contended that the Detaining Authority (The +Commissioner of Police) while passing the detention +order did not have any cogent material before him and +inspite of the same, has passed the detention order +which is impermissible in law. +

+
+ +
+ +

17. Mr. Tripathi, the learned Counsel for the +Petitioner therefore contended that in the instant +case, in one of the incidents the Petitioner has been +charged with serious offence punishable under Section +302 of the IPC, and therefore the Detaining Authority +was fully aware that there was no likelihood of the +detenu being released on bail in the near future. +According to him the Petitioner being the person who +inflicted the injury on the neck of the deceased and +was charged with an offence punishable under Section +302 IPC, there was no likelihood of the getting released +on bail in the near future. According to Mr. Tripathi, +the Detaining Authority has mechanically passed the +detention order without clearly disclosing the reasons +justifying as to how the detenu is likely to be +released even though he was charged with the offence +punishable under Section 302 IPC. Mr. Tripathi +therefore contended that the detention order cannot be +sustained at all in law as per the principles laid +down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in the +judgments referred to hereinabove. His main +contention is that Detaining Authority has passed the +detention order without applying his mind, in the +sense, the detention order does not disclose any cogent +material on the basis of which it could be indicated +that the detenu was likely to be released on bail in +the near future. Mr. Tripathi does not dispute that in +a case where the detenu is already in custody, the +preventive order of detention can be passed, but, +according to him such a detention order can be passed +only if there is likelihood of such detenu getting +released on bail in the near future. Under the +aforesaid facts and circumstances, Mr. Tripathi contends +that this is a case wherein the Detaining Authority +has totally failed to apply his mind in the facts and +circumstances of the case, and has mechanically passed +the order of detention under Section 3(1) of the +M.P.D.A. Act, and that too without any cogent material +to form an opinion that the detenu was likely to be +released on bail in the near future. Hence, the +learned Counsel for the Petitioner prays that the +Detention Order be quashed and set aside. +

+
+ +
+ +

18. On the other hand, Mr. Pai, the learned APP +for the Respondent took us through the grounds of +detention as well as the reply filed by the Detailing +Authority. She pointed out that as far as first +incident which took place on 15th November, 2001 and +with regard to which the Petitioner has been charged +with the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, +the facts of the case would clearly indicate that the +Petitioner and his associates were primarily +interested in extorting money or at the most committing +robbery. According to her, with regard to this +incident the facts indicate that one of the +associates viz. Imran whipped out a knife and kept it +on the neck of the taxi driver and the another +associate Sudhakar caught hold of both the hands of +taxi driver from behind, and at that point of time, the +petitioner started searching his person of taxi driver +and removal cash from his pockets. After removal of +cash from the pockets of the taxi driver, the +Petitioner and his associates had got down from the +taxi and threatened the taxi driver not to move the +taxi till they all leave the place or otherwise he +would be killed. At that time, the taxi driver also +got down from the taxi and caught hold of the +Petitioner. When one of the associate of the +Petitioner viz. Sudhakar caught hold of the taxi driver +from behind, the Petitioner whipped out a knife and +gave a blow of it on the neck of taxi driver as a +result of which the taxi driver sustained a fatal +injury. When the petitioner and his associates ran +away from the place the taxi driver chased them all for +a while and then came back to the taxi and collapsed +there. The learned APP pointed out that in the +background of the case, the charge of an offence +punishable under Section 302 IPC may be difficult to +sustain. According to her, in fact the Detaining +Authority has found that there was every likelihood of +the petitioner being released on bail in the near +future though being charged with the offence punishable +under Section 302 IPC. She contended that the grounds +of detention are set out in detail and the material +which has been collected in the form of statements has +also been set out, and it is not the case wherein the +Detaining Authority has merely mentioned the case +number & the charges under the different sections of +the Indian Penal Code. She contends that from the +grounds of detention which are given in detail and +the punchanama and the FIRs before the Detaining +Authority as well as the two in-camera statements, it +is clear that the Petitioner detenu was repeatedly +indulging in the armed extortion of money from the taxi +drivers and the other traders in a particular area. +According to Mrs. Pai, based on the above material, and +taking into account all the facts and circumstances the +Detaining Authority has come to the conclusion that +with the aforesaid antecedents there was every +likelihood of the detenu being released on bail in the +near future. The learned APP stats that it is not +the case where there was no cogent material before the +Detaining Authority to come to the conclusion that +the detenu was likely to be released on bail. From the +narration as indicated in the grounds of detention, it +is clear that with the material on record the Detaining +Authority had applied his mind to the facts and +circumstances fully and had come to the conclusion +that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. +The learned APP also brought to our notice the +affidavit in reply filed by the Detaining Authority +dated 19th August, 2002 wherein in page 13 and 14 the +Detaining Authority has categorically mentioned as +under:- +

+
+ +
+ +

24. Having considered all the facts and +circumstances and the various judgments cited +hereinabove, in the instant case, the main contention +of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the +Detaining Authority has not disclosed any cogent +material to indicate as to how the detenue was likely to +be released on bail in the near future. With regard +to the above, as pointed out hereinabove, in the +grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has set +out the factual aspects as well as the statements +recorded with regard to the incident which took place +on 15.11.2001. The said narration of the facts very +clearly indicate that though the Petitioner has been +charged with the offence punishable under Section 302 +IPC, the sequence of events clearly indicate that the +detenu as well as his associates had intended only to +rob the taxi driver. It appears that when the taxi +driver got down from the taxi and caught hold of the +detenu the detenu had inflicted wound on the neck of +the taxi driver and thereafter he and his associates +started running. All these facts have been taken into +account by the Detaining Authority and prima-facie the +Detaining Authority seems to have come to the +conclusion based on the above sequence of events that +the charge under Section 302 IPC may not be sustained +and hence the Detaining Authority has observed that +there was every likelihood of the Petitioner being +released on bail in the near future. Even otherwise, +even if the accused is charged under Section 302 IPC, +it is not that such an accused would never get bail. +There is always every likelihood of such person being +released on bail. The Detaining Authority was very +much aware of the same, and accordingly, had clearly +mentioned as to how the Petitioner who was in custody +was likely to be released on bail in the near future +and would indulge in the prejudicial activities which +would be against the public order. In the instant +case, there are three cases filed against the detenu. +Over and above, there are two in-camera statements and +the modus operandi appears to be that the Petitioner +and his associates armed with knives had been +extorting money and committing robbery from the taxi +drivers and the traders in the particular area thereby +creating a situation of terror and fear in such +locality and thereby endangering the public order. As +has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the +above judgment, it is not for this Court to sit in +judgment over the sufficiency of material produced +before the Detaining Authority as to whether the detenu +was likely to be released or not. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_21246500.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_21246500.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1e6ec76c7848bca62fe474deabed29974c6bf6a2 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_21246500.html @@ -0,0 +1,404 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Pasumarthi Venkata Satyanarayana ... vs The Assistant Director, Enforcement ... on 6 May, 2021 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

12. With regard to burden or proof on the person charged as +envisaged in section 24 of the Act, the Supreme Court has held +that section 45 of the PMLA Act only speaks of the scheduled +offense in Part-A of the Schedule, whereas section 24 speaks of +the offence of money laundering, and raises a presumption +against the person prosecuted for the crime of money laundering + + + + R/CR.MA/2774/2021 JUDGMENT + + + +and such presumption has no application to the scheduled +offence mentioned in section 45 of the PMLA Act. In the present +case, the applicant is charged with scheduled offences as +defined under section 2(u) of the Act. An F.I.R is registered +for the offence under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B of the +IPC which are specified in Paragraph No.2 of Part-A. The +maximum punishment prescribed for the offences for which the +applicant is charged is seven years. The applicant has been +granted bail for the IPC offences on the condition of +depositing Rs.50,00,000/-. +

+
+ +
+ +

13. It is the case of the Enforcement Directorate that the +applicant has illegally gained the aforesaid amount of +Rs.2,70,0000/- by fallaciously inflating the numbers of +circulation of the newspapers. Prima facie, from the documents +on record, including the allegations leveled in the F.I.R. +reveal that it appears that the applicant has gained +Rs.70,00,000/-, by cheating the Government and has gained an +amount of Rs.2,00,00000/- by cheating private advertisement +agencies. It is also not disputed that no complaint has been +filed by the private agencies alleging illegal cheating against +the applicant. No private agency has come forward claiming +illegal gains by the applicant from their private contracts. +Such agencies are also not made co-accused. After the +investigation, the properties to the tune of Rs.4 Crores are +also attached. Though, the factum of release on bail in the +I.P.C. / Scheduled offence cannot be a prime consideration of +release for the offence of money laundering under the Act, the +conditions imposed in the order of bail which are not adverse +to the interest of the State cannot be ignored. The Coordinate +Bench of this Court, while granting bail to the applicant for +the offence punishable under Section 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B +of the IPC has observed in para-5(iv), (vi) thus : +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_22048.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_22048.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e5d961dc0d35b9c13bd80d8af60a3c74aa562ba0 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_22048.html @@ -0,0 +1,425 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Raj Kumar Alias Raju vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 4 March, 2005 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. In this petition under Section 482. Cr. P.C., prayer has been made by the petitioner to count the custody period undergone by him in the Jail from 21-12-1998 to 4-12-1999 (17 days less than a year) and from 26-8-2000 to 29-11-2003 (three years three months and three days) towards actual sentence undergone in the case arising out or FIR No. 14, dated 8-1-1994 registered under Sections 302. 307, 324, 447, 34 IPC, PS Sadar, Hansi, Distt. Hisar. +

+

2. The petitioner who is slated to have born on 4-4-1977 was arrested on 8-1-1994 in FIR No, 14, dated 8-1-1994 registered under Sections 302, 307, 324, 447/34, IPC, PS Sadar Hansi, Distt. Hisar and was sent to Borstal Jail on 12-1-1994. During trial he was enlarged on bail and was released on 5-3-1994. He was, however, convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years under Section 307, IPC besides RI for 3 years under Section 324/34, IPC and 3 months under Section 447, IPC, which were ordered trun concurrently vide judgment and order of the trial Court dated 12-6-1996 and 15-6-1996 respectively. The petitioner along with his co-accused filed an appeal bearing Crl. A. No. 349-DB of 1996, titled as Ram Phal v. State of Haryana in this Court. It needs mention here that after his conviction by the trial Court the petitioner was taken into custody on 12-6-1996 and he was released on bail pending appeal by this Court on 26-3-1997. +

+
+ +
+ +

3. While the petitioner was on bail referred to above, he was involved in a case under Section 392, IPC, PS Uklana, Distt. Hisar in FIR No. 78, dated 30-8-1998 and was arrested. Thereafter the petitioner was released on bail on 4-12-1999 in the FIR No. 78, dated 30-8-1998 under Section 392, IPC, referred to above. The petitioner however, was again arrested on 26-8-2000 in FIR No. 198, dated 26-8-2000 under Sections 363, 366 and 376, IPC, PS Barwala, Distt. Hisar. Vide judgment and order dated 3-10-2001 and 6-10-2001, respectively the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years under Section 376, IPC besides other substantive sentences of imprisonment for lesser offences which all were ordered to run concurrently in the above-mentioned FIR No. 198, dated 26-8-2000. The petitioner filed Crl. A. No. 82-SB of 2002, titled as Raju alias Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana, while his co-accused namely Suraj Mal, Surinder and Naresh filed Crl. A. No. 1262-SB of 2001. Both these appeals were accepted by this Court on 29-10-2003 whereby the petitioner and his co-accused were acquitted of the charges. +

+
+ +
+ +

9. According to the respondents, the petitioner has undergone actual sentence for the following period only in the case FIR No. 14, dated 8-1-1994, in which he has been convicted under Section 307, IPC :-- +

+
(See Table No. 3 on next page) + +
i) FIR No. 131 dated 16-7-1978 Released on bail on 21-10-1999 vide Ld. JMIC, + Under Section 379, IPC, PS Agroha. Hisar, Order No. 38 dated 21-10-1999. +
+
ii) FIR No. 137/98 Under Section 392, IPC, Released on bail on 21-10-1999 vide D/JMIC. +
+
+ +
+ 
    PS Agroha                                  Hisar, Order No. 37 dated 21-10-1999. 
+iii) FIR No. 240 dated 2-8- 1998                Acquitted on 18-9-1999 by the Ld. Court of ASJ.
+     Under Section 399/402, A Act PS Uchana     Jind.
+iv) FIR No. 422 dated 21-8-1998                                 -do-
+    Under Section 399/402 IPC PS Uchana
+
+v)  FIR No. 78 dated 1-8-1998                  Released on bail on 21-10-1999 vide D/JMIC,
+    Under Section 392, IPC, PS Uklana          Hisar, Order No. 40 dated 21-10-1999.
+vi) FIR No. 422 dated 18-7-1998                Released on bail 29-11-1999 vide D/JMIC, Hisar,
+      Under Section 392, IPC, PS Narnaund        Order No. 7 dated 29-11-1999.
+vii) FIR No. 230 dated 10-6- 1998               Acquitted on 6-5-1999 by the Ld. Court of ACJM,
+     Under Section 392/34, IPC, PS Civil Lines, Hisar.
+     Hisar.
+viii) FIR No. 175 dated 26-6-1998                Released on bail on 29-11-1999 vide CJM. Hisar,
+     Under Section 394. IPC, PS Narnaund        Order No. 8 dated 29-11-1999.
+ix) FIR No. 153 dated 30-7-1998                Acquitted on 22-7-1999 by the Ld. Court of ASJ,
+     Under Section 392, IPC & A. Act, PS        Bhiwani.
+     Tosham
+x) FIR No. 76/98 Under Section 395/397,       Released on bail on 4-12-1999 vide Ld. JMIC,
+   IPC and A. Act, PS City Hansi.             Hansi, Order No. 2032 dated 4-12-1999."
+
+                                         Years         Months         Days 
+                                         ______        ______         _____
+
+
+
+     6-10-2001 to 29-10-2003
+                                   ___________________________________________
+
+                                  ____________________________________________
+
+                                                     Y               M             D
+                                                     __              __            __
+i)   Under-trial period 12-1-1994 to 3-3-1994        00              01            22
+     and 12-6-1996 to 14-6-1996.
+ii)  Conviction period 15-6-1996 to 23-6-1997        01              01            23
+     and 5-6-1994 to 20-7-2004.
+                                                ________________________________________
+
+                                                _________________________________________
+     (-) Parole availed :-- 13-3-1997 to 4-4-1997                  21 days.
+
+                                                 _________________________________________
+
+ 
+
+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_22359143.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_22359143.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..746f5137a65534005dc0cb32c3113693568908a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_22359143.html @@ -0,0 +1,576 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Vinod Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 11 June, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

substance at appropriate place/store. +

+

4. On the basis of aforesaid statement recorded by + + + + + + complainant named hereinabove under Section 154 Cr.P.C., + + Police initially lodged FIR, as detailed hereinabove, under + + Sections 285, 336, 337 and 304 of IPC, against bail-petitioners + + + + + + as well as other accused namely Nilesh Patel, Sidharth Patel and + + Milan Patel, but subsequently, during investigation, after finding + + + negligence of an employee namely Harsh, which caused fire, + + Police incorporated Section 304-A of IPC and arrested Harish + + under Section 285, 336, 334, 338 and 304-A of IPC, however, he + + + + was later enlarged on bail by Police. Co-accused namely Nilesh + + + + + Patel, Sidharth Patel and Milan Patel are on interim bail, + + + + + + pursuant to order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in + + a petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., whereas, present bail + + + + + + petitioners, who at that relevant time were working as Plant Head + + and Assistant Plant Head in the Company concerned are behind + + bars. Since Challan stands filed in competent Court of law and + + nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioners, they + + + + + + + + + + have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant + + of regular bail. +

+
+ +
+ +

. +

6. While referring to the statements made by some of the + + + + + + workers, Mr. Panwar also attempted to argue that though exit + + + + + + gates were available in the Factory premises, but since those + + were found closed, workers trapped in fire were unable to leave + + the premises, as a result thereof, they received grievous injuries. +

+

Lastly, Mr. Panwar stated that as many as nine people lost their + + lives in the alleged incident and approximately 35 people received + + + injuries, on account of carelessness of the officers responsible for + + management of the Factory and as such, no illegality can be said + + to have been committed by the Police while registering case + + + + under Section 304 Part II of IPC against the bail-petitioners + + + + + because they had definite knowledge that mishandling, if any, of + + + + + + the chemical stored in the Factory premises, may cause serious + + injury to the workers as well as property of the Factory in + + + + + + question, but yet, they failed to take appropriate steps for the + + storage/handling of highly inflammable chemical. +

+
+ +
+ +

26. In a case titled as Rohit Suri (supra), this Court had + + + + + + occasion to deal with the scope of Section 304 Part II, where it + + was held as under: +

+
"9. Investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to + be recovered from the bail petitioners. It is also not in dispute + that bail petitioners are in judicial custody. There is another + aspect of the matter that at the first instance case under + Sections 286, 337, 304A of IPC and Section 9 (C) of Explosives + + + + + + + + + + Act 1884 was registered against the bail petitioners and other + persons named in the FIR, but subsequently, police after having + taken note of the fact that explosives substance was being made + in the factory without there being license deleted the aforesaid + Sections and re-registered the case against them under Sections + + + + + . +
+
+ +
+ + ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2024 20:29:59 :::CIS + -25- +

27. In the case at hand, save and except allegation of + + disorderly stacking of drums containing highly inflammable + + + + + . +

chemical, no material has been placed on record, suggestive of + + + + + + the fact that adequate steps for security and safety of the + + + + + + workers working in the Factory in question were not taken by the + + Management, rather, as per own case of the prosecution, factory + + was being run with the valid permission and adequate fire safety + + + + + + arrangements were much in place. Prima facie having taken note + + of material adduced on record by prosecution till date, this Court + + + is persuaded to agree with Mr. Kochhar that no case is made out + + under Section 304 Part II IPC, if it is so, bail petitioners are + + entitled to bail, especially when Challan stands filed in the + + + + competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered + + + + + from them. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_22443079.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_22443079.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b01d6d7dcdacc9e1f85443bbe25cfd374fde6058 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_22443079.html @@ -0,0 +1,367 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Amit Paswan vs State Of U.P. on 4 March, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
Let the applicant, Uday Verma, involved in Case Crime No. 190 of 2022, under Sections- 302, 364, 201, 34 and 120-B IPC, Police Station- Juhi, District- Kanpur Nagar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. +
+
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. +
+
(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. +
+
+ +
+ +
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
(iv) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_225531.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_225531.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..280251352cacf9188d43121eba7d072539314ba3 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_225531.html @@ -0,0 +1,363 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Prithvi Nath Mishra Son Of Baleshwar ... vs State Of U.P. [Alongwith Criminal ... on 19 October, 2005 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

33. In the result Criminal Appeal No. 1667 of 2001 Prithvi Nath Misra and Sarvajeet Yadav v. State of U.P. is hereby allowed and the appellants are acquitted from the offence under Section 147/148/302 read with 149 I.P.C. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. +

+

34. Criminal Appeal No. 1273 of 2001 Vikram Srngh and Sawaroo v. State of U.P. in respect of accused appellant Vikrama Singh is hereby allowed. He is acquitted from the offence under Sections 147/148/302 read with 149 I.P.C. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. The appeal in respect of accused appellant Sawaroo is hereby dismissed with the modification that the conviction and sentence under Section 147 I.P.C. is quashed and conviction and sentence under Section 148/302 read with 149 I.P.C. is maintained. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged, He is directed to surrender forthwith before the C.J.M. Deoria to serve out the sentences awarded to him. +

+
+ +
+ +

36. Criminal Appeal No. 2599 of 2004 in respect of accused appellants Hari Lal, Beeran Mallah, Rama Kant Singh and Nayan Singh alias Ram Narayan Singh is hereby allowed. They are acquitted from the offence under Sections 147/148/302 read with 149 I.P.C. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. The appeal in respect of appellant Jay Shree is hereby dismissed with the modification that his conviction and sentence in respect of offence under 47 I.P.C. is hereby quashed and conviction and sentence under Sections 148/302 read with 149 I.P.C. is maintained. The appeal in respect of appellant Tejoo"! alias Tej Bahadur Singh is also hereby dismissed with the modification that his conviction and sentences under Sections 147/148/302 read with 149 I.P.C. is converted into the conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. for life imprisonment. The accused appellants Jay Shree and Tejoo alias Tej Bahadur Singh are on bail Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. They are directed to surrender forthwith before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Deoria to serve out their sentences. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_22922077.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_22922077.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9e7b8aa17e9b310d6f73b99470c45f8b1a0de230 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_22922077.html @@ -0,0 +1,365 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Bhure vs State Of U.P. on 24 November, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
II. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
III. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_23097822.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_23097822.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f211bf9e32654d623614d0783a93e13ba0d3def6 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_23097822.html @@ -0,0 +1,4624 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Chhota Mahto vs The State Of Bihar on 4 September, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 55, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Patna High Court

+

Chhota Mahto vs The State Of Bihar on 4 September, 2025

+ +

Author: Mohit Kumar Shah

+ +

Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah, Shailendra Singh

+ +
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
+                      CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 131 of 2016
+
+       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-197 Year-2013 Thana- BAGAHA District- West Champaran
+     ======================================================
+1.   Sukai Mahto @ Shukai Mahto Son of Late Lalbabu Mahto, resident of
+     Village - Kotawakapardhika, P.S.- Bagaha, District - West Champaran
+
+2.   Arbind     Mahto       Son   of    Sharma      Mahto,    resident    of   Village-
+     Kotawakapardhika, P.S.- Bagaha, District - West Champaran
+
+3.   Moti Mahto @ Motilal Mahto Son of Late Jagarnath Mahto, resident of
+     Village - Kotawakapardhika, P.S.- Bagaha, District - West Champaran
+
+4.   Shambhu Mahto @ Shukul Mahto Son of Sharma Mahto, resident of Village
+     - Kotawakapardhika, P.S.- Bagaha, District - West Champaran
+                                                              ... ... Appellant/s
+
+                                           Versus
+     The State of Bihar
+                                               ... ... Respondent/s
+     ======================================================
+                               with
+                      CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 176 of 2016
+       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-197 Year-2013 Thana- BAGAHA District- West Champaran
+     ======================================================
+     Chhota Mahto S/o Late Lalbabu Mahto, resident of Village - Kapardhika, P.S.
+     - Bagaha, District - West Champaran.
+                                                                      ... ... Appellant/s
+
+                                           Versus
+
+     The State of Bihar
+                                               ... ... Respondent/s
+     ======================================================
+     Appearance:
+     (In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 131 of 2016)
+     For the Appellant/s     :         Mr. Ram Chandra Sahni, Advocate
+     For the Respondent/s    :         Ms. S.B. Verma, APP
+     (In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 176 of 2016)
+ Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025
+                                           2/88
+
+
+
+
+       For the Appellant/s      :        Mr. Ram Chandra Sahni, Advocate
+       For the Respondent/s     :        Ms. S.B. Verma, APP
+       ======================================================
+       CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
+               and
+               HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
+       CAV JUDGMENT
+       (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
+       Date: 04-09-2025
+
+                 The aforesaid appeals preferred under Section 374 (2) of
+
+         the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
+
+         the "CrPC") arise out of the same judgment of conviction and
+
+         order of sentence dated 17.12.2015 and 18.12.2015 respectively,
+
+         passed in Sessions Trial No. 267 of 2014 (arising out of Bagaha
+
+         P.S. Case No.197 of 2013), by the learned 3 rd Additional
+
+         Sessions Judge, Bagaha (hereinafter referred to as the "learned
+
+         Trial Judge"), hence these appeals have been heard together and
+
+         are being disposed off by the present common judgment and
+
+         order. By the said judgment dated 17.12.2015, the learned Trial
+
+         Judge has convicted all the appellants of the aforesaid appeals
+
+         under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred
+
+         to as the "IPC") and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the
+
+         IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
+
+         life under Section 302/149 of the IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/-
+
+         each and in default thereof, they have been further directed to
+
+         undergo simple imprisonment for six months separately. The
+ Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025
+                                           3/88
+
+
+
+
+         appellants of the aforesaid two cases have also been directed to
+
+         undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year under
+
+         Section 148 of the IPC. Both the sentences have been directed to
+
+         run concurrently.
+
+         2.      Short facts of the case are that the fardbeyan of the
+
+         informant, namely, Kishore Mahto was recorded by Jainath
+
+         Prasad, Sub-Inspector of Police, Bagaha Police Station on
+
+         11.05.2013

at 07:45 p.m. at Emergency Ward of Sub-divisional + + Hospital, Bagaha, West Champaran. The informant Kishore + + Mahto has stated in his fardbeyan that on 11.05.2013 at about + + 03:45 in the evening, his elder brother Adalat Mahto along with + + Prahlad Mahto (PW-2) and Nandu Mahto (PW-3) had gone to + + the mango orchard situated towards west of village-Kotwa + + Kapardhika for cutting branch of mango tree for making stool + + (peedha) for marriage purpose and during the course thereof, the + + appellants and others totaling ten in all had arrived there. Chhota + + Mahto was armed with farsa, Sukai Mahto and Arbind Mahto + + were armed with bhala while all others were armed with lathi + + and danda. As soon as the aforesaid accused persons had arrived + + there, Chhota Mahto started assaulting the elder brother of the + + informant with farsa with the intention of killing him, + + whereafter Prahlad Mahto and Nandu Mahto, who were cutting + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 4/88 + + + + + the branch of mango tree had tried to save themselves and + + during the course thereof, Prahlad received injury on the left + + small finger with the butt of axe. Thereafter, Prahlad Mahto and + + Nandu Mahto had fled away, fearing that they would be + + assaulted and came running to the house, however in the + + meantime the accused persons had caught hold of the elder + + brother of the informant, namely Adalat Mahto and with an + + intention to kill him, Chhota Mahto had assaulted him with + + farsa on his right arm and on the portion below elbow of the + + wrist of left hand as also on the right leg below knee, resulting + + in the deceased being cut badly. Thereafter, Arbind Mahto had + + assaulted the elder brother of the informant by bhala on his + + waist, leading to deep injury being inflicted. The informant has + + further stated in his fardbeyan that his cousin brother, who was + + along with his elder brother, had come to the house and + + informed him about the occurrence, whereafter they had gone to + + the place of occurrence where the informant saw his elder + + brother in an unconscious state, whereupon they had taken him + + to the Sub-divisional Hospital, Bagaha for treatment, from + + where he was referred for better treatment to Bettiah. The + + informant has further stated that it is his claim that the accused + + persons had assaulted his elder brother with the intention of + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 5/88 + + + + + killing him, have badly cut his hands and legs and there is little + + chance of his survival. The fardbeyan was read over to the + + informant, which he had also read and heard and after having + + understand the same as also finding the same to be correct, he + + had put his thumb impression over the same in presence of his + + nephew Pramod Mahto. +

+

3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant, + + namely Kishore Mahto, a formal FIR bearing Bagaha P.S. + + Case No. 197 of 2013 was registered for the offences under + + Sections 147/148/149/447/323/324/326/307/504/34 of the IPC + + on 11.05.2013 at 21:00 hours. Subsequently, on account of death + + of Adalat Mahto (deceased), Section 302 of the IPC was added + + by the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 13.05.2013. After + + investigation and finding the case to be true against the six + + accused persons, namely Sharma Mahto, Arbind Mahto, Parikha + + Mahto, Chhota Mahto, Sukai Mahto @ Harendra Mahto and + + Moti Mahto, the police had submitted charge-sheet dated + + 13.8.2013. Thereafter, the police had submitted another charge- + + sheet dated 31.12.2013 against Shukul Mahto @ Shambhu + + Mahto, however female members were not sent up for trial. The + + learned Trial Court had then taken cognizance of the offences + + under the aforesaid sections against all the appellants vide + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 6/88 + + + + + orders dated 09.04.2014 and 10.04.2014, whereafter the case + + was committed to the Court of Sessions by an order dated + + 10.4.2014 and was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 267 of 2014. + + After taking into consideration the charge-sheet and the + + materials collected during the course of investigation, the Ld. + + Trial Court framed charges against the aforesaid appellants, vide + + order dated 28.05.2014 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447/149, + + 323/149, 324/149, 326/149, 307/149, 302/149 and 504/149 to + + which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. + +

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined + + 14 witnesses, PW-1 Gopal Mahto, PW-2 Prahlad Mahto, PW-3 + + Nandu Mahto and PW-5 Rajendra Mahto are stated to be eye + + witnesses. The prosecution has also led the evidence of PW-4 + + Binod Mahto, PW-9 Pramod Mahto, PW-10 Jawahir Ram, PW- + + 13 Kishore Mahto (informant) and PW-14 Ram Prasad Ram. As + + far as PW-6 Manoj Patel and PW-12 Lallan Thakur are + + concerned, they have been declared hostile. PW-7 Dr. Ashok + + Kumar Chaudhari had conducted the postmortem examination + + of the dead body of the deceased Adalat Mahto while PW-8 Dr. + + A.K. Tiwari had examined and prepared the injury reports of the + + injured persons, i.e. Gopal Mahto (PW-1) & Prahlad Mahto (PW- + +

2), as also had examined Adalat Mahto before his death. PW-11 + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 7/88 + + + + + Suraj Kumar Gupta is the Investigating Officer of the case. + +

5. The prosecution, by way of documentary evidence, had + + proved the following documents, which were marked as exhibits + + during the course of the trial:- +

+
         Exhibit No.                          DESCRIPTION
+
+          Exhibit-1      Signature of Nandu Mahto on seizure list.
+
+

Exhibit-2 Writing and signature of Dr. A. K. Chaudhari on + the photo copy of the postmortem report of the + deceased Adalat Mahto. +

+

Exhibit-3 Writing and signature of Dr. A. K. Tiwary on the + injury report of Adalat Ram. +

+

Exhibit-4 Writing and signature of Dr. A. K. Tiwari on the + injury report of Gopal Mahto. +

+

Exhibit-5 Writing and signature of Dr. A. K. Tiwari on the + injury report of Prahlad Mahto. +

+

Exhibit-6 Formal FIR of Bagaha P.S. Case No.197 of 2013 + + Exhibit-7 Writing and signature of Jay Nath Prasad on the + fardbeyan of Kishore Mahto. +

+

Exhibit-8 Chargesheet No. 257/13 dated 13.08.2013 + produced by Ganesh Ram. +

+

6. The defence had not examined any witness, however the + + list of exhibits marked on behalf of the defence are enumerated + + herein below:- +

+
         Exhibit No.                           DESCRIPTION
+
+          Exhibit-A       Certified copy of plaint of Title Suit No. 39/2011.
+
+          Exhibit-B       Certified copy of written statement filed by
+                          defendants no.1 to 5 in Title Suit No. 39/11.
+

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 8/88 + + + + + Exhibit-C Certified copy of the deposition of Adalat Mahto + in T.S. No.39/11. +

+

Exhibit-C1 Certified copy of the deposition of Prahlad Mahto + in T.S.No.39/11 + + Exhibit-C2 Certified copy of the deposition of Nandu Mahto + in T.S.No.39/11. +

+

Exhibit-D Certified copy of deposition of Moti Mahto in + T.S.No.39/11.

+
+          Exhibit-E       Certified copies of Parcha Forms and rent
+          to E/15         receipts.
+
+
+

7. The learned counsel for the appellants of the aforesaid + + two cases has submitted that the postmortem report of the + + deceased Adalat Mahto, prepared by PW-7 shows that the + + deceased had received six injuries by sharp cutting substance, + + however the evidence of the prosecution witnesses shows that + + apart from the appellant Arbind Mahto and Chhota Mahto, rest + + of the appellants had assaulted by lathi but no injury has been + + found on the person of the deceased, which can be said to have + + been inflicted by hard and blunt substance. It is further + + submitted that the injury report of Gopal Mahto, which has been + + marked as Exhibit-4 shows that the injuries have been caused by + + hard and blunt substance, nonetheless the evidence shows that + + he was assaulted on left and right thigh by bhala, however no + + injury has been found on the person of Gopal Mahto, which may + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 9/88 + + + + + be attributable to a sharp cutting weapon. Thus, it is submitted + + that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not trustworthy + + and cannot be used to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond + + all reasonable doubts. It is next contended that though PW-1 has + + stated that 50-60 people had come at the place of occurrence, + + but most of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution + + are interested and related witnesses. It is also contended that + + while PW-1 has stated that Adalat Mahto was conscious after he + + had been assaulted, PW-10 and PW-14 have stated that Adalat + + Mahto had become senseless after being assaulted. It is also + + stated that the deceased had not received any injury on the vital + + parts, therefore the appellants did not have any intention to kill + + the deceased. Thus, alternatively it is argued that the present + + case shall fall within the purview of Section 304 Part-II of the + + IPC. It is also submitted that neither inquest report has been + + exhibited much less proved nor the first Investigating Officer + + has been examined, which has caused grave prejudice to the + + appellants. It is also submitted that the evidence led by the + + prosecution would show that main assailants are the appellants + + Arbind Mahto and Chhota Mahto, however as far as the other + + appellants are concerned, no specific role has been attributed + + and they have not stated to have assaulted the deceased. As far + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 10/88 + + + + + as the factum of Gopal Mahto being assaulted by the appellants + + is concerned, it has been submitted that the statement recorded + + under Section 313 of the CrPC of the appellants would show + + that the said circumstance has not been put to the appellants, + + thus it is submitted that the same cannot be used against them. + + Therefore, as far as the allegation of assault of Gopal Mahto by + + the appellants is concerned, the same does not stand proved on + + the ground of the said circumstance having not been put to the + + appellants while recording their statements U/s. 313 CrPC. In + + this regard, reliance has been placed on a judgment rendered by + + the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Singh vs. State of + + Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2007 SC 2188, para nos. 11 to 14 + + whereof are reproduced herein below:- +

+
"11. So far as the prosecution case that kerosene was + found on the accused's dress is concerned, it is to be + noted that no question in this regard was put to the + accused while he was examined under Section 313 of the + Code. +
12. The purpose of Section 313 of the Code is set out in + its opening words- "for the purpose of enabling the + accused personally to explain any circumstances + appearing in the evidence against him". In Hate Singh + Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat [1951 SCC + 1060] it has been laid down by Bose, J. (AIR p. 469, para +
8) that the statements of the accused persons recorded + under Section 313 of the Code "are among the most + important matters to be considered at the trial". It was + pointed out that: +
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 11/88 + + + + +

"8. ... The statements of the accused recorded by the + committing Magistrate and the Sessions Judge are + intended in India to take the place of what in England + and in America he would be free to state in his own + way in the witness box [and that] they have to be + received in evidence and treated as evidence and be + duly considered at the trial." +

This position remains unaltered even after the insertion of + Section 315 in the Code and any statement under Section + 313 has to be considered in the same way as if Section + 315 is not there. +

13. The object of examination under this section is to give + the accused an opportunity to explain the case made + against him. This statement can be taken into + consideration in judging his innocence or guilt. Where + there is an onus on the accused to discharge, it depends + on the facts and circumstances of the case if such + statement discharges the onus. +

14. The word "generally" in sub-section (1)(b) does not + limit the nature of the questioning to one or more + questions of a general nature relating to the case, but it + means that the question should relate to the whole case + generally and should also be limited to any particular + part or parts of it. The question must be framed in such a + way as to enable the accused to know what he is to + explain, what are the circumstances which are against + him and for which an explanation is needed. The whole + object of the section is to afford the accused a fair and + proper opportunity of explaining circumstances which + appear against him and that the questions must be fair + and must be couched in a form which an ignorant or + illiterate person will be able to appreciate and + understand. A conviction based on the accused's failure to + explain what he was never asked to explain is bad in law. + The whole object of enacting Section 313 of the Code was + that the attention of the accused should be drawn to the + specific points in the charge and in the evidence on which + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 12/88 + + + + + the prosecution claims that the case is made out against + the accused so that he may be able to give such + explanation as he desires to give." +

8. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for + + the appellants on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex + + Court in the case of Kalicharan & Ors. vs. State of Uttar + + Pradesh, reported in (2023) 2 SCC 583, paragraph nos. 27 to 29 + + and 32 whereof are reproduced herein below:- +

+
"27. Questioning an accused under Section 313 CrPC is + not an empty formality. The requirement of Section + 313CrPC is that the accused must be explained the + circumstances appearing in the evidence against him so + that accused can offer an explanation. After an accused is + questioned under Section 313CrPC, he is entitled to take + a call on the question of examining defence witnesses and + leading other evidence. If the accused is not explained the + important circumstances appearing against him in the + evidence on which his conviction is sought to be based, + the accused will not be in a position to explain the said + circumstances brought on record against him. He will not + be able to properly defend himself. +
28. In para 21 of the decision of this Court in Jai Dev v. + State of Punjab [Jai Dev v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC + 612], it was held thus: +
"21. In support of his contention that the failure to put + the relevant point against the appellant Hari Singh + would affect the final conclusion of the High Court, Mr + Anthony has relied on a decision of this Court in Hate + Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat [Hate Singh v. State of + Madhya Bharat, 1951 SCC 1060]. In that case, this + Court has no doubt referred to the fact that it was + important to put to the accused each material fact + which is intended to be used against him and to afford + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 13/88 + + + + + him a chance of explaining it if he can. But these + observations must be read in the light of the other + conclusions reached by this Court in that case. It + would, we think, be incorrect to suggest that these + observations are intended to lay down a general and + inexorable rule that wherever it is found that one of the + points used against the accused person has not been + put to him, either the trial is vitiated or his conviction + is rendered bad. The examination of the accused + person under Section 342 is undoubtedly intended to + give him an opportunity to explain any circumstances + appearing in the evidence against him. In exercising its + powers under Section 342, the court must take care to + put all relevant circumstances appearing in the + evidence to the accused person. It would not be enough + to put a few general and broad questions to the + accused, for by adopting such a course the accused + may not get opportunity of explaining all the relevant + circumstances. On the other hand, it would not be fair + or right that the court should put to the accused person + detailed questions which may amount to his cross- + examination. The ultimate test in determining whether + or not the accused has been fairly examined under + Section 342 would be to enquire whether, having + regard to all the questions put to him, he did get an + opportunity to say what he wanted to say in respect of + prosecution case against him. If it appears that the + examination of the accused person was defective and + thereby a prejudice has been caused to him, that would + no doubt be a serious infirmity. It is obvious that no + general rule can be laid down in regard to the manner + in which the accused person should be examined under + Section 342. Broadly stated, however, the true position + appears to be that passion for brevity which may be + content with asking a few omnibus general questions is + as much inconsistent with the requirements of Section + 342 as anxiety for thoroughness which may dictate an + unduly detailed and large number of questions which + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 14/88 + + + + + may amount to the cross-examination of the accused + person. Besides, in the present case, as we have + already shown, failure to put the specific point of + distance is really not very material." +

29. In para 145 of the well-known decision of this Court + in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra + [(1984) 4 SCC 116], it was held thus: +

"145. It is not necessary for us to multiply authorities + on this point as this question now stands concluded by + several decisions of this Court. In this view of the + matter, the circumstances which were not put to the + appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the + Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have to be completely + excluded from consideration." +

32. Therefore, we considered whether the case can be + remanded for framing of a proper charge and for + recording additional statements of the accused under + Section 313. But the incident is of December 2000. + Therefore, it will be unfair to the accused if they are + called upon to answer the circumstances appearing + against them in evidence about the incident which has + taken place more than 22 years back. In fact, such a + course will cause serious prejudice to the accused." + +

9. Thus, it is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the appellants + + that the Ld. Trial Judge has erred in convicting the appellants, + + hence they are fit to be acquitted inasmuch as the prosecution + + has failed to prove their guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. + +

10. Per contra, the learned APP for the State, Ms. Shashi Bala + + Verma, has submitted that the appellants were armed with lethal + + weapons and as far as the appellants Arbind Mahto and Shukai + + Mahto are concerned, they were armed with bhala while Chhota + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 15/88 + + + + + Mahto was armed with farsa and rest of the appellants were + + armed with lathi and all of them had indiscriminately assaulted + + the deceased - Adalat Mahto badly leading to his death on the + + very same day. It is also submitted that all the prosecution + + witnesses have deposed consistently and the defence has failed + + to elicit any contradictions in their evidence. It is next stated that + + even one injury is enough for causing death, nonetheless in the + + present case, several injuries were inflicted upon the deceased - + + Adalat Mahto. Thus, it would not matter as to whether the injury + + was inflicted on vital or non-vital parts of the body of the + + deceased inasmuch as the injuries were so grievous in nature + + that the death was inevitable. It is also submitted that the motive + + is also present in the present case inasmuch as there is pre- + + existing land dispute and a civil dispute is also going on in + + between the parties. Thus, it is submitted that the judgment of + + conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Trial + + Judge does not require any interference, as such the same is + + required to be upheld. +

+

11. Besides hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we + + have minutely perused both the evidence, i.e. oral and + + documentary. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to + + cursorily discuss the evidence led by the prosecution. + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 16/88 + + + + +

12. PW-1 Gopal Mahto has stated in his deposition that the + + occurrence dates back to 15 months and 5 days at about 03:45 in + + the evening. He has stated that he was near the place of + + occurrence in his field situated near the grove of Adalat Mahto. + + Adalat and Prahlad had arrived for making stool (peedha) out of + + mango wood. The said persons then started cutting branch of + + mango tree, whereafter Chhota Mahto and Arbind Mahto had + + cut the leg of Adalat as also cut his hand and had then assaulted + + him in his stomach by bhala. Parikha Mahto, Moti Mahto, + + Sharma Mahto, Shambhu Mahto, Sukai Mahto and 4-5 females + + armed with lathi and farsa, had also arrived there and had + + engaged in assault. Prahlad had ran away after being assaulted + + and when PW-1 had gone there, the accused persons started + + assaulting him as well resulting in him sustaining injuries. He + + has also stated that he received bhala blow on his left leg. PW-1 + + has next stated that he was taken to Bettiah for treatment. He has + + stated that his treatment as also that of Prahlad was undertaken + + and while Adalat was being taken to Bettiah, he died on the way + + near cantonment. PW-1 had recognized the accused persons, + + namely, Chhota Mahto, Sharma, Sukai, Moti and Parikha + + Mahto, who were standing in the dock. +

+

13. In cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that he is the + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 17/88 + + + + + agnate of the deceased - Adalat but the accused persons are not + + his agnates. He has also stated that a land dispute was going on + + in between the informant and the accused persons in which the + + land pertaining to grove is also involved and one case is going + + on before the Sub-Judge in which he is also one of the plaintiff + + and the evidence is going on. He has also stated that the said + + case pertains to nine and a half bigaha land and the accused + + persons have only nine and a half bigaha land. In paragraph no.4 + + of his cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that his statement was + + recorded by the police in the night of the date of occurrence and + + the statement of Adalat, Prahlad and Nandu was also recorded. + + PW-1 has further stated that he had said before the police that + + his field is situated near the place of occurrence and upon being + + informed, he had gone to the grove where he saw all the accused + + persons, armed with lathi, danda, phatta, assaulting Adalat as + + also saw that Moti, Sukai, Mukul @ Shambhu, Parikhan were + + assaulting by lathi-danda. PW-1 has also stated that he had + + stated before the police that he had seen that Adalat had been + + grievously injured on his hand and leg. In paragraph no.5 of his + + cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that after sustaining injuries, + + he had become unconscious and he had regained consciousness + + at 5:00-6:00 hours in the evening. He has also stated that when + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 18/88 + + + + + he had gone to the place of occurrence, Prahlad and Adalat were + + conscious and he had spoken with them whereupon they had + + disclosed as to who had assaulted them. Thereafter, 50-60 + + people from the village had arrived there and were standing + + separately. They were then referred for treatment to Bettiah and + + then Adalat, Prahlad and PW-1 had gone to Bettiah. He has also + + stated that while Adalat was being taken to Bagaha, he was + + conscious and when he was being taken to Bettiah, he was + + speaking. Medicine was given to him and thereafter, saline + + water was also administered. In paragraph no.6 of his cross- + + examination, PW-1 has stated that he was assaulted by bhala, + + which had got inserted 2-3 inch inside, however his head had + + not been injured. In paragraph no.7 of his cross-examination, + + PW-1 has stated that the grove is at a distance of one bigaha + + from the village. He has also stated that adjacent to the grove, + + houses of Harihar Mahto, Kashi Yadav, Kamlesh Yadav and + + Bhim Yadav are situated. He has next stated that if hulla (alarm) + + is made from the grove, he can hear the same at his house. + + Bagaha Police Station is situated at a distance of 8-9 kilometre + + from the grove and Bhairavganj Police Station is at a distance of + + 9-10 kilometre from Kapardhika village. In paragraph no.8 of + + his cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that after he was injured, + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 19/88 + + + + + he had not gone into the grove and at that time mango fruit was + + growing in the mango grove. He had also seen the partly cut + + branch of mango tree and the same is hanging from the tree till + + date. He has stated that Prahlad had climbed the tree to cut the + + branch of mango tree. PW-1 has next stated that blood had fallen + + down on the ground and the ground was plain since no grass had + + grown over the same. He has next stated that the police officials + + had seized the blood soaked mud. In paragraph no.9 of his cross- + + examination, PW-1 has stated that after Adalat had died, he was + + brought home but he had stayed in the hospital for 5-6 days. He + + has also stated that he along with Adalat, Prahlad, Kishore and + + their family members had gone to the hospital. In paragraph + + no.10 of his cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that the land + + over which the grove is situated is in the name of Bihari and is a + + khatiyani land and he had died 70 years ago. He has denied the + + suggestion that the accused persons have been wrongly + + implicated in the present case on account of land dispute. He has + + also denied the suggestion that in the night, Adalat had gone to + + pluck mangoes and he was killed by unknown accused persons. + +

14. PW-2 Prahlad Mahto has stated in his evidence that the + + occurrence dates back to 16 months at about 03:45 p.m. when he + + had gone to cut wood in his grove and along with him, Adalat + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 20/88 + + + + + Mahto and Nandu (PW-3) had also gone. He has also stated that + + he had gone to cut wood for making stool for marriage of his + + daughter and at that time Adalat started preparing khaini + + (tobacco). PW-2 has further stated that at that time, Moti, + + Sarikha, Sharma, Chhota, Shukul @ Shambhu, Parikha and five + + ladies had arrived there and while Chhota was armed with farsa, + + Arbind was armed with bhala, Shambhu was armed with sword, + + the rest were armed with lahti and phatta. Thereafter, upon + + being ordered by Moti, Chhota had assaulted Adalat by farsa, + + resulting in cutting of his both arms and right leg and the same + + had separated, whereafter the other accused persons started + + assaulting by danda and phatta. Gopal had then come to save + + him but he was assaulted by bhala on his thigh, whereafter PW- + + 2 was also assaulted by lahti on his left hand, resulting in + + breaking of his three fingers. In paragraph no.3, PW-2 has stated + + that he had then taken Adalat and Gopal to Bagaha Hospital, + + whereafter they had gone to Bettiah and there Adalat had died at + + 11:00 p.m. in the night. PW-2 had recognized the accused + + persons standing in the dock, namely, Sharma, Moti and + + Harendra @ Sukai Mahto. In paragraph no.5 of his cross- + + examination, PW-2 has stated that the accused persons are not + + his agnates, however in between them civil case is going on + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 21/88 + + + + + pertaining to partition of land in question, however no + + application has been given before in the circle for partition. He + + has also stated that the grove is situated at a distance of one + + kilometre from his village towards the western-southern side + + and on the southern side of Kapardhika village. + +

15. In paragraph no.7 of his cross-examination, PW-2 has + + stated that Sharma was present at the grove from before and he + + had then called the other accused persons. PW-2 has also stated + + that earlier no quarrel had taken place with Sharma and he was + + armed with tangi (axe). PW-2 has stated that upon seeing the + + accused persons coming there, his brother did not flee away. The + + accused persons had come from the northern side of the grove + + and after seeing the accused persons, he had jumped from the + + tree, besides the branch of the bamboo tree, however he was not + + injured. He has also stated that they had stayed at the grove for + + 10-15 minutes. In paragraph no.9 of his cross-examination, PW- + + 2 has stated that after Sharma had gone, other accused persons + + had come within two minutes and at that time, he was over the + + tree and others, who were standing beneath the tree did not try to + + flee away and after 10 minutes Nandu had gone to the village, + + raising alarm but he was not assaulted by the accused persons. + + Gopal (PW-1) had then come to save them but he was also + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 22/88 + + + + + assaulted by bhala from the front from a distance of 5-6 hands + + on the left thigh. PW-2 has also stated that Adalat was assaulted + + within five minutes by the accused persons and at that time also + + he was on the tree and his body parts had got separated but he + + did not die there. PW-2 has further stated that blood was present + + over the cloth of Adalat and both his hands and left leg had been + + cut as also had got separated from the body. PW-2 has further + + stated that he had received injury on his finger on the hand + + below wrist and x-ray of the hand was done at Bagaha Hospital. + + He has stated that where the hand had broken, swelling was + + present. PW-2 has next stated that the injuries were present all + + over the body of Gopal and injuries were also present on the + + back and in the front. +

+

16. In paragraph no.10 of his cross-examination, PW-2 has + + stated that the police official had come at the place of + + occurrence after Adalat and Gopal had gone away and not in his + + presence. He has also stated that they had gone to Bagaha + + Hospital by tempo and he, his wife, Adalat and Kishore had sat + + in the tempo. He has stated that they had gone from the village + + by tempo to Banchatti, which is at a distance of 150 metre from + + his house. He has further stated that when they had gone to + + Bagaha, they had crossed Bagaha Police Station in between, + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 23/88 + + + + + which is situated beside the road and they had also passed + + through the said road where the said police station is situated, + + however nobody had gone to Bagaha Police Station to give + + information. In paragraph no.11 of his cross-examination, PW-2 + + has stated that they were admitted at Bagaha Hospital and after + + giving medicine, they were referred immediately. They had + + reached Bagaha at 05:00 p.m. where they had stayed for an hour + + and then they were referred to Bettiah where they had gone by + + government ambulance and while they were going to Bettiah, + + Adalat died on the way. He has also stated that they had reached + + Bettiah at 8-9 p.m. in the night where postmortem examination + + of the dead body of the deceased was held. PW-2 has stated that + + the case was neither registered at Bettiah nor at Bagaha Police + + Station, however the police had come at Bagaha and they had + + met the police for the first time at Bagaha. In paragraph no.12 of + + his cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that he had given his + + clothes and that of Adalat to the police at Bagaha. + +

17. PW-3 Nandu Mahto has stated in his evidence that the + + occurrence dates back to 11.05.2013 at about 03:45 p.m. in the + + evening when he was at his house and Prahlad had told him to + + come along with him to the grove for cutting wood for preparing + + stool for marriage, whereafter he along with Adalat Mahto and + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 24/88 + + + + + Prahlad Mahto had gone to the grove and then Prahlad had + + climbed on the tree for cutting the branch of the tree, however + + after ten minutes, Chhota Mahto, Sukai Mahto, Parikh Mahto, + + Sharma Mahto, Moti Mahto, Arbind Mahto and Shukul @ + + Shambhu Mahto had arrived there. Chhota was armed with + + farsa while Arbind was armed with bhala and the rest of people + + were armed with lathi and phatta. As soon as the accused + + persons had arrived there, Chhota had assaulted Adalat by farsa + + on his arm and thereafter, he had given a second blow on the + + other arm resulting in both arms having hung down and then he + + had given third blow of farsa on the leg of Adalat resulting in + + his left leg having been cut. Arbind had then assaulted Adalat by + + bhala on the left rib cage. In the meantime, brother of PW-3, + + namely Gopal (PW-1) had arrived there, whereupon all the + + accused persons started assaulting him by lathi and then Arbind + + had assaulted him on his leg by bhala. The elder brother of PW- + + 3, namely Prahlad Mahto, who was on the tree was also + + assaulted by lathi resulting in three fingers of his right hand + + being broken. In paragraph no.3, PW-3 has stated that Adalat + + Mahto died at Bettiah Hospital and treatment had also taken + + place at Bagaha Hospital. He has also stated that the police had + + recovered leaves and mud laced with blood from the place of + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 25/88 + + + + + occurrence, whereafter seizure-list was prepared which he has + + identified and the same has been marked as Exhibit-1. He had + + recognized all the accused persons standing in the dock. + +

18. In paragraph no.5 of his cross-examination, PW-3 has + + stated that the tree from which the branch was being cut was a + + dried tree. He has next stated that after Prahlad had seen the + + accused persons, he had climbed down slowly whereupon tangi + + (axe) had fallen down from his hand. He has stated that one case + + is going on in the Munsif court in between them and the accused + + persons and in the said case PW-3 is also a party and the said + + case pertains to the grove land as well. The grove land is about + + 12 katha, the said land is khatiyani and the khatiyan is in the + + name of Bihari Mahto, however the accused persons do not + + belong to his family. PW-3 has also stated that they did not get + + the receipt made for the said land but he is 4 th generation of + + Bihari Mahto, who has died. PW-3 has stated that they had not + + ever made any attempt to get the said land transferred in their + + name. In paragraph no.6 of his cross-examination, PW-3 has + + stated that the branch of the tree was being cut prior to 10 + + minutes of arrival of the accused persons and while the branch + + was still attached to the tree and had not been cut completely, + + the accused persons had arrived from the northern side armed + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 26/88 + + + + + with bhala in their hand. PW-3 has also stated that he had seen + + the accused persons as soon as they had entered the grove. He + + has also stated that the entry point to the grove is at a distance of + + 3 laggi (stick length). He has next stated that on the northern + + side of the grove, rasta (way) is there and anybody coming from + + the village is visible from there. He has stated that upon seeing + + the accused persons, he had not made an attempt to run away + + and the accused persons had first assaulted Adalat upon coming + + there, however he had not gone to save Adalat but had stood up. + + In paragraph no.7 of his cross-examination, PW-3 has stated that + + Adalat had not sustained any injury either on his back or on his + + head and he was sitting down and after being assaulted, he + + moved around but fell down, whereafter they had remained at + + the grove for half an hour. He has stated that they had also + + assaulted by bhala by holding the same by both hands and not + + by throwing bhala. The front portion of bhala was four finger + + length wide. He has stated that Prahlad had not fled away but he + + had stood there and was present there for half an hour. He has + + also stated that no outsider from Kapardhika village had come. + + Thereafter, people from his house including his brother Rajendra + + (PW-5), Pramod (PW-9), Kishore (PW-13) and others had + + arrived there. Gopal (PW-1) had also arrived earlier and he was + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 27/88 + + + + + standing in the field. +

+

19. In paragraph no.8 of his cross-examination, PW-3 has + + stated that he had not stated before the police that after assault + + had taken place, he had met Gopal on the way. He has also + + stated that the accused persons had badly injured the body of + + Gopal, bhala blow had been inflicted on his left leg and bhala + + injuries were present on both legs, i.e. two injuries on the left leg + + and one on the right leg. PW-3 has also stated that he has stated + + before the police that Arbind was holding bhala and Chhota was + + holding farsa in his hand. He has stated that he had not stated + + before the police that the accused persons had assaulted Prahlad + + by bhala and farsa. He has next stated that phone call was made + + to the police by a mobile from the grove, however the police had + + not arrived there but he met the police at Bagaha Hospital for + + the first time. He has also stated that Adalat was brought to the + + road from the grove by Pramod, Prahlad and Kishore after being + + lifted and at the place where he was kept on the ground, blood + + had fallen and in fact blood had been falling down all + + throughout the rasta (way). In paragraph no.9 of his cross- + + examination, PW-3 has stated that they had reached Bagaha + + Hospital at 05:00 p.m. in the evening by tempo which was being + + driven by Mukesh and he was also present there. He has also + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 28/88 + + + + + stated that though on the way to Bagaha Hospital, Bagaha Police + + Station is situated in between, however they had not stopped + + there and had not gone to the police station but had rang Bagaha + + Police Station upon which the police officer had told him to stay + + there and they would come there. He has also stated that Adalat + + had died in the hospital at Bettiah. In paragraph no.10 of his + + cross-examination, PW-3 has stated that he had reached home + + from Bagaha at 05:30 p.m. while Adalat and Gopal had been + + referred to Bettiah, but he had not gone to Bettiah Hospital. On + + the next day, at about 10-11 a.m., Prahlad had brought the dead + + body from Bettiah and Gopal had stayed there and he had come + + after 4-5 days. PW-3 has denied the suggestion that because of + + previous land dispute with the accused persons, under a + + conspiracy they have been falsely implicated in the present case. + +

20. PW-4 Binod Mahto is the son of the deceased and he has + + stated in his deposition that the occurrence dates back to 22 + + months at about 03:45 p.m. in the evening when his father + + Adalat Mahto had gone to the grove for cutting branch of the + + tree for making stool for marriage purpose. He has stated that + + the grove is situated near Kapardhika. He has also stated that his + + father had gone along with Nandu Mahto (PW-3) and Prahlad + + (PW-2) to the grove. He has next stated that while Adalat was + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 29/88 + + + + + sitting beneath the tree, Prahlad Mahto had climbed the tree and + + was cutting wood when Chhota Mahto, Moti Mahto, Sharma + + Mahto, Arbind Mahto, Shukul Mahto, Parikha Mahto and + + Harendra Mahto had arrived there, whereafter Chhota Mahto + + had assaulted Adalat Mahto by farsa and cut him as also his + + both arms and right leg were cut, which had hung down. PW-4 + + has next stated that Arbind Mahto had then assaulted Adalat + + Mahto in his stomach by bhala. PW-4 has also stated that + + Parikha was armed with lahti, Sharma was armed with bhala, + + Arbind was armed with bhala, Moti was armed with bhala, + + Chhota was armed with farsa, Harendra was armed with bhala + + and Shukul was armed with lathi. Thereafter, Gopal had gone to + + save them and after the occurrence had taken place, other + + persons had arrived from behind, however in the meantime the + + accused persons had assaulted and broken the leg of Gopal as + + also he had been assaulted badly on his knee by Sukai and + + Arbind. In paragraph no.3, PW-4 has stated that he, Pramod + + (PW-9) and Prahlad (PW-2) had taken Adalat to the Government + + Hospital at Bahaga, however the doctor had shown his + + helplessness, whereafter they had reached Bettiah at 10:00 p.m. + + in the night where the doctor had seen Adalat and declared him + + to be dead. He had recognized the accused person standing in + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 30/88 + + + + + the dock and claimed to recognize the other accused persons. + +

21. In cross-examination, PW-4 has stated that his statement + + was recorded at 07:00 p.m. in the evening by the police on the + + date of occurrence and he had not stated before the police that + + after Prahlad Mahto and Nandu Mahto had come running home, + + they had narrated the entire incident, whereafter they had gone + + to the place of occurrence. In paragraph no.6 of his cross- + + examination, PW-6 has stated that he is neither on talking terms + + with the accused persons nor they visit each other house. In + + paragraph no.7 of his cross-examination, PW-4 has stated that + + Nandu and Prahlad had not fled towards his house however, he + + has again stated that they had come running to the house. PW-4 + + has also stated that he cannot say as to whether they had met + + Pramod or not but at that time, though Pramod was at home but + + he had gone into the village. He has also stated that the branch + + of tree was partly cut. PW-4 has next stated that the assault was + + made by bhala from a hand's distance and then it was pulled. + + The bhala was three finger length wide in the front. + +

22. PW-4 has also stated that he had stayed in the grove for + + half an hour and then he had taken away his father from the + + grove by lifting him on his hands and at that time, his father was + + speaking and was saying that he was assaulted by farsa and + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 31/88 + + + + + bhala which he, his brother Pramod (PW-9), Gopal (PW-1), + + Prahlad (PW-2), wife of Prahlad, namely Tetari Devi had also + + heard on the way. PW-4 had gone to Bagaha Hospital where he + + had reached at 07:00 p.m. and he had sat on the seat of tempo + + with his father, where blood had fallen not only in the tempo but + + had spread all over his body. He has also stated that while going + + to Bagaha Hospital, nobody had got down from the tempo on + + the way at the Bagaha Police Station. He has stated that after + + they had reached the hospital, the doctor had examined after ten + + minutes, while his father was lying on the bed and after bandage + + was applied on the injury of his father, he was referred to + + Bettiah, whereafter they had taken father on an ambulance to + + Bettiah where they had reached at 09:30-10:00 p.m. in the night, + + however the doctor had not treated him at Bettiah and upon + + examination, the doctor said that Adalat has died. PW-4 has also + + stated that he, Prabhu, Pramod (PW-9), Prahlad (PW-2) and + + Kishore (PW-13) had gone to Bettiah. On the next day, after the + + postmortem examination was done, the dead body was brought + + at 11:00 a.m. PW-4 has denied that on account of previous + + enmity, the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the + + present case. +

+

23. PW-5 Rajendra Mahto has stated in his deposition that the + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 32/88 + + + + + occurrence dates back to 22 months at about 03:45 p.m. in the + + evening when he was beneath a tree near the village at the canal. + + The marriage of the daughter of Prahlad was going to be + + solemnized, hence Prahlad (PW-2), Nandu (PW-3) and Adalat + + (deceased) had gone to cut wood for making stool for marriage + + purposes, whereafter Prahlad had climbed on the tree and was + + cutting the branch of the tree while Nandu Singh was slowly + + walking by and Adalat was sitting near the tree and preparing + + khaini (tobacco). The accused persons including the appellants + + had then gone to the said place. Chhota was armed with farsa, + + Arbind with bhala, Shukul with khand (weapon used to cut + + buffalo) and others were armed with lahti-phatta and they had + + gone to the said grove while Prahlad was cutting branch of the + + tree and Adalat was sitting and preparing tobacco. As soon as + + the accused persons had reached there, Chhota had assaulted + + Adalat with farsa resulting in his both arms being cut, + + whereafter Chhota had assaulted on his leg resulting in the same + + being cut and then Arbind had assaulted Adalat by bhala in the + + belly and Shukul had assaulted by khand on the ribs of the chest, + + whereupon other accused persons had started assaulting by + + lathi-phatta. Gopal had then come running to save them, + + however he was also assaulted by lathi resulting in his leg being + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 33/88 + + + + + broken and then Shukul had assaulted him on his right leg with + + bhala. PW-5 has next stated that the accused persons had then + + fled away, whereafter Adalat and Gopal were taken by Kishore, + + Nandu, Prahlad and their sons to the road after being lifted by + + them. PW-5 has also stated that he was watching the incident + + from a distance of 2-3 bigaha. He has stated that he had also + + gone along with Adalat to Bagaha Hospital where the doctor had + + tied bandage and referred him to Bettiah, whereafter they had + + taken Adalat to Bettiah but he had returned back from Bagaha, + + however Adalat had died at Bettiah. PW-5 had recognized the + + accused persons standing in the dock. +

+

24. In paragraph no.4 of his cross-examination, PW-5 has + + stated that a civil case pertaining to the land where the + + occurrence had taken place is going on before the Munsif Court + + and he is also a plaintiff in the said case but the said case has not + + been filed for his possession and the area of the grove is 12 + + katha. He has also stated that partition has not taken place in + + between the parties and the dispute between the parties pertain + + to 10 bigaha land. In paragraph no.5 of his cross-examination, + + PW-5 has stated that his statement was recorded by the police on + + the day of occurrence at the hospital at 08:00 p.m. in the night + + and in his statement made before the police, he had not stated + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 34/88 + + + + + that Prahlad had come running to home and then he had said + + about the incident, whereafter he had gone to the grove. In + + paragraph no.6 of his cross-examination, PW-5 has stated that + + the grove is at a distance of 2-3 bigaha from his house. Prahlad + + was sitting in the grove near the tree on the eastern side. He has + + also stated that prior to him reaching the grove, three persons + + were present there, namely Prahlad (PW-2), Nandu (PW-3) and + + Adalat (deceased) and he had stayed at the grove for ten + + minutes, during which period no other person had come there. + + He has also stated that he had reached there after Nandu and the + + accused persons had held khand by both hands, whereafter they + + had assaulted and the entire khand had got inserted. + +

25. PW-5 has also stated that there were five injuries on the + + body of Adalat and Prahlad had received injury only on his + + finger. He has stated that at the place of occurrence, Prahlad + + (PW-2), Nandu (PW-3), Kishore (PW-13), Brajesh, Pramod + + (PW-9), Binod (PW-4) and Rajendra (PW-5) were present. In + + paragraph no.7 of his cross-examination, PW-5 has stated that + + 10-11 people had gone in the tempo. He has also stated that he + + had returned back to his home after sometime and after an hour, + + he received a phone call from Bettiah that Adalat has died, + + however he did not go to Bettiah. In para no.8 of his cross- + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 35/88 + + + + + examination, PW-5 has stated that Gopal had received injuries + + on 3 places by bhala and farsa. PW-5 has denied the suggestion + + that on account of land dispute, the accused persons have been + + falsely implicated in this case. +

+

26. PW-6 Manoj Patel has stated in his deposition that the + + occurrence dates back to 3-4 years back. He has stated that he + + was not present at the place of occurrence and his statement was + + not recorded by the police, hence he was declared hostile, + + nonetheless the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had cross- + + examined him on behalf of the prosecution, however nothing + + significant could be elicited. +

+

27. PW-7 Dr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhari is the doctor, who had + + conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of + + Adalat Mahto on 12.05.2013 and he has stated in his deposition + + that on the said date, he was posted as Medical Officer, MJK + + Hospital, Bettiah. He had found the following ante-mortem + + injuries on the dead body of Adalat Mahto upon external + + examination:- +

+
"(i) one incised wound over right arm 2½" x ¼" x bone + cut with fracture of lower part of humerus. +
+
(ii) one incised wound over right leg lower part, size- +

2½" x ¼ " to bone cut with fracture of Tibia, + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 36/88 + + + + +

(iii) one incised wound over right leg upper part 2½" x ¼" +

x bone cut with fracture of Tibia. +
+
(iv) one incised wound over left forearm size-2½" x ¼" x + bone cut with fracture of radius and ulna. +
+
(v) one incised wound over left palm size- 2½ " x ¼" x + bone cut. +
+
(vi) one incised wound over right iliac crest (lower part of + the abdomen) size- 2½" x ¼" x iliac bone cut." +
+ +

PW-7 on dissection had found the following: - +

+
Above injuries were confirmed. All abdominal viscera + were found pale, hard. Both heart-chambers empty. + Stomach -empty. Urinary bladder- empty. Time elapsed + since death - within 24 hours. All the injuries are ante- + mortem caused by sharp cutting substance. +
+
The cause of death has been stated by PW-7 to be shock + + and hemorrhage due to above injuries. In paragraph no.3 of his + + deposition, PW-7 has stated that the postmortem report has been + + prepared by him and bears his signature as also he has identified + + the photocopy of the postmortem report, which has been marked + + as Exhibit-2. He has also stated that the dead body was + + identified by Pramod Mahto, son of the deceased. In para no.5 + + of his cross-examination, PW-7 has stated that hands and legs + + are not vital parts of human body. The injuries in the lower part + + of abdomen are not involving intestine and abdominal viscera. + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 37/88 + + + + +

28. PW-8 Dr. A. K. Tiwari is the doctor who had examined + + Adalat Mahto (deceased), Gopal Mahto (PW-1) and Prahlad + + Mahto (PW-2). He has stated that on 11.05.2013, he was posted + + as D.S. at Sub-divisional Hospital, Bagaha and on the said date + + at 06:30 p.m., he had examined Adalat Mahto and found the + + following injuries on his person:- +

+
"(i) Compound fracture of right tibia and fibula. +
+
(ii) Incised wound over mid of right leg 4" x ½" x ½" red + in colour. +
+
(iii) Incised wound over right leg 3" x ½ " x ¼" red in + colour. +
+
(iv) Incised wound over right iliac fossa 3" x 1½" x ¼" +

red in colour. +

+

(v) Left forearm amputated. +

+

(vi) Incised wound over right arm 3" x ½" x 1" red in + colour. +

+

(vii) Fracture of right humerus of right arm (compound + fracture). +

+

(viii) Incised wound over right arm 3" x 1½" x ½" medial + to injury no.6." +

+

PW-8 has stated that the aforesaid injuries were caused by + + sharp cutting weapon and the duration of the injuries is within + + six hours. He has also stated that the condition of patient is very + + serious and dangerous to his life. PW-8 had identified the injury + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 38/88 + + + + + report prepared by him, which is in his writing as also he had + + identified his signature put over the same and the same had been + + marked as Exhibit-3. +

+

29. PW-8, on the same day, i.e. on 11.05.2013 had also + + examined Gopal Mahto (PW-1) at 06:40 p.m. and found the + + following injuries on his person:- +

+
"(i) Lacerated wound over left leg 1½" x ½" x 2½" red in + colour. +
+
(ii) Lacerated wound over right knee ½" x ½" x ¼" red in + colour. +
+
(iii) Abrasion over right cheek 1" x ½" x superficial, + swelling around it. +
+
(iv) Right hand swollen. +
+

All caused by hard blunt substance. Duration within six + hours. Patient was advised X-ray of affected parts." + + PW-8 has further stated that later on, x-ray plate was + + provided which showed commuted fracture of right ulna and + + commuted fracture of proximal phalanx-III, IV and V fingers. + + He also found intercondylar right femur fracture and right + + shoulder was dislocated. He has next stated that all the injuries + + cumulatively are dangerous to life. PW-8 had identified the + + injury report prepared by him in his writing as also his signature + + made over the same, which had been marked as Exhibit-4. + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 39/88 + + + + +

30. PW-8 has stated that on the same day, i.e. on 11.05.2013 + + at 06:50 P.M, he had examined Prahlad Mahto (PW-2) as well + + and found the following injury:- +

+
"(1) Lacerated wound over right little finger ½" x ¼" +

superficial red in colour." +

+

PW-8 has stated that the aforesaid injury has been caused + + by hard and blunt substance and duration of injury is within six + + hours as also nature thereof is simple. PW-8 had identified the + + injury report prepared by him in his writing as also his signature + + put over the same, which had been marked as Exhibit-5. In his + + cross-examination, PW-8 has stated that injury no.6 of Adalat is + + incised but not penetrating. He has stated that bhala causes + + penetrating wound. The injuries of Gopal and Prahlad may be + + sustained by falling on hard substance. PW-8 has denied the + + suggestion that his report is collusive in nature. + +

31. PW-9 Pramod Mahto is the son of the deceased and he + + has stated in his deposition that the occurrence dates back to + + 11.05.2013 at 03:45 p.m. when he was coming from his in-laws' + + place to his home and when he had reached near Kotwa village, + + he heard hulla (alarm) and then he went in the grove and saw + + that Chhota Mahto has cut both hands of his father by farsa and + + both the hands were hanging as also he had assaulted his father + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 40/88 + + + + + by farsa on leg and had cut it. Sukai Mahto and Arbind Mahto + + had assaulted his father-Adalat by bhala on his waist, whereafter + + other accused persons had assaulted his father by lathi. In the + + meantime, Gopal had come to save him, however Chhota Mahto + + had assaulted him by lathi. Arbind and Sukai had also assaulted + + Gopal by bhala on his knee. Gopal was also assaulted by other + + accused persons by lathi. Thereafter, people present there had + + taken the father of PW-9 to Bagaha Hospital along with Gopal + + Mahto for treatment where the doctor had referred them to + + Bettiah and at Bettiah, the doctor had declared his father to be + + dead. He has also stated that on account of marriage of daughter + + of his uncle, they had gone to cut the wood of mango tree and + + then the said occurrence had taken place. He had recognized the + + accused persons standing in the dock. In paragraph no.4 of his + + cross-examination, PW-9 has stated that his in-laws' place is + + situated towards northern side at a distance of 3 kilometre and + + the grove is situated towards the western side of his house at a + + distance of half a kilometre. In paragraph no.5 of his cross- + + examination, PW-9 has stated that he had started from his in- + + laws' place at 03:15 p.m. in the evening and while he was + + coming through the way besides the canal, he had not met + + anyone. In paragraph no.6 of his cross-examination, PW-9 has + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 41/88 + + + + + stated that his statement was recorded by the police only at + + Bettiah and not at any other place and the said statement was + + taken by Bettiah police on the second day, at about 09:00 a.m. + + He has stated that when he was giving his statement, Kishore + + Mahto, Prahlad Mahto, Gopal Mahto besides several other + + persons were present there, whose name he cannot say. + +

32. In paragraph no.7 of his cross-examination, PW-9 has + + stated that the motive for the occurrence is land dispute and + + from before a civil case is going on between the parties. He has + + also stated that he had not stated before the police that his father + + Adalat Mahto was cutting branch of the tree. He has stated that + + he had not gone home but after hearing hulla (alarm), he had + + firstly gone to the grove towards eastern corner and had seen + + Chhota assaulting his father, whereafter his father's hand had + + hung down as also he had seen Chhota cutting the leg of his + + father, whereupon other people started arriving there. He has + + also stated that from before Prahlad, Adalat, Nandu Mahto and + + Kishore Mahto were present there. He has next stated that his + + father had fallen down and blood was oozing out from his body + + and his hands and leg had been cut as also he had been injured + + by bhala twice on the left side but his father was conscious and + + was speaking as also had told him that while Prahlad Mahto was + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 42/88 + + + + + cutting wood, Chhota Mahto had come and assaulted by farsa. + + Thereafter, the persons present there had lifted the father of PW- + + 9 and taken him to the road and then he was taken to Bagaha + + Hospital, from where his father was taken to Bettiah Hospital + + but he did not become unconscious on the way. In paragraph + + no.8 of his cross-examination, PW-9 has stated that blood had + + fallen on the road and Gopal had been hit by bhala on the knee + + and his left leg had been broken as also Prahlad had received + + injury on the ring finger of his left hand. He has also stated that + + they had reached at Bettiah at 09:00 p.m. in the night and had + + gone to the Government Hospital, where his father was admitted + + and then the doctor had come and said that he has died. PW-9 + + has denied the suggestion that on account of civil case, the + + accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case + + and has stated that it is not a fact that his father was a person of + + short-temper, hence some unknown miscreants had killed him. + +

33. PW-10 Jawahir Ram has stated in his deposition that the + + occurrence dates back to two years one month at 04:00 p.m. + + while he was at the house of Tapan Ram, when he saw that + + Nandu, Prahlad and Adalat had come and had started cutting + + wood, whereafter four persons of the other party, i.e. Chhota + + Mahto, Sharma Mahto, Parikh Mahto and Arbind Mahto had + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 43/88 + + + + + arrived there armed with lathi, bhala and farsa. While one + + person, namely Prahlad had climbed on the tree and was cutting + + wood, quarrel started taking place leading to Prahlad and Nandu + + having fled away. Adalat was sitting and preparing tobacco and + + the aforesaid four persons started assaulting him by lathi, bhala + + and farsa leading to his both hands being cut as also his leg was + + cut. Thereafter, Adalat was lifted and taken for treatment. He + + had recognized the accused persons standing in the dock. In + + cross-examination, PW-10 has stated that the grove is situated at + + a distance of an acre of land. There is also a school on the + + northern side near the grove. He has also stated that when the + + accused persons came out of the village, everyone had seen + + them but the villagers had not accompanied them and he had + + also not gone. PW-10 has stated in his cross-examination that he + + had reached at the grove after 20 minutes of the occurrence and + + at that time Adalat was unconscious and Nandu and Prahlad had + + fled away, whereafter he had gone back to his house. In + + paragraph no.4 of his cross-examination, PW-10 has stated that + + Adalat had fallen flat on the ground and blood stains were + + present all over his clothes as also his shirt was cut. He has next + + stated that his statement was not recorded by the police and + + since long case is going on in between the parties pertaining to + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 44/88 + + + + + the said land. He has denied the suggestion that upon being + + tutored by the prosecution, he is giving the present statement + + against the accused persons. +

+

34. PW-11 Suraj Kumar Gupta is a police official and he has + + stated in his deposition that on 27.12.2013, he was handed over + + the charge of investigation of Bagaha Police Station Case No. + + 197 of 2013 by the then In-charge of the police station, namely + + Subhash Singh and then he had gone through the case-diary. He + + has further stated that he had recorded the statements of Ranjit + + Kumar, Manoj Patel (PW-6), Lalan Thakur (PW-12) and Ram + + Prasad Rai (PW-14). He had received the third supervision note + + of the senior officials. He had filed Charge-Sheet No. 549/13 + + under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 323, 324, 307, 302, 504/34 + + of the IPC. He has next stated that the formal FIR of Bagaha + + Police Station Case No.197 of 2013 is in the writing of the then + + Officer-in-charge, Ganesh Rai and bears his signature, which he + + has identified and the same has been marked as exhibit. He has + + also stated that the fardbeyan of the informant Kishore Mahto + + (PW-13) is in the writing of Sub-Inspector, Bagaha Police + + Station, Jainath Prasad and he had also signed the same which + + he has identified and the same has also been marked as exhibit. + + He has stated that in the aforesaid case, Charge-Sheet No. 257 of + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 45/88 + + + + + 2013 dated 13.08.2013 was also filed, which he has identified + + and the same has been marked as exhibit. In paragraph no.2 of + + his cross-examination, PW-11 has stated that Ganesh Rai is alive + + and works at Motihari while Jainath Prasad is posted at Balmiki + + Police Station. He has also stated that FSL report of the articles + + sent for examination has not been received and he had not made + + any effort to obtain the same. He has also stated that the place of + + occurrence has been mentioned in paragraph no.35 of the case- + + diary and the branch of the tree was being cut by a saw. He has + + stated that it has not been mentioned in the case-diary as to + + where the statements of the witnesses were recorded. In + + paragraph no.39 of the case-diary, the statement of Shrawan + + Thakur has been recorded to the effect that the grove is in + + possession of the family member of Sharma Mahto since several + + years and there were big trees in the grove. Lastly, PW-11 has + + stated that it is not a fact that his investigation is defective. + +

35. PW-12 Lallan Thakur has stated in his deposition that the + + incident dates back to about two years, however he does not + + know as to who had carried out the killing and for what reason. + + He has also stated that he had not made any statement before the + + police. The said witness had been declared hostile, however he + + was cross-examined but nothing significant could be elicited. + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 46/88 + + + + +

36. PW-13 Kishore Mahto is the informant of the case and + + has stated in his deposition that the occurrence dates back to + + 11.05.2013 at 03:45 p.m. The marriage of the daughter of + + Prahlad was going to be solemnised and for the purposes of + + making a stool, Nandu (PW-3), Adalat (deceased) and Prahlad + + (PW-2) had gone to cut the branch of the tree. While Prahlad + + was cutting the branch of the tree and Nandu and Adalat were on + + the ground, Sharma Mahto, Chhota Mahto, Parikhan Mahto, + + Moti Mahto, Arbind Mahto, Shukul Mahto, Sukai Mahto @ + + Harendra Mahto and his sons and family members had arrived + + there and started assaulting. Chhota Mahto had assaulted Adalat + + by farsa resulting in his both hands being cut and his right leg + + was also cut and only skin was attached to the body. Thereafter, + + Arbind had assaulted Adalat on his waist by bhala. Prahlad was + + assaulted by Sharma Mahto by lathi resulting in his fingers + + being broken. The other accused persons had assaulted Gopal, + + leading to his arm and leg being broken and on his right thigh, + + Shambhu Mahto had inflicted injury by bhala. In paragraph no. + + 2, PW-13 has stated that land dispute is going on in between the + + accused persons and the members of the prosecution side for + + which one title suit is pending. In paragraph no.4 of his cross- + + examination, PW-13 has stated that upon phone call being made, + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 47/88 + + + + + the police officer had come from the police station to the village, + + when he had gone for medical treatment. +

+

37. In paragraph no.6 of his cross-examination, PW-13 has + + stated that his statement was recorded by the police only once + + and whatsoever he had stated before the police, he is stating + + before the Court. He has also stated that he had not stated before + + the police that his cousin brother had returned back to home and + + told others about the incident whereafter, they had reached at the + + place of occurrence and had taken his elder brother in an + + unconscious state for treatment to Bagaha. PW-13 has further + + stated that at the time of occurrence, he was ploughing in the + + adjacent field on the western side. He has also stated that several + + co-villagers, namely, Dharmdev Thakur, Mukesh Yadav, + + Shambhu Yadav, Phirangi Sah and Shankar Sah, etc. had arrived + + there. In paragraph no.7 of his cross-examination, PW-13 has + + stated that he was ploughing field since 02:00 p.m.. He has next + + stated that he had left his house at 01:30 for ploughing his field + + and had reached the grove at 03:45 p.m., when he saw that + + assault was taking place, whereafter he had raised hulla (alarm) + + and then people from the nearby area had arrived there leading + + to the accused persons fleeing away. Adalat Mahto had stayed at + + the grove for 15 minutes and at that time he was speaking and + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 48/88 + + + + + was saying that he be taken for treatment since his legs and + + hands have been cut. Thereafter, Adalat was put in a tempo by + + PW-13, Prahlad, Nandu, Rajendra and at that time, he had tied + + the injury of Adalat. +

+

38. PW-13 has also stated that dhoti of Adalat was opened + + and given to the police officer. Adalat was taken to the hospital + + by tempo and he had gone to the hospital while speaking. He has + + also stated that on the way to Bagaha Hospital from the house, + + the police station is situated in between, however he had neither + + gone to the police station nor given his statement. His statement + + was recorded at the hospital. Adalat was kept at Bagaha Hospital + + for an hour, where the doctor had administered saline and after + + initial treatment he was referred and at that time also Adalat was + + speaking. He has also stated that they had gone to Bettiah by + + ambulance along with Prahlad, Pramod, Binod and Gopal. He + + has next stated that he had stayed at Bettiah in the night and had + + returned on the next date at 10:30 a.m. He has stated that Adalat + + was not admitted at Bettiah Hospital but he was kept there for + + postmortem examination. In paragraph no.9 of his cross- + + examination, PW-13 has stated that when he was giving his + + statement to the police, Prahlad was also present there and + + Pramod had gained knowledge about the police case. He has + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 49/88 + + + + + next stated that the sharp portion of farsa is two and a half inch + + wide and one feet in length. Farsa was bent (curved) and bhala + + was sharp (pointed), about four finger length in width. He has + + also stated that on the body of Gopal, injuries were at eight + + places and he had been inflicted with injury on his thigh by + + bhala, which had penetrated inside. PW-13 has stated that it is + + not a fact that on account of land dispute, the accused persons + + have been falsely implicated in this case. +

+

39. PW-14 Ram Prasad Ram has stated in his deposition that + + the occurrence dates back to two years at about 04:00 p.m. in the + + evening while he was ploughing the field of Kishore, when he + + heard hulla (alarm) whereupon he went running to the place of + + occurrence and saw that hands and legs of Adalat have been cut + + and blood was oozing out. Prahlad, Kishore, Nandu and Gopal + + were present there. He has also stated that after seeing blood, he + + became perplexed and went back to his home. He has next + + stated that at the time he came to the place of occurrence, + + quarrel had already taken place and Chhota Mahto was holding + + farsa, while Sharma Mahto, Moti and Parikha were holding + + lathi. He had recognized the appellants present in the dock. In + + cross-examination, PW-14 has stated that his statement was + + recorded by the police in the village after 10 days of the + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 50/88 + + + + + incident. In cross-examination, PW-14 has stated that the field of + + Kishore is situated on the western side of the grove at a distance + + of 4-5 katha length and in the field sugar cane is growing. He + + has also stated that at the time when he went to Adalat, at that + + time Harihar, Koiri and some females had arrived there. He has + + stated that when he went there, accused persons and Harihar + + were present and Adalat had become unconscious, however he + + had not tied the injuries of Adalat. He has stated that he had + + come back from the place of occurrence after 10 minutes and + + that land dispute is existing in between the parties. + +

40. After closing the prosecution evidence, the learned Trial + + Court recorded the statement of the appellants of the aforesaid + + two appeals on 05.10.2015 under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. for + + enabling them to personally explain the circumstances appearing + + in the evidence against them, however they claimed themselves + + to be innocent and have stated that they have been falsely + + implicated on account of land dispute and they would give + + evidence. +

+

41. The trial Court, upon appreciation, analysis and scrutiny + + of the evidence adduced at the trial, has found the aforesaid + + appellants guilty of the offences and has sentenced them to + + imprisonment and fine, as noted above, by its impugned + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 51/88 + + + + + judgment and order. +

+

42. We have perused the impugned judgment of the learned + + Trial Court, the entire materials on record as also the evidence + + adduced at the trial and have given our thoughtful consideration + + to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the + + appellants as well as the learned APP for the State. + +

43. The first and foremost aspect, which is required to be + + adjudged is as to whether any ocular evidence is available on + + record to prove the guilt of the aforesaid appellants for the + + offences with which they have been charged. The prosecution + + has led the evidence of PW-1 Gopal Mahto, PW-2 Prahlad + + Mahto, PW-3 Nandu Mahto, PW-4 Binod Mahto, PW-5 + + Rajendra Mahto, PW-9 Pramod Mahto, PW-13 Kishore Mahto + + and PW-14 Ram Prasad Ram, apart from having led the + + evidence of the doctors, i.e. PW-7 Dr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhari + + and PW-8 Dr. A.K. Tiwari as also the Investigating Officer, i.e. + + PW-11 Suraj Kumar Gupta and based upon the same the learned + + Trial Court has convicted the appellants. Whereas, on the + + contrary, the appellants have primarily taken the defence that + + most of the witnesses produced by the prosecution are interested + + and related, the medical evidence does not support the injuries + + sustained by the deceased and as far as the factum of Gopal + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 52/88 + + + + + Mahto being assaulted by the appellants is concerned, the same + + does not stand proved on the ground of the said circumstances + + having not been put to the appellants while recording their + + statements U/s. 313 Cr.P.C.. Alternatively, the learned counsel + + for the appellants has submitted that the appellants did not have + + any intention to kill the deceased, inasmuch as no injuries have + + been inflicted by the appellants on the vital parts of the body of + + the deceased, thus at best, the present case would fall under Part- + + II of Section 304 of the IPC. +

+

44. We find, upon having examined the evidence led by the + + prosecution that the place of occurrence, date and time of + + occurrence and the mode and manner of occurrence has stood + + proved, which is apparent from the deposition of the injured eye + + witnesses, i.e. PW-1 Gopal Mahto and PW-2 Prahlad Mahto as + + also from the evidence of other eye witnesses, i.e. PW-3 Nandu + + Mahto, PW-5 Rajendra Mahto, PW-9 Pramod Mahto, PW-13 + + Kishore Mahto and PW-14 Ram Prasad Ram, apart from that of + + the Investigating Officer (PW-11 Suraj Kumar Gupta). We find + + that as far as the mode and manner of occurrence is concerned, + + PW-1 Gopal Mahto, PW-2 Prahlad Mahto and PW-3 Nandu + + Mahto have all stated that the incident dates back to 11.05.2013 + + at about 03:45 p.m. in the evening when they had gone to the + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 53/88 + + + + + mango grove of Adalat Mahto for cutting mango wood for + + making stool (peedha) for being used in the marriage of the + + daughter of Prahlad Mahto. While Prahlad Mahto had climbed + + on a tree to cut a branch of the tree, Adalat Mahto and Nandu + + Mahto were beneath the tree and Adalat was preparing khaini + + (tobacco). Thereafter, the appellants had arrived there and while + + Chhota was armed with farsa, Arbind was armed with bhala, + + Shambhu was armed with sword and rest of the appellants were + + armed with lahti and phatta. Chhota had then assaulted Adalat + + by farsa resulting in cutting of his both arms and right leg and + + the same had separated, whereafter the other accused persons + + had assaulted him by danda and phatta. In the meantime, Gopal + + had arrived there to save him, but he was assaulted by bhala on + + his thigh and then PW-2 Prahlad Mahto was also assaulted by + + lahti on his left hand, resulting in breaking of his three fingers. + + As far as PW-1 Gopal Mahto is concerned, he was near the place + + of occurrence in his field situated near the mango grove of + + Adalat Mahto and he had witnessed the alleged occurrence as + + also was assaulted by the appellants resulting in him sustaining + + grievous injuries. At this juncture, it would be relevant to state + + that PW-8 Dr. A. K. Tiwari had not only examined Adalat Mahto + + (deceased) but had also examined PW-1 Gopal Mahto and PW-2 + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 54/88 + + + + + Prahlad Mahto and has stated in his evidence that the injuries + + caused on the person of Adalat Mahto and Gopal Mahto are + + serious and dangerous to their life and as far as PW-2 Prahlad + + Mahto is concerned, though the injury has been caused by hard + + and blunt substance but the same is simple in nature. We find it + + relevant to state here that it is a well settled law that injured + + witnesses are granted special status and they offer an extremely + + valuable piece of evidence. In this regard, reference be had to a + + judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of + + Abdul Sayeed vs State of Maharashtra, reported in 2010 (10) + + SCC 259, wherein it has been held that where a witness to the + + occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the + + testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very + + reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in-guarantee + + of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to + + spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate + + someone. It has also been held that convincing evidence is + + required to discredit an injured witness. +

+

45. It would also be apt to refer to a judgment rendered by + + the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Birbal Nath vs State of + + Rajasthan, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1396, wherein it + + has been held that greater evidentiary value is attached to the + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 55/88 + + + + + injured witness unless compelling reasons exist to doubt the + + same. It would also be pertinent to refer to yet another + + judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of + + Balu Sudam Khalde & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra, + + reported in (2023) 13 SCC 365, paragraph No. 26 whereof is + + reproduced hereinbelow:- +

+
"26. When the evidence of an injured eyewitness is to be + appreciated, the undernoted legal principles enunciated + by the courts are required to be kept in mind: +
26.1. The presence of an injured eyewitness at the time + and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless + there are material contradictions in his deposition. + 26.2. Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, + it must be believed that an injured witness would not + allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the + accused. +
26.3. The evidence of injured witness has greater + evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, + their statements are not to be discarded lightly. + 26.4. The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted + on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or + minor contradictions. +
26.5. If there be any exaggeration or immaterial + embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, + then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment + should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not + the whole evidence. +
26.6. The broad substratum of the prosecution version + must be taken into consideration and discrepancies + which normally creep due to loss of memory with + passage of time should be discarded." +

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 56/88 + + + + +

46. We also find that PW-5 Rajendra Mahto was beneath a + + tree near the canal at the time of occurrence and he has stated + + that he had seen the incident from a distance of 2-3 bigha and + + has Ad-verbatim recited the sequence of events as has been + + narrated by the aforesaid injured eye witnesses. We also find + + that PW-9 Pramod Mahto, son of the deceased, who was + + coming from his in-laws' place has stated in his evidence that + + when he had reached near Kotwa village, he heard hulla + + (alarm) and then he had gone running inside the grove, + + whereupon he saw Chhota having cut the hands and legs of his + + father by farsa as also Sukai and Arbind had assaulted his + + father by bhala on his waist and then other accused persons had + + assaulted him by lathi apart from Arbind and Sukai having also + + assaulted Gopal on his legs by bhala. As far as PW-13 Kishore + + Mahto (informant) is concerned, he is stated to be ploughing + + the field situated adjacent, on the western side of the mango + + grove since 2 p.m. and he is also stated to have witnessed the + + aforesaid incident and had recited the sequence of events as + + have been narrated by the aforesaid injured eye witnesses. PW- + + 14 Ram Prasad Ram is stated to be ploughing the field of the + + informant and upon hulla (alarm) he had gone to the place of + + occurrence and had seen the incident. Thus we find that the + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 57/88 + + + + + ocular evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, i.e. PW-1, PW-2, + + PW-3, PW-5, PW-9, PW-13 and PW-14 are cogent, convincing, + + creditworthy and reliable as also have stood the test of cross- + + examination, apart from being totally reconcilable and + + consistent with the medical evidence and moreover, the defence + + has not been able to elicit any contradictions while cross- + + examining the said witnesses. Hence, there is no reason to + + create any doubt about the truthfulness of the said witnesses, + + thus there is no reason to doubt the guilt of the appellants of the + + aforesaid appeals in the alleged occurrence, which stands + + proved beyond all reasonable doubt. +

+

47. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the + + appellants that as far as the postmortem report of the deceased + + Adalat Mahto is concerned, all the six injuries inflicted upon + + his body have been found to have been caused by sharp cutting + + substance, however the ocular evidence shows that he was also + + assaulted by lathi by some of the appellants but no injury has + + been found to have been inflicted by hard and blunt substance + + and similarly as far as Gopal Mahto is concerned, the injury + + report shows that all the injuries inflicted on his person have + + been caused by hard and blunt substance, however the evidence + + on record would show that he was assaulted by bhala. In this + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 58/88 + + + + + regard, it would suffice to state that as far as Adalat Mahto is + + concerned, he has also suffered fracture on various parts of the + + body which can obviously been caused by hard and blunt + + substance and as far as Gopal Mahto (PW-1) is concerned, he + + has sustained lacerated wound which can also be as a result of + + bhala blow, inasmuch as a bhala consists of two portions, one + + is shaft usually made of bamboo/wood and another is its metal + + head, hence shaft can very well cause an injury attributable to + + hard and blunt substance. Thus, the aforesaid arguments + + advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants has got no + + force. It has been also submitted by the learned counsel for the + + appellants that most of the witnesses are interested and related, + + hence they are not trustworthy. However, in this regard, as far + + as the issue of credibility of a related/interested witness is + + concerned, we may quote paragraph no. 26 of an old classic + + judgment rendered by a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble + + Apex Court, in the case of Dalip Singh and Others vs. The + + State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1953 SC 364, which is + + reproduced herein below:- +

+
"26. A witness is normally to be considered + independent unless he or she springs from sources + which are likely to be tainted and that usually means + unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 59/88 + + + + + the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. + Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen + the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent + person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is + personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to + drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has + a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be + laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of + relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure + guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any + sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on + its own facts. Our observations are only made to + combat what is so often put forward in cases before us + as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general + rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by + its own facts." +
+

48. As regards the lacuna in the case of prosecution to the + + effect that the circumstance of Gopal Mahto being assaulted by + + the appellants has not been put to them while recording of their + + statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., thus such circumstances + + which were not put to the appellants in their examination under + + Section 313 Cr.P.C. have to be completely excluded from + + consideration. In this regard, we find that the ocular evidence + + of the prosecution witnesses would show that there is no doubt + + about the mode and manner of occurrence which we have + + already held to have been proved and the defence has not been + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 60/88 + + + + + able to discredit the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, + + from which we find that the deceased was not only assaulted by + + Chhota Mahto by farsa and by Arbind Mahto and Sukai Mahto + + by bhala but also by other appellants by danda and phatta. + + Hence, even if the circumstance of Gopal Mahto being + + assaulted is left out of consideration for the moment, we find + + that all the appellants are members of an unlawful assembly + + and were having common object to commit the aforesaid crime + + in question. It is a well settled law that if an offence is + + committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in + + furtherance of the common purpose, or if members knew such + + an offence was likely to be committed, then every member of + + that assembly is liable for that offence. It is equally a well + + settled law that in cases where a large number of accused + + constituting an "unlawful assembly" are alleged to have + + attacked and killed one or more persons, it is not necessary that + + each of the accused should inflict fatal injuries or any injury at + + all and by invoking Section 149 of the IPC, the members of an + + unlawful assembly can be punished on the ground of vicarious + + liability even though they are not accused of having inflicted + + fatal injuries. Reference in this regard be had to a judgement + + rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nitya Nand + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 61/88 + + + + + vs. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in (2024) 9 SCC 314, + + paragraph nos. 41 to 48 whereof are reproduced hereinbelow:- + +

"41. Section 141 IPC defines "unlawful assembly". It + says an assembly of five or more persons is designated + as unlawful assembly if the common object of the + persons composing that assembly is to commit an illegal + act by means of criminal force. +
42. As per Section 148 IPC which deals with rioting + armed with deadly weapon, whoever is guilty of rioting, + being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything + which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause + death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either + description for a term which may extend to three years, + or with fine, or with both. "Rioting" is defined in Section + 146IPC. As per the said definition, whenever force or + violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any + member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of + such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty + of the offence of rioting. +
43. This brings us to the pivotal section which is Section + 149 IPC. Section 149 IPC says that every member of an + unlawful assembly shall be guilty of the offence + committed in prosecution of the common object. Section + 149 IPC is quite categorical. It says that if an offence is + committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in + prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or + such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely + to be committed in prosecution of that object, every + person who, at the time of committing of that offence, is + a member of the said assembly; is guilty of that offence. + Thus, if it is a case of murder under Section 302 IPC, + each member of the unlawful assembly would be guilty + of committing the offence under Section 302 IPC. +
44. In Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka [(2012) 11 SCC + 237], this Court while examining Section 149 IPC held as + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 62/88 + + + + + follows: (SCC p. 243, paras 20-21) + "20. It is now well-settled law that the provisions of + Section 149 IPC will be attracted whenever any offence + committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in + prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or + when the members of that assembly knew that offence + is likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, + so that every person, who, at the time of committing of + that offence is a member, will be also vicariously held + liable and guilty of that offence. Section 149 IPC + creates a constructive or vicarious liability of the + members of the unlawful assembly for the unlawful acts + committed pursuant to the common object by any other + member of that assembly. This principle ropes in every + member of the assembly to be guilty of an offence + where that offence is committed by any member of that + assembly in prosecution of common object of that + assembly, or such members or assembly knew that + offence is likely to be committed in prosecution of that + object. +
21. The factum of causing injury or not causing injury + would not be relevant, where the accused is sought to + be roped in with the aid of Section 149 IPC. The + relevant question to be examined by the court is + whether the accused was a member of an unlawful + assembly and not whether he actually took active part + in the crime or not." +

45. Thus, this Court in Krishnappa case [Krishnappa v. + State of Karnataka, (2012) 11 SCC 237] held that + Section 149 IPC creates a constructive or vicarious + liability of the members of the unlawful assembly for the + unlawful acts committed pursuant to the common object + by any other member of that assembly. By application of + this principle, every member of an unlawful assembly is + roped in to be held guilty of the offence committed by + any member of that assembly in prosecution of the + common object of that assembly. The factum of causing + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 63/88 + + + + + injury or not causing injury would not be relevant when + an accused is roped in with the aid of Section 149IPC. + The question which is relevant and which is required to + be answered by the court is whether the accused was a + member of an unlawful assembly and not whether he + actually took part in the crime or not. +

46. As a matter of fact, this Court in Vinubhai + Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel [(2018) + 7 SCC 743] has reiterated the position that Section 149 + IPC does not create a separate offence but only declares + vicarious liability of all members of the unlawful + assembly for acts done in common object. This Court has + held: (SCC pp. 752-53 & 756, paras 20, 22 & 34) + "20. In cases where a large number of accused + constituting an "unlawful assembly" are alleged to + have attacked and killed one or more persons, it is not + necessary that each of the accused should inflict fatal + injuries or any injury at all. Invocation of Section 149 + is essential in such cases for punishing the members of + such unlawful assemblies on the ground of vicarious + liability even though they are not accused of having + inflicted fatal injuries in appropriate cases if the + evidence on record justifies. The mere presence of an + accused in such an "unlawful assembly" is sufficient to + render him vicariously liable under Section 149IPC for + causing the death of the victim of the attack provided + that the accused are told that they have to face a + charge rendering them vicariously liable under Section + 149IPC for the offence punishable under Section + 302IPC. Failure to appropriately invoke and apply + Section 149 enables large number of offenders to get + away with the crime. +

*** +

22. When a large number of people gather together + (assemble) and commit an offence, it is possible that + only some of the members of the assembly commit the + crucial act which renders the transaction an offence + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 64/88 + + + + + and the remaining members do not take part in that + "crucial act" -- for example in a case of murder, the + infliction of the fatal injury. It is in those situations, the + legislature thought it fit as a matter of legislative policy + to press into service the concept of vicarious liability + for the crime. [Ramu Gope v. State of Bihar, 1968 SCC + OnLine SC 74, para 5: +

"5. ... When a concerted attack is made on the + victim by a large number of persons it is often + difficult to determine the actual part played by each + offender. But on that account for an offence + committed by a member of the unlawful assembly in + the prosecution of the common object or for an + offence which was known to be likely to be + committed in prosecution of the common object, + persons proved to be members cannot escape the + consequences arising from the doing of that act + which amounts to an offence."] Section 149IPC is + one such provision. It is a provision conceived in the + larger public interest to maintain the tranquillity of + the society and prevent wrongdoers (who actively + collaborate or assist the commission of offences) + claiming impunity on the ground that their activity + as members of the unlawful assembly is limited. +
*** +
34. For mulcting liability on the members of an + unlawful assembly under Section 149, it is not + necessary that every member of the unlawful assembly + should commit the offence in prosecution of the + common object of the assembly. Mere knowledge of the + likelihood of commission of such an offence by the + members of the assembly is sufficient. For example, if + five or more members carrying AK 47 rifles collectively + attack a victim and cause his death by gunshot injuries, + the fact that one or two of the members of the assembly + did not in fact fire their weapons does not mean that + they did not have the knowledge of the fact that the + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 65/88 + + + + + offence of murder is likely to be committed." +

(emphasis in original) +

47. It is true that there are certain lacunae in the + prosecution. The scribe Kuldeep was not examined. + Similarly, the younger brother Laxmi Narain was not + examined though it has come on record that Laxmi + Narain was killed in the year 1993 and in that case one + of the accused is the appellant himself. It is also true + that neither any country-made pistol was recovered nor + any cartridge, empty or otherwise, recovered. However, + the appellant has been roped in with the aid of Section + 149IPC. Therefore, as held by this Court in Yunis v. State + of M.P. [(2003) 1 SCC 425], no overt act is required to + be imputed to a particular person when the charge is + under Section 149IPC; the presence of the accused as + part of the unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction. + It is clear from the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 that the + appellant was part of the unlawful assembly which + committed the murder. Though they were extensively + cross-examined, their testimony in this regard could not + be shaken. +

48. In view of what we have discussed above, we have no + doubt in our mind that the trial court had rightly + convicted the appellant under Section 148IPC read with + Sections 302/149IPC and that the High Court was + justified in confirming the same. The question framed in + para 16 above is therefore answered in the affirmative." + +

49. We thus find from the evidence of the prosecution + + witnesses that all the accused persons, including the appellants + + of the aforesaid two appeals were members of unlawful + + assembly as also they had participated in the incident in + + prosecution of the common object of that assembly and as a + + result of commission of the offence in question, Adalat Mahto + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 66/88 + + + + + has died, hence all the aforesaid appellants, who were members + + of the said unlawful assembly at the time of commission of the + + offence in question are definitely guilty of that offence, i.e. the + + one under Section 302 of the IPC by invocation of Section 149 + + of the IPC. Thus, even though the deceased may have died + + primarily on the account of fatal blow inflicted by the appellant + + of second case, i.e Chhota Mahto as also by the appellant no. 1 + + and appellant no.2 of the first case, namely Sukai Mahto and + + Arbind Mahto respectively, nonetheless all the other appellants + + and other accused persons are liable to be convicted under + + Section 302 of the IPC with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC, + + keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court + + in the case of Nitya Nand (supra). +

+

50. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present + + case and the evidence which has been brought on record to + + prove the allegations levelled against the appellants beyond + + pale of any reasonable doubt as well as considering the + + credibility and trustworthiness of the evidence of the + + prosecution, which has not been discredited during the course + + of cross-examination coupled with the medical evidence on + + record, i.e the postmortem report and injury reports and for the + + reasons mentioned hereinabove, we find that there is no reason + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 67/88 + + + + + to create any doubt in our minds. We have examined the + + materials available on record and do not find any apparent error + + in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, + + hence the same does not require any interference. + +

51. We would now take up for consideration the alternative + + argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants to + + the effect that the appellants had no intention to cause death, + + inasmuch as all the injuries have been inflicted on non-vital + + parts of the body of the deceased and moreover, it is apparent + + from the case as set up by the prosecution that at the time of + + occurrence, apart from the deceased PW-2 Prahlad Mahto and + + PW-3 Nandu Mahto were present at the place of occurrence as + + also other witnesses, i.e. PW-1 Gopal Mahto, PW-5 Rajendra + + Mahto, PW-9 Pramod Mahto, PW-13 Kishore Mahto and PW- + + 14 Ram Prasad Ram had also arrived there. Moreover, it is + + evident from the evidence of PW-2 that Sharma Mahto was + + present at the grove from before and he had then called the + + other accused persons, whereafter the other accused persons + + had arrived there within two minutes and then they had + + engaged in overt-act as aforesaid, which also shows that the + + appellants did not have any premeditated mind to kill anyone. + + In fact, it does not appear from the evidence on record that + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 68/88 + + + + + repeated farsa/bhala/lathi blows were inflicted on the deceased + + apart from the fact that the medical evidence would show that + + no injury has been inflicted on the vital parts of the body of the + + deceased. Hence, we are of the view that the present case + + would not fall within the purview Section 302 of the IPC rather + + it would, at best attract Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, in + + absence of any intention to cause death of the deceased. + +

52. From the entire conspectus of the case and considering + + the factual matrix, it can be gathered that the act done by the + + appellant(s), who had caused death of the deceased, was with a + + knowledge that such an act is likely to cause death but the facts + + are not such, so as to establish the intention of the appellant(s) + + to cause death of the deceased. "Intent" and "knowledge" are + + ingredients of Section 299 I.P.C. and so far as an act done by an + + accused which causes death with a knowledge that the death + + was likely to be caused by such act but the accused did not + + have any intention to cause death, would come within the + + purview of Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. Having considered + + the facts and circumstances of the present case as also the well + + settled law on the said issue, we safely conclude that the + + present case, in absence of any intention on the part of the + + appellants to cause death, cannot be described as a murder but + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 69/88 + + + + + it would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder. + +

53. We may refer to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble + + Apex Court in the case of Litta Singh & Anr. Vs. State of + + Rajasthan, reported in (2015) 15 SCC 327, wherein the + + Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while converting the + + conviction under Section 302 to 304 Part-II of the IPC has held + + as under:- +

+
"23. Considering the nature of the injury caused to + the deceased and the weapons i.e. lathi and gandasi + (sickle) used by them, it cannot be ruled out that they + assaulted the deceased with the knowledge that the + injury may cause death of the person. Moreover, there + is no evidence from the side of the prosecution that + the accused persons preplanned to cause death and + with that intention they were waiting for the deceased + coming from the field and then with an intention to + kill the deceased they assaulted him. +
24. It is a well-settled proposition of law that the + intention to cause death with the knowledge that the + death will probably be caused, is a very important + consideration for coming to the conclusion that death + is indeed a murder with intention to cause death or + the knowledge that death will probably be caused. + From the testimonies of the witnesses, it does not + reveal that the accused persons intended to cause + death and with that intention they started inflicting + injuries on the body of the deceased. Even more + important aspect is that while they were beating the + deceased the witnesses reached the place and shouted + whereupon the accused persons immediately ran + away instead of inflicting more injuries with the intent + to kill the deceased. +
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 70/88 + + + + +
26. After analysing the entire evidence, it is evidently + clear that the occurrence took place suddenly and + there was no premeditation on the part of the + appellants. There is no evidence that the appellants + made special preparation for assaulting the deceased + with the intent to kill him. There is no dispute that the + appellants assaulted the deceased in such a manner + that the deceased suffered grievous injuries which + were sufficient to cause death, but we are convinced + that the injury was not intended by the appellants to + kill the deceased. +
27. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our + considered opinion, the instant case falls under + Section 304 Part II I.P.C. as stated above. Although + the appellants had no intention to cause death but it + can safely be inferred that the appellants knew that + such bodily injury was likely to cause death, hence + the appellants are guilty of culpable homicide not + amounting to murder & are liable to be punished + under Section 304 Part II I.P.C." +
+

54. Thus, based on an encapsulation of the above mentioned + + facts and circumstances of the case and the law prevailing on + + the subject matter, it has weighed upon us to come to a finding + + that the present case would fall under Section 304 Part-II of the + + IPC, especially in view of the fact that from the evidence + + adduced by the prosecution, intention to kill the deceased does + + not get established and the elements of intention to cause death + + seems to be missing, however it can safely be inferred that the + + appellants knew that the bodily injuries inflicted upon the + + deceased on account of the assault made by them was likely to + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 71/88 + + + + + cause death. Therefore, upon considering the entire case of the + + prosecution and the evidence adduced in support of the same, + + we feel that the appellants of all the aforesaid two appeals are + + liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. As + + such, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/149 of + + the IPC and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life with + + fine of Rs.10,000/- each, awarded there under are set aside and + + instead the appellants are convicted under Section 304 Part-II + + of the IPC, however conviction under Section 148 of the IPC + + would stand against the appellants but with no separate + + sentence being awarded there under. +

+

55. Before coming to the sentencing part, we would like to + + refer to few case laws wherein the conviction of the accused + + persons have been converted from Section 302 IPC to one + + under Section 304 Part-II IPC and lesser than the maximum + + sentence has been awarded or the accused persons have been + + sentenced to undergo the custody period already undergone by + + them. In this connection, reference be had to the following + + judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court:- + +

(i) Camilo Vaz vs. State of Goa, reported in (2000) 9 + SCC 1; +
+
(ii) Rampal Singh vs. State of U.P., reported in (2012) 8 + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 72/88 + + + + + SCC 289; +
+
(iii) Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra, + reported in (2013) 6 SCC 770; +
+
(iv) Chenda vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in + (2013) 12 SCC 110; +
+
(v) Surain Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2017) + 5 SCC 796; +
+

(vi) Anbazhagan vs. State, reported in 2023 SCC + OnLine SC 857; and + +

(vii) Velthepu Srinivas vs. State of Telangana, reported + in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 107. +

+

56. It would be apt to refer to a judgment rendered by the + + Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 471 (Buddhu + + Singh & Others Vs. State of Bihar), wherein once again the + + issue of conversion of conviction from Section 302 IPC to + + Section 304 Part-II of the IPC was raised although the death + + was caused by an axe blow on the head of the deceased. The + + Hon'ble Apex Court, considering the absence of element of + + intention, held that the offence constituted culpable homicide + + not amounting to murder and converted the conviction of the + + accused from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC and + + sentenced each of them to the period already undergone. We + + think it proper to quote paragraphs No. 8 and 9 of the said + + judgment herein below:- +

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 73/88 + + + + + "8. Considering the overall material, we are of the + view that there is hardly anything on record which can + be said against accused Ledwa Singh and Balchand + Singh though the common intention on their part + could be attributed since they had done the overt act + of grappling with and pinning down the deceased. +

Now, seeing that his father and brother had been + grappling with the deceased, accused Buddhu Singh + dealt an axe-blow which could not be said to be + intended towards the head. It could have landed + anywhere. However, it landed on the head of the + deceased. Therefore, the element of intention is ruled + out. Again the defence raised on behalf of the accused + that there could not have been the intention to commit + the murder of the deceased is justified by the fact that + accused Buddhu Singh did not repeat the assault. + Under the circumstances, we feel that the prosecution + has been able to establish the guilt of the accused + persons under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. +

9. We, accordingly, modify the finding of the High + Court and convert the conviction of the accused from + Section 302 I.P.C. to Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and + sentence each of them to the period already + undergone. Accused Buddhu Singh is stated to be in + jail for the last five years whereas other accused + persons, namely, Ledwa Singh and Balchand Singh + are stated to be in jail for the last ten years. They be + released from the jail forthwith unless they are + required in any other case." +

+

57. We would also like to gainfully reproduce paragraph + + nos.18 and 19 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex + + Court in the case of Gopal Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand, + + reported in (2013) 7 SCC 545 hereinbelow: - +

+
"18. Just punishment is the collective cry of the society. + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 74/88 + + + + + While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the + mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality + between the crime and punishment cannot be totally + brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the + bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. + A punishment should not be disproportionately + excessive. The concept of proportionality allows a + significant discretion to the Judge but the same has to + be guided by certain principles. In certain cases, the + nature of culpability, the antecedents of the accused, + the factum of age, the potentiality of the convict to + become a criminal in future, capability of his + reformation and to lead an acceptable life in the + prevalent milieu, the effect - propensity to become a + social threat or nuisance, and sometimes lapse of time + in the commission of the crime and his conduct in the + interregnum bearing in mind the nature of the offence, + the relationship between the parties and attractability + of the doctrine of bringing the convict to the value- + based social mainstream may be the guiding factors. + Needless to emphasise, these are certain illustrative + aspects put forth in a condensed manner. We may + hasten to add that there can neither be a straitjacket + formula nor a solvable theory in mathematical + exactitude. It would be dependent on the facts of the + case and rationalised judicial discretion. Neither the + personal perception of a Judge nor self-adhered + moralistic vision nor hypothetical apprehensions + should be allowed to have any play. For every offence, + a drastic measure cannot be thought of. Similarly, an + offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency + solely on the ground of discretion vested in a court. The + real requisite is to weigh the circumstances in which + the crime has been committed and other concomitant + factors which we have indicated hereinbefore and also + have been stated in a number of pronouncements by + this Court. On such touchstone, the sentences are to be + imposed. The discretion should not be in the realm of + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 75/88 + + + + + fancy. It should be embedded in the conceptual essence + of just punishment. +
19. A court, while imposing sentence, has to keep in + view the various complex matters in mind. To structure + a methodology relating to sentencing is difficult to + conceive of. The legislature in its wisdom has conferred + discretion on the Judge who is guided by certain + rational parameters, regard been had to the factual + scenario of the case. In certain spheres the legislature + has not conferred that discretion and in such + circumstances, the discretion is conditional. In respect + of certain offences, sentence can be reduced by giving + adequate special reasons. The special reasons have to + rest on real special circumstances. Hence, the duty of + the court in such situations becomes a complex one. + The same has to be performed with due reverence for + the rule of law and the collective conscience on one + hand and the doctrine of proportionality, principle of + reformation and other concomitant factors on the + other. The task may be onerous but the same has to be + done with total empirical rationality sans any kind of + personal philosophy or individual experience or any a + priori notion." +
+

58. It would be apposite to refer to a judgment rendered by + + the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. + + Suresh, reported in (2019) 14 SCC 151, paragraph nos.10 to 20 + + whereof are reproduced herein below:- +

+
"10. The respondent was tried for the offence under + Sections 302 and 201 IPC. With the evidence on + record, it was clearly established that the respondent + was author of the fatal injury in question. The trial + court, with reference to the nature of the act of the + respondent and the attending circumstances, convicted + him for culpable homicide not amounting to murder + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 76/88 + + + + + under Section 304 Part II IPC and let him off for the + offence under Section 201 IPC because he had been + convicted for the main offence. This part of the order of + the trial court having attained finality and having not + been questioned even in this appeal, we would leave + the matter as regards conviction at that only. However, + the question remains as to whether all the facts and + circumstances of case taken together justify such + indulgence that the punishment of rigorous + imprisonment for a period of 3 years, as awarded by + the trial court, be reduced to that of 3 months and 21 + days? In our view, the answer to this question could + only be in the negative. +
11. In State of M.P. v. Ghanshyam Singh [(2003) 8 SCC + 13], relating to the offence punishable under Section + 304 Part I IPC, this Court found sentencing for a + period of 2 years to be too inadequate and even on a + liberal approach, found the custodial sentence of 6 + years serving the ends of justice. This Court + underscored the principle of proportionality in + prescribing liability according to the culpability; and + while also indicating the societal angle of sentencing, + cautioned that undue sympathy leading to inadequate + sentencing would do more harm to the justice system + and undermine public confidence in the efficacy of law. + This Court observed, inter alia, as under: +
"12. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose + inadequate sentence would do more harm to the + justice system to undermine the public confidence in + the efficacy of law and society could not long endure + under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty + of every court to award proper sentence having + regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in + which it was executed or committed, etc. This + position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in + Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N. [(1991) 3 SCC] +
13. Criminal law adheres in general to the principle + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 77/88 + + + + + of proportionality in prescribing liability according + to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It + ordinarily allows some significant discretion to the + Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, + presumably to permit sentences that reflect more + subtle considerations of culpability that are raised + by the special facts of each case. Judges, in essence, + affirm that punishment ought always to fit the crime; + yet in practice sentences are determined largely by + other considerations. Sometimes it is the + correctional needs of the perpetrator that are offered + to justify a sentence, sometimes the desirability of + keeping him out of circulation, and sometimes even + the tragic results of his crime. Inevitably, these + considerations cause a departure from just deserts + as the basis of punishment and create cases of + apparent injustice that are serious and widespread. +
14. Proportion between crime and punishment is a + goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant + notions, it remains a strong influence in the + determination of sentences. The practice of + punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is + now unknown in civilised societies, but such a + radical departure from the principle of + proportionality has disappeared from the law only in + recent times. Even now for a single grave infraction + drastic sentences are imposed. Anything less than a + penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is + thought then to be a measure of toleration that is + unwarranted and unwise. But in fact, quite apart + from those considerations that make punishment + unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the + crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment has + some very undesirable practical consequences. +
15. After giving due consideration to the facts and + circumstances of each case, for deciding just and + appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, + the aggravating and mitigating factors and + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 78/88 + + + + + circumstances in which a crime has been committed + are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really + relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by + the court. Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult + task. It has been very aptly indicated in McGautha v. + California [1971 SCC OnLine US SC 89 : 402 US + 183 (1971)] that no formula of a foolproof nature is + possible that would provide a reasonable criterion in + determining a just and appropriate punishment in + the infinite variety of circumstances that may affect + the gravity of the crime. In the absence of any + foolproof formula which may provide any basis for + reasonable criteria to correctly assess various + circumstances germane to the consideration of + gravity of crime, the discretionary judgment in the + facts of each case is the only way in which such + judgment may be equitably distinguished. +
17. Imposition of sentence without considering its + effect on the social order in many cases may be in + reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the + crime e.g. where it relates to offences against + women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of + public money, treason and other offences involving + moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have + great impact on social order and public interest + cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary + treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meagre + sentences or taking too sympathetic a view merely + on account of lapse of time in respect of such + offences will be resultwise counterproductive in the + long run and against societal interest which needs to + be cared for and strengthened by a string of + deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system. +
19. Similar view has also been expressed in Ravji v. + State of Rajasthan [(1996) 2 SCC 175]. It has been + held in the said case that it is the nature and gravity + of the crime but not the criminal, which are germane + for consideration of appropriate punishment in a + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 79/88 + + + + + criminal trial. The court will be failing in its duty if + appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime + which has been committed not only against the + individual victim but also against the society to + which the criminal and victim belong. The + punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be + irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent + with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime + has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime + warranting public abhorrence and it should + 'respond to the society's cry for justice against the + criminal'." +

(emphasis supplied) +

12. In Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, + [(2012) 2 SCC 648], the allegations against the + appellant had been that while driving a car in drunken + condition, he ran over the pavement, killing 7 persons + and causing injuries to 8. He was charged for the + offences under Sections 304 Part II and 338 IPC; was + ultimately convicted [State of Maharashtra v. Alister + Anthony Pareira, 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 1490] by the + High Court under Sections 304 Part II, 338 and 337 + IPC; and was sentenced to 3 years' rigorous + imprisonment with a fine of Rs 5 lakhs for the offence + under Section 304 Part II IPC and to rigorous + imprisonment for 1 year and for 6 months respectively + for the offences under Sections 338 and 337 IPC. Apart + from other contentions, one of the pleas before this + Court was that in view of fine and compensation + already paid and willingness to make further payment + as also his age and family circumstances, the appellant + may be released on probation or his sentence may be + reduced to that already undergone. As regards this plea + for modification of sentence, this Court traversed + through the principles of penology, as enunciated in + several of the past decisions [This Court referred, + amongst others, to the decisions in State of Karnataka + v. Krishnappa, (2000) 4 SCC 75; Dalbir Singh v. State + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 80/88 + + + + + of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82; State of M.P. v. Saleem, + (2005) 5 SCC 554; Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) + 2 SCC 175; State of M.P. v. Ghanshyam Singh, (2003) + 8 SCC 13] and, while observing that the facts and + circumstances of the case show "a despicable + aggravated offence warranting punishment + proportionate to the crime", this Court found no + justification for extending the benefit of probation or + for reduction of sentence. On the question of + sentencing, this Court re-emphasised as follows: +

"84. Sentencing is an important task in the matters of + crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal + law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and + proportionate sentence commensurate with the + nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which + the crime is done. There is no straitjacket formula + for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The + courts have evolved certain principles: the twin + objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and + correction. What sentence would meet the ends of + justice depends on the facts and circumstances of + each case and the court must keep in mind the + gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of + the offence and all other attendant circumstances. +
85. The principle of proportionality in sentencing a + crime-doer is well entrenched in criminal + jurisprudence. As a matter of law, proportion + between crime and punishment bears most relevant + influence in determination of sentencing the crime + doer. The court has to take into consideration all + aspects including social interest and consciousness + of the society for award of appropriate sentence." +

(emphasis supplied) +

13. Therefore, awarding of just and adequate + punishment to the wrongdoer in case of proven crime + remains a part of duty of the court. The punishment to + be awarded in a case has to be commensurate with the + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 81/88 + + + + + gravity of crime as also with the relevant facts and + attending circumstances. Of course, the task is of + striking a delicate balance between the mitigating and + aggravating circumstances. At the same time, the + avowed objects of law, of protection of society and + responding to the society's call for justice, need to be + kept in mind while taking up the question of sentencing + in any given case. In the ultimate analysis, the + proportion between the crime and punishment has to + be maintained while further balancing the rights of the + wrongdoer as also of the victim of the crime and the + society at large. No straitjacket formula for sentencing + is available but the requirement of taking a holistic + view of the matter cannot be forgotten. +

14. In the process of sentencing, any one factor, + whether of extenuating circumstance or aggravating, + cannot, by itself, be decisive of the matter. In the same + sequence, we may observe that mere passage of time, + by itself, cannot be a clinching factor though, in an + appropriate case, it may be of some bearing, along + with other relevant factors. Moreover, when certain + extenuating or mitigating circumstances are suggested + on behalf of the convict, the other factors relating to + the nature of crime and its impact on the social order + and public interest cannot be lost sight of. +

15. Keeping in view the principles aforesaid, when the + present matter is examined, we find that the respondent + is convicted of the offence under Section 304 Part II + IPC. Section 304 IPC reads as under: +

"304. Punishment for culpable homicide not + amounting to murder.--Whoever commits culpable + homicide not amounting to murder, shall be + punished with imprisonment for life, or + imprisonment of either description for a term which + may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to + fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done + with the intention of causing death, or of causing + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 82/88 + + + + + such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with + imprisonment of either description for a term which + may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if + the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to + cause death, but without any intention to cause + death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to + cause death. +

16. Therefore, when an accused is convicted for the + offence under Part II of Section 304 ibid., he could be + sentenced to imprisonment for a term which may + extend to a period of 10 years, or with fine, or both. In + this case, the trial court chose to award the punishment + of 3 years' rigorous imprisonment to the respondent. + The punishment so awarded by the trial court had itself + been leaning towards leniency, essentially in view of + the fact that the respondent was 26 years of age at the + time of the incident in question. However, the High + Court further proceeded to reduce the punishment to + the period already undergone (i.e. 3 months and 21 + days) on consideration of the factors: (i) that the + incident had taken place on spur of the moment; (ii) + that the respondent was 26 years of age at the time of + incident; and (iii) that the respondent himself took his + father to hospital. On these considerations and after + finding that the respondent had spent 3 months and 21 + days in custody, the High Court concluded that "no + useful purpose would be served in sending the + appellant back to jail". We are clearly of the view that, + further indulgence by the High Court, over and above + the leniency already shown by the trial court, was + totally uncalled for. +

17. So far the mitigating factors, as taken into + consideration by the High Court are concerned, + noticeable it is that the same had already gone into + consideration when the trial court awarded a + comparatively lesser punishment of 3 years' + imprisonment for the offence punishable with + imprisonment for a term that may extend to 10 years, + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 83/88 + + + + + or with fine, or with both. In fact, the factor that the + incident had happened on the "spur of the moment": +

had been the basic reason for the respondent having + been convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not + amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC + though he was charged for the offence of murder under + Section 302 IPC. This factor could not have resulted in + awarding just a symbolic punishment. Then, the factor + that the respondent was 26 years of age had been the + basic reason for awarding comparatively lower + punishment of 3 years' imprisonment. This factor has + no further impelling characteristics which would justify + yet further reduction of the punishment than that + awarded by the trial court. Moreover, the third factor, + of the respondent himself taking his father to hospital, + carries with it the elements of pretence as also + deception on the part of the respondent, particularly + when he falsely stated that the victim sustained injury + due to the fall. Therefore, all the aforementioned + factors could not have resulted in further reduction of + the sentence as awarded by the trial court. +

18. The High Court also appears to have omitted to + consider the requirement of balancing the mitigating + and aggravating factors while dealing with the + question of awarding just and adequate punishment. + The facts and the surrounding factors of this case make + it clear that, the offending act in question had been of + the respondent assaulting his father with a blunt object + which resulted in the fracture of skull of the victim at + parietal region. Then, the respondent attempted to + cover up the crime by taking his father to hospital and + suggesting as if the victim sustained injury because of + fall from the roof. Thus, the acts and deeds of the + respondent had been of killing his own father and then, + of furnishing false information. The homicidal act of + the respondent had, in fact, been of patricide; killing of + one's own father. In such a case, there was no further + scope for leniency on the question of punishment than + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 84/88 + + + + + what had already been shown by the trial court; and + the High Court was not justified in reducing the + sentence to an abysmally inadequate period of less + than 4 months. The observations of the High Court that + no useful purpose would be served by detention of the + accused cannot be approved in this case for the reason + that the objects of deterrence as also protection of + society are not lost with mere passage of time. +

19. In the given set of facts and circumstances, the + observations in Jinnat Mia v. State of Assam, [(1998) 9 + SCC 319] on the powers of the High Court to review + the entire matter in appeal and to come to its own + conclusion or that the practice of this Court not to + interfere on questions of facts except in exceptional + cases shall have no application to the present case, + particularly when we find that the High Court has + erred in law and has not been justified in reducing the + sentence to a grossly inadequate level while ignoring + the relevant considerations. +

20. To sum up, after taking into account all the + circumstances of this case, we are of the considered + view that the High Court had been in error in + extending undue sympathy and in awarding the + punishment of rigorous imprisonment for the period + already undergone i.e. 3 months and 21 days for the + offence under Section 304 Part II IPC. In our view, + there was absolutely no reason for the High Court to + interfere with the punishment awarded by the trial + court, being that of rigorous imprisonment for 3 + years." +

+

59. We would now like to give a careful consideration to the + + facts of the present case for the purposes of awarding a proper + + sentence, considering the principles laid down by the Hon'ble + + Apex Court in a catena of judgments, as has been referred to + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 85/88 + + + + + hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs. The facts and + + circumstances of the present case depicts that the appellants did + + not cause any fatal injuries on the vital parts of the body of the + + deceased and moreover, it does not appear that repeated blows + + were inflicted by the appellants upon the deceased apart from + + the fact that though the incident had taken place on 11.05.2013 + + at 03.45 p.m., however the deceased was first taken to Bagaha + + Hospital where they had reached at about 5 p.m. in the evening + + and had stayed there for an hour, whereafter they had gone to + + Bettiah and reached there at 8-9 p.m. but the deceased is stated + + to have been brought dead at Bettiah Hospital, which can also + + be said to be an mitigating circumstance, inasmuch as proper + + treatment was not given immediately to the deceased. This + + leads us to a prudent consideration that the appellants never + + planned to inflict such type of injuries which would cause + + death of the deceased, hence this takes away the element of + + intention of causing death. Factually, the appellant no.1 of the + + first case, i.e Sukai Mahto @ Shukai Mahto, the appellant no.3 + + of the first case, i.e Moti Mahto @ Motilal Mahto and the + + appellant no.4 of the first case, i.e Shambhu Mahto @ Shukul + + Mahto have been in custody for around one year, while the + + appellant no.2 of the first case Arbind Mahto has been in jail + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 86/88 + + + + + for around 10 years. As far as the sole appellant of 2 nd case, + + namely Chhota Mahto is concerned, he has been in custody for + + around 12 years. +

+

60. Now, adverting to the requirement of balancing the + + aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which + + a crime has been committed on the basis of really relevant + + circumstances, though we find that the appellants of the + + aforesaid appeals have been suffering the rigors of trial since + + the year 2013, i.e. for a substantially long period of about 12 + + years and they are stated to be having a clean antecedent, + + however considering the principles laid down by the Hon'ble + + Apex Court to the effect that with mere passage of time, the + + objects of deterrence as also protection of society are not lost, + + there is no scope for leniency on the question of sentencing. + + Moreover, the appellants have now stood convicted for the + + offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under + + Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, though they were charged and + + had also been convicted by the Ld. Trial Judge for the offence + + of murder under Section 302/149 of the IPC, hence we are of + + the view that no symbolic punishment should be awarded, + + especially in view of the principle of proportionality in + + prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 87/88 + + + + + criminal conduct, inasmuch as showing of undue sympathy to + + impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice + + system, leading to undermining the public confidence in the + + efficacy of law as also would be resultantly counterproductive + + in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be + + cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the + + sentencing system. +

+

61. Thus, taking into account an overall perspective of the + + entire case, as indicated hereinabove as also considering the + + principles of sentencing laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, + + as aforesaid, apart from the fact that we have already convicted + + the appellants under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, we deem it + + fit and proper to sentence the appellants, for the altered + + conviction, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years each. + +

62. The appellant no.2 of the first case Arbind Mahto and the + + sole appellant of 2nd case, namely Chhota Mahto have now + + stood convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and + + sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years by the + + instant judgment, however since they have already undergone + + sentence of more than five years and are in custody, they are + + directed to be released from jail forthwith unless required in + + any other case. +

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 88/88 + + + + +

63. As far as the appellant no.1 of the first case, i.e Sukai + + Mahto @ Shukai Mahto, the appellant no.3 of the first case, i.e + + Moti Mahto @ Motilal Mahto and the appellant no.4 of the first + + case, i.e Shambhu Mahto @ Shukul Mahto are concerned, + + since they have also now stood convicted under Section 304 + + Part II of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 + + years by the instant judgment, their bail bonds are hereby + + cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the learned + + Trial Court within a period of four weeks from today, for being + + sent to jail for serving the remaining sentence. + +

64. Accordingly, the aforesaid two appeals bearing Criminal + + Appeal (DB) No.131 of 2016 and Criminal Appeal (DB) + + No.176 of 2016 are partly allowed to the extent indicated + + hereinabove. +

+

+ +

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) + + I agree. +

Shailendra Singh, J + + (Shailendra Singh, J) +kanchan/- +

AFR/NAFR                AFR
+CAV DATE                07.05.2025
+Uploading Date          04.09.2025
+Transmission Date       04.09.2025
+
+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_24385447.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_24385447.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..32ef5567e868800d47b8784b9d23f46abbc8408b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_24385447.html @@ -0,0 +1,439 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + R D Patil @ Rudragouda vs The State on 13 December, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Criminal Petition No.201625/2023 is filed by the + +petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.295/2023 registered by + +University Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 34, 37 of + +IPC and Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2008 + +(for short, hereinafter referred to as 'IT Act') + + +

2. Criminal Petition No.201627/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner who is accused No.1 under Section 438 of + +Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.267/2023 + +registered by Afzalpur Police Station, Kalaburagi District, for + +the offences punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, + +420, 34, 36, 37, 149 of IPC. +

+
+ +
+ +

+

3. Criminal Petition No.201738/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + + + + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.144/2023 registered by + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

4. Criminal Petition No.201736/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.145/2023 registered by + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

+
+ +
+

5. Criminal Petition No.201735/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.146/2023 registered by + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

6. Criminal Petition No.201734/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.147/2023 registered by + + + + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_24425183.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_24425183.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..018fc1c9b770b337d8c491771f32ae995c0d01e0 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_24425183.html @@ -0,0 +1,405 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Gurjant Singh Alias Janta vs State Of Punjab on 20 February, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. The pe oner, incarcera ng upon his arrest in the FIR cap oned above, has come +up before this Court under Sec on 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) +seeking bail. +

+

2. In paragraph 14 of the bail applica on, the accused declares the following +criminal antecedents: +

+
 Sr.       FIR No.            Dated                 Offences              Police
+ No.                                                                     Sta.on/District
+ 1.        185                20.11.2019            379-B and 25, 54 of Sadar Nakodar,
+           (on bail)                                Arms Act             (Jalandhar)
+ 2.        120                03.12.2019            379-B IPC            Sadar Banga,
+           (on bail)                                                     (SBS Nagar)
+ 3.        167                04.12.2019            307, 353, 186, 34 Mahilpur,
+                                                    IPC, 25, 54, 59 of (Hoshiarpur)
+                                                    Arms Act
+ 4.        102                12.12.2019            307, 148, 149, 427, Noormehal,
+           (on bail)                                506, 120-B, 201 IPC (Jalandhar)
+                                                    and 25, 54, 59 of
+                                                    Arms Act
+ 5.        4                  30.01.2020            307, 394 IPC and 25, Rawalpindi
+           (on bail)                                27,54 of Arms Act    (Kapurthala)
+ 6.        30                 09.03.2020            307, 353, 186 IPC Mehatpur,
+           (on bail)                                and 25 of Arms Act (Kapurthala)
+
+
+
+                                           1 of 7
+
+                                                                   Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:031751
+
+
+
+
+CRM-M-3898-2023
+
+ 7.       146              07.05.2020            52-A of Prisons Act   City      Hoshiarpur,
+          (on bail)                                                    (Hoshiarpur)
+ 8.       190              27.06.2020            52-A of Prisons Act   City      Hoshiarpur,
+          (on                                                          (Hoshiarpur)
+          produc on
+          warrant)
+ 9.       248              17.09.2020            52-A of Prisons Act   City      Hoshiarpur,
+          (on                                                          (Hoshiarpur)
+          produc on
+          warrant)
+ 10.      63               2020                  379-B of IPC          Sadar Banga,
+          (on                                                          (SBS Nagar)
+          produc on
+          warrant)
+
+
+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_26849171.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_26849171.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5039d59713effd565a99306662b764a5b2c0db0 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_26849171.html @@ -0,0 +1,431 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Binder @ Virender vs State Of Haryana on 15 December, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
2. FIR No.453/2022, 285, 34, 394, 511 On Bail + Police Station IPC, 3/4 of the + Asaudha (Jhajjar) Explosive Act +
3. FIR No.127/2021, PS 268, 285, 379, 34 On Bail + Machhrauli, District IPC, 15/16 of the + Jhajjar Petroleum Act, 3/4 + of the Explosive + Act +
4. FIR No.470/2021, 285, 379, 34 IPC, On Bail + Police Station 3/4 of the + Kharkhoda, District Explosive Act, 3/4 + Sonepat of the PDPP Act +
+
+ +
+
6. FIR No.92/2021 268, 285, 286, 379, On Bail + Police Station Badli, 511 IPC, 15/16 + (Jhajjar) Petroleum Act and + 3/4 of PDPP Act +
7. FIR No.590/2020, 285, 379, 34 IPC, On Bail + Police Station 15/16 of Petroleum + Kharkhoda, District Act and 3/4 of the + Sonipat PDPP Act +
8. FIR No.162/2021, 268, 285, 286, 379 On Bail + Police Station IPC, 15/16 Petrol + Sampla (Rohtak) and Pipeline Act + and Section 23 of + Petroleum Act and + 3/4 PDPP Act and + 6/4 of Explosive + Act +
+
+ +
+
9. FIR No.284/2021 379, 411, 117, 120- On Bail + Police Station B, 34 IPC, Sections + Rampura (Rewari) 15/16 of the + Petroleum Act, 3/4 + of PDPP Act +
10. FIR No.264/2021 379, 413, 34, 117, On Bail + Police Station 411, 420, 467, 468, + Rampura (Rewari) 471, 120-B IPC, + 15/16 of the + Petrleum Act, 3/4 + of the Explosive + Act +
+
+ +
+
17. FIR No.341/2016, 394, 397, 307, 411, On Bail + Alipur 34 IPC +

7. Further, the petitioner has been inculpated on the basis of + +his own disclosure statements and that of his co-accused suffered in FIR + +No.112 dated 10.04.2021. Whether the other evidence available against + +the petitioner is sufficient to affix liability upon him would be a matter of + +adjudication during the course of the Trial. At this stage, the petitioner is + +in custody since 14.02.2022, the investigation stands completed and only + +03 of the 24 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Thus, the + +trial in the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. + +Therefore, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not warranted, + +moreso, when in 12 of the 17 cases, he has been granted the concession + +of bail and a co-accused, namely, Anil @ Sonu, has been granted the + +similar relief vide order dated 19.10.2023 (Annexure P-2). + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_27016926.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_27016926.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7f1de892914d75db5a3d865f20f8e2b9cca06e2d --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_27016926.html @@ -0,0 +1,2475 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Mahipal vs State Of Delhi on 19 October, 2015 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 35, Cited by 1] + +
+ +

Delhi High Court

+

Mahipal vs State Of Delhi on 19 October, 2015

+ +

Author: R. K. Gauba

+ +

Bench: Sanjiv Khanna, R.K.Gauba

+ +
$~R-13 to 16 (Part-B)
+
+*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
+                                      Reserved on: 27th August, 2015
+%                                     Date of Decision : 19th October, 2015
+
++      CRL.A. 112/2000
+
+       MAHIPAL                                               ..... Appellant
+
+                             Through Mr. Ajay Burman, Mr. Aditya
+                             Swarup Agarwal, Mr. Karan Burman, Mr.
+                             Karan Sidhu, Mr. Harshit Khurana & Mr.
+                             Amritesh Raj, Advocates.
+
+
+
+                             versus
+
+       STATE OF DELHI                                      ..... Respondent
+ +

Through Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP along with + Inspector Harendra Singh, P.S. Welcome & + ACP (Retd.) M.S. Mattoo. +

+ + + CRL.A. 135/2000 + +
       SUNIL KUMAR                                          ..... Appellant
+
+                             Through Mr. M.L. Yadav & Mr. Lokesh
+                             Chandra, Advocates.
+
+
+
+                             versus
+
+       STATE                                              ..... Respondent
+
+
+
+Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn.                                     Page 1 of 61
+                              Through Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP along with
+                             Inspector Harendra Singh, P.S. Welcome &
+                             ACP (Retd.) M.S. Mattoo.
+
+
+
+       CRL.A. 148/2000
+
+       NEERAJ KUMAR                                    ..... Appellant
+
+                             Through Mr. Ajay Burman, Mr. Aditya
+                             Swarup Agarwal, Mr. Karan Burman, Mr.
+                             Karan Sidhu, Mr. Harshit Khurana & Mr.
+                             Amritesh Raj, Advocates.
+
+
+
+                             versus
+
+       STATE                                          ..... Respondent
+
+                             Through Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP along with
+                             Inspector Harendra Singh, P.S. Welcome &
+                             ACP (Retd.) M.S. Mattoo.
+
+
+
+       CRL.A. 202/2000
+
+       ANAND PRAKASH                                   ..... Appellant
+
+                             Through Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Advocate
+                             with Mr. Varun Deswal, Mr. Siddharth S.
+                             Yadav, Mr. Vaibhav Sharma & Mr. Sahil
+                             Paul, Advocates.
+
+
+
+                             versus
+
+
+
+Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn.                                 Page 2 of 61
+        STATE                                            ..... Respondent
+
+                             Through Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP along with
+                             Inspector Harendra Singh, P.S. Welcome &
+                             ACP (Retd.) M.S. Mattoo.
+
+CORAM:
+HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
+HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
+
+R. K. GAUBA, J:
+

1. The spectre of "custody death" raises its ugly head yet again in +the case at hand, bringing under cloud the claim of our polity that the +State guarantees, to one and all, a civil society truly wedded to the +normative of rule of law. +

+

2. The four appellants stood trial in the court of additional sessions +Judge in Sessions Case no. 73/96 on the basis of the report under +section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC"), +submitted on conclusion of investigation into the first information +report ("FIR") no. 72/92 of the police station Welcome, on the charge +for offences punishable under section 342 read with section 34 of +Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"), section 330 read with section 34 IPC +and section 302 read with section 34 IPC, the gravamen being that, in +furtherance of their common intention, they had wrongfully confined +Darshan Singh, after having picked him up on the night intervening +10th and 11th of March 1992 from his house no. K- 463 New +Seelampur, Delhi, assaulting him intentionally and causing injuries to +him in order to extract a confession to such an extent as to result in his +death. By judgment dated 15 February 2000, the trial Court held the + + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 3 of 61 + appellants guilty, as charged. By order dated 22 February 2000, each of +the appellants was awarded imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. +2000/- for offence under section 302/34 IPC, rigorous imprisonment +for one year with fine of Rs. 500/- each for offence under section +342/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs. +1000/- each for offence under section 330/34 IPC. It was directed by +the trial Court that in case of default in payment of fine, the appellants +would undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years, simple +imprisonment for 2 months and simple imprisonment for one year +respectively on the three counts. Benefit of section 428 CrPC was +accorded and it was directed that the substantive sentences shall run +concurrently. +

+

3. Through the criminal appeals at hand, the convicted persons +have assailed the judgement and the order of sentence. +

+

4. It is not disputed that the four appellants were members of Delhi +Police, posted at the relevant point of time in Anti Auto Theft Squad +(AATS) of North East District. The AATS was headed by Inspector +Shakti Singh (PW 15). Its office was located near the office of Deputy +Commissioner of Police of the area. Since questions have been raised +in such regard, it must be mentioned here that the building from where +the office of AATS was functioning was distinct from the properties +where the police stations named Seelampur and Welcome were +located. Though, it may also be added here that all these units of Delhi +police were not much distant from each other. The AATS had a total +staff strength of 11 police personnel, including one Inspector (PW 15), +2 sub inspectors, one assistant sub Inspector, one head Constable and 6 + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 4 of 61 + constables. The appellant Mahipal (criminal appeal no. 112/2000), +accused no. 3 (A3) before the trial Court, was posted as head +Constable. The other three appellants namely Anand Prakash (criminal +appeal no. 202/2000), accused no. 1 (A1) before the trial Court, Sunil +Kumar (criminal appeal no. 135/2000), accused no. 2 (A2) before the +trial Court, and, Niraj Kumar (criminal appeal no. 148/2000), accused +no. 4 (A4) before the trial Court, were working as Constables. +

+

5. Certain facts concerning Darshan Singh (hereinafter referred to +variously by his name or as "the victim" or "the deceased") have also +emerged as indisputable. He was son of Prem Pal (PW 3) aged about +21 years, unmarried, reasonably tall (170 cm) and average in build. He +was residing in house no. K-463, New Seelampur, Delhi. Munna Lal +(PW 4) describes him as his nephew. Since the parentage of PW4 is +different from that of PW 3, it appears that both of them hailing from +same brotherhood were distantly related. PW4 ran a shop of denting +and painting (of motor vehicles) in Bihari Colony. He had employed +the victim in his shop for some time but for about six months prior to +the events which are subject matter of the case, he (the victim) had +come to be employed in some other shop in similar work. Vikram +Singh (PW2) is younger brother of PW3 and, therefore, Chacha to the +victim. He also lived in the same area, in separate house (K-449). +Beena (PW1) is the wife of another brother (Ram Niwas) of PW2 and +PW3, she being a resident of a separate house (A-463) in the same +locality. +

+

6. Santosh (PW7) wife of Roshan Lal resides in the same area, in a +house in another block (house no. K-155). Her family included her 3 + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 5 of 61 + sons named Bobby@Ramesh, Des Raj (PW5) and Dharam Pal (PW6). +The evidence of the three members of this family, namely PW5, PW6 +and PW7, is relied upon by the prosecution to corroborate the word of +other witnesses as to the involvement of the appellants in the crimes +qua the deceased, though restricted to the extent of he (the deceased) +having been picked up from his house around the same time when +PW5 and PW6 were also statedly taken away by certain police +personnel from the house in which they were living during the relevant +period. +

+

7. The prosecution case also refers to Mohan Nursing Home & +Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "the nursing home"), located in +property described as 790, Indra Chowk, Delhi - 110053, not far away +from the office of AATS. Dr Mohan Lal (PW12) is the proprietor of +this nursing home. The evidence indicates that during the relevant +period he was assisted by, amongst others, Dr VK Jain (PW25) and Dr +GD Rathi. Dr GD Rathi was not examined at the trial but the +prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW12 and PW 25 in the +context of events that had occurred in the afternoon of 16 March 1992 +wherein the victim was brought to the nursing home in injured +condition by certain police officials. +

+

8. The fact that Darshan Singh went missing sometime on the night +of 10th and 11th March 1992 has been brought out by the prosecution, +with virtually no contest from the defence, through the mouthpiece of +PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4. +

+ + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 6 of 61 +

9. The trial Court record shows that when the statements of Beena +(PW1) and Vikram Singh (PW 2) were recorded on 7 October 1996, +the learned trial judge had followed the earlier practice of preparing a +simultaneous record of the deposition of the witnesses in vernacular +(Hindi) in addition to the English translation. When the record was +requisitioned for purposes of these appeals, the registry of this court +inadvertently assumed (at the time of preparation of the paper books) +the vernacular part of the depositions of the said witnesses as evidence +given by different individuals. Thus, while preparing the +compilation/paper books, the vernacular versions of the said witnesses +were denoted as statements of PW20 and PW21 respectively. +Ordinarily, in case of doubt, the Court should be looking at the +vernacular record of the oral testimony of the witnesses, but, in the +case at hand, we find, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the +appellants, that the said part of the record is incomplete. The English +version is authentic and veritable. The Hindi version clearly misses on +several parts of the questioning or the responses thereto and, thus, +cannot be relied upon. Therefore, with the consent of all sides, we +exclude from consideration the vernacular record of the depositions +attributed to PW1 and PW2, shown in the paper books as the +depositions of PW 20 and PW 21. +

+

10. Amongst the above-mentioned witnesses (PW1, PW2, PW3 and +PW4), all related to the victim, the evidence of PW1 is the most direct; +the testimony of the remaining being more relevant in the context of +what is stated to have followed in the days to come. The deposition of +PW1 is that she was outside her house at about 2 or 3 AM on the night + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 7 of 61 + intervening 10th and 11th of March 1992, helping her infant daughter +in easing at the drain outside, when she saw four persons in civil +clothes, knocking at the door of the house where the victim was living +and then taking him away. This part of her deposition has remained +unchallenged. The fact that Darshan Singh was taken away in this +manner would have come, in due course, in the knowledge of the other +three witnesses from her can be reasonably inferred. After all, no other +witness (immediate relative or local resident) has come forward to +share better information in such regard. Though PW1, in the course of +her testimony in the Court, tried to claim that the persons who had +picked up Darshan Singh and taken him away in the wee hours of 11 +March 1992 were police officials, given the position she took on 17 +March 1992, by when the victim had been located, her assertion on the +subject of identity of the persons who were involved must be presumed +to be based on what she may have heard from other relatives rather +than her own knowledge, their identities i.e. name etc. being unknown +to her at that stage. To bring clarity to this issue at this very stage, we +need refer only to the FIR (Exh. PW 17/A), registered by SI Kartar +Singh (PW 17), at 5:40 PM on 17 March 1992, on the basis of rukka +(Exh. PW 23/A), in turn, founded on the statement (Exh. PW 1/A) +made by PW1 herself sometime before 4:50 PM on 17th March 1992 +before the investigating officer. The bare perusal of the FIR leaves no +room for debate that PW1 was not at all familiar or acquainted with the +identity of the persons i.e. their names with whom Darshan Singh had +accompanied out of his house in the early morning hours of 11 th March + + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 8 of 61 + 1992, not at least till the time the case was being registered at her +instance. +

+

11. It would be proper that we refer to the evidence about the events +prior to 16th March 1992 (that is after Darshan Singh had been taken +away) later. The evidence on record clearly shows that Darshan Singh +was brought to the nursing home on 16th March 1992 by two police +constables. Though the testimonies of PW12 and PW25, the two +doctors connected with the nursing home, do not mention any specific +date, their depositions read alongside that of the other witnesses +(particularly the father of the victim) unmistakably show 16th March +1992 to be the date on the afternoon of which Darshan Singh was seen +by independent witnesses being escorted at that time by two police +officials. The evidence of the two doctors of the nursing home is not +supportive to the prosecution case as to the identity of the two police +officials who had come with the victim to the nursing home to be given +medical aid. However, their testimonies (half-hearted and seemingly +very hesitant) do confirm the prosecution charge that Darshan Singh +was in critical and perilous condition with multiple injuries when +brought to the nursing home. In this context, we may refer, inter-alia, +to the oral testimony of PW12 and PW25, as indeed that of PW-2, PW- +3 and PW-4, besides the documentary evidence in the nature of post- +mortem examination report (Exh. PW-18/A). +

+

12. While on the subject, we are constrained to observe here that the +manner in which the case was investigated, and later prosecuted by the +State, has left much to be desired. There are a number of aspects which + + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 9 of 61 + need to be quoted to illustrate this point. At this stage, we restrict to +only two of them. +

+

13. The victim had been taken to a nursing home. We presume - +since nothing has been shown to the contrary - that the nursing home +was being run lawfully. A patient in life and death situation had been +brought to a nursing home. In normal course, upon receiving a patient +with such injuries requiring urgent medical treatment, to which the +victim fell and ultimately succumbed to on the next day, the nursing +home would have prepared the requisite clinical notes documenting the +injuries noticed, the course of treatment advised and administered. +Even details like "brought by" etc. were withheld and not brought on +record. The evidence further shows, as we shall see in due course, that +the victim was shifted on 17 March 1992 by a police official (PW 29), +evidently on account of official intervention, from the nursing home to +a government hospital i.e. Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narain Hospital +(hereinafter referred to as "the hospital"), where he eventually died that +very day. While permitting the patient to be thus shifted from the +nursing home, some formalities in the records of the facility must have +been made. After all, the custody and care of a patient, in critical +condition, was being taken over by a police official. It is not the case of +any of the doctors connected with the nursing home that they were not +in know and had not maintained details of treatment, payment +received, persons who were issuing instruction etc. It is not even +claimed that the victim was being shifted against medical advice. Thus, +the minimum formality and record maintenance that was bound to have +been followed while admitting and thereafter allowing the patient to be + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 10 of 61 + moved from the nursing home would be preparation of papers, ideally, +with the copies of the nursing home records showing the course of +treatment given, which should have been collected and filed in the +court. Shockingly, the investigating officer did not show any interest in +collecting such documentary evidence. The records of the nursing +home, if seized and presented as evidence, would have thrown better +light on the condition of the victim at the stage of his first medical +examination in the nursing home. +

+

14. When PW 29 had brought the victim to the hospital, he dutifully +communicated compliance with the instructions to the police station +Welcome where it was logged vide DD no. 11-A (referred to in the +trial Court record as document 'Mark-A'), at 3:45 PM on 17 March +1992. We are not much bothered about the fact that the daily diary +entry was not strictly proved. Given the period of seven years that had +gone by (PW 29 was examined on 6th July 1999), the possibility of the +daily diary register having been weeded out needs to be kept in mind. +What is definitely of concern, however, is the fact that in the hospital, +at the time of admission and upon transfer from the nursing home, +Darshan Singh had been examined and MLC had been prepared noting +the injuries with which he had been brought in. The MLC undoubtedly +was an important piece of evidence. Yet, the prosecution seems to have +made no sincere efforts to prove it at the trial. Copy of the document +filed on record shows it was prepared by Dr. Sanjeev Dixit of the +Hospital. The said doctor had reportedly left the hospital and as per +report dated 06.07.1999 of the Investigating Officer (PW 30), the +doctor was no longer living at the available address. This was taken as + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 11 of 61 + sufficient reason to close the evidence of the prosecution on same date. +No thought was given to have the MLC proved by another doctor of +the hospital who may be acquainted with the writing or signatures of +the doctor in question. +

+

15. In the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the lapses of +the above nature seem to be too many for comfort. A view will have to +be taken, albeit at the stage of conclusion, as to what may have gone +wrong and where, and more importantly, how and in what manner +evidence and material should be read and interpreted. +

+

16. Mercifully, in addition to the oral testimony of the witnesses +mentioned above, the autopsy report (Exh. PW 18/A) documented the +manner in which Darshan Singh had been subjected to physical +assaults over the preceding days. As many as 23 injuries were found on +his dead body by Dr SK Khanna (PW 18), who had carried out the +post-mortem examination in the mortuary of Maulana Azad Medical +College on 18 March 1992. The autopsy doctor noticed black eye on +both sides with bleeding from the right nostril. He noted the following +external injuries: - +

+
(1) Contusion (Reddish blue) on the mucosol aspect of + lower lip near the left angle of mouth - 2 x 1 cm. + (2) Abrasion with brown scab, outer back of right + shoulder 1 x 0.5 cm. +
(3) Contusion (Reddish-blue) on the whole of back and + ulnar aspect of right fore-arm - 26 x 9 cm + + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 12 of 61 + (4) Contusion (reddish blue dorsum of right hand over + the base and proximal phalanx of right thumb - 8 x + 2 cm + (5) Contusion (reddish blue) over back of proximal + phalanx of right middle and ring fingers - 5 x 2 cm + (6) Abrasion with brown scab lower, radial aspect of + right forearm front - 4.5 cm proximal to the wrist - +

2x1.5 cm, rectangular in shape. +

(7) Contusion (brown) over inner aspect of right knee + 11 x 5 cm + (8) Contusion (reddish blue) upper back of right leg - + 10 x 9 cm + (9) Contusion (reddish blue) lower back of right leg -

+              13 x 9 cm
+          (10)      Multiple abrasions with brown scab on the
+              lower part of right leg - 2 x 1.5 cm
+          (11)       Abrasion with brown scab over middle front
+              of right foot 8 x 2 cm
+          (12)       Contusion (green to purple) inner aspect of
+              right foot and sole 17 x 9 cm
+          (13)       Abrasion with brown scab, over the tip of 2nd
+              toe of right foot near the nail - 1 x 0.5 cm
+          (14)       Abrasion with brown scab over the tip of 3rd
+              toe of right foot near the nail - 0.5 x 0.3 cm
+          (15)      Contusion (purple to green) on the inner
+              aspect of left foot and sole 27 x 6 cm
+          (16)        Abrasion with brown scab, inner aspect of
+              left foot 2 cm proximal to the big toe - 3 x 1.5 cm
+          (17)        Abrasion with brown scab, over lower front
+              of left leg 3 x 2.5 cm
+
+
+
+Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn.                                  Page 13 of 61
+           (18)         Abrasion with brown scab, outer aspect of
+              left little toe - 0.3 to .3 cm
+          (19)       Contusion (reddish-blue) lower back of left
+              leg - 12 x 12 cm
+          (20)      Contusion (brown) front of left knee - 14 x
+              11 cm
+          (21)      Contusion (reddish - blue) back of left wrist
+              and hand extending upto proximal inter-
+              phalangeal joints 15 x 12 cm
+          (22)      Contusion (reddish - blue), palm of left
+              hand 7 x 6 cm
+          (23)      Abrasion with brown scab 3.5 x 1.2 cm,
+              upper part of left side of chest
+
+
+
+

17. The internal examination of the dead body led to the following +important findings: - +

+
Abdomen + Peridinium- NAD + Stomach - contains greenish fluid and semi-indigested + food material about 300 ml walls congested. + Trachea and larynx - contain small amount of mucosol + material walls - congested + Chest + Coller bones - no fracture + Ribs - no fracture + Lungs - congested, edematous weight Right - 950 gm + Left - 850 gm + Head + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 14 of 61 + Scalp - Extravasation of blood present in the frontal + region or both the sides + Skull - no fracture + Brain-meninges + Suborachnoid haemorrhage present over both the + frontal poles. +
Maninges - congested + Brain - oedematous - weight 145 gm + Few petechial haemorrhages presentation both the + cerebral hemispheres frontal, terminal and parietal + poles + +

18. PW 18, the autopsy doctor, did not give final views +immediately. In the autopsy report, he recorded his opinion as under: - +

+
No definite opinion can be given regarding the cause + of death at this stage. Usual viscera has been + preserved for chemical analysis to rule out forgoing + poisoning. +
All the injuries are ante-mortem in nature and have + been caused by blunt force impact. +
Injuries No.1,3,4,5,8,9,19,21 and 22 appear to be 1 - 3 + day old. +
Injuries No.2,6,7,10,11,13,14,16,17,18, 20 and 23 + appear to be 2 - 4 days old. +
Injuries No.12 and 15 appear to be 5 - 6 days old. +
+

19. The viscera report (Exh. EW 16/E), affirmed on oath by Dr KS +Chhabra (PW 16) of Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), +however, ruled out the possibility of poisoning. The matter was + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 15 of 61 + thereafter taken again to the autopsy doctor, Dr SK Khanna (PW 18), +for his final opinion with regard to the cause of death. PW 18 recorded +his "subsequent opinion" (Exh. PW 18/B) dated 11th June, 1993, stating +that, in his view, the cause of death was cerebral damage consequent +upon blunt force to the head of the victim. +

+

20. Only two points were raised during the cross-examination of the +autopsy doctor with regard to the correctness of his final opinion +regarding the cause of death. The first issue was with regard to the +availability of the application made on 21st April, 1993 by the +investigating agency seeking his final opinion in the light of the report +of CFSL. Secondly, the defence pointed out to the witness that he had +taken two months‟ time in giving his opinion, suggesting that he had +just toed the line of the investigation. The witness explained that he +had retained the application on his record and further that he had been +on vacation for a period of one month. In our opinion, the non- +availability of the letter of request dated 21 st April, 1993 submitted to +the autopsy doctor is inconsequential. It is not a document without +which the subsequent opinion cannot be read. Mere reference to the +said letter of request in the subsequent opinion is sufficient to complete +the chain of correspondence at that point of time. Gap of two months +has been properly explained. +

+

21. Mr RK Mishra (PW 22) was posted as Sub Divisional +Magistrate (SDM), Shahdara and the area where the offences statedly +occurred fell in his jurisdiction. He was informed on 18th March, 1992 +by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (North East) about the death of +Darshan Singh whereupon he had entered upon enquiry in terms of the + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 16 of 61 + provision contained in section 176 CrPC. PW 22 (SDM) proved the +report (Exh. PW 22/A) which had been finalised by him on conclusion +of the inquest proceedings. The report noted that the autopsy doctor +had not been able to give any definite opinion in spite of finding that +the victim had suffered 23 ante-mortem injuries but concluded that, in +his (SDM's) opinion, the death had occurred due to the six injuries +which had been mentioned in form no. 35. The report referred to the +case registered, and under investigation, with the crime branch of Delhi +Police and the fact of the appellants having been placed under +suspension, arrested and charges (of murder) framed against them. +

+

22. The object and purpose of inquest proceedings is merely to +ascertain as to whether a person has died under unnatural +circumstances, or if it was an unnatural death and, if so, as to what was +the cause of death. Inquest report cannot be treated as primary or +substantive evidence. The opinion given in such report cannot be +termed as final adjudication of the matter for the simple reason the +questions regarding details as to how the deceased was assaulted or as +to who had assaulted him or under what circumstances the assault took +place are beyond the scope of the inquest proceedings [Madhu @ +Madhuranatha & Another vs. State of Karnataka, (2014) 12 SCC 419 +and Baldeo and another vs. State of U.P., 2004 Crl. L.J. 2686]. +

+

23. The inquest report, inter alia, also referred to the statements of +the various witnesses examined by the SDM in the course of his +enquiry, such witnesses including the relatives or neighbours of the +victim, some of whom have been examined at the trial by the +prosecution leading to the impugned judgement. The sum and + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 17 of 61 + substance of the version of the said witnesses before the SDM, +however, cannot be relied upon by the prosecution. They are not +substantive evidence for purposes of the criminal trial. Such +statements, of course, were in the nature of previous statements of the +corresponding prosecution witnesses. They could be used for +contradicting or discrediting the witnesses during cross-examination in +the proceedings before the trial Court. The defence made no such effort +during the trial. Without formal record of their respective depositions +being brought before the trial Court and without the witnesses being +confronted with their previous statements before the SDM, the +summary of what they may have said before the SDM during inquest +proceedings cannot be read against the appellants. Thus, we exclude +from consideration the material on the basis of which the SDM had +concluded the inquest proceedings. For similar reasons, the +conclusions reached, or the impressions gathered, by the SDM on such +material must also be kept out of purview. After all, the purpose of the +inquest proceedings was to find the cause of death and not probe as to +who were the persons responsible. +

+

24. But, it must be noted here that the inquest report denotes one +interesting fact. It mentions, at least at two places, that the supervisory +police officers, including the one posted as the Deputy Commissioner +of Police (DCP) had visited the nursing home alongside the PCR staff +and, further, that the DCP and the Asst. Commissioner of Police (ACP) +had recorded the statement of the victim during his treatment in the +nursing home. The prosecution relies upon the report of the SDM. It +cannot wish away the fact that formal statement of the victim was + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 18 of 61 + actually recorded by the senior police officers when they had visited +the nursing home to call on him. Since the trial Court record, and the +police file, shows that the investigating officer of the case was not able +to record statement of the victim, such statement as was recorded +earlier by the DCP/ACP would be the last statement formally made by +the victim before he died and, consequently, be his dying declaration. +It does not call for much imagination to say that the statement in +question was a crucial evidence to bring out the sequence of events +from the time the victim was picked up from outside his house till his +admission in the nursing home, particularly about the purpose for +which he had been picked up, the manner in which he was treated +during the interregnum and identity of the persons who were +responsible for the injured state in which he had been found. +

+

25. The investigating agency showed no interest whatsoever in +collecting the aforesaid statement of the victim made from the nursing +home bed before the DCP/ACP or including it in the list of reliance in +the charge-sheet. At the hearing on these appeals, we had asked learned +counsel representing the State but it was clarified that the said +document was not to be found in the trial Court record or in the +corresponding files of police or prosecution. Given the nature of the +allegations on which the case at hand came for trial before the Court, +wherein the investigating officer was probing a case involving charge +of custody death, we do not need much imagination to infer the reasons +for this glaring omission. +

+

26. It is clear from the evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 that they +did not have a clue, initially, as to what had happened to the victim. +

+ +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 19 of 61 +

Given the sequence of events narrated in the evidence, they would +have learnt, on information given by PW1, about he having been taken +away in the late hours of the night intervening 10th and 11th March +1992 from his house. PW1, as already noted, is in no position to +identify the persons involved. She mentioned this in her first statement +to the investigating officer on 17th of March 1992, on the basis of +which the FIR was registered. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, on their part, +confirmed that Darshan Singh could not be seen around after he had +been taken away in the presence of PW1, who had informed PW-2 +about this happening and who, in turn, had informed PW 3, the father. +These three witnesses speak about their efforts to trace Darshan Singh +and having gathered information about him possibly being in the +custody of the police. They speak about their visits first to the police +station Seelampur and then to the police station Welcome, both located +close by, but with no success. It has come out in the evidence of these +witnesses that a definite information about Darshan Singh being in the +custody of Anand Prakash @ Anand Tyagi (A1) came their way, +courtesy the input received from a local boy Kale @ Dharampal (PW +

6), who along with his brother Desraj (PW 5) had also been taken away +by police officials around the same time as Darshan Singh (the victim). +

+

27. Desraj (PW 5) and Dharampal (PW 6), in their respective +testimonies, confirmed that police officials, some in plain clothes and +others in uniform, had come to their doorstep enquiring about their +brother Bobby @ Ramesh and, upon they explaining that they had no +connection with the person required by the police, both of them were +taken away to the police station. According to them, they were + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 20 of 61 + detained in the police station and released only the next day. Both of +them confirm that at the time of their detention in the police station, +Darshan Singh was seen by them sitting in another room. That was the +last time they would see Darshan Singh uninjured, hail and hearty. +

+

28. The charge sheet had relied on the evidence of the above two +witnesses (PW5 and PW6) to prove the connection of the four +appellants with the detention of Darshan Singh in the police station +around the same time they were present in the building. Both these +witnesses, however, were reluctant to confirm. They disowned the +statements under section 161 CrPC attributed to them indicating a +specific role to the appellants in not only the detention of both of them +with Darshan Singh, and certain others, but also physical assaults and +ill-treatment (being "chained") in police custody at their hands. They +refused to identify any of the appellants as the persons involved in +what was clearly an unlawful detention. +

+

29. The fact that the taking away of the two witnesses (PW5 and +PW6) to the police station and their detention overnight was not lawful +is confirmed by the evidence of their mother Santosh (PW 7) who had +been vigilant enough to resort to the remedial action including filing of +an application for bail and sending of a telegram expressing concern +about the welfare of her sons. The copies of these documents were +seized during the investigation from her, vide seizure memo (Exh. PW +13/B). The copy of the telegram (Mark-Y) was shown to KB Thukral +(PW-28), an official of the Telegraph office of the Department of +Telecommunication at Shahdara. The said witness would not state +anything beyond confirmation that the copy of the telegram had been + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 21 of 61 + issued by the Superintendent in charge of the Telegraph office at +Kashmere Gate. Though the office which issued the copy was not +called upon to depute an official to strictly prove it, the confirmation +by PW-28 that it had been officially issued provides sufficient +corroboration to the word of Santosh (PW 7) about she having sent a +telegram from the GPO (which is located at Kashmere Gate) to the +ACP. +

+

30. On conjoint reading of the evidence of PW 3, PW 5, PW 6 and +PW 7, it emerges as a proved fact that PW 5 and PW6 had been picked +up by the police around the same time when Darshan Singh was taken +away from the same neighbourhood. The evidence of these two +individuals, in particular, leaves no room for doubt that Darshan Singh +was seen by them in the captivity of the police, though in another +room, when they were being questioned by the police officials in the +police station. It requires not much imagination to conclude that PW 5 +and PW6 were let off on the afternoon of next day of being picked up, +which would mean 12th March 1992, presumably on account of the +protests being made around the time by their mother (PW 7) in the +form of telegram to the ACP and application for bail in the Court. It +may be added that the very fact that the said two persons were released +close on the heels of the telegram being sent by their mother, also +moving the Court for release on bail confirms that the detention of the +persons thus picked up by the police staff on the night intervening 10th +and 11th March, 1992 had not been made officially nor formally +recorded and, thus, was wholly unauthorised and consequently +unlawful. Indeed, no document or record has been produced at the trial + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 22 of 61 + as could show that the persons detained, which would include the sons +of PW 7 (i.e. PW 5, PW6 or, for that matter, their brother Bobby @ +Ramesh) and the victim (Darshan Singh) were lawfully detained. +

+

31. Thus, Prem Pal (PW 3), the father of the victim, must be +believed when he said that he had learnt about the detention of his son +Darshan Singh in the police station from Dharampal (PW 6), known to +the former by the name of Kale, in the evening of the release from +custody of the latter. In the result, a definite clue regarding his +whereabouts came the way of the members of the family of the victim +in the evening of 12th March, 1992. It is on the basis of this information +that PW 3, accompanied by PW 2 and PW 4, had gone to the place of +detention to locate the missing person. The father of the victim (PW 3) +testified that he had met Anand Prakash @ Anand Tyagi (A1) to +enquire about his son when the latter confirmed that his son (Darshan +Singh) was with him and told him to come in the evening. +

+

32. According to PW3, Anand Prakash @ Anand Tyagi (A1) had +called him two or three times but in spite of the repeated entreaties he +was not allowed to see his son. The testimony of PW 3 is corroborated +by Vikram Singh (PW2) and Munna Lal (PW 4). As mentioned earlier, +both are close family members of the former. Both stated that they had +accompanied PW 3 and had also met Anand Prakash (A1) several +times and it was confirmed in the said meetings that the victim was in +his custody. Though none of these witnesses ever personally saw +Darshan Singh in the custody of A1, or for that matter of the other +appellants, in the police station, the conversation in which A1 engaged +them at the time of their visits to him to enquire about the victim + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 23 of 61 + corroborates the prosecution case, and the word of PW 5 and PW6 +noted earlier, that Darshan Singh was in the control or custody of +police personnel which in the factual matrix include obviously A1. +

+

33. According to PW4, Anand Prakash (A1) had stated that Darshan +Singh was involved in cases of theft and had been taken to the Civil +Lines area and would be released. There is no record of any specific +criminal case of theft or otherwise registered by the police or under +investigation with AATS in which the name of Darshan Singh or, for +that matter, of any other individual who may also have been picked up +with him during the relevant period, may have figured. +

+

34. It has come in the statement of PW4 that Darshan Singh was ill +treated during the confinement by the police personnel, basing his +version to this effect on the information he gathered from the victim at +the time of meeting him in the nursing home, quoting him stating that +besides being beaten badly by the police, upon him asking for water, +urine would be poured into his mouth. We could ignore this part of the +evidence as extortionate in absence of confirmation, but it is apparent +and unmistakable that the victim was tormented and tortured. +

+

35. As per the case for the prosecution, during his interaction with +the relatives of the victim (then in unlawful confinement), Anand +Prakash (A1) had asked them to pay to him illegal gratification. +Noticeably, in their court testimony, none of these witnesses spoke +about this to be the desire or demand expressed by A1. The learned +Counsel for the appellants submitted that the motive attributed to the +accused persons having not been proved, the case could not end in + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 24 of 61 + conviction. We're not persuaded to accept this argument. If the +allegations of the victim having been compelled to accompany the +accused persons, and having been confined thereafter, stand proved the +question of motive behind such acts of commission pales into +insignificance. As we shall note, in due course, the law is well settled +that the burden to explain in such fact-situation would shift on to the +police personnel who are in the dock on the charge of custody death. +

+

36. It, however, clearly emerges from the statements of PW2, PW3 +and PW4 that none of them is in a position to identify any of the +appellants other than Anand Prakash (A1). They identify the latter +because they had met him in the course of their efforts to locate +Darshan Singh who had been missing from 11 th March, 1992 and who +had been seen by two boys from the same locality also picked up +around the same time though released after one day. Questions were +raised during the course of their statements about omission on the part +of the investigating officer to arrange test identification parade (TIP). +We, however, do not find any merit in this line of questioning because +there is ample evidence available to corroborate the testimony of these +three witnesses about the connection of A1 and others with the acts +relating to the illegal confinement of the victim and the way he was +treated resulting in his death. Most important corroborative evidence is +the testimony of Inspector Shakti Singh (PW 15) which we may +presently take note of. +

+

37. As mentioned earlier, PW 15 was the senior most officer in the +team of police personnel deputed during the relevant period to man the +AATS. He was the officer in charge and would be responsible for + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 25 of 61 + directing the affairs of the team, allocating duties to the officials placed +under his control and supervising the enquiries or investigations +undertaken besides reporting to the superior officers. Before we take +note of his testimony against the appellants, it needs to be mentioned +here that this witness himself was a suspect at one stage of the probe +into the unnatural death of Darshan Singh. This is clear from a variety +of facts. After all, being the officer at the helm of AATS, he had some +responsibility to shoulder as to how the men under him acted or +behaved. As pointed out by the defence, during the course of +arguments, after the FIR had been registered, at a stage when there was +still hope for Darshan Singh to survive, PW 15 made himself +unavailable to the senior police officers and had to be marked absent +from duty in the daily diary register (DD no.3 dated 18 th March, 1992) +of the unit (AATS) which he had been heading till then. Pertinently, he +applied for anticipatory bail which, it appears, was granted. He +admitted in the course of his statement that departmental action under +the disciplinary rules was taken against him in the context of the +unnatural death of Darshan Singh and, having been found guilty of +misconduct, on the charge of "negligence", he was awarded major +penalty in the form of loss of the service of five years. +

+

38. It was vociferously argued by the learned Counsel for the +appellants that given the above facts, evidence of PW15 deserves to be +discarded outright since it was coming from a tainted source, an +individual who could possibly have been himself the perpetrator. We +do not agree. +

+ + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 26 of 61 +

39. There is nothing in the statements of any of the material +witnesses, particularly those related to the victim or others from the +same locality, as would support the argument that PW 15 might have +had a role in what had happened to Darshan Singh from the time he +was taken away from his house till he was seen by him in the office of +AATS on the morning of 16th of March 1992. While it is true that this +witness was responsible for the day-to-day affairs of AATS and +manage the duties of the police personnel deputed under him, it has to +be borne in mind that no evidence suggests that Darshan Singh was +confined in the office of AATS or brought there on any day prior to +16th March 1992. On the contrary, the evidence of the other two +persons (PW 5 and PW6), contemporaneously confined, shows that the +individuals picked up on the night of 10th and 11th March 1992 had +been taken to the premises of a police station. In other words, prior to +PW 15 coming across Darshan Singh in the premises where the office +of AATS was located (which would be the morning of 16th March +1992), the victim had not been seen by any witness other than the said +two persons anywhere other than the police station. +

+

40. True, PW 15 had the overall responsibility. But it cannot be +stretched to the level of accountability for the acts of commission or +omission on the part of the police officials under his control at places, +or in connection with affairs, other than those relatable to the duties of +AATS. As the evidence of this witness (which we shall take note of +hereinafter) itself demonstrates, he was indeed negligent in the exercise +of his supervisory responsibility inasmuch as he, having come to know +about the critical state of Darshan Singh, failed to take the necessary + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 27 of 61 + steps not only to ensure that he was given proper medical aid but also +to enquire as to the circumstances in which he had suffered the +extensive injuries. An injured man was seen lying in the premises of +the office he was heading at the time. It was his duty, not only moral +but also official, to take charge of the situation. The matter, having +come to his notice, required to be documented (the least possible action +as per normal police procedure being an entry in the daily diary +register) and a detailed report made to the supervisory officers in the +hierarchy. He failed to live up to the expectations of the office held and +instead, by his own account, was busy entertaining some personal +guests. +

+

41. For the neglect in the discharge of his official duties, PW15 has +already been dealt with by the appropriate disciplinary authority in the +department which he was serving at the relevant point of time. We +cannot assume, not the least because the appellants so argue, that +PW15 was party to the whole incident only because he was the official +in charge of the office of AATS at the time. The role of the appellants, +particularly A1, has come up in the evidence of other witnesses who +had no personal axe to grind or out to settle any past scores. They are +witnesses who would be interested more in bringing to book the +persons responsible for the untimely death of their dear one rather than +falsely frame others who had no role to play. In these circumstances, +the testimony of PW15 serves the purpose of corroboration and fills in +the gap in the narrative of the sequence of events given by the relatives +(PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4) who, for obvious reasons, suffered the +handicap of not being privy to the facts in entirety since they had not + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 28 of 61 + been allowed by the then custodian to meet the victim in captivity. If +PW 15 actually had had a role, the appellants - at least A1 against +whom there is direct evidence - would have taken the defence that they +had been acting in the discharge of their duty as per directions of their +superior (i.e. PW 15). Thus, there is no reason as to why PW 15 should +be treated as an accomplice. But we agree that, given the allegations he +faced in the departmental proceedings, his evidence requires to be +subjected to closer scrutiny than any other witness. +

+

42. PW 15 deposed about the events in the office of AATS on the +morning of 16th March 1992. He had reached the office at about 9:30 +AM. He saw Darshan Singh lying in injured condition in the courtyard +of the premises. He stated that the four appellants, who were posted +under him in AATS, were present at the scene and further that the +victim had been brought to the office by them. According to him, he +had enquired and was told by Anand Prakash (A1) that the injured +person (the victim) was involved in a number of robberies. On being +asked about the serious injuries seemingly suffered by the victim, A1 +only responded by stating that he (the victim) had been brought by the +appellants in said condition "just then". The witness stated that his +enquiry of the roznamcha munshi (DD writer) had confirmed that the +victim had been brought in only 15 minutes prior to his arrival. +Interestingly, PW 15 would also add that he had questioned the injured +"boy" to be told by him that the person sporting a beard, pointing +towards A1, had beaten him. The witness confirmed, and the defence +did not resist, that A1 actually sported a beard during the relevant +period. Be that as it may, PW 15 further testified that he had directed + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 29 of 61 + the injured person to be taken to the hospital and that pursuant to his +command, appellant Anand Prakash (A1) and appellant Sunil Kumar +(A2) had gone out to arrange a three-wheeler scooter. He stated that the +victim had been taken to the hospital by A1 and A2 while he got busy +with his personal guests. He testified that it was on the next day, i.e. +17th March 1992, on return at about 2:30 PM from Patiala House +Courts, he learnt that the victim had been taken by the said two +appellants (A1 and A2) to the nursing home rather than to the hospital +as directed by him. He added that he had then gone to the nursing +home but did not find any of the appellants present there. He claims +that he had returned to the office and given a complaint in writing +against the appellants to the senior police officers. He has also stated +that he had found the appellants were not available on duty in the +office of AATS and, thus, marked their absence (DD no. 8 recorded at +3:30 PM on 17.01.92) in the daily diary register of AATS. +

+

43. Indeed, the police record shows that the statement of this witness +(PW 15) under section 161 CrPC (PW 15/DA) was recorded on +20.05.92, which is about two months after the registration of the FIR. +The defence has argued that the version of PW15 as reflected in the +said document was one which could not be taken on its face value +inasmuch as given the suspicion of his own involvement in the episode +at that time, the witness had had sufficient time to reflect and would +have tailored his statement to ensure that it was self-exculpatory and +designed to point the needle of suspicion towards others. +

+

44. We agree that given the chronology in which the events would +have occurred and the investigation proceeded, PW15 had sufficient + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 30 of 61 + time for reflection, and to take advice, and accordingly offer to co- +operate with the investigative process in such a manner that possibility +of his own implication could be warded off. But then, it is also to be +remembered that PW15 was not available to the investigating officer +earlier since he was busy taking care of his own welfare, inter alia, by +applying for anticipatory bail and explaining his position to his +departmental superiors. The delay in recording of his statement under +section 161 CrPC, by itself, cannot be the reason why his testimony +should not be acted upon. He was the person at the helm. He is, +therefore, the best person to give an inside view. In our opinion, if he +was a witness prone to falsehood, it would have been easier for PW 15 +to dissociate himself totally by taking the position of ignorance. Since +the police records and registers, particularly those maintained at +AATS, are silent about the taking away of Darshan Singh from his +house or his illegal confinement thereafter that would be a simpler way +for PW 15 to divert attention from himself. It is a matter of some +satisfaction that PW 15, having first indulged in gross neglect of his +responsibilities, came clean by owning up that Darshan Singh had been +brought to the office of AATS within his knowledge, in his personal +presence, in seriously injured state. +

+

45. Undoubtedly, the report in writing given by PW15 to the senior +police officers at the supervisory level has not been shown the light of +the day in the trial. We must presume, however, that PW 15 would +have submitted a report to his seniors inasmuch as the evidence clearly +shows that the senior police officers came to be proactively involved +on 17th March 1992 and, as shown by the inquest report, even visited + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 31 of 61 + the nursing home at the time when the victim was still admitted there. +Given the chronology of events, this would not have been possible +save for information given by PW 15. But, for the omission to gather +the necessary evidence about formal report, PW15 cannot be blamed. +This was the job of the investigating officer. He should have collected +the official note given by the officer-in-charge of AATS (PW 15) and +made it a part of the documentary proof of what was +contemporaneously reported. It is trite that the default of the +investigating officer ought not to be a reason to disbelieve a witness +who sounds truthful. +

+

46. We are mindful of the fact that PW 15 has made some effort to +go beyond his original account in the statement under section 161 +CrPC. Illustratively, in the Court he spoke about his enquiry of the +victim as to the author of injuries evincing fingers being pointed at A1; +enquiry from the DD writer confirming arrival of the injured in the +office of AATS only 15 minutes prior to he coming to the office; the +information about the suspicion of involvement of the victim in the +robbery cases being sourced from A1; and, his own preoccupation with +his personal guests at the time - all such facts as were conspicuously +absent in his statement under section 161 CrPC. The variations, or +improvements (if they can be so called), however, in our judgement, +are not such as could render his word totally incredible. They are +definitely not contradictions going to the root of the case. The witness +had nothing to gain by these additions to his original version. The +exchange with A1, as mentioned in the Court, only adds to what was +otherwise clearly stated about the role of the latter. The confirmation + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 32 of 61 + by the DD writer may be ignored because it would be in the nature of +hearsay, the official in question himself not having been examined, but +these were records maintained in normal course and a part of official +record written contemporaneously. +

+

47. We find no good reasons as to why the testimony of PW 15 +should be disbelieved to the extent it confirms that it is the appellants +who had brought the victim to the office of AATS on the morning of +16th March 1992 in seriously injured state and further that upon PW 15 +questioning he was told by A1 that the victim was a suspect in robbery +cases. The evidence of this witness also confirms that upon him +directing the victim to be taken to hospital for medical aid, A1 and A2 +took him away in a three-wheeler scooter, not to a government hospital +as instructed, but to a private nursing home. PW 15, negligently +considerate to his workmates as he was, learnt about this non- +compliance in the afternoon of the next day. +

+

48. Dr Mohan Lal (PW12), the owner of the nursing home, has +deposed that the two police officials who had brought the victim to his +establishment had left the place while the patient (the victim), then +unconscious, was being treated. He has further stated that the victim +had regained consciousness around 2 or 3 AM on the night in question +and during his small conversation with the attendant he had provided +the address. Till then, his particulars were not available. PW 12 had +sent an employee of the nursing home to the address provided. This +precisely is the version of the relatives of the victim who deposed that +upon being informed by the "boy" from the nursing home they had +finally learnt regarding the whereabouts of the missing person (the + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 33 of 61 + victim) and, thus, proceeded to the said place and met him. We do +observe that PW-12 knew and was aware of the identity of the two +police officers but has withheld and concealed this information. +

+

49. There is a slight discrepancy in the evidence as to the time when +the family had received the information from the messenger sent by the +nursing home. If we go by the word of PW 12, it could not have been +at any time prior to 2 or 3 AM of 17th of March 1992 since it is only +by such time as per the witness that the victim was able to +communicate. But, PW2 and PW3 created confusion by pegging the +time of receipt of the information from the nursing home employee to +11:30 PM (of 16.03.92) and 1 AM (of 17.03.92) respectively. In our +opinion, this contradiction cannot detract from the fact that, in the +given fact-situation, the family would not have come to know as to the +location of the victim except by the message received from the nursing +home. There is no reason why PW 12 should be disbelieved about he +taking the initiative of sending the information to the family upon +learning the particulars of the unconscious patient who had been +brought to his nursing home by the two police officials and knowing +the victim‟s serious condition and even senior police officers paying +visits. It is correct the medical records of the nursing home have not +been seized or made available. Thus, the time when the victim would +have regained consciousness or who had given identity and details of +the victim cannot be cross checked. It is possible that PW 12 was +speaking about the time when the victim was in a position to tell his +own particulars by some guesswork. But then, the greater possibility is + + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 34 of 61 + that PW 2 and PW 3 are telling the time of the visit of the messenger +from the nursing home also by guesswork. +

+

50. Nothing turns on the discrepancy in the time. What is consistent +in the statements of these witnesses is the fact that the family having +learnt that Darshan Singh was in nursing home, it rushed to meet him +there. The testimony of PW 2 and PW 3 in this regard is corroborated +by that of PW1 and PW4. Their version would be more credible and +reliable. +

+

51. Placing reliance on Maruti Rama Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, +AIR 2003 SC 3884, it is the argument of the defence that the conduct +of the witnesses (PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4), who are related to the +victim was most unnatural and, therefore, cannot be relied upon. The +learned counsel on their behalf submitted that even though these +witnesses claimed knowledge about the victim having been taken away +on the night of 10th /11th March, 1992, and having been illegally +confined thereafter, they did not lodge any protest anywhere. Drawing +parallel with the case of Santosh (PW7) whose sons (PW5 and PW6) +had also been taken away and similarly confined around the same time, +it is pointed out that Prem Pal (PW3), the father of the victim, at least, +should have undertaken similar exercise by either moving the +competent court or approaching some superior police officer for +intervention. It is submitted that since no such measures were taken, +the possibility that the abduction or wrongful confinement of Darshan +Singh (victim) may have been engineered by someone other than +police staff cannot be ruled out. The appellants argued that the +evidence of Inspector Shakti Singh (PW15) only shows that the victim + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 35 of 61 + had been brought by them in injured conditions to the office of AATS +on the morning of 17.03.1992. The submission is that since there is no +evidence showing the location where the victim had been wrongfully +confined prior to the said event, it cannot be concluded that the +appellants were responsible for his confinement or the state in which +he had been brought to the office of AATS. +

+

52. We do not agree. These arguments ignore and are contrary to +the facts proved and established. These arguments are based on half +reading of the evidence. The facts and circumstances proved, as noted +above, when seen in their entirety form a chain complete in itself. The +victim had been taken away by a group of persons in the dead of night +from his house. He was seen going away with them, apparently not +lodging any protest. The fact that two other persons from the same +locality were also similarly picked up by the police staff is too +significant a circumstance to be ignored. The similarity of the two +actions leads to the irresistible conclusion that each of them including +Darshan Singh (victim) had been taken away by the police personnel +against similar backdrop. The fact that PW5 and PW6 saw Darshan +Singh (victim), in confinement under the control of police personnel, at +the same place where they were detained and the fact that when Prem +Pal (PW3) with his relatives met Anand Prakash (A-1), he confirmed +that Darshan Singh (victim) was in his custody and further the fact that +Darshan Singh (victim) was brought on the morning of 16.03.1992 in +critically injured state to the office of AATS, are such circumstances as +together join the dots and complete the chain unerringly pointing +towards the complicity of Anand Prakash (A-1), in the entire episode. +

+ + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 36 of 61 +

The conduct of the other appellants vis-à-vis the victim at the time of +enquiry by Inspector Shakti Singh (PW15) on the morning of +16.03.1992, is direct evidence confirming their complicity with Anand +Prakash (A-1) in the acts of commission or omission committed +against Darshan Singh (victim). +

+

53. The relatives (PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4) of the victim are +illiterate persons, seemingly resource-less and from very poor strata of +the society. They would not have been in position to take recourse to +legal remedies, or even been aware, as to what possible steps they +could have taken to secure the release of Darshan Singh (victim). In +fact, for quite some time, they were not even aware, as to his +whereabouts. When they learnt about he being held in captivity by +police personnel, all they could think of, or do, was to visit police +stations and meet Anand Prakash (A-1), one of the police personnel +involved. The failure on their part to lodge any protest in the court, or +with the superior police officers, in these circumstances, cannot affect +their credibility. +

+

54. All the witnesses connected to the victim (PW1, PW2, PW3 and +PW4) have spoken about visiting the nursing home and finding the +victim under treatment there. All of them, save for the father (PW 3), +deposed about interacting with the victim and being told that he had +been beaten badly by police officials. The version of the father (PW 3) +is somewhat different. He (PW-3)was not allowed to meet and had to +go to the office of A1 and thereafter return to the nursing home with +his brother, A1 also giving company. PW3 restricted himself to +testifying that he had to bring in political pressure - called a local + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 37 of 61 + politician - whereafter police officials from the crime branch had come +to the nursing home and his son was shifted to the government hospital +where he expired. +

+

55. The case was registered on the basis of rukka (Exh. PW 23/A), +sent by ASI Ram Sidh (PW 23), through Head Constable Pramod +Kumar (PW 9), from the hospital at 4:50 PM on 17.03.92. The FIR +(Exh. PW 17/A) was recorded by SI Kartar Singh (PW 17) at 5:40 PM +on the same day. Thus, the case was initially investigated by PW 23. +Inspector VP Kohli (PW 26), the SHO of police station Welcome took +over the case from him for one day (18.03.92) and thereafter the +investigation was made over to the crime branch where it was handled +eventually by Inspector (later ACP) Mahinderjit Singh (PW 30) with +effect from 23.03.92, though for some period it remained with +Inspector Bhagwan Singh Dahiya, who himself has not been examined +but reference to his said role has come in the evidence of SI Harbhajan +Singh (PW 11). +

+

56. The investigation did not see much progress when the case was +with PW 23. He had prepared site plan (Exh. PW 23/B) which is not of +much assistance as it only depicts the layout of the houses of the +locality where the deceased was living showing the position of his +house vis-a-vis that of PW1. On information coming in from the +hospital about the death of the victim (DD no. 26-B) on 18.03.92, he +had converted the case into one involving offence under section 302 +IPC. It is for this reason that the investigation was then taken over by +the SHO from him. PW 26, on his part, had taken the necessary steps +to get the inquest proceedings conducted. After the post-mortem + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 38 of 61 + examination of the dead body, he had handed over the same to the next +of kin vide formal receipt (Exh. PW 26/A). The investigation was then +transferred to the crime branch on 19.03.92. PW 30 has broadly +narrated the steps taken by him during the investigation including the +formal arrest of A1, after personal search (Exh. PW 30/A), and his +disclosure (Mark 'Z ') during interrogation. Of course, the disclosure +statement attributed to A1 cannot be used against him, it being +inadmissible in terms of section 25 of the Evidence Act. PW 30 +explained that the other accused had already been granted anticipatory +bail. +

+

57. SI Harbhajan Singh (PW 11), then posted in SIT crime branch +had assisted the then investigating officer (Inspector Bhagwan Singh +Dahiya) by getting the barrack where A1, A2 and A3 were residing at +the time inspected by the crime team and fingerprint expert. But since +nothing came out of such efforts, inasmuch as no incriminating +evidence based on the inspection of the crime team has been relied +upon, the same is inconsequential. PW 11 also spoke about he going on +21.03.92 to the office of the AATS (North-East) and taking into +possession the duty register for the period 01.01.92 to 17.03.92 and the +daily diary (roznamcha) for the period 17.02.92 to 21.03.92, as per +formal seizure memo (Exh. PW 11/A). The two registers were proved +by him as Exh. P-1 and Exh. P-2 respectively. +

+

58. It is necessary to refer to the two registers - the duty register +(Exh. P-1) and the daily diary register (Exh. P-2) to note some of the +relevant entries and, also for purposes of examining the defence of two +of the appellants based on the entries contained therein. +

+ +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 39 of 61 +

59. As mentioned above, the second register (daily diary register) +covers the period 17.02.92 to 21.03.92. The first thing which needs to +be noted is, and all sides agree, that this register (Exh. P-2) does not +contain any information that may have been subject matter of interest +leading to the need for interrogation of the victim, or for that matter the +other two boys (PW 5 and PW6), for any specific case under +investigation or even from the perspective of the possibility of +developing intelligence of general or specific nature in terms of the +ordinary police practice. Further, the register does not contain any +entry, not even a remote one, reflecting the visit of any of the police +personnel, of AATS (where this record was maintained), to the locality +where the victim and the others were residing on or about 10th and +11th March 1992 or thereafter. It does confirm the leave of absence of +one appellant for certain period for which we may first refer to the duty +register (Exh. P-1). +

+

60. The duty register (Exh. P-1) covers a large period but, in the +case at hand, we need focus mainly on the entries for the period 10th +March 1992 onwards. These entries, we must observe, do confirm the +fact of the four appellants being deputed as staff of AATS for North- +East district headed by PW15. The sheets allocated for each date are +utilised to mention the staff strength, the particulars of personnel +reporting for duty on each given day, the status of leave of absence or +medical rest and, more importantly, the duties assigned. The entries for +the dates 10th to 13th March 1992 and 17th March 1992, show Head +Constable Mahipal (A3), Constable Anand Prakash (A1) and Constable +Niraj (A4) to be forming a separate group (out of two such groups) + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 40 of 61 + deputed for "Trape (sic) duties" (apparently meaning "trap duties"). +On 16th March 1992, again Head Constable Mahipal (A3) and +Constable Niraj (A4) with another (Constable Ravinder Kumar) +constituted a group for similar duty. On 14th and 15th March 1992, +Head Constable Mahipal (A3) is shown to be not on duty being away +with "permission". No one was assigned the trap duties on these two +days. +

+

61. The fact that Head Constable Mahipal (A3) was off duty for two +days (Saturday the 14th and Sunday the 15th March 1992), as shown in +the duty register (Exh. P-1), is confirmed by the daily diary register +(Exh. P-2). The DD entry no. 11 recorded at 06:05 PM on March 1992 +logged the permission given to him to be absent from duty for two +days. He logged his return vide DD no. 6 recorded at 9 AM on 16th +March 1992. +

+

62. The duty register (Exh. P-1) also shows that Constable Niraj +(A4) was additionally assigned the duties of DD writer in the AATS +from 8 PM on 10th and 15th March 1992 to 8 AM of next day. +Similarly, Constable Sunil Kumar (A2) was on duty as DD writer in +the AATS from 8 AM to 8 PM of 11th March 1992 and from 8 PM of +12th to 14th March 1992 to 8 AM of following days. +

+

63. It is trite that in a criminal trial, it is the duty of the prosecution +to prove its case beyond or reasonable doubts and mere suspicion +cannot take the place of proof [Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh vs. State of +Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637 and Datar Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1975 +SCC (Cri.) 530]. It is equally well settled [Sharad Birdhichand Sarda + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 41 of 61 + vs. State of Maharashtra, 1984 SCC (Cri) 487), that in a case based on +circumstantial evidence, prosecution seeking finding of guilty against +the accused, must establish the following :- +

+
(i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to + be drawn must or should be and not merely „may be‟ fully + established, +
(ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the + hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they + should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except + that the accused is guilty, +
(iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and + tendency, +
(iv) they should exclude, every possible hypothesis except the + one to be proved, and +
(v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to + leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent + with the innocence of the accused and must show that in + all human probability the act must have been done by the + accused. +
+

64. The appellants have referred to Dev Raj Arora vs. State, 2012 +(2) JCC 1045, Chander Shekhar vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2011 (3) +JCC 2053 and Ganesh Gogoi vs. State of Assam, (2009) 7 SCC 404, to +plead prejudice on the ground that the questioning of appellants under +Section 313 CrPC was improper, in that facts which had not even been +proved, were put as incriminating evidence. Reference was made +particularly to question nos. 1, 7, 9 and 10 in the statement of Niraj + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 42 of 61 + (A4) wherein role has been attributed to him which, as per the +evidence, actually pertains to Anand Prakash (A1) or to Sunil (A2), +with similar errors having crept in the corresponding questions put to +Mahipal (A3). We agree that the trial court should have been careful in +framing the questionnaire for the stage of statement under section 313 +CrPC by separately focussing on the evidence specific to each accused +and not using a common template for all of them. We, however, do not +think that this would cause irreparable prejudice as, for final +evaluation, the evidence has been considered only to the extent it +incriminates a particular accused. +

+

65. From the evidence led by the prosecution, as summarised above, +the following facts and circumstances can safely be said to have been +established beyond the pale of all doubts: +

+
(i) During the relevant period, i.e. March 1992, the appellants + were members of Delhi Police, posted in Anti Auto Theft + Squad (AATS) of the North-East district, its office being + located near the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police + (DCP) of the district, in close vicinity of two police stations + viz. Seelampur and Welcome; +
(ii) The AATS had a total staff strength of 11 police personnel, + out of which Inspector Shakti Singh (PW 15) was the senior + most and in-charge of AATS, the others including the + appellant Mahipal (A3) holding the rank of Head Constable + and the other three appellants, namely Anand Prakash (A1), + Sunil Kumar (A2) and Niraj Kumar (A4) working as + Constables; +
+ +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 43 of 61 +
(iii) During substantial part of the period in question (10th to + 17th march 1992), Head Constable Mahipal (A3) with + Constables Anand Prakash (A1) and Niraj (A4) constituted a + group, formally organised, deputed by the officer in charge + of AATS (PW 15) to be responsible for trap duties - the + documentary evidence showing this also reflecting that + Constable Niraj (A4) was assigned the additional duty of DD + Writer in AATS for certain specific durations on some of + these dates and, further, that Head Constable Mahipal (A3) + had remained off duty for 2 days i.e.14th and 15 March + 1992; +
(iv) The victim (Darshan Singh) son of Prem Pal (PW 3), aged + about 21 years, was gainfully engaged assisting his employer + in the work of denting and painting (of motor vehicles) in + Bihari Colony and was residing in house no. K-463, New + Seelampur, Delhi in close vicinity of the hoses where his + father (PW3) or his father's brothers, including Vikram + Singh (PW2) lived; +
(v) At about 2 AM of 11 March 1992, Darshan Singh (the + victim) was picked up from his house by 3 or 4 persons in + civvies and taken away within the sighting of Beena (PW1), + the wife of Ram Niwas, another brother of PW2 and PW3, + she being a resident of another house (A-463) in the same + locality; +
(vi) PW2 with his brother (PW 3) and cousin Munna Lal (PW4), + upon learning about the above event from PW-1 tried to + + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 44 of 61 + locate his son but with no immediate success; +
(vii) Des Raj (PW5) and Dharam Pal (PW6), both sons of Santosh + (PW7) wife of Roshan Lal residing in house no. K-155 in the + same locality were also contacted by the police staff on the + pretext of search of their brother Bobby@Ramesh and, upon + they showing ignorance as to his whereabouts, they were + also taken away from their house around the same time and, + as a result of the efforts made by their mother (PW 7) it was + revealed that they had been picked up by the police + personnel and detained by the police staff in police station + Seelampur; +
(viii) During the period of their detention in the police station Des + Raj (PW5) and Dharam Pal (PW6) came across Darshan + Singh (the victim), also kept in the police station, though in a + different room; +
(ix) Santosh (PW7) lodged protests as to the unlawful detention + of her sons, Des Raj (PW5) and Dharam Pal (PW6), by + sending a telegram to the ACP in the early morning hours of + 12th March 1992 and also moving an application for release + of her sons on bail in the Court, in the wake of which Des + Raj (PW5) and Dharam Pal (PW6) were released by the + police officials who had taken them away; +
(x) Prem Pal (PW 3), the father of the victim, learnt about the + detention of his son by the police in the evening of 12 March + 1992 from Des Raj (PW5) and Dharam Pal (PW6), and on + that basis contacted Anand Prakash (A1), meeting him + + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 45 of 61 + several times, accompanied by Vikram Singh (PW2) and + Munna Lal (PW4), when Anand Prakash (A1) confirmed to + him that Darshan Singh (victim) was in his custody, though + not allowing Prem Pal (PW 3), or his relatives, to see or meet + the victim, inter alia, on the pretext of he having been sent + away somewhere; +
(xi) On 16 March 1992, at about 9:30 a.m., Inspector Shakti + Singh (PW 15) reached the office of AATS and found + Darshan Singh (the victim) lying in the courtyard in a + seriously injured condition, and upon enquiry learnt from the + appellants, who were present in person, that he had been + brought there by them; +
(xii) Inspector Shakti Singh (PW 15) instructed the appellants to + take Darshan Singh (the victim) to the hospital for medical + care and treatment but, instead of complying with the said + direction, appellant Anand Prakash (A1) and appellant Sunil + Kumar (A2) took him in a three-wheeler scooter to Mohan + Nursing Home, a private facility run in a nearby locality by + Dr Mohan Lal (PW 12); +
(xiii) When Darshan Singh (the victim) was brought to the nursing + home by two police officials, he was unconscious and in + critical condition, the accompanying police officials leaving + him; +
(xiv) Darshan Singh (the victim) regained consciousness during + the night intervening 16th and 17th March, 1992; +
(xv) Dr. Mohan Lal (PW 12) had sent the information to victim‟s + + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 46 of 61 + family through a messenger; +
(xvi) Upon information regarding Darshan Singh (the victim) + reaching the family, Prem Pal (PW 3), accompanied by + Vikram Singh (PW2), Munna Lal (PW4), Beena (PW1) and + others, went to the nursing home and saw him in critically + injured state; +
(xvii) Inspector Shakti Singh (PW 15) states that he had learnt in + the afternoon of 17th March 1992 that the appellants had not + abided by his direction of taking the victim to the hospital + and had instead left him in the private nursing home and that + they (the appellants) were not available, he made a report to + the senior police officers and recorded the absence of the + appellants from duty; +
(xviii) Upon the information reaching the senior police officers on + the afternoon of 17th March, 1992, the DCP and ACP visited + the nursing home and saw the victim admitted there + whereupon arrangements were made and Darshan Singh (the + victim) was shifted to LNJP Hospital the same day; + (xix) First information report was registered on 17th March, 1992 + by SI Kartar Singh (PW-17) and taken up for investigation + for offences under sections 342/323/34 IPC; + (xx) Darshan Singh (the victim) died during treatment in LNJP + Hospital in the afternoon of 17 March 1992; + (xxi) The post-mortem examination on the dead body of Darshan + Singh (the victim) revealed that he had suffered 23 ante + mortem injuries, mostly contusions or abrasions, almost all + + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 47 of 61 + over the body, including on the face, upper limbs, lower + limbs, extremities (hands, soles, fingers, toes etc.), nails, + joints (knees and wrists) and the chest region, the internal + examination showing extravasations of blood present in the + frontal region on both sides with subarachnoid haemorrhage + present over both the frontal poles, it also showing a few + petechial haemorrhages presentation in both the cerebral + hemispheres frontal, terminal and parietal poles - some of the + injuries being fresh (1 to 3 days old), some a little older (2 to + 4 days old) and yet some more still older (5 to 6 days old), + indicative of constant physical assaults over a prolonged + period, at least six days in duration; and + (xxii) The autopsy doctor (PW 18) was unable to give any definite + opinion regarding the cause of death on the basis of findings + during the post-mortem examination of the dead body. He + recorded that he had preserved the viscera for chemical + analysis to rule out the possibility of poisoning thereby + indicating that he was reserving his final opinion on the + subject of cause of death till the viscera report had come in. +

The report of the CFSL (Exh. PW 16/A) was negative on the + possibility of poisoning. Thus, when the matter was taken + back to the autopsy doctor (PW 18), he recorded his final + views (Exh. PW 18/B) stating that, in his opinion, all the + injuries noted in the autopsy report were ante-mortem in + nature, caused by blunt force impact, and that the death had + occurred due to cerebral damage consequent upon force + + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 48 of 61 + trauma to the head. +

66. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that +neither the father of the victim nor his uncles nor, for that matter, his +aunt (PW1), knew any of them from before. It is argued that, in this +view, the dock identification by them ought not be accepted, or acted +upon, because the investigating agency had failed to arrange TIP. +Reliance is placed on Raju @ Rajendra vs. State of Maharashtra, 1998 +SCC (Cri) 296; Vijayan vs. State of Kerala, 1999 SCC (Cri) 378; State +of H.P. vs. Lekh Raj & another, 2000 SCC (Cri) 147; and State of U.P. +vs. Ashok Dixit & another, 2000 Supreme Court (Cri) 579. We reject +the argument as unmerited. It is mainly Anand Prakash (A-1) who has +been identified by the father and uncles of the deceased. They had met +him in his office on several occasions. During their respective cross- +examination, their ability to identify was never challenged. His +description matches with the physical appearance of A-1. Even +otherwise, the prosecution does not rely only on the evidence of the +said witnesses from the family of the victim on the question of identity. +The testimony of Inspector Shakti Singh (PW15) is of import and +relevance and confirms involvement of A-1. +

+

67. It is the argument of the appellants, other than Anand Prakash +(A-1), that the responses given by him, in answer to the enquiry by +Inspector Shakti Singh (PW15) in the office of the AATS on the +morning of 17.03.1992, in so far as the same carried admissions, +cannot be used as evidence to draw the conclusions against them. In +this context, reference was made to State of A.P. vs. E. Satyanarayana, +(2009) 14 SCC 400, to submit that (so-called) confession was not + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 49 of 61 + documented by Inspector Shakti Singh (PW15) immediately and, thus, +his evidence is rendered suspect. Reliance is also placed on Pancho vs. +State of Haryana, AIR 2012 SC 523, particularly the following +observations (in para 16 of the report) :- +

+
"...Where the prosecution relies upon the confession of + one accused against another, the proper approach is to + consider the other evidence against such an accused and + if the said evidence appears to be satisfactory and the + court is inclined to hold that the said evidence may + sustain the charge framed against the said accused, the + court turns to the confession with a view to assuring itself + that the conclusion which it is inclined to draw from the + other evidence is right. ...though confession may be + regarded as evidence in generic sense because of the + provisions of Section 30 of the Evidence Act, the fact + remains that it is not evidence as defined in Section 3 of + the Evidence Act. Therefore, in dealing with a case + against an accused, the court cannot start with the + confession of a co-accused; it must begin with other + evidence adduced by the prosecution and after it has + formed its opinion with regard to the quality and effect of + the said evidence, then it is permissible to turn to the + confession in order to receive assurance to the conclusion + of guilt which the judicial mind is about to reach on the + said other evidence". (emphasis supplied) + + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 50 of 61 +

68. Indeed, the law is settled, as expounded in the above-quoted +observation of the Supreme Court, that confession of a co-accused +cannot be the starting point of consideration of the case against the +other accused being jointly tried with him for the same offence. When +the factum of the victim, being in a critically injured state, came to the +notice of Inspector Shakti Singh (PW15), he made an enquiry of all the +four appellants, who were present around the victim in the courtyard of +the office of AATS on the morning of 17.03.1992. The enquiry was +answered by Anand Prakash (A-1). The responses given by him at that +stage were out of his own free will and volition. His status, or for that +matter of the other appellants present with him, at that stage was not +that of accused. Further, the status of Inspector Shakti Singh (PW15) +was not that of a police officer interacting with his colleagures. +Indeed, both sides were police personnel, part of the same unit, the +appellants being subordinate in hierarchy to PW15. The questioning +by Inspector Shakti Singh (PW15) was in the nature of administrative +enquiry. At that stage, he could not even conceive or visualize as to +what possibly may have been the background. The responses given by +Anand Prakash (A-1), indeed carried admissions which confirm the +complicity not only of himself but also of the other appellants who +were present with him at that point of time. His verbal responses are +relevant, but the conduct of the other appellants, in not raising +objection or taking exception to what was said by him in answer to +queries of Inspector Shakti Singh (PW15) is equally relevant against +each of them. +

+ + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 51 of 61 +

69. Reliance on Md. Ankoos & Ors. vs. the Public Prosecutor (High +Court of H. P.), AIR 2010 SC 566 and Shamshul Kanwar vs. State of +U.P., (1995) 4 SCC 430, by the appellants is misplaced since the +prosecution has made no attempt before us to seek verification of the +statements of prosecution witnesses by reference to the contents of the +case diary, or the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded +therein. +

+

70. Death as a result of torture in police custody is indeed one of the +worst kinds of crime in a society governed by Rule of Law that +promises to secure to all its citizens, amongst others, justice, liberty +and equality. Such cases not only pose serious threat to the orderly +civilized society but also are an affront to human dignity. The State, or +its agencies, cannot be party to such acts as undermine the basic rights +enshrined in, and guaranteed by, the Constitution. Thus, whenever +cases of maltreatment of detainees or suspects in custody come to light, +they need to be dealt with appropriately and with the sensitivity which +is due in such matters. +

+

71. Undoubtedly, a police officer when charged with accusations of +crime is entitled to same rights (including that of initial presumption of +innocence) as any other person facing a criminal charge. Further, it is +the obligation of the criminal court adjudicating upon such matter to +carefully examine, as in any other criminal case, to find out whether +the allegations are genuine or not or, to put in clear perspective for +present purpose, as to whether the complainant is feigning it as one of +custodial violence. But, it also needs to be borne in mind that when +custody or illegal confinement is proved beyond doubt, then presence + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 52 of 61 + of physical injuries on the detenue would require an explanation from +the custodian of law as in cases of such nature, direct evidence of +maltreatment, or excess, by police officials vis-à-vis a person in +detention is hard to gather or present before the court. The facts and +evidence is in the special knowledge of the police officer. As observed +by the Supreme Court in Gauri Shankar Sharma vs. State of U.P., AIR +1990 SC 709, it is generally difficult in cases of deaths in police +custody to secure evidence against the policemen responsible for +resorting to third degree methods since they are in the control of the +official record of the police station and, thus, do not find it difficult to +manipulate. Further, cases are not unknown where police official(s) +have given wrong accounts to secure a conviction or to help out a +colleague from a tight situation of his creation. +

+ +

72. In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Shyam Sunder Trivedi, JT 1995 +(4) SC 445, the Supreme Court administered caution against ignoring +the ground realities and exaggerated adherence to, or insistence upon, +the establishment of proof beyond what is required and necessary. +Onus, once primary facts are established, would shift and require an +explanation. This view was reiterated in Ram Bihari Yadav vs. State of +Bihar, (1998) 4 SCC 517, wherein it was observed thus :- +

+
" Though the prosecution has to prove the case against + the accused in the manner stated by it and that any act or + omission on the part of the prosecution giving rise to any + reasonable doubt would go in favour of the accused, yet + in a case like the present one where the record shows + that investigating officers created a mess by bringing on + record dying declaration and GD Entry and have + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 53 of 61 + exhibited remiss and/or deliberately omitted to do what + they ought to have done to bail out the appellant who was + a member of the police force or for any extraneous + reason, the interest of justice demands that such acts or + omissions of the officers of the prosecution should not be + taken in favour of the accused, for that would amount to + giving premium for the wrongs of the prosecution + designedly committed to favour the appellant. In such + cases, the story of the prosecution will have to be + examined dehors such omissions and contaminated + conduct of the officials otherwise the mischief which was + deliberately done would be perpetuated and justice + would be denied to the complainant party and this would + obviously shake the confidence of the people not merely + in the law enforcing agency but also in the + administration of justice". +

(emphasis supplied) + +

73. Taking a similar view, in Munshi Singh Gautam vs. State of +M.P., (2005) 9 SCC 631, the Supreme Court ruled as under : +

".... The courts are also required to have a change in + their outlook approach, appreciation and attitude, + particularly in cases involving custodial crimes and they + should exhibit more sensitivity and adopt a realistic + rather than a narrow technical approach, while dealing + with the cases of custodial crime so that as far as + possible within their powers, the truth is found and guilty + should not escape so that the victim of the crime has the + satisfaction that ultimately the majesty of law has + prevailed". (emphasis supplied) + +

74. Amongst the appellants, A-3 was the senior most in the rank. +He may have availed of leave of absence for two days during this +period. But, this does not mean that he would have had no role in the +episode concerning the victim. As noted earlier, he was, in fact, the +head of the trap team which included A-1 and A-2. A-4 may have + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 54 of 61 + been given the additional duties of DD writer for same days. But, he +was part of the group controlling the custody of the victim when +brought to the office of AATS in the morning of 16.03.1992. +

+

75. Whilst it is true that in the case at hand there are lapses to cover +up and withhold evidence showing the involvement of the appellants +so as to help them, in our view, the same cannot detract from cogent +and reliable evidence about illegal abduction, confinement and torture. +The evidence leaves no room for doubt as to the complicity of the four +appellants in the crime. It is correct that more evidence (e.g. the +statement of the victim recorded by the DCP/ACP; the report of PW15 +to his superior officers; MLC of the victim, etc.) could have been +produced. But, the omission on the part of the investigating officer to +gather the requisite material, or the default of the prosecution agency in +leading evidence on the available material, do not bring about a break +in the chain of circumstances. The facts and circumstances which have +been proved are sufficient to join the dots. They unerringly point +towards the culpability of the appellants. +

+

76. The first informant (PW1) may not have known the identity of +the persons who had taken away her nephew (the victim) from his +house in the dead of night on the night intervening 10 th & 11th March, +1992 or her version may have been logged by the recording officer but +the information given by PW5 and PW6 unravelled the mystery. They +had seen the victim in the police custody. The family members of the +victim (PW2, PW3 and PW4), thus, approached A-1 in his office +seeking the release of the victim from custody. A-1 confirmed the fact +that victim was indeed in his custody and control but would not agree + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 55 of 61 + to set him free. The fact that PW15 also saw him in the control of the +appellants on the morning of 16.03.1992 shows that he had continued +to be in their custody till that stage. PW12 may not be ready to +identify any of the appellants as the police officials who had brought +the victim to his establishment. But, given the evidence of PW15, +there can be no doubt that it was two of the appellants who had left him +in the nursing home in critically injured condition. The omission on +the part of A-1 to A-4 in taking the victim to a government hospital in +compliance with the direction of their superior (PW15) was clearly +deliberate and intentional and indulged in with the objective of +avoiding the responsibility and accountability for the condition to +which he had been reduced in captivity. +

+

77. From the above, we unhesitatingly conclude that the +appellants were responsible for the unlawful acts of unjustifiably +taking away the victim from his house on the night of 10 th and 11th +March, 1992 and his illegal detention thereafter till 16.03.1992. In +absence of any theory to the contrary, it has to be assumed that the +victim was in state of good health, when picked up from his house on +the night in question. It is natural corollary that the burden of +explaining as to how he had suffered the injuries (as noted on his body +in the autopsy report) with which he came out of captivity six days +thereafter is that of his captors, i.e. the appellants. The fact that +appellants made no effort to offer any explanation worth the name on +this score, and instead have opted to come up with defence of total +denial, only means the onus has not been discharged by them. Thus, + + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 56 of 61 + they are bound to be held accountable for the injuries suffered by the +deceased. +

+

78. The autopsy report shows that the twenty three injuries +suffered by Darshan Singh were not inflicted on one day, or in the +course of one assaults. They are the end result of continued and +prolonged assaults, practically over the entire period of being in +unlawful detention. Having regard to the manner in which the assaults +were directed against him, almost all over his body, with no medical +treatment made available till his condition had deteriorated (to the +extent of rendering him unconscious), what with he having suffered +haemorrhage in both cerebral hemispheres, knowledge that the injuries +which were being inflicted intentionally and voluntarily on such vital +part of his body were such as were sufficient, in the ordinary course of +nature, to cause his death within the meaning of the third clause of +Section 300 IPC must be attributed. +

+

79. In the facts and circumstances, when evidence clearly shows that +all the four appellants were together, and in concert, common intention +on their part to commit acts of commission or omission leading to the +homicidal death of Darshan Singh is bound to be inferred. Thus, +charge for the murder of Darshan Singh, punishable under Section 302 +IPC read with Section 34 IPC has been rightly held proved against +them. +

+

80. The proved facts also lead to the irresistible conclusion that the +detention of Darshan Singh from early hours of 11.03.1992 to +16.03.1992 was unlawful and, therefore, wrongful confinement within + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 57 of 61 + the meaning of the penal clause contained in Section 342 IPC. There is +no reason or justification shown for these police officials to have +picked up Darshan Singh from his house or to have kept him in +captivity, concealed from his immediate family members during the +afore-said period. Thus, conviction of the four appellants on the +charge for offence punishable under Section 342 IPC read with Section +34 IPC has been rightly recorded by the trial court in the impugned +judgment. +

+

81. But, in our judgment, conviction of the appellants on the charge +under Section 330 IPC read with Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained. +There is no material indicating that Darshan Singh, or any person +closely connected to him, was wanted or was suspect in any criminal +case pending inquiry or investigation with the police during the +relevant period. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was subjected to +assault or hurt or ill-treatment in the unlawful custody of the four +appellants for the purpose of extorting from him, or from any person +interested in him, any confession or any information which might have +led to the detection of an offence or misconduct. Firstly, it is nobody‟s +case that Darshan Singh, or those connected to him, were custodian of, +or privy to information about any such property, valuable security, +claim or demand as could impel a person to commit assault against him +to secure restoration of such property or satisfaction of such claim or +demand. Thus, ingredients requisite for constituting the offence +provided in Section 330 IPC are missing. +

+

82. In the result, we partly allow the appeals and set aside the +conviction, and the order on sentence, passed against the appellants for + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 58 of 61 + the offence under section 330 read with section 34 IPC. The +conviction and sentences passed for the offences under section 302 +read with section 34 IPC and section 342 read with section 34 IPC are +upheld against each of the four appellants. +

+

83. The appellants were released on bail, the sentences against them +having been suspended pending adjudication of the appeals. They are +directed to surrender within fifteen days and undergo sentences +awarded against each of them. We direct the learned Additional +Sessions Judge presiding over the trial court (the Successor Court) and +Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station Welcome to take +necessary steps to ensure compliance with above directions in +accordance with law. +

+

84. This case of custody death cannot be allowed to conclude only +with award of substantive punishment under the penal law. It is the +obligation of the court to bear in mind the expectation of the victim +(here, the next of kin) for complete justice. We are conscious that +money cannot bring the deceased person back to life but monetary +compensation would undoubtedly apply some balm and tell the victim +that he is not forgotten. Thus, we recommend to the Delhi State Legal +Services Authority to consider award of compensation to the next of +the kin of the victim in terms of Section 357-A CrPC. For such +purposes, a copy of this judgment shall be sent by the registry to the +Member Secretary, Delhi State Legal Services Authority. +

+

85. Before we part with the case, some thoughts about the lapses +noticed above are required to be penned. +

+ + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 59 of 61 +

86. The cases of custody death we perceive and believe are an +aberration but such instances erode the confidence of the law-abiding +citizenry, or result in loss of faith in the promise inherent in the motto +"With you, for you, always", and sully the image of the organization as +a whole. It is incumbent on part of the functionaries at the helm in the +police department to exercise extra vigil over the conduct of its +personnel, ensuring that they work - invariably and always - within the +bounds of law. The sincerity and commitment of the police force to the +cause of justice is tested when a case of criminal conduct by its +member comes to light. An attempt at cover-up is like shoving the dirt +under the carpet - it persists to soil the environment. Instead, if it is +dealt with firmly and turned into a model not to be emulated, it would +sub-serve dual objectives - punitive and deterrent - and also enhance +the image of the force in the esteem of people at large. +

+

87. A case of participation by a policeman in a crime needs action at +two levels - one, his prosecution in the criminal court and, two, +disciplinary action under the conduct rules applicable to his service. +Both actions necessarily depend on same set of evidence. Utilizing part +of evidence here or part there makes no sense. Withholding of material +evidence (which may have been used in the disciplinary action) from +the criminal court, particularly, gives rise to frivolous arguments of +prejudice or for adverse inference to be drawn. In order that the two +actions are not unduly (or unjustly/unfairly) frustrated by functionaries +sympathetic to the wrongdoer, it is necessary that both are handled +appropriately and under supervision of senior officers. +

+ + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 60 of 61 +

88. Thus, we suggest that, for future, the Commissioner of Police +must formulate a clear protocol to be followed for dispassionate probe +into allegations of custodial violence or death and the same be put in +public domain to infuse the element of transparency to the process. +The duty of supervision over investigation of such cases involving +members of Delhi Police may be entrusted by the Commissioner of +Police to senior officers like Deputy Commissioner of Police +(Vigilance) for ensuring its thoroughness, the said officer to be +responsible for not only the pursuit of the disciplinary action under the +conduct rules but also coordinating with the prosecution department so +as to take care that the evidence gathered during the probe is brought +out in entirety at the criminal trial. +

+ +

89. We direct that the registry shall send copies of this judgment to +the Principal Secretary (Home) of the Government of NCT of Delhi +and to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. +

+ + +

R. K. GAUBA + (JUDGE) + + + SANJIV KHANNA + (JUDGE) + +OCTOBER 19, 2015 + + + + +Crl.A.Nos.112/2000 & conn. Page 61 of 61 +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_271492.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_271492.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..84ee094937169ba379a1588951431fac96e74f33 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_271492.html @@ -0,0 +1,381 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Saroj Kumar Upadhyaya S/O Late Sri Ram ... vs High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad ... on 19 July, 2007 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
(iii) Ramesh Chander Singh v. High Court of Allahabad and Anr. . +
+

18. We have considered the above contention and have also gone; through all these rulings. It is to be seen that the law that bail is not to be granted by Magistrate in those cases which are punishable with death sentence or life imprisonment, as contained in Section 437(1)(i) Cr.P.C. is quite clear and this law is applicable to those cases also which are punishable with life imprisonment only and not with death sentence. If a person has not gone through relevant law and is ignorant of law, the legal position is that ignorance of law is no excuse. The present case is not of jurisdictional error in grant of bail in a solitary case but in 35 cases (charges No. 2 to 4, 6 to 27, 29 to 38) this jurisdictional error was committed by him. This aspect of jurisdictional error had already been pointed out to him while awarding adverse entry to him in the year 1986-87 for granting bail in a case under Section 307 I.P.C. Now he cannot say that he was ignorant of the correct legal position and his repeated recurrence of the same mistake leads to the irresistible conclusion that he granted bail for extraneous considerations in all these cases. +

+
+ +
+ +

24. Now we take up the second part of the charge regarding discrimination in grant of bail. +

+

25. In this connection, charges No. 40 and 41 against the petitioner are that in case crime No. 417-A of 2000 under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, he granted bail to accused persons, but in similar case crime No. 127 of 2000 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of the said Act, he refused bail to accused persons in an arbitrary manner. The officer has explained that in case crime No. 417-A of 2000, bail was granted to the accused on the ground of cross case, as the accused in the cross case were already granted bail, and in case crime No. 127 of 2000 there were serious allegations against the accused persons that they entered the house of the complainant and misbehaved with ladies in the complainant's house, and so bail was refused to the accused in this case. We are of the view that this explanation is satisfactory. Thus, both the charges No. 40 and 41 are not proved. +

+
+ +
+ +

26. In charges No. 42 and 43 the allegations are that in case crime No. 341 of 2000 under Sections 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. And 3(1)(X) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act the petitioner granted bail to the accused persons while in case crime No. 127 of 2000 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. And 3(1)(X) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act he did not grant bail. The officer has explained that nature of allegations in case crime No. 127 of 2000 was more serious as there were allegations that the accused had forcibly entered the house of the complainant and had caused injuries to the persons including ladies inside the house and there were no such allegations of house trespassing in case crime No. 341 of 2000. Hence, bail was granted in case crime No. 341/2000 but it was refused in case crime No. 127 of 2000 taking into consideration the alleged house trespass committed by the accused and the offences allegedly committed in the house of the complainant. We are satisfied with the above explanation of the officer and so we are of the view that Charges No. 42 and 43 are also not proved against the petitioner. The findings of the learned Inquiry Officer on above charges are set aside. +

+
+ +
+ +

Charge No. 44: +

+

27. This charge is in respect of grant of bail to accused Krishna Kumar in case crime No. 219 of 2000 under Sections 380, 411 and 457 I.P.C. and refusal of bail to co-accused Ram Bilas in the same case. It may be mentioned that there was recovery of stolen property worth Rs. 15,000/- from Krishna Kumar but he was granted bail. On the other hand, accused Ram Bilas was not named in the F.I.R. nor any recovery was made from him. Even then his bail application was rejected. +

+

28. The officer has given explanation that items recovered from possession of Krishna Kumar were commonly available and so he granted bail to Krishna Kumar, but he refused bail to Ram Bilas as he resided near international border of India and Nepal and so there was a possibility that he may not appear to face trial after being released on bail and recovery could also be made from him if he is remanded to police custody. The learned Inquiry Officer has pointed but that there was no application for police custody. It is to be seen that in this case when the person from whom recovery had been made was granted bail, there was no justification for refusing bail to a person who was not named in the F.I.R. and from whose possession no recovery was made. If there was an apprehension that he may disappear on being released on bail suitable conditions could be imposed at the time of granting bail to him, but there was no justification for granting bail to one accused and refusing bail to another accused in the same case, when the case of Ram Bilas stood on a better footing for grant of bail than that of Krishna Kumar. His above arbitrary and discriminatory act in granting bail to one accused and refusing bail to another accused in the same case goes to show his dishonesty and leads to a conclusion that the orders were passed for extraneous consideration and we are of the view that charge No. 44 is proved against the petitioner. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_27791599.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_27791599.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..534b332fdc294d84f641c7a4355a79b7a976d745 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_27791599.html @@ -0,0 +1,396 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Kamlesh Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 3 April, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
2. These applications for bail have been filed by applicants, Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Kamlesh Kumar Yadav and Awadesh Yadav seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.55 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, Police Station Holagarh, District Allahabad, during the pendency of trial. +
+
3. Perused the record. +
+
4. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.50626 of 2021 (Pradeep Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P.) came up for orders on 24.02.2022 and this Court passed following order:- +
+
"Heard Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State. + +Perused the record. +
+
+ +
+ +
On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail. +
+
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. +
+
Let the applicant Sandeep Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 55 of 2017 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 325 I.P.C., P.S. Holagarh, District Allahabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (not less than rupees five lacs) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. +
+
+ +
+
2. These applications for bail have been filed by applicants, Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Kamlesh Kumar Yadav and Awadesh Yadav seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.55 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, Police Station Holagarh, District Allahabad, during the pendency of trial. + +
3. Perused the record. +
+
4. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.50626 of 2021 (Pradeep Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P.) came up for orders on 24.02.2022 and this Court passed following order:- + +"Heard Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State. + +Perused the record. +
+
+ +
+ +
On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail. +
+
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. +
+
Let the applicant Sandeep Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 55 of 2017 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 325 I.P.C., P.S. Holagarh, District Allahabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (not less than rupees five lacs) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_3001890.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_3001890.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..02cd49bbc19f76ebd05ec906a4705e89c38382d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_3001890.html @@ -0,0 +1,368 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Kuppulakshmi vs The Secretary To Government on 5 April, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

20. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) by referring to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in E.Subbulakshmi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, through Secretary to Government and others, reported in (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 536 at special page 540, pointed out the observations made therein, which runs as follows: +

7.The third ground urged by the petitioner is about the reliance placed on alleged confessional statement given by the detenu during the investigation of the ground case. The fact that no signature of the detenu has been noted on the said confessional statement, it would at best be a ground to discard that document in a criminal trial being inadmissible in evidence. That by itself is not sufficient to question the subjective satisfaction reached by the detaining authority. What is also required to be considered is: whether the said voluntary confessional statement was the sole basis to arrive at the subjective satisfaction. On a fair reading of the grounds of detention, we must hold that the said confessional statement is not the solitary document or circumstance considered by the detaining authority. The grounds of detention have referred to the FIR in Crime No. 2348 of 2015 under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 384 and 506 Part II IPC read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992; and the background in which the said case was registered including the seriousness of the offence. Reliance has been placed on the fact that during the investigation of the case, the Assistant Commissioner of Police was informed that the detenu who was absconding in the ground case, was apprehended in connection with another crime. After taking orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thiru N. Elangovan, Inspector of Police, Law and Order, J4 Kotturpuram Police Station arrested the detenu on 2-11-2015 at 2130 hrs. After his arrest he was brought to Chennai. On 30-11-2015 at 1330 hrs. while police party along with the accused were returning to Chennai, opposite to Central Polytechnic the detenu informed that he wanted to attend to nature's call. When he was permitted to go, he pushed the police and jumped a locked gate and tried to escape from the police custody. In his attempt to flee, he fell down on his knee and sustained injuries. The police party after chasing him once again arrested him. They took him to a nearby Government Royapettah Hospital for treatment as outpatient. The detenu was later on handed over to the Inspector of Police, J4 Kottupuram Police Station, who in turn recorded the alleged voluntary confessional statement. The grounds of detention also advert to the fact that the detenu was arrested in connection with other serious offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 336, 397 and 506 Part II IPC but was released on bail. The detaining authority has recorded his subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail even in connection with the ground case where he was on remand till 17-12-2015; and if released on bail, he may indulge in similar prejudicial activities affecting the maintenance of public order. Suffice it to observe that the alleged confessional statement is not the sole basis for forming subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The detaining authority has considered all aspects of the matter and taking totality of circumstances into account, deemed it necessary to detain the detenu in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the 1982 Act. Further, the fact that the alleged confessional statement does not bear the signature of the detenu will be of no avail, for doubting the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority. It is well settled that the Court must be loath to question the subjective satisfaction reached by the detaining authority. Hence, even this contention also does not commend to us. + +
+
+ +
+
4..... The Sponsoring Authority has stated action to take him on bail by filing another bail application in H3 Tondiarpet Police Station Crime Nos.1794/2017 and 1796 of 2017 before the appropriate Court. In a case registered u/s 341, 307 & 506(ii) IPC in H3 Tondiarpet Police Station Cr.No.824/2016 he was granted bail by the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.17524/2016. Similarly, in a case registered in F1 Chintadripet Police Station Cr.No.809/2014 u/s.147, 148, 341, 307 IPC @ 302 IPC bail was granted by the Court of Sessions, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.17395/2014. I, hence infer that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail in by filing another bail application in H3 Tondiarpet Police Station Crime Nos.1794/2017 and 1796/2017 before the appropriate Court, since in similar cases bail is granted by the Court after a lapse of time. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in such further activities in future and therefore there is a compelling necessity to pass on order of detention with a view to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities in future. Further recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. + +
+
+ +
+

24. Notwithstanding the fact that the two bail applications in Crl.M.P.Nos.18736 and 18737 of 2017 were dismissed by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge and also this Court taking note of an important fact that the Detaining Authority in the Detention Order had pointed out that in a similar case, registered in F1 Chindadripet Police Station in Crime No.809/2014 u/s.147, 148, 341, 307 IPC @ 302 IPC bail was granted by the Court of Sessions, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.17395 of 2014, that may not be a reason for him to infer that in a case pending against the Detenu, bail will be granted. In short, such an inference by him is a bald one, of course, bereft of requisite details in this regard. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_30113059.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_30113059.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9aad90e5ce0a1ecaa3a6c38af4c9d7a92c813225 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_30113059.html @@ -0,0 +1,381 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Dr. Ashfaq @ Nehal vs Union Of India & 3 Others on 13 April, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

33. The aforesaid assertions of the petitioner have been substantially met by the Detaining Authority in paragraph no. 23 of his counter affidavit. The relevant part of it is quoted below: +

+
"23...............................It is submitted that the deponent while passing the detention order took note of the fact that hectic efforts are being made from the side of the petitioner for getting him to be released on bail. The bail applications moved by the petitioner was taken note by the deponent. It is humbly submitted that while forming the subjective satisfaction, what is to be seen, is the effort being made by the petitioner for setting him free. The safeguard as provided under the National Security Act has been duly followed by the deponent and on each and every step the petitioner has been informed about his rights and therefore the detention order is wholly in accordance with law and the present habeas corpsus petitioner filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. More so ever, the petitioner has been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court on 09.08.2017 in Case Crime No. 2 of 2017, under Sections 147, 323, 452, 427 and 395 IPC. In Case Crime No. 1 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 435, 436, 395, 397, 323, 504, 506, 332, 353, 427, 186, 336, 34, 452, 120-B of IPC section ¾ Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act and section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. Bail has been granted to the petitioner on 26.05.2017 by this Hon'ble Court. In Case Crime No. 3 of 2017, under sections 147, 148, 149, 435, 307, 352, 436, 397, 34 and 120-B of IPC bail has been granted to the petitioner on 09.08.2017 by this Hon'ble Court and in Case Crime No. 4 of 2017, under Section 147, 323, 452, 395 and 427 of IPC bail has been granted to the petitioner by this Hon'ble Court on 09.08.2017." +
+
+ +
+ +2 +

10/05/17 + +The bail application was filed by the petitioner before Session Court Deoria in Case Crime No. 2 of 2017, under Sections 147, 323, 427, 452, 395 IPC P.S. Madanpur, District Deoria (Annexure No.8 to the petition, Page 98) (in this case, bail application no. 26857 of 2017 was granted by this Court on 9.8.2017) + + + +10/05/17 + +The bail application was filed by the petitioner before Session Court Deoria in Case Crime No. 3 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 435, 307, 352 IPC P.S. Madanpur, District Deoria (Annexure No.8 to the petition, Page 98) (in this case, bail application no. 26858 of 2017 was granted by this Court on 9.8.2017) + + + +10/05/17 + +The bail application was filed by the petitioner before Session Court Deoria in Case Crime No. 4 of 2017, under Sections 147, 323, 452, 395, 427 IPC P.S. Madanpur, District Deoria (Annexure No.8 to the petition, Page 98) (in this case, bail application no. 26856 of 2017 was granted by this Court on 9.8.2017) + + + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_30386.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_30386.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1f1175b97043878e0586adf13dc3065bd29005fd --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_30386.html @@ -0,0 +1,375 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Alakh Sinha vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 11 March, 2004 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. In this petition, petitioner has prayed for quashment of the order (P-13) of his removal from service from the post of Civil Judge, Class-I. + + +

2. Petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge in the year 1983 and was promoted as Civil Judge Class-I in the year 1991. High Court of Madhya Pradesh initiated departmental enquiry as per memo (P-l). Charge-sheet (P-2) was issued containing 14 charges. Statement of imputation (P-3) and enquiry report (P-4) was submitted. Out of 14 charges, 11 charges related to lapse in judicial work. Petitioner filed a reply (P-5). Charge Nos. 7, 9 and 13 were also not proved. Charge No. 1 related to grant of interim injunction in violation of legal principles. Charge No. 2 is with respect to delay in deciding three cases. Charge No. 3 related to passing an order of discharge in a case under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC and instead a charge under Section 326/149 was framed and petitioner proceeded with trial himself. Charge No. 4 related to deciding Criminal Case Nos. 8100/86,187/86 against all cannons of justice and acquitted the accused. Charge No. 5 related to keeping himself present after appointing the Commissioner for local investigation at the spot in the Civil Suit No. 108/1993 and took part in taking measurement which shows undue interest in the case. Charge No. 6 related to purchase of second-hand car from lawyer; Shri Sudhir Pathak, who was practising in his Court and was not merely a press representative which petitioner had claimed in his application for grant of permission for purchase of car. Charge No. 8 related to purchase of a car for Rs. 80,000/- from Anil Deshpande of Indore and obtaining permission by misrepresenting to the High Court. Charge No. 10 related to discharge of accused persons who were alleged to have committed various offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which was not triable by the petitioner. Charge No. 11 related to illegally granting bail in Criminal Case No. 272/91 (State v. Suresh). Charge No. 12 related to Criminal Case No. 232/92 (State v. Narayan and Ors.,) which was a case under Section 326 of the IPC. Petitioner granted bail of which he had no power since that was an offence punishable with imprisonment for life. Charge No. 14 related to awarding inadequate punishment in a case punishable under Sections 338 and 304A of the IPC and those under Section 7 read with Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which shows inefficiency or lack of integrity and amounts to grave misconduct. +

+
+ +
+ +

3. Petitioner has submitted that so far as charges in relation to judicial work are concerned, no party or lawyer has made any grievance. Shri C.S. Gupta has dragged the charges to harass the petitioner malafidely. Committal Court has not to act as a post office, but, to apply his mind. Thus, no misconduct was made out while charge under Section 326 was framed though challan was filed under Section 307, IPC. Acquittals made in Food Adulteration cases were not challenged, non-compliance under Section 13(2) was not the only ground. In civil suit both the parties had prayed for inspection of spot by the petitioner, hence, no misconduct was committed. While in the case in charge No. 10, challan was filed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on perusal petitioner found that no offence under the Act was made out. Therefore took cognizance of offence under the Indian Penal Code. May be that entertaining the challan was not strictly legal, but the same was done as per orders of the then District Judge; who had directed that even in those cases, the accused should be committed. Charge No. 11 is incorrect as bail was granted by First Addl. Sessions Judge, Sehore. With respect to charge No. 12 as the police has sought remand of accused for offence under Section 325, IPC, therefore, bail was granted by the petitioner. Latter, while filing the challan, the police converted the offence under Section 325 to one under Section 326 of the IPC. +

+
+ +
+ +

6. A return has been filed by the respondent No. 2; High Court of Madhya Pradesh. It is contended in the return that when the inspection of petitioner's work was done, several irregularities and grave lapse were found in the judicial orders. Inspection note (R-l) was submitted by the District Judge, Sehore on 6-12-1993. A DO (R-2) was written to the High Court on 10-12-1993 by the District Judge. District Judge (Vigilance), Indore Zone was appointed as enquiry officer. Petitioner was afforded full opportunity of defence in the enquiry. Witnesses were examined to prove the charges. Enquiry officer submitted his report. Charges except Nos. 7, 9 and 13 were found to be proved. Administrative Committee considered the matter and ordered issuance of a show-cause notice. Resolution (R-3) was passed on 27-1-1997. Petitioner submitted a reply. Matter was again placed before the Administrative Committee on 8-4-1997. The Administrative Committee resolved that the report of the enquiry officer be accepted and the petitioner be removed from service. Then the matter was placed before the Full Court in its meeting held on 17-4-1997. Having considered the report and the reply, Full Court resolved that the report of the enquiry officer be accepted and a major penalty of removal from service be imposed upon him. The enquiry has been held in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Petitioner was afforded due and proper opportunity of hearing. There was no irregularity or illegality. The punishment does not call for any interference, by way of judicial review. Petitioner has virtually sought for reappraisal of evidence. Degree of proof as required in the matter of departmental enquiry is not as is required in criminal prosecution. Petitioner possessed of atleast 10 years of experience as a judicial officer. He was expected to know the substantive law atleast besides the procedural law. When a civil suit for injunction was filed against the body corporate or Municipal Corporation and temporary injunction was sought for stopping the public work, there was no such eminent urgency that without issuing the show cause notice to the Municipal Corporation temporary injunction was granted. Similarly, when in a civil matter, the Commissioner had been directed to be appointed, for spot inspection, it was wholly unnecessary on the part of the petitioner as a judicial officer to go himself to the spot at the time of the spot inspection and to take part in taking measurement. This was no part of his duly, but, certainly an act beyond his judicial work giving inference to the effect that he was otherwise interested in the matter. Similarly, when the police had filed a criminal case in his Court under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, he should have atleast looked into the bare provisions of law and should have seen that it was not triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class, but, was exclusively triable by Special Court (Sessions Court) established under Section 14 of the Act. The petitioner not only granted bail illegally to the accused persons but also discharged the accused persons from the various offences under the above Act. This was an act of serious misconduct in the discharge of his duties as Judicial Officer. Not only in one case but in as many as eight cases, petitioner discharged the accused persons. Anr. instance of ignorance of law or a deliberate act on his part is to discharge the person accused of offence under Section 307 of the IPC which was also exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and the Court of Sessions alone could have passed the order of discharge. Similarly, the petitioner granted bail for offence under Section 326, IPC in which he had no power to grant bail since the offence was punishable with imprisonment for life. Thus, several instances were brought to the notice to the High Court which led to an inference that either the petitioner was totally ignorant of the bare provisions of law or he deliberately did all these acts during the discharge of his duties as a Judicial Officer, which was wholly an act unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. It also led to an inference that he seriously lacked devotion to his duties and was absolutely inefficient. Shri C.S. Gupta had no role to play. He was neither the enquiry officer nor the competent authority to take a decision in the disciplinary proceedings. +

+
+ +
+ +

20. In discharge of the judicial power correctness of the orders passed by the petitioner is not subject-matter of the enquiry, but, his conduct while passing such an order, whether he was discharging the duty in reckless manner or such a manner so as to infer that act was improper or unbecoming of a judicial officer. Petitioner has discharged the accused persons in several cases in which Court had no right of trial. In Criminal Case No. 322/92 challan was filed under Sections 307, 148, 149 and 326 of the IPC and the petitioner had no right to try the offence and still discharged the accused while appreciating the evidence which was not at all permissible, is not a case of wrong exercise of power. Petitioner was passing such orders consistently in number of cases. The inference has been drawn by the enquiry officer of improper conduct and motive. Petitioner ought to have known the basic law that it was not open to him to appreciate the evidence in the case in which he had no right to try and discharge the accused persons in several cases. Process of committal of cases was also not followed, inference of misconduct and improper motive has been drawn which can not be said to be a perverse finding. Apart from that the petitioner has discharged the accused persons in the number of cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Petitioner had no jurisdiction to discharge the accused persons as he had no right to make the trial. The enquiry officer has rightly drawn the inference of improper conduct, such an offence is triable by Special Court. Petitioner had no right to conduct the trial, is not in dispute. Filing of the challan in his Court, can not give right the petitioner to deal with the cases in cavalier fashion. Enquiry officer has discussed in detail the various cases in which such orders were passed and has come to the conclusion that no such finding was recorded that such a case under Prevention of Atrocities Act, was not made out. He had no right to consider the merits and demerits of the case which was function of the Special Court. In the case No. 372/91 it was also found established that the challan was filed under Section 307/34, IPC. Petitioner appreciated the evidence and without following the procedure of committal, framed the charges under different section and discharged the accused under Section 307, IPC. Charge No. 12 relates to releasing the accused persons on bail under Section 326 of the IPC. Charge-sheet was filed on 19-6-1992 under Section 326, IPC. The defence that remand was sought under Section 325 of the IPC has been considered by the enquiry officer. Case was registered under Section 326, IPC. Fact was brought to the notice of the Court. Petitioner granted bail mentioning that in case offence under Section 326, IPC is ultimately found, bail will be cancelled and still did not make any efforts when challan was filed under Section 326, IPC to cancel the bail. It was also not found by the petitioner that offence under Section 326, IPC was not made out while granting the bail. Apart from above petitioner has been found guilty of passing orders in flagrant violation of law contrary to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Prevention of Food Adulteration Act cases. Charge No. 4 has been found to be established. In addition, it has been found that the petitioner did not impose minimum punishment in several cases which have been found established while dealing charge No. 14. From the overall conduct of the petitioner, it can be inferred that his orders/acts were highly reckless and amounted to culpable negligence. It was not a mere case of negligence and misconduct has been rightly found established. In totality of the circumstances of the case taking cumulative effect of the nature of orders which were passed, petitioner acted in most derogatory fashion. Thus, in my opinion he has been rightly found guilty of misconduct by the enquiry officer. Scope of interference in the conclusion of finding recorded in a departmental enquiry is limited and this Court can not reassess the evidence. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_30641717.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_30641717.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..95ace19ddb67f8a151f43083bbaa1c35d1978ced --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_30641717.html @@ -0,0 +1,379 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Naushad vs State Of U.P. on 5 August, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
2. Perused the record. +
+
3. This application for bail has been filed by applicant- Aadil seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 234 of 2023, under sections 302/34 IPC, Police Staiton- Brahampuri, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial. +
+
4. At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant contends that co-accused Shuaib has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, vide order dated 15.3.2024, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44758 of 2023 (Shuaib Vs. State of U.P.). Copy of the bail order has been produced before Court. Perusal of same goes to show that all necessary facts have been noted by the Court in details. Accordingly, for ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under: +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +

7. Applicant has criminal history of one case i.e. by way of Case Crime No. 171 of 2018, under Sections 3/5/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. However in the aforesaid case crime number, the applicant has already been charge sheeted but under sections 269 and 270 IPC only. However, the applicant has been enlarged on bail. Subsequent to F.I.R. dated 8.7.2023, giving rise to present application for bail, proceedings under The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 have also been initiated against applicant. The applicant is in jail since 23.7.2023. As such, he has undergone more than 10 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant on 19.08.2023. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, he thus contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. +

+
+ +
+ +

(xiv). Applicant has criminal history of one case in Case Crime No. 171 of 2018, under sections 3/5/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. However, in the aforesaid case crime number, the applicant has already been charge sheeted but under sections 269 and 270 IPC only. However, the applicant has been enlarged on bail. Subsequent to F.I.R. dated 8.7.2023, giving rise to present application for bail, proceedings under The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 have also been initiated against applicant. In view of above, the rigours of law laid down by Apex Court in Neeru Yadav Vs. State of UP and another, (2016) 15 SCC 422, are not attracted inasmuch as, the applicant has not been charge sheeted for a grievous or a heinous offence. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_31051877.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_31051877.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2c07ec4ae962b4e83060edf52500f5a1a5cf57b5 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_31051877.html @@ -0,0 +1,412 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Dalwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 31 July, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

Section 471 IPC pertains to using as genuine a forged + +document. There is nothing on file to show that Dalwinder Singh, Sadar + +Kanungo, Jaswant Singh, Halqa Patwari and Shamsher Singh, Patwari knew + +that the said order is forged. They merely acted on the orders passed by the + +superior authorities. Therefore, they could not be convicted under Sections + +120-B and 471 read with Section 120-B IPC. +

+

Consequently, CRA-S-4526-SB-2016, CRA-S-4573-SB-2016 + +CRA-S-173-SB-2017 qua Dalwinder Singh, Sadar Kanungo, Jaswant Singh, + +Halqa Patwari and Shamsher Singh, Patwari are allowed and they stand + +acquitted of the charges under Sections 120-B and 471 read with Section + +120-B IPC. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. + +

+
+ +
+ +

Accordingly, CRA-S-4526-SB-2016, CRA-S-4573-SB-2016 + +CRA-S-173-SB-2017 qua Dalwinder Singh, Sadar Kanungo, Jaswant Singh, + +Halqa Patwari and Shamsher Singh, Patwari are allowed and they stand + +acquitted of the charges under Sections 120-B and 471 read with Section + +120-B IPC. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. Needless to + +say that any punitive action taken, only on the basis of the impugned + +judgment, will also liable to be reversed. +

+

As a result of the foregoing discussion, CRA-S-4685-SB-2016, + +filed by Gurmit Singh is partly allowed and his conviction and sentence + + + + 20 of 21 + + + +under Sections 467, 468 and 120-B IPC is set aside. However, his + +conviction and sentence under Section 471 IPC is maintained. His bail + +bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. He be re-arrested and committed to + +jail to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_31161309.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_31161309.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..30cb6e155b732f70b1bef52142390e42fd9d5c62 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_31161309.html @@ -0,0 +1,375 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Pratrap Chandra Verma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 December, 2019 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

19. In Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. (2014)16 SCC 508, this Court had granted bail to accused for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 394, 411, 454, 506, 120B and 34 IPC on the ground of parity as another accused Ashok was already enlarged on bail. The wife of deceased filed appeal for setting aside order of bail granted by this Court. Court considered various earlier authorities and said in para 13 of judgment as under : +

+
"...It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail and have not been taken note of bail or it is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the Court does not dwell upon the violation of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the Court." +
+
+ +
+ +

20. Thereafter, referring to 15 cases registered against accused showing that he was a history-sheeter and mostly under Section 302 IPC, order of bail was set aside. Court observed that there has to be a balance between personal liberty of an individual and peace and harmony of Society. No individual interest can be allowed to create a concavity in the stem of social stream otherwise it would bring chaos and anarchy in the Society. Relevant observations made in this regard are reproduced as under : +

+
+ +
+ +

25. In X vs. The State of Telangana and Ors. (2018)16 SCC 511, accused, a Film Producer, based in Mumbai, was charged of offences under Sections 376, 342, 493, 506, 354(C) of IPC. Accused got anticipatory bail from Sessions Judge on 13.01.2017 and had advantage of that order for about eight months. The said order was cancelled by Sessions Judge on the ground that accused has not disclosed that he was also accused in 2G Spectrum case. This cancellation order was affirmed by High Court and also by Supreme Court. Thereafter accused moved a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by High Court and accused was released on bail. This order was challenged in appeal before Supreme Court. Upholding the said order, Court said that bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case, based on supervening event has been made out. +

+
+ +
+ +

26. In Seema Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. (2018) 16 SCC 10 bail granted to accused by High Court in the case registered under Sections 498-A, 302, 120-B IPC was challenged in appeal before Supreme Court. Court noticed that accused-2's bail application was rejected by Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ghaziabad and thereafter bail was granted by High Court. Court said that gravity of offence is a relevant factor but not the sole ground to deny bail if there are other overwhelming circumstances justifying grant of bail. Noticing special feature, Court upheld order of High Court granting bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_32726683.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_32726683.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6e12315916edc57e99da6f6fb7ecd5124f85a055 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_32726683.html @@ -0,0 +1,449 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Tejinder Singh @ Teja vs State Of Punjab on 17 March, 2016 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
"In the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed + Bhagat Singh Nagar, it has been mentioned that the petitioner is + involved in 14 other cases. +
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to file written + information about the status of those cases and as to whether the + petitioner is in custody or on bail. +
Adjourned to 14.08.2015." +
+

Thereafter custody certificate dated 17.11.2015 was filed which +reflected that in FIR No. 18 dated 18.05.2012 under Sections 148, 149, 307, 323 +and 326 IPC, Police Station Pojewal (in which bail had been sought) the +petitioner had undergone 2 years 02 months and 25 days of custody from +22.08.2013 to 17.11.2015. Further details of other pending cases alongwith +period undergone therein were as follows:- +

+
+ +
+ +

4 of 25 + + + + +

10. Convicted and sentenced on 05.11.2015 in case FIR No.32 + dated 22.04.2009 PS Balachaur to undergo R.I. for 3 years and fine + of Rs.2000/- under Sections 302/34 IPC. He was released on bail + on 05.11.2015 after depositing the fine since he remained as an + under-trial in this case w.e.f. 26.08.2013 to 10.10.2015 = 2 years, 1 + month and 14 days. +

+

An analysis of the above details shows that the petitioner was +detained for the first time on 11.07.2013 in FIR No.120 dated 10.07.2013, PS +Division No.5, Ludhiana at Sr.No.8 above. In that case he remained in custody +and was convicted on 25.10.2013 but was released on probation for 6 months. +He was thereafter convicted on 22.05.2014 in as many as 4 cases and was +sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment upto 1 ½ years R.I. and though the +custody certificate does not mention the details it is apparent that all his +sentences were ordered to run concurrently since he has completed his sentence +in all the cases in which he has been convicted. +

+
+ +
+
The petition bearing No.CRM-M-21934-2015 has been filed under +Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. +No.18 dated 18.05.2012 registered under Sections 148, 149, 307, 323 and 326 +IPC at Police Station Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. +
The petitioner would be deemed to be in under-trial detention from +

22.08.2013 to 22.05.2014 in FIR No.18 dated 18.05.2012 and, w.e.f. 23.05.2014 +his status would change to that of convict undergoing sentence because on that +date he was convicted and sentenced in as many as 4 cases as detailed above and +till 01.10.2015 he was actually undergoing sentence in those cases. Thereafter +on 05.11.2015 he was convicted and sentenced in FIR No. 32 dated 22.04.2009 +registered under Sections 302, 34 IPC at P.S.Balachaur. It has been brought to +my notice that the petitioner had been taken in custody in that case in the year +2009, and since he was a juvenile, had been released on bail after almost 3 years +and, therefore, on his conviction as a juvenile his sentence was set-off against +the period of detention that he had undergone in the said case. Thus as regards +his under-trial detention the clock would stop running on 23.05.2014 and would +again start running on 02.10.2015 and consequently period of under-trial +detention in the instant FIR would be approximately 15 months as on +16.03.2016. +

+
+ +
+

The custody certificate further reveals that he is in under-trial +detention in the following other cases :- +

S.No Case detail                            D.O.A. in jail        Bail/Not on bail
+
+1     FIR No.64, dated 18.04.2014, 16.01.2015 with Not on bail
+      u/s 382 IPC, P.S.Maqsudan, custody warrant
+      Jalandhar
+
+2     FIR No.106, dated 07.08.2014 02.01.2015 with Not on bail
+      u/s 392/395 IPC and 25, 54, 59 custody warrant
+      Arms Act, P.S. Bhogpur,
+      Jalandhar
+
+3     FIR No.61, dated 06.11.2014 u/s 31.01.2015 with Not on bail
+      382, 392, 399, 395, 447, 353, custody warrant
+      482, 108, 506, 420, 465, 447,
+      467 IPC and 25, 27, 54, 59 of
+      Arms Act and 15, 18, 21, 22, 61,
+      85 NDPS Act, P.S. Garhdiwala,
+      Hoshiarpur
+
+4     FIR No.155, dated 31.12.2014 31.12.2014 with Not on bail
+      u/s 21, 61, 85 NDPS Act, P.S. custody warrant
+      Bhogpur, Jalandhar
+
+5     FIR No.116, dated 21.05.2014 25.01.2015 with Not on bail
+      u/s 15, 18, 21, 22, 61, 85 NDPS custody warrant
+      Act, P.S. Tanda, Hoshiarpur
+
+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_33650101.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_33650101.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e334396fe397c2badced5809e24d9e1d6bb0636d --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_33650101.html @@ -0,0 +1,355 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Inam vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 November, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that first bail application of the applicant filed under sections 307, 323 IPC and section 3/25/27 of Arms Act was allowed by the court vide order dated 20.9.2023. However, section 302 IPC was added during investigation and for that reasons, second bail application filed with regard to altered charge under section 302 IPC which was dismissed on 1.12.2023 by the court of session. However, this Court also dismissed bail application filed under section 302 IPC, therefore, another bail application, which was marked as second bail application no. 2615 of 2023 was filed before the trial court mainly on the ground that charge-sheet was filed in the case and same was not accompanied with ballistic examination report of FSL, wherein, one country made pistol of 12 bore and one empty cartridge shell of 12 bore and bullet recovered from the person of the deceased during his treatment in PGI Chandigarh and were sent for ballistic examination and same was deposited in FSL Niwari for examination as per statement of head constable Naresh Kumar. The accused is entitled to default bail envisaged under section 167(2)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. in view of filing of incomplete charge-sheet, which cannot be treated as charge-sheet for the purposes of section 167(2) Cr.P.C. even after lapse of 90 days, the statutory period, for which accused was incarcerated, FSL report was not filed. He is held in jail custody since 4.8.2023 i.e. for more than one year. He lastly submitted that learned trial court has committed legal error while dismissing the application for bail under section 167(2)(a) Cr.P.C. without considering the grounds made therein in proper perspective, therefore, revision is liable to be allowed and the revisionist deserves to be released on default bail under section 167(2) Cr.P.C. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_33908855.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_33908855.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f2aed3d7f5892511403ebe563f33ebb526e11db --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_33908855.html @@ -0,0 +1,393 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Gurpreet Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 21 July, 2015 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

This order shall dispose of the instant petition filed under + + Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners + + in case FIR No.40, dated 03.04.2015, under Sections 420/465/467/468/ + + 471/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Dirba, District Sangrur. + +

While issuing notice of motion, the following order was passed + + by this court on 06.05.2015: +

+
"This is a petition under section 438 Cr.P.C seeking the + benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.40 + dated 3.4.2015 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B + I.P.C registered at Police Station, Dirba, District Sangrur. +
+
+ +
+ +

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. +

+

This order shall dispose of the instant petition filed under + + Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners + + in case FIR No.08, dated 13.01.2014, under Section 354-A IPC, registered + + at Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar. + +

While issuing notice of motion, the following order was passed + + by this court on 04.05.2015: +

+
"The instant petition has been filed under Section 438 + Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail to t he + petitioners in case FIR No. 08, dated 13.01.2014, under + Sections 354-A IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, + Jalandhar. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_34111988.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_34111988.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3e6e05016add7328b9804e2e3d897b049d164c08 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_34111988.html @@ -0,0 +1,389 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Deepak vs State Of U.P. on 18 March, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
This application for bail has been filed by applicants-Niranjan, Krishna @ Kikka, Toni @ Dushyant and Deepak and Dharmendra Chaudhary, seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 325 of 2021, under sections 302 and 120-B IPC Police Station- Kakod, District Bulandshahar during the pendency of trial. +
+
Perused the record. +
+
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55751 of 2021 (Niranjan Vs. State of U.P.) came up for orders on 9.3.2022 and this Court passed the following order: +
+
"Heard Mr. Anurag Vajpeyi, learned counsel for the applicant, Niranjan, Mr. Virendra Mohan, learned counsel for the applicant, Dharmendra Chowdhary and the learned AGA for the State. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
+ +
+ +
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.325 of 2021, under Sections 302 and 120B IPC, Police Station-Kakod, District-Bulandshahar is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.07.2021. +
+
Contention raised by the counsel that for the incident of 01.07.2021 the FIR was registered on 02.07.2021 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 120B, 34 and 302 IPC. But after investigation the police has dropped all other sections except Sections 302 and 120B IPC. From the FIR it is clear that only role attributed to the applicant is of hatching the conspiracy and providing his place for meeting purpose except this there is no other role attributed to the applicant. +
+
+ +
+ +
A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No. 325 of 2021 at Police Station Kakod District Bulandshahr under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 120B, 34 and 302 I.P.C. +
+
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Bulandhshar on 04.01.2022. +
+
The applicant is in jail since 24.08.2021 pursuant to the said F.I.R. +
+
Shri Shikhar Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The prosecution case set out in the F.I.R. as well as the successive statements of the informant assign the role of exhortation to the applicant. The applicant was not named as one of the principal offenders who shot and killed the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_35241147.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_35241147.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b448c91ec0f52e9e5d902dc90d403904b0e552e5 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_35241147.html @@ -0,0 +1,382 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sagar Pradhan vs State Of Sikkim on 15 May, 2021 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

+

4. On 24.12.2020, the learned Special Judge, (SADA, + +2006), East Sikkim at Gangtok, framed four charges + +against the applicant under Section 9(1)(c) of the SADA, + +2006 read with Section 34 IPC; Section 9(1)(a) of the SADA, + +2006 read with Section 34 IPC; Section 9(1)(b) of the + +SADA, 2006 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 9(4) of + +the SADA, 2006 read with Section 34 IPC. + +

Bail Application No. 07 of 2021 + Sagar Pradhan v. State of Sikkim + + + + +

5. On the same date, the learned Special Judge directed + +the examination of the prosecution witnesses from + +07.06.2021 till 17.06.2021. Therefore, the prosecution + +witnesses are yet to be examined. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_35562.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_35562.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ae9c1cc596285bf4694d716c62700f586f17983b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_35562.html @@ -0,0 +1,372 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Keshav Dev And Ors. vs The State Of Rajasthan on 19 May, 2005 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. The point involved in the present case is as to whether Clause (i) of proviso (a) to Section 167 or Clause (ii) of proviso (a) to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. will be applicable for the offence under Section 304B IPC? +

+

2. The accused-petitioners have filed this application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 710/2004, registered at Police Station, Nadbai, District Bharatpur under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. +

+

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the accused-petitioners were arrested on 17.11.2004 and no challan was filed within a period of 60 days. Even after completion of 75 days from the date of their arrest when charge-sheet was not filed then they moved an application for bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. The Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, vide its order dated 18.2.2005, rejected the bail application of the petitioners by mentioning the reason that the offence under Section 304B IPC is punishable up to the sentence of imprisonment of life, therefore, the time limit for filing the charge-sheet is 90 days and as such the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. are not applicable in the present case. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Kamlesh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2003(1) WLC 227. +

+
+ +
+ +

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that offence under Section 304B IPC is punishable with an imprisonment of not less than 7 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. The minimum sentence of 10 years is not provided under Section 304B IPC. Therefore, the period of 60 days will be applicable for the purpose of filing the charge- sheet and not the period of 90 days which is applicable only in the cases where the offence is punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years. His contention is that period of 90 days as provided in Clause (i) of proviso (a) to Sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. is applicable only where the offence is punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years. He submits that imprisonment for a term of "not less than 10 years" is not prescribed under Section 304B IPC, therefore, the petitioners should be released on bail under Sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. as investigation was not completed and charge-sheet was not filed within a period of 60 days in the present case. He further submits that the case of Kamlesh v. State (supra), relied upon by the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur is not applicable in the present case as there was no discussion in the said case as to what period, whether 60 days or 90 days, will be applicable for filing charge-sheet in the cases relating to an offence under Section 304B IPC. In the said case, this Court, presumed that period of 90 days is applicable for the offence under Section 304B IPC, therefore, the case of Kamlesh v. State of Rajasthan is not an authoritative pronouncement on the point. +

+
+ +
+ +

17. In Mohan Singh v. State of Raj. (supra), this Court held that in the offence Under Section 306 IPC, the court is empowered to pass sentence of 10 years also. Therefore, Section 167(2)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. is applicable. However, this view is impliedly over-ruled in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Choudhary v. State of Delhi. +

+

18. In Basanti Lal Mathur v. State of Rajasthan (supra), this Court was considering a bail application in respect of the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The bail application was filed on the ground that the challan has not been submitted within a period of 60 days from the date of arrest of the accused, therefore, he is entitled for bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. This Court did not allow the bail application by observing that period for submitting challan would be 90 days in the offence under Section 467 IPC. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_35599551.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_35599551.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e64f7875e906f5dfd5cf3e4b454bf23f0383f48f --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_35599551.html @@ -0,0 +1,363 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Present: Dr. Amit George, Mr. Kartickay ... vs In Item Nos. 80, 81, 82 Mr. Ravi Sharma, ... on 31 July, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

24. The bail was granted by the learned Trial Court + considering that the charges against the petitioners are bailable in + nature, and that none of the petitioners are charged under Section + 302 of the IPC. +

25. Concededly, the petitioners, at this stage, are admitted on + bail. Chargesheet has been filed under various sections including + Section 302 of the IPC. The bail was granted noting that the + charges framed against the petitioners were bailable in nature. + Admittedly, no charges have been framed against the petitioners, + at this stage, under Section 302 of the IPC. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_35725592.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_35725592.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dddd6513cc958a82fee025c0356c4cecd82e314a --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_35725592.html @@ -0,0 +1,371 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Uttam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2016 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Smt. Pritha Moitra, learned Dy. G.A. for the +respondent/State. +

By this application filed under Section 439 of +the Cr.P.C. applicant Bhupendra s/o Narayana Jat has +prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime +No.132/2015 registered by Police Station Barwani for +offence under Sections 353, 332, 427 & 186 of IPC. +

Counsel for the applicant has vehemently +urged the fact that since the applicant Bhupendra +works for Bajrang Dal and had gone to assist one +colleague and the Police Officers have treated him with +cruelty and assaulted him and made false case for +offence under Sections 353, 332, 427 & 186 of IPC. +Counsel submitted that the applicant is 24 years of age +and a labourer and entire family is suffering since no +source of livelihood and Counsel prayed for grant of + +bail since he has been arrested on 28.12.2015. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_3716327.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_3716327.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ec2ca590b5b9bf7d49096cdc6f93cfd205a743dc --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_3716327.html @@ -0,0 +1,385 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Tony @ Dushyant vs State Of U.P. on 31 October, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
+ +
+ +
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.325 of 2021, under Sections 302 and 120B IPC, Police Station-Kakod, District-Bulandshahar is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.07.2021. +
+
Contention raised by the counsel that for the incident of 01.07.2021 the FIR was registered on 02.07.2021 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 120B, 34 and 302 IPC. But after investigation the police has dropped all other sections except Sections 302 and 120B IPC. From the FIR it is clear that only role attributed to the applicant is of hatching the conspiracy and providing his place for meeting purpose except this there is no other role attributed to the applicant. +
+
+ +
+ +
A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No. 325 of 2021 at Police Station Kakod District Bulandshahr under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 120B, 34 and 302 I.P.C. +
+
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Bulandhshar on 04.01.2022. +
+
The applicant is in jail since 24.08.2021 pursuant to the said F.I.R. +
+
Shri Shikhar Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The prosecution case set out in the F.I.R. as well as the successive statements of the informant assign the role of exhortation to the applicant. The applicant was not named as one of the principal offenders who shot and killed the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_37179831.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_37179831.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1a6ee5be68ef5bc42972553b636caa06e2d0684f --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_37179831.html @@ -0,0 +1,439 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rd Patil @ Rudragouda vs The State on 13 December, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Criminal Petition No.201625/2023 is filed by the + +petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.295/2023 registered by + +University Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 34, 37 of + +IPC and Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2008 + +(for short, hereinafter referred to as 'IT Act') + + +

2. Criminal Petition No.201627/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner who is accused No.1 under Section 438 of + +Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.267/2023 + +registered by Afzalpur Police Station, Kalaburagi District, for + +the offences punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, + +420, 34, 36, 37, 149 of IPC. +

+
+ +
+ +

+

3. Criminal Petition No.201738/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + + + + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.144/2023 registered by + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

4. Criminal Petition No.201736/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.145/2023 registered by + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

+
+ +
+

5. Criminal Petition No.201735/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.146/2023 registered by + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

6. Criminal Petition No.201734/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.147/2023 registered by + + + + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_37655875.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_37655875.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e69d775374a62cca7f055de4aa96f4d54bacb83e --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_37655875.html @@ -0,0 +1,362 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Pardeep Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 9 July, 2019 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
28. As a sequel, the prosecution has failed to + prove its case and consequently, the present accused + namely Swaran Kaur and Gurdial Singh stands acquitted + of charges framed against them under Section 120-B, 420, + 465, 467, 471 of IPC. Bail bonds of accused and surety + bonds of surety of accused stand discharged from their + liability under bonds. File be consigned to the record room + and shall be revived as and when accused Pardeep Kaur + (since P.O.) is arrested or surrendered in the Court." +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_37710792.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_37710792.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3d9faea1be6582bb1fd70fe5c7edb9e7c143fbff --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_37710792.html @@ -0,0 +1,1871 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Jugal Kishore vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr. ... ... on 12 October, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 54, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Jharkhand High Court

+

Jugal Kishore vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr. ... ... on 12 October, 2020

+ +

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

+ +

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

+ +
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
+                   A.B. A. No. 4868 of 2020
+
+           Jugal Kishore                                   ...          Petitioner
+                                      Versus
+           The State of Jharkhand & Anr.                   ...       Opposite Parties
+
+
+
+     Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
+
+
+
+    For the Petitioner                 : Mr. Navnit Prakash, Adv.
+    For the State                      : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl. PP
+
+
+02 / 12.10.2020      Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
+                     Mr. Navnit Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner
+        personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp
+        Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
+                       In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
+        counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
+        are ignored for the present.
+                  Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
+        grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with complaint case
+        no. 1553 of 2019 registered under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal
+        Code and section 3/4 D.P.Act.
+              The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
+       allegations against the petitioner are all false and those allegations are
+       general and omnibus in nature, hence, the petitioner be given the
+       privilege of anticipatory bail.
+                  Let notice be issued to Opposite Party No. 2. The petitioner is
+       directed to file requisites of notice through both processes i.e. under
+       registered post with A/D as well as through ordinary process within two
+       weeks, failing which, this anticipatory bail application shall stand
+       dismissed without further reference to the Bench.
+                   List this case on 03.12.2020.
+                  Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as
+       discussed above, I am inclined to pass an interim order of anticipatory
+       bail to the petitioner provisionally till 03.12.2020. In case of the petitioner
+       being arrested by the police on or before 03.12.2020, the petitioner shall be
+       released on bail provisionally on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-
+ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
+each to the satisfaction of the officer concerned in connection with
+complaint case no. 1553 of 2019 subject to the conditions laid down under
+section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
+
+
+
+
+                                (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
+  Smita/-
+         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
+                   A.B. A. No. 4867 of 2020
+
+           Som Shankar Mahapatra            ...                  Petitioner
+                                      Versus
+           The State of Jharkhand & Anr.    ...              Opposite Parties
+
+
+     Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
+
+
+
+    For the Petitioner                 : Mr. Achinto Sen , Adv.
+    For the State                      : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan , Addl. PP
+
+
+02 / 12.10.2020      Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
+                     Mr. Achinto Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner personally
+        undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
+        within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
+                       In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
+        counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
+        are ignored for the present.
+                  Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
+        grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Ratu P.S. case
+        no. 67 of 2019 registered under Sections 498A/406/420 of the Indian
+        Penal Code and section 3/4 D.P.Act.
+              The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
+       allegations against the petitioner are all false and those allegations are
+       general and omnibus in nature, hence, the petitioner be given the
+       privilege of anticipatory bail.
+                  Let notice be issued to Opposite Party No. 2. The petitioner is
+       directed to file requisites of notice through both processes i.e. under
+       registered post with A/D as well as through ordinary process within two
+       weeks, failing which, this anticipatory bail application shall stand
+       dismissed without further reference to the Bench.
+                   List this case on 03.12.2020.
+                  Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as
+       discussed above, I am inclined to pass an interim order of anticipatory
+       bail to the petitioner provisionally till 03.12.2020. In case of the petitioner
+       being arrested by the police on or before 03.12.2020, the petitioner shall be
+       released on bail provisionally on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-
+ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
+each to the satisfaction of the officer concerned in connection with Ratu
+P.S. case no. 67 of 2019 subject to the conditions laid down under section
+438 (2) Cr. P.C.
+
+
+                                 (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
+  Smita/-
+         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
+                   A.B. A. No. 4863 of 2020
+
+           Shyam Sunder Yadav                              ...          Petitioner
+                                      Versus
+           The State of Jharkhand & Anr.                   ...       Opposite Parties
+
+
+
+     Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
+
+
+
+    For the Petitioner                 : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy , Adv.
+    For the State                      : Mr. Rajendra Ram Ravi Das, Addl. PP
+
+
+02 / 12.10.2020      Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
+                     Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner
+        personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp
+        Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
+                       In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
+        counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
+        are ignored for the present.
+                  Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
+        grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with complaint case
+        no. 2381 of 2018 registered under Sections 498A/323/379 of the Indian
+        Penal Code.
+              The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
+       allegations against the petitioner are all false and those allegations are
+       general and omnibus in nature, hence, the petitioner be given the
+       privilege of anticipatory bail.
+                  Let notice be issued to Opposite Party No. 2. The petitioner is
+       directed to file requisites of notice through both processes i.e. under
+       registered post with A/D as well as through ordinary process within two
+       weeks, failing which, this anticipatory bail application shall stand
+       dismissed without further reference to the Bench.
+                   List this case on 03.12.2020.
+                  Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as
+       discussed above, I am inclined to pass an interim order of anticipatory
+       bail to the petitioner provisionally till 03.12.2020. In case of the petitioner
+       being arrested by the police on or before 03.12.2020, the petitioner shall be
+       released on bail provisionally on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-
+ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
+each to the satisfaction of the officer concerned in connection with
+complaint case no. 2381 of 2018    subject to the conditions laid down
+under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
+
+
+                                 (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
+  Smita/-
+         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
+                   A.B. A. No. 4890 of 2020
+
+          Ravi Agarwal @ Ravi Kumar Agarwal @ Ravi Kumar Gangesaria
+                                           ...     Petitioner
+                                     Versus
+          The State of Jharkhand & Anr.       ...     Opposite Parties
+
+
+
+     Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
+
+
+
+    For the Petitioner           : M/s. P. Lala , A. Joshi, Adv.
+    For the State                : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Addl. PP
+    For the opposite party no. 2 : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Adv.
+
+
+02 / 12.10.2020      Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
+                     Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to
+        remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks
+        after the lockdown is over.
+                      In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
+        counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
+        are ignored for the present.
+                  Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
+        grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Mahila P.s. case
+        no. 15 of 2020 registered under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal
+        Code and section ¾ D.P.Act.
+              Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
+       allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the husband
+       of the informant is treating her with cruelty and demanding dowry. It is
+       then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and
+       those allegations are general and omnibus in nature.           It is jointly
+       submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
+       the opposite party no. 2 that both the petitioner and the opposite party
+       no. 2 are ready and willing to resume conjugal life and both the
+       petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 will appear before the trial court
+       on 23.11.2020 and on that day, the petitioner will take the opposite party
+       no. 2 to his house and will keep and maintain her with full dignity and
+       honour as his lawful wife.       It is next submitted that the petitioner is
+ ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case          hence, the
+petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
+       The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
+the petitioner.
+       Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
+inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
+Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
+ten weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
+bail on satisfying the court concerned that the petitioner has taken the
+opposite party no. 2 to his house and he is keeping and maintaining the
+opposite party no. 2 with full dignity and honor as his lawful wife and
+furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand)
+with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
+JMFC, Dhanbad in connection with Mahila P.S. case no. 15 of 2020
+subject to the condition that the petitioner will continue to keep and
+maintain the opposite party no. 2 with full dignity and honor as his lawful
+wife and will co-operate with the Investigation of the case and will appear
+before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will
+submit mobile number and photocopy of Aadhaar card at the time of
+surrender in the court below with an undertaking not to change mobile
+number during the pendency of the case along with the other conditions
+laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
+
+
+
+
+                                 (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
+  Smita/-
+         zIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
+                           A.B. A. No. 4889 of 2020
+
+          Ujjwal Pathak @ Ujjwal Kumar Pathak            ...           Petitioner
+                                    Versus
+          The State of Jharkhand          ...               Opposite Party
+
+
+     Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
+
+
+
+    For the Petitioner                 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar , Adv.
+    For the State                      : Mr. V. Ray , Addl. PP
+
+
+02 / 12.10.2020      Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
+                     Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
+        personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp
+        Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
+                      In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
+        counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
+        are ignored for the present.
+                  Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
+        grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint case
+        no. 134 of 2020 registered under Sections 9 read with section 51 of the
+        Wild Life (Protection ) Act, 1972.
+              Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
+       allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has hunted one
+       peacock inside the forest area as mentioned in a Twitter message. It is
+       then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and
+       the petitioner is no way concerned with the case and without verifying
+       the fact of a Twitter message, this case has been instituted falsely. It is
+       further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Forest
+       Range Officer, who has filed the complaint, is not competent to file
+       complaint within the meaning of section 55 of Wild Life (Protection) Act,
+       1972. It is next submitted that the petitioner and the co-accused were
+       witnesses in Kisko P.S. case no. 20 of 2019, hence at the instance of the
+       accused persons of that case, this false case has been foisted. It is further
+       submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a
+       resident of the area nearby the forest and peacock and other wild animals
+       used to come to village, hence photograph of the petitioner with a
+ peacock does not mean that the petitioner has hunted the peacock. It is
+further submitted that nothing has been seized from the possession of
+petitioner and the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient
+security including cash security, hence, the petitioner      be given the
+privilege of anticipatory bail.
+       The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
+the petitioner.
+       Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
+inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
+Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
+six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
+bail on furnishing cash security of Rs. 5,000/- and furnishing bail bond of
+Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand)        with two sureties of the
+like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Lohardaga           in
+connection with Complaint case no. 134 of 2020 subject to the condition
+that the petitioner will along with the other conditions laid down under
+section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
+
+
+
+
+                                  (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
+  Smita/-
+         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
+                   A.B. A. No. 4887 of 2020
+
+           Manjeet Kumar                          ...          Petitioner
+                                            Versus
+          The State of Jharkhand                  ...       Opposite Party
+
+
+     Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
+
+
+
+    For the Petitioner                 : Ms. Nirupama , Adv.
+    For the State                      : Mr. Rajesh Kumar , Addl. PP
+
+
+02 / 12.10.2020      Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
+                  Ms. Nirupama, learned counsel for the petitioner        personally
+        undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
+        within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
+                       In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
+        counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
+        are ignored for the present.
+                  Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
+        grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Domchanch
+        P.S. Case No.09 of 2020 registered under sections 147/148/149/
+        307/353/427/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code, Rule 13 of Jharkhand
+        Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage)
+        Rules, 2017, Section 54 of J.M.M.C, Rule, 2004 and under Section 3 of
+        Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
+                  The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the S.D.O.,
+        Koderma along with other police officers were making surprise checking
+        of the vehicle carrying mineral without transport challan. It is further
+        submitted that the allegation against the petitioner are all false and the
+        petitioner being the owner of vehicle bearing registration no.JH-12L-
+        8148 had no knowledge about his vehicle being involved in any illegal
+        activity. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal
+        antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 10 of the
+        anticipatory bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioner is
+        ready and willing to furnish sufficient security including cash security
+        and undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case and co-
+        accused with similar allegations has already been granted privilege of
+ anticipatory bail by this court vide order dated 07.10.2020 passed in
+ABA no. 4726 of 2020. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given
+the privilege of anticipatory bail.
+        Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory
+bail.
+        Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as
+discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above
+named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in
+the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the
+date of this order, he shall be released on bail on depositing cash
+security of Rs.10,000/- and on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-
+(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
+each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Koderma, in connection with
+Domchanch P.S. Case No.09 of 2020 with the condition that the
+petitioner will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear
+before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will
+furnish his mobile numbers and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court
+below with the undertaking that he will not change his mobile number
+during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down
+under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
+
+
+                                  (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
+ Smita/-
+         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
+                   A.B. A. No. 4886 of 2020
+
+           Sumant Singh                           ...          Petitioner
+                                            Versus
+          The State of Jharkhand                  ...       Opposite Party
+
+
+     Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
+
+
+
+    For the Petitioner                 : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Adv.
+    For the State                      : Mr. Lily Sahay , Addl. PP
+    For the informant                  : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Adv.
+
+
+02 / 12.10.2020      Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
+                     Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner
+        personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp
+        Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
+                      In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
+        counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
+        are ignored for the present.
+                  Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
+        grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Chutia P.S. case
+        no. 183 of 2019 registered under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal
+        Code.
+                Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
+       allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has received
+       demand draft of Rs. 18,25,000/- from the bank upon the informant taking
+       the loan from the bank but he is not handing over the articles for which,
+       he furnished quotations and received the demand drafts directly from
+       the bank. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner
+       are all false. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
+       that the petitioner is all along ready and willing to hand over the articles
+       for which, he issued the quotation and received the demand draft of Rs.
+       18,25,000/- but the same is not received by the informant. It is next
+       submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation
+       of the case     hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory
+       bail.
+       The learned counsel for the informant submits that the informant is
+ready to receive the new articles of the value of Rs. 18,25,000/- for which,
+quotation was furnished by the petitioner.
+      Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
+inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
+Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
+six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
+bail on satisfying the court concerned that the petitioner has handed over
+the articles worth Rs 18,25,000/- to the informant for which, the petitioner
+issued the quotation and furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees
+Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
+satisfaction of learned J.M., Ranchi in connection with Chutia P.S. case no.
+183 of 2019 subject to the condition that the petitioner will co-operate
+with the Investigation of the case and will appear before the Investigating
+Officer as and when noticed by him and will submit mobile number and
+photocopy of Aadhaar card at the time of surrender in the court below
+with an undertaking not to change mobile number during the pendency
+of the case along with the other conditions laid down under section 438
+(2) Cr. P.C.
+
+
+
+
+                                  (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
+  Smita/-
+         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
+                   A.B. A. No. 4885 of 2020
+
+           Tara Bhandari @ Tara Zahrullah                ...           Petitioner
+                                     Versus
+           The State of Jharkhand          ...              Opposite Party
+
+
+     Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
+
+
+
+    For the Petitioner                 : Mr. P.S. Dayal , Adv.
+    For the State                      : Mr. Ashok Singh , Addl. PP
+
+
+02 / 12.10.2020      Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
+                     Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner personally
+        undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
+        within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
+                      In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
+        counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
+        are ignored for the present.
+                  Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
+        grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Rajrappa P.S.
+        case no. 163 of 2018 registered under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 337,
+        338, 427, 353, 504, 295A of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 of
+        Prevention of damage to Public Property Act, 1984
+               Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is
+       no specific allegation against only three persons, who were leading the
+       mob and the petitioner was not amongst them and the allegation against
+       the petitioner are all false and those allegations are general and omnibus
+       in nature. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
+       that the petitioner has been implicated in this case as he is the resident of
+       the locality. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate
+       with the investigation of the case and also ready and willing to deposit
+       Rs. 10,000/- with the Deputy Collector, Ramgarh hence, the petitioner be
+       given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
+              The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
+       the petitioner.
+              Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
+       inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
+ Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
+six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
+bail on showing the proof of deposit of Rs. 10,000/- with the Deputy
+collector, Ramgarh and furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees
+Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
+satisfaction of learned SDJM, Ramgarh in connection with Rajrappa P.S.
+case no. 163 of 2018 subject to the condition that the petitioner will co-
+operate with the Investigation of the case and will appear before the
+Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will submit mobile
+number and photocopy of Aadhaar card at the time of surrender in the
+court below with an undertaking not to change mobile number during the
+pendency of the case along with the other conditions laid down under
+section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
+
+
+
+
+                                 (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
+  Smita/-
+         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
+                   A.B. A. No. 4884 of 2020
+
+           Baijnath Mahto                         ...           Petitioner
+                                            Versus
+           The State of Jharkhand                 ...        Opposite Party
+
+
+     Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
+
+
+
+    For the Petitioner                 : Mr. Sidhant Sinha , Adv.
+    For the State                      : Mr. P.K. Chatterjee , Addl. PP
+
+
+02 / 12.10.2020      Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
+                     Mr. Sidhant Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner
+        personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp
+        Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
+                      In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
+        counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
+        are ignored for the present.
+                  Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
+        grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with complaint case
+        no. 1140 of 2020 registered under Sections 33/52 of the Indian Forest
+        Act.
+               Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
+       allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of JCB
+       machine which was involved in clearing the bushes from the forest area.
+       It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false.
+       It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
+       petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the
+       supplementary affidavit. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready
+       and willing to furnish sufficient security including cash security and he
+       undertakes neither to use his JCB machine in forest land nor to enter into
+       any forest land himself during pendency of the case hence, the petitioner
+       be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
+               The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
+       the petitioner.
+               Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
+       inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
+ Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
+six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
+bail on furnishing cash security of Rs. 20,000/- and furnishing bail bond
+of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the
+like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M., 1st class, Hazaribag in
+connection with complaint case no. 1140 of 2020 subject to the condition
+that the petitioner neither will use his JCB machine in forest land nor will
+himself enter into any forest land during pendency of the case along with
+the other conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
+
+
+
+
+                                  (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
+  Smita/-
+         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
+                   A.B. A. No. 4882 of 2020
+
+           Saurabh Mishra                         ...          Petitioner
+                                            Versus
+          The State of Jharkhand                  ...       Opposite Party
+
+
+     Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
+
+
+
+    For the Petitioner                 : Mr. Faiz Ur Rahman , Adv.
+    For the State                      : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava , Addl. PP
+
+
+02 / 12.10.2020      Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
+                     Mr. Faiz Ur Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner
+        personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp
+        Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
+                      In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
+        counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
+        are ignored for the present.
+                  Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
+        grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Gonda P.S. case
+        no. 49 of 2019 registered under Sections 341, 323, 354C, 354D and 34 of
+        the Indian Penal Code.
+              Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
+       allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner outraged the
+       modesty of the informant and assaulted one Raja Keshri, who came to
+       rescue of the informant and threatened the father of the informant at the
+       point of pistol.     It is then submitted that the allegations against the
+       petitioner are all false. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the
+       petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as mentioned in
+       paragraph 18 of the anticipatory bail application. It is next submitted
+       that the petitioner is    ready to co-operate with the investigation of the
+       case and also ready and willing to pay Rs. 30,000/- by way of two
+       separate demand draft, out of which one demand draft of Rs. 10,000/-
+       drawn in favour of Raja Keshri and another demand draft of Rs. 20,000/-
+       drawn in favour of the informant as ad interim victim compensation
+       without prejudice to his defence and he undertakes not to annoy or
+       disturb the informant or her family members in any manner during
+ pendency of the case hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of
+anticipatory bail.
+       The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
+the petitioner.
+       Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
+inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
+Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
+six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
+bail on depositing Rs. 30,000/- by way of two separate demand draft, out
+of which one demand draft of Rs. 10,000/-        drawn in favour of Raja
+Keshri and another demand draft of Rs. 20,000/- drawn in favour of the
+informant as ad interim victim compensation and furnishing bail bond of
+Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand)        with two sureties of the
+like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M., 1st class Ranchi in
+connection with Gonda P.S. case no. 49 of 2019 subject to the condition
+that the petitioner will co-operate with the Investigation of the case and
+will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him
+and will submit mobile number and photocopy of Aadhaar card at the
+time of surrender in the court below with an undertaking not to change
+mobile number during the pendency of the case along with the other
+conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
+            In case of depositing aforesaid demand draft by the petitioner,
+ learned court below is directed to issue notice to the informant and
+ release the demand draft in her favour on proper identification
+ forthwith.
+
+
+
+
+                                 (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
+  Smita/-
+         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
+                   A.B. A. No. 4879 of 2020
+
+           Md. Israfil Anshari                            ...          Petitioner
+                                            Versus
+           The State of Jharkhand                 ...       Opposite Party
+
+
+     Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
+
+
+
+    For the Petitioner                 : Ms. Alka Kumari, Adv.
+    For the State                      : Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh , Addl. PP
+
+
+02 / 12.10.2020      Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
+                     Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to
+        remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks
+        after the lockdown is over.
+                      In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
+        counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
+        are ignored for the present.
+                  Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
+        grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Tandwa P.s.
+        Case no. 35 of 2020 registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 379, 511
+        of the Indian Penal Code.
+               Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
+       petitioner is the driver cum owner of the Hywa vehicle was involved in
+       illegal transportation of coal. It is then submitted that the allegations
+       against the petitioner are all false and those allegations are general and
+       omnibus in nature. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the
+       petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as mentioned in
+       paragraph 2 of the supplementary affidavit. It is next submitted that the
+       petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case and
+       also ready and willing to furnish sufficient security including cash
+       security, hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
+              The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
+       the petitioner.
+              Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
+       inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
+       Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
+ six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
+bail on furnishing cash security of Rs. 20,000/- and furnishing bail bond
+of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the
+like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Chatra in connection
+with Tandwa P.s. Case no. 35 of 2020 subject to the condition that the
+petitioner will co-operate with the Investigation of the case and will
+appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and
+will submit mobile number and photocopy of Aadhaar card at the time of
+surrender in the court below with an undertaking not to change mobile
+number during the pendency of the case along with the other conditions
+laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
+
+
+
+
+                                 (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
+  Smita/-
+         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
+                   A.B. A. No. 4878 of 2020
+
+           Mahendra Prasad                               ...           Petitioner
+                                            Versus
+           The State of Jharkhand                 ...       Opposite Party
+
+
+     Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
+
+
+
+    For the Petitioner                 : Mr. Vikash Kumar , Adv.
+    For the State                      : Mr. P.D. Agrawal , Addl. PP
+
+
+02 / 12.10.2020      Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
+                     Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
+        personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp
+        Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
+                      In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
+        counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
+        are ignored for the present.
+                  Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
+        grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with R.I.T. P.S. case
+        no. 113 of 2020 registered under Sections 7 of the Essential Commodities
+        Act, 1955.
+               Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
+       allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the
+       government dealer was involved in black-marketing of the food gains
+       meant for public distribution and 40 kg. of rice was recovered from his
+       possession. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner
+       are all false and the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence.
+       It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the
+       investigation of the case and also ready and willing to furnish sufficient
+       security including cash security, hence, the petitioner        be given the
+       privilege of anticipatory bail.
+              The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
+       the petitioner.
+              Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
+       inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
+       Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
+ six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
+bail on furnishing cash security of Rs. 2,000/- and furnishing bail bond
+of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the
+like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Seraikella in
+connection with R.I.T. P.S. case no. 113 of 2020 subject to the condition
+that the petitioner will co-operate with the Investigation of the case and
+will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him
+and will submit mobile number and photocopy of Aadhaar card at the
+time of surrender in the court below with an undertaking not to change
+mobile number during the pendency of the case along with the other
+conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
+
+
+                                 (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
+  Smita/-
+         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
+                   A.B. A. No. 4875 of 2020
+
+           Laxman Choudhary                       ...          Petitioner
+                                            Versus
+           The State of Jharkhand                 ...       Opposite Party
+
+
+     Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
+
+
+
+    For the Petitioner                 : Mr. L.C. Roy , Adv.
+    For the State                      : Mr. V.V. Pradhan , Addl. PP
+
+
+02 / 12.10.2020      Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
+                     Mr. L.C. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner personally
+        undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
+        within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
+                      In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
+        counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
+        are ignored for the present.
+                  Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
+        grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Jasidih P.S. case
+        no. 227 of 2020 registered under Sections 188,413, 414, 34 of the Indian
+        Penal Code, Section 21 of MMDR Act, section 54 of JMMC Rules, 2004. .
+               Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
+       allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the
+       truck which was involved in overloading of sand. It is then submitted
+       that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is further
+       submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no
+       criminal antecedent, as mentioned in paragraph 12 of the anticipatory
+       bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-
+       operate with the investigation of the case and also ready and willing to
+       furnish sufficient security including cash security, hence, the petitioner
+       be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
+              The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
+       the petitioner.
+              Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
+       inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
+       Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
+ six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
+bail on furnishing cash security of Rs. 10,000/- and furnishing bail bond
+of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the
+like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Deoghar in
+connection with Jasidih P.S. case no. 227 of 2020 subject to the condition
+that the petitioner will co-operate with the Investigation of the case and
+will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him
+and will submit mobile number and photocopy of Aadhaar card at the
+time of surrender in the court below with an undertaking not to change
+mobile number during the pendency of the case along with the other
+conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
+
+
+
+
+                                 (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
+  Smita/-
+         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
+                   A.B. A. No. 4874 of 2020
+
+           Ram Gopal Dalmia                       ...          Petitioner
+                                            Versus
+           The State of Jharkhand                 ...       Opposite Party
+
+
+     Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
+
+
+
+    For the Petitioner                 : Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur , Adv.
+    For the State                      : Mr. Vijay Kr. Sinha , Addl. PP
+    For the informant                  : M/s. Ranesh Anand, Kumari Rashmi, Advs.
+
+
+02 / 12.10.2020      Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
+                     Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner
+        personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp
+        Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
+                      In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
+        counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
+        are ignored for the present.
+                  Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has   moved this Court
+        for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Bermo P.S.
+        case no. 122 of 2020 registered under Sections 469/500/504/505(2) of
+        the Indian Penal Code, section 67 of the I.T. (amendment) Act, 2008.
+               Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
+       allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner made postings on
+       the social media defaming the informant. It is then submitted that the
+       allegations against the petitioner are all false and those allegations are
+       general and omnibus in nature. It is next submitted that the petitioner is
+       ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case and also ready and
+       willing to pay Rs. 20,000/-       as ad interim victim compensation to the
+       informant without prejudice to his defence and he undertakes not to
+       make any posting on any social media during pendency of the case
+       hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
+              The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
+       the petitioner.
+              Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
+       inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
+       Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
+ eight weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner      shall be released
+on bail on depositing Rs 20,000/- by way of demand draft drawn in
+favour of informant as ad interim victim compensation and furnishing
+bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand)             with two
+sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned SDJM,
+Bermo at Tenughat in connection with Bermo P.S. case no. 122 of 2020
+subject to the condition that the petitioner will not make any posting on
+any social media during pendency of the case and will co-operate with the
+Investigation of the case and will appear before the Investigating Officer
+as and when noticed by him           and will submit mobile number        and
+photocopy of Aadhaar card at the time of surrender in the court below
+with an undertaking not to change mobile number during the pendency
+of the case along with the other conditions laid down under section 438
+(2) Cr. P.C.
+               In case of depositing aforesaid demand draft by the petitioner,
+ learned court below is directed to issue notice to the informant and
+ release the demand draft in her favour on proper identification
+ forthwith.
+
+
+                                    (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
+  Smita/-
+         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
+                   A.B. A. No. 4872 of 2020
+
+           Baleshwar Yadav                                ...          Petitioner
+                                            Versus
+           The State of Jharkhand                 ...       Opposite Party
+
+
+     Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
+
+
+
+    For the Petitioner                 : Ms. Nitu Sinha, Adv.
+    For the State                      : Mr. Tarun Kumar , Addl. PP
+
+
+02 / 12.10.2020      Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
+                     Ms. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner personally
+        undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
+        within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
+                      In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
+        counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
+        are ignored for the present.
+                  Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
+        grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Barkatha P.S.
+        case no. 51 of 2020 registered under Sections 406, 420, 120B of the Indian
+        Penal Code, section 25 of MANREGA Act.
+               Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
+       petitioner is the owner of TATA HITACHI 210 LCHV poclain machine
+       which was employed illegally for doing the work of MANREGA project.
+       It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false
+       and the petitioner had no knowledge about his poclain machine being
+       engaged in MANREGA work. It is further submitted by learned counsel
+       for the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as
+       mentioned in paragraph 10 of the anticipatory bail application. It is next
+       submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation
+       of the case and also ready and willing to furnish sufficient security
+       including cash security, hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of
+       anticipatory bail.
+              The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
+       the petitioner.
+        Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
+inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
+Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
+eight weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released
+on bail on furnishing cash security of Rs. 20,000/- and furnishing bail
+bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties
+of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M., 1st class,
+Hazaribag in connection with Barkatha P.S. case no. 51 of 2020 subject to
+the condition that the petitioner will co-operate with the Investigation of
+the case and will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when
+noticed by him    and will submit mobile number        and photocopy of
+Aadhaar card at the time of surrender in the court below with an
+undertaking not to change mobile number during the pendency of the
+case along with the other conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr.
+P.C.
+
+
+
+
+                                 (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
+  Smita/-
+         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
+                   A.B. A. No. 4871 of 2020
+
+           Md. Nurul Islam                                ...          Petitioner
+                                            Versus
+          The State of Jharkhand                  ...       Opposite Party
+
+
+     Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
+
+
+
+    For the Petitioner                 : Mr. Gautam, Kumar , Adv.
+    For the State                      : Mr. Md. Hatim , Addl. PP
+
+
+02 / 12.10.2020      Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
+                     Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
+        personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp
+        Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
+                      In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
+        counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
+        are ignored for the present.
+                  Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
+        grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Radhanagar
+        P.S. case no. 91 of 2020 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307,
+        379, 332, 353, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
+              Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
+       allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was a member of an
+       unlawful assembly being armed with deadly weapon, he in prosecution
+       of the common object of the assembly used criminal force against the
+       police personnel who had gone to arrest one criminal namely
+       Azeemuddin Sk. and attempted to murder Niranjan Kacchap, Pranit
+       Patel, Gaurav Kumar, Jagannath Pan, Yogendra Prasad Singh, Ranjit
+       Kumar Mahto, Bablu Kumar Yadav, Sajjad Ansari and Innocent Murmu.
+       It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false
+       and the petitioner is the Vice President of Zila Parishad of Sahibganj and
+       was also President of a political party. It is further submitted by learned
+       counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent,
+       as mentioned in paragraph 13 of the anticipatory bail application. It is
+       next submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the
+       investigation of the case and undertakes to pay Rs. 90,000/- by way of 9
+ separate demand drafts of Rs. 10,000/- each drawn in favour of each of
+the nine victims namely Niranjan Kacchap, Pranit Patel, Gaurav Kumar,
+Jagannath Pan, Yogendra Prasad Singh, Ranjit Kumar Mahto, Bablu
+Kumar Yadav, Sajjad Ansari and Innocent Murmu as ad interim victim
+compensation to the informant without prejudice to his defence hence,
+the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
+       The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
+the petitioner.
+       Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
+inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
+Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
+six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
+bail on depositing Rs. 90,000/- by way of nine demand drafts of Rs.
+10,000/- each drawn in favour of each of the nine victims namely
+Niranjan Kacchap, Pranit Patel, Gaurav Kumar, Jagannath Pan, Yogendra
+Prasad Singh, Ranjit Kumar Mahto, Bablu Kumar Yadav, Sajjad Ansari
+and Innocent Murmu as ad interim victim compensation and furnishing
+bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand)              with two
+sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M., 1st class,
+Rajmahal in connection with Radhanagar P.S. case no. 91 of 2020 subject
+to the condition that the petitioner will co-operate with the Investigation
+of the case and will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when
+noticed by him      and will submit mobile number          and photocopy of
+Aadhaar card at the time of surrender in the court below with an
+undertaking not to change mobile number during the pendency of the
+case along with the other conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr.
+P.C.
+            In case of depositing aforesaid demand draft by the petitioner,
+ learned court below is directed to issue notice to the victims and release
+ the demand draft in their favour on proper identification forthwith.
+
+
+                                   (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
+  Smita/-
+         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
+                   A.B. A. No. 4865 of 2020
+
+           Kedar Ram                        ...                Petitioner
+                                      Versus
+           The State of Jharkhand & Anr.                 ...       Opposite Parties
+
+
+
+     Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
+
+
+
+    For the Petitioner                 : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai , Adv.
+    For the State                      : Mr. Satish Prasad, Addl. PP
+
+
+02 / 12.10.2020      Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
+                     Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner
+        personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp
+        Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
+                      In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
+        counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
+        are ignored for the present.
+                  Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
+        grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Chandrapura
+        P.S. case no. 103 of 2019 registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506,
+        498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 D.P.Act.
+                 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
+       petitioner is the father-in-law of the informant and the allegation against
+       the petitioner are all false and those allegations are general and omnibus
+       in nature and the main allegation is against the husband of the
+       informant. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate
+       with the investigation of the case hence, the petitioner be given the
+       privilege of anticipatory bail.
+              The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
+       the petitioner.
+              Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
+       inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
+       Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
+       six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
+       bail on     furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-      (Rupees Twenty Five
+       Thousand)      with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
+ of learned SDJM, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with Chandrapura P.S.
+case no. 103 of 2019 subject to the condition that the petitioner will co-
+operate with the Investigation of the case and will appear before the
+Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will submit mobile
+number and photocopy of Aadhaar card at the time of surrender in the
+court below with an undertaking not to change mobile number during the
+pendency of the case along with the other conditions laid down under
+section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
+
+
+
+
+                                 (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
+  Smita/-
+         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
+                   A.B. A. No. 4862 of 2020
+
+           Esha Kumari                                   ...           Petitioner
+                                      Versus
+           The State of Jharkhand & Anr.    ...              Opposite Parties
+
+
+     Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
+
+
+
+    For the Petitioner                 : Mr. A.K. Choudhary , Adv.
+    For the State                      : Mr. Mohua Palit , Addl. PP
+
+
+02 / 12.10.2020      Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
+                     Mr. A.K. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner
+        personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp
+        Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
+                      In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
+        counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
+        are ignored for the present.
+                  Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
+        grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with C.P. No. 1348 of
+        2018 registered under Sections 379/385/120B/34 of the Indian Penal
+        Code.
+                 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
+       petitioner is the wife of the complainant and the allegation against the
+       petitioner is that the petitioner has taken away jewelry worth Rs.
+       2,00,000/- and costly cloth worth Rs. 50,000/- from the house of the
+       complainant.       It is then submitted that the allegations against the
+       petitioner are all false and because of the matrimonial dispute, this false
+       case has been foisted against the petitioner hence, the petitioner be given
+       the privilege of anticipatory bail.
+              The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
+       the petitioner.
+              Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
+       inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
+       Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
+       six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
+       bail on      furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-     (Rupees Twenty Five
+ Thousand)    with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
+of learned J.M., 1st class, Bokaro in connection with C.P. No. 1348 of 2018
+subject to the condition that the petitioner will     along with the other
+conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
+
+
+
+
+                                 (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
+  Smita/-
+         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
+                   A.B. A. No. 4861 of 2020
+
+           Md. Jawed Alam                                 ...          Petitioner
+                                      Versus
+           The State of Jharkhand & Anr.                  ...       Opposite Parties
+
+
+
+     Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
+
+
+
+    For the Petitioner                 : Mr. Ranjan Kumar , Adv.
+    For the State                      : Mr. V. Pradhan , Addl. PP
+
+
+02 / 12.10.2020      Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
+                     Mr. Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
+        personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp
+        Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
+                      In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
+        counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
+        are ignored for the present.
+                  Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for
+        grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with C.P. Case no.
+        676 of 2017 registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the
+        Indian Penal Code and Section 82 of the Indian Registration Act.
+               Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
+       allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in criminal
+       conspiracy with the co-accused persons sold the land of the complainant.
+       It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false
+       and the petitioner has never executed any sale deed.            It is further
+       submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is one
+       of the partner of the M/s Fast Speed Retailers Pvt. Ltd and the
+       complainant has taken Rs. 8,00,000/- from M/s Fast Speed Retailers Pvt.
+       Ltd in respect of the sale agreement. It is further submitted that the
+       petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as mentioned in paragraph 29 of
+       the anticipatory bail application. It is next submitted that the dispute
+       between the parties is at best a civil dispute hence, the petitioner be given
+       the privilege of anticipatory bail.
+              The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of
+       the petitioner.
+        Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am
+inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
+Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of
+six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on
+bail on     furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-    (Rupees Twenty Five
+Thousand)     with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
+of learned J.M., 1st class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case no. 676 of
+2017 subject to the other conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr.
+P.C.
+
+
+
+
+                                  (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
+  Smita/-
+         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
+                   A.B. A. No. 4859 of 2020
+
+           1.

Sanjay Kumar Yadav @ Sanjay Kr. Yadav @ Sanjay Yadav +

2. Bachhu Yadav ... Petitioners + Versus + The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party + + + Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY + + + + For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar , Sr. Adv. +

    For the State                      : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey , Addl. PP
+
+
+02 / 12.10.2020      Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
+

Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner + personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp + Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over. +

In view of the personal undertaking given by learned + counsel for the petitioners, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter + are ignored for the present. +

Apprehending their arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court + for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Taljhari P.S. + case no. 49 of 2020 registered under Sections 379 of the Indian Penal + Code. +

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that + the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were forcibly + lifting the stones from the mines of the informant. It is then submitted + that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. Drawing attention + of the court to page 26 of the brief, which is the deed of partnership + between the petitioner no. 1 and the informant, it is submitted by learned + senior counsel for the petitioners that mines is the joint property of + partners and the dispute between the party is basically a civil dispute. + The petitioner has also lodged complaint with the District Mining Officer + and in this respect, draws attention of the court to page 55-56 of the brief. + It is next submitted that the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the + investigation of the case hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of + anticipatory bail. +

The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of + the petitioners. +

Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am +inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. +Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of +six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioners shall be released on +bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five +Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the +satisfaction of learned J.M., Rajmahal in connection with Taljhari P.S. case +no. 49 of 2020 subject to the condition that the petitioners will co-operate +with the Investigation of the case and will appear before the Investigating +Officer as and when noticed by him and will submit mobile number and +photocopy of Aadhaar card at the time of surrender in the court below +with an undertaking not to change mobile number during the pendency +of the case along with the other conditions laid down under section 438 +(2) Cr. P.C. + + + + + (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) + Smita/-

+         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
+                   A.B. A. No. 4891 of 2020
+
+           Tabrej Alam                     ...                 Petitioner
+                                     Versus
+          The State of Jharkhand & Anr.                  ...      Opposite Parties
+
+
+
+     Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
+
+
+
+    For the Petitioner                 : Mr. Q. Imam Ansari, Adv.
+    For the State                      : Mr. Someshwar Roy , Addl. PP
+    For Informant                      : Mr. S. Baroi, Advocate
+
+02 / 12.10.2020      Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
+

Mr. Q. Imam Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner + personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp + Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over. +

In view of the personal undertaking given by learned + counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter + are ignored for the present. +

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for + grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint case + no. 3347 of 2018 registered under Sections 323/419/406/420/120B/34 + of the Indian Penal Code. +

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the + allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has taken Rs + 1,23,000/- from the complainant to sell a land and consequent upon that + complainant also invested Rs. 65,000/- for carrying out Construction + work over the said land but the petitioner has entered into an agreement + with third party and not returned money to the complainant thereby + committing criminal breach of trust. It is then submitted that the + allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is further submitted by + learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation of dishonest + intention on the part of the petitioner at the time of alleged entrustment + of money to him and the informant failed to pay the rest amount of + money out of the total consideration amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- within the + stipulated period of 15 months and the claim of complainant of investing + Rs. 65,000/- over the land for carrying the construction work is false and + the dispute is basically a civil dispute. It is next submitted that the + petitioner is ready and willing to repay Rs. 1,23,000/- as ad interim +victim compensation to the complainant without prejudice to his defence +and hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. +

The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of +the petitioner. +

Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am +inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. +Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of +eight weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released +on bail on depositing 1,23,000/- by way of demand draft drawn in favour +of complainant as ad interim victim compensation and furnishing bail +bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties +of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M, 1st class, Ranchi +in connection with Complaint case no. 3347 of 2018 subject to the other +conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. + In case of depositing aforesaid demand draft by the petitioner, + learned court below is directed to issue notice to the complainant and + release the demand draft in his favour on proper identification + forthwith. +

+ +

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) + Smita/- +

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI + A.B. A. No. 4892 of 2020 + +

1. Nashima Kahtoon +

2. Shabnam Khatoon ... Petitioners + Versus + The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ... Opposite Parties + + + + Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY + + + + For the Petitioner : Mr. P.C. Sinha , Adv. +

    For the State                      : Mr. V. Roy , Addl. PP
+
+
+02 / 12.10.2020      Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
+

Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner personally + undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter + within two weeks after the lockdown is over. +

In view of the personal undertaking given by learned + counsel for the petitioners, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter + are ignored for the present. +

Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court + for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with complaint + case no . 1839 of 2017 registered under Sections 498A, 323 of the Indian + Penal Code, section 3/4 D.P. Act. +

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the + petitioner no. 1 is the widow mother-is-law and petitioner no. 2 is the + sister-in-law of the complainant and allegation against the petitioners + are all false and those allegations are general and omnibus in nature and + the main allegation is against the husband of the complainant. It is + further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that they + undertake not to annoy or disturb the complainant in any manner during + pendency of the case hence, the petitioners be given the privilege of + anticipatory bail. +

The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of + the petitioners. +

Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am + inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. + Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of + six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioners shall be released on +bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five +Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the +satisfaction of learned J.M., 1st class, Giridih in connection with complaint +case no . 1839 of 2017 subject to the condition the petitioners will not +annoy or disturb the complainant in any manner during pendency of the +case along with other conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. + + + + + (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) + Smita/- +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_3775005.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_3775005.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b937240e5f33bf3212de551821c8732b4ee470fd --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_3775005.html @@ -0,0 +1,424 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Girdhar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:11536) on 7 March, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

4. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.69/2024) +

5. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.69/2024) +

6. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.69/2024) + + +

8. Concerned Police Station Shreekaranpur +

+
+ +
+

12. Date of passing of 21.10.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.14884/2023) + +

14. Concerned Police Station Kotwali Barmer +

15. District Barmer +

16. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 420 and 406 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.14885/2023) +

17. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.14885/2023) +

+
+ +
+

34. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.15296/2023) +

35. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.15296/2023) +

36. Date of passing of 22.11.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.15296/2023) + +

38. Concerned Police Station Pratap Nagar +

+
+ +
+

76. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.90/2024) +

77. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.90/2024) +

78. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.90/2024) + + +

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no + + case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his + + incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in + + the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the + + accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based + + on conjectures and surmises. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_38097789.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_38097789.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f3bd43d8ac0c09da2757469aad7e81f230e464bc --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_38097789.html @@ -0,0 +1,386 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Albert Sinha vs The State Of Assam on 30 November, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

6. It is further alleged that the fraudulently procured funds have been laundered +through unsolicited sources via unconventional methods, dark web services and crypto +currencies for personal gain of the accused persons named in the FIR. +

+

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not +involved in the scam. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the +ground of parity as co-accused have been granted bail. No offence under Section 467 +IPC has been made out against the petitioner, but Section 467 IPC has been incorporated +with malafide to preclude the accused from being admitted to bail. Section 467 IPC +expounds that- +

+
+ +
+ +

15. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. +

+

16. It is submitted that the petitioner is booked under bailable offence as +Section 81 of the IT Act has an overriding effect in relation to offences under +Section IPC, except Section 467 of the IPC. It is also submitted that Section 467 +of the IPC has been incorporated with malafide. It has been observed by a +coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.11.2023 in Bail Application +No. 4012/2023 that- +

Page No.# 6/9 + + "4. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners + that except the offence under Section 467 IPC, the mandatory period of + other alleged offences are 60 days. Section 467 IPC is not attracted + here in this case as because there is no allegation against the + petitioners that they forged any document which purports to be a + valuable security/will etc. In fact, police has failed to seize any + article/document during investigation. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_38291667.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_38291667.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fafa8f0f325501e956c39913f20df730f1964f82 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_38291667.html @@ -0,0 +1,385 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Havaldar Clerk Parikshit Pal vs State Of U.P. on 2 September, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
2. The present bail application under Section 439 CrPC has been filed seeking bail in Case Crime No.354 of 2022 under Section 419, 420, 114 IPC and Section 8 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Cantt District Ayodhya. +
+
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused appellant and other co-accused demanded and accepted Rs.50,000/- from Ex-Army Personnel for their recruitment in Defence Service Code. Having received this information, inquiries were made. Rs. 17 lacs were recovered from co-accused. This Rs.1 lacs was allegedly given to the accused applicant who is an Ex- Hawaldar in Indian Army. During interrogation, the accused applicant confessed that he had earlier collected Rs.34 lacs from 68 such Ex-Army personnel for securing their recruitment in DSC. +
+
+ +
+ +
" 1. Heard Mr. Mohit Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. +
+
2. Perused the record. +
+
3. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant Janakraj seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 354 of 2022, under section 114 IPC and Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- Cantt. District- Ayodhya during the pendency of trial. +
+
4. The first bail application of applicant was rejected along with bail applications of co-accused by a detailed order dated 14.6.2023, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53317 of 2022 (Havaldar Nursing Sahayak Jitendra Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P) along with two other connected matters. For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under: +
+
+ +
+ +
2. The present bail application under Section 439 CrPC has been filed seeking bail in Case Crime No.354 of 2022 under Section 419, 420, 114 IPC and Section 8 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Cantt District Ayodhya. +
+
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused appellant and other co-accused demanded and accepted Rs.50,000/- from Ex-Army Personnel for their recruitment in Defence Service Code. Having received this information, inquiries were made. Rs. 17 lacs were recovered from co-accused. This Rs.1 lacs was allegedly given to the accused applicant who is an Ex- Hawaldar in Indian Army. During interrogation, the accused applicant confessed that he had earlier collected Rs.34 lacs from 68 such Ex-Army personnel for securing their recruitment in DSC. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_38301076.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_38301076.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8b944be5d0d7362829a3cb8f8d115e24741c501d --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_38301076.html @@ -0,0 +1,483 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + National Investigation Agency vs Nalamasa Krishna A4 on 25 March, 2022 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The list of documents filed by NIA are verified, particulars + of witnesses in Annexure-A are verified, the case properties is + deposited vide P.I. No. 03/2020 in Annexure - C. The offices + charge sheeted against A1 to A4 are mentioned below for each + accused. +
A1 Maddileti @ Bandari Maddileti @ Manohar @ Sony + U/Sec. 120B IPC, Sec. 17, 18, 18B, 38, 39 and 40 of the UA (P) + Act 1967. A1 released on bail. +
A2 Yapa Narayana @ Haribhushan @ Jagan @ Alluri @ + Lakma @ HB @ H, U/Sec.120B IPC, Sec. 17, 18, 18B, 38, 39 and + 40 of UA (P) Act 1967. A2 is ABSCONDING. +
+
+ +
+

A3 Menchu Sandeep @ Praveen, U/Sec. 120B IPC, Sec. 17, + 18, 18B, 38, 39 and 40 of UA (P) Act 1967. A3 released on bail. +

A4 Nalamasa Krishna @ Rathnamala @ Ramsila @ Ram + U/Sec. 120B IPC, Sec. 17, 18, 18B, 38, 39 and 40 of UA (P) Act + 1967. A4 released on bail. +

As per our record, the accused No.1, A3 and A4 are + released on bail and A2 is Absconding. NBW may be issued + against A2. +

A2 died and A2 abated on 27.10.2020. +

+

+

9. Accordingly, the Presiding Officer of the Special Court took + +cognizance against A1, A3 and A4 for the offences under Section + +120B IPC, Sections 17, 18, 18B, 38, 39 and 40 of UAP Act 1967. + +The cognizance order, dated 02.11.2020, reads as follows: + + +

+
+ +
+

11. The circumstances are somewhat peculiar in this case. As + +seen from the material placed on record, the bail applications of + +A1, A3 and A4 were filed seeking bail for the offences under + +Section 120B of IPC, Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of TPS Act and + +Sections 18, 18B and 20 of the UAP Act for which, the + +respondents/A1, A3 and A4 were remanded. By the time the + +subject bail applications of A1, A3 and A4 came up for + +consideration before the Special Court for the second time, some + +offences were deleted and some offences were added against A1, + +A3 and A4. However, the Special Court completely ignored the + +said fact and proceeded to decide the bail applications of A1, A3 + +and A4 for the offences for which they were remanded i.e., Section + +120B of IPC, Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of TPS Act and Sections 18, + +18B and 20 of the UAP Act. None of the parties to the proceedings + +brought the fact of additions and deletions of certain offences + +alleged against the A1, A3 and A4 to the notice of the Special + 6 Dr.SA,J & KL, J + Crl.A.No.388, 389 & /2020 + + + + +Court, before passing the orders, dated 04.09.2021. Here, it is apt + +to state that while considering bail application(s) of the accused, + +the Court shall decide whether the accused is entitled for bail for + +all the offences alleged against him/her. Bail cannot be granted to + +the accused taking into consideration some of the offences alleged + +against him and omitting some of the offences, in the same crime. + +When the same was pointed out by this Court, all the learned + +counsel on record fairly conceded for remitting the matter to the + +Special Court for deciding the bail applications of A1, A3 and A4 for + +all the offences for which cognizance was taken against them. + +Further, the aspect as to whether there is prima facie case against + +A1, A3 and A4 for invoking Section 43D(5) of UAP Act is required + +to be examined and determined in relation to all the offences for + +which cognizance was taken against A1, A3 and A4, on filing of + +Police Report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. Section 439 of + +Cr.P.C. mandates filing application/s for bail for which, accusation + +of offence was made. On the date of determination of the bail + +applications for second time, the accusation against the + +respondents/A1, A3 and A4 was/is under Section 120B IPC, + +Sections 17, 18, 18B, 38, 39 and 40 of UAP Act 1967. The bail + +applications could have been heard and determined for those + +offences, taking into consideration the directions/observations + 7 Dr.SA,J & KL, J + Crl.A.No.388, 389 & /2020 + + + + +made by this Court vide common judgment, dated 20.07.2021, + +passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.419, 457 and 468 of 2020. + + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_393478.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_393478.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7da619da529009d836c1b3ea60e76d51f77c9119 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_393478.html @@ -0,0 +1,361 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Salimbhai Abdulgaffar Shaikh vs State Of Gujarat on 4 July, 2003 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

According to Mr. Trivedi, the nature of evidence available today with the invesigating agency links all these petitioners with the offences punishable under P.O.T.A. read with Section 120B of I.P.C., and therefore, they cannot be enlarged on bail by any Court other than the Special Court constituted under Section 27 of the P.O.T.A. or by the Appellate Bench of the High Court consisting of two High Court Judges scrutinising the decision on the bail plea raised before the Special Court. Therefore, there is no scope for this Court for exercising discretionary jurisdiction vested with the Court under Section 439 or 482 of the Code or read with both these provisions of the Code. +

+
+ +
+ +

40. When this Court is asked to exercise jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code read with Section 482 of the Code then the utmost embargo or restrictions incorporated in Section 49 of P.O.T.A. can be looked into but their case cannot be thrown out asking them to approach the Special Court afresh. This Court can merely evaluate the prima facie case pleaded by the prosecution and decide whether the petitioners or any of them should be enlarged on bail or not: The affidavit-in-reply mainly deals with sustainability of these bail applications and certain new evidence collected after the arrest of some of the accused of the alleged four groups. Impliedly the Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that in a sensitive ghastly crime in which large number of persons, if have been arrested and charge-sheeted and only because of the charge-sheet is either under Sections 147, 148 and 149 and/or 120B of the Indian Penal Code, bail plea of each such persons arrested should not be thrown away and the Court is supposed to prima facie look into the matter and decide whether a particular petitioner-accused is entitled to any favourable discretionary order. In number of cases under the erstwhile, T.A.D.A. Acts of 1985 and 1987 or N.D.P.S. Act, the Court, while exercising discretionary powers appreciating bail plea raised by the accused, has attempted to look into the nature of evidence against the concerned accused and his role allegedly played by him in the background of nature and gravity of the offence. When it is argued that without evaluating the evidence when it is possible for this Court to hold that the concerned Sessions Court ought to have exercised the discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner accused where he has failed, then, the bail plea on the sole fact of invocation of P.O.T.A. may not be thrown away by this Court. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_394295.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_394295.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bf31bb99db5819ce181bd44ebf91ebd07e3b5b31 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_394295.html @@ -0,0 +1,363 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Chander Pal And Ors. vs State And Anr. on 22 February, 1993 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
(9) Learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Lekhi contended that it did not matter that the case was later on converted under Section 302 IPC from Section 307 etc. on the death of Ved Parkash. Once they were allowed anticipatory bail by the Calcutta Court they would be deemed on such bail in the Fir registered in respect of the occurrence of this case.The second contention is that the period of 90 days having elapsed from the date of their surrender before the learned Mm, Delhi on 30.6.92 and they having remained in judicial custody for about six days could not be re-arrested now because period of more than 90 days had expired. So faras the first contention is concerned, I am of the view that the order of anticipatory bail will not ensure to the benefit of the petitioners for manyreasons. First reason is that the offence was later on converted to Section302 Indian Penal Code on account of the death of Ved Parkash. The second reason is that after the direction of the Calcutta High Court or even the Chief Judge,Calcutta, petitioners did move anticipatory bail applications before the learned Sessions Judge, Delhi and their petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. Even the Calcutta High Court withdrew the order of anticipatory bail for various reasons already mentioned. Therefore, practically there was no order of anticipatory bail available to the petitioners even under Section 307 IPC. In the case of Chandra Prakash v. Mohan Lal, 1984(2)Crimes 325, the Allahabad High Court took the view that if an accused was granted bail earlier by the Magistrate under Section 324 Indian Penal Code and later on the charge sheet was filed under Section 307 Ipc, and the bail wascancelled, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to grant bail to the accused second time because of the conversion of the offence from 324 Indian Penal Code to 307IPC. I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations. In the present case the circumstances are still worse for the petitioners. They are even guilty of with-holding material information from this Court that their applications for grant of anticipatory bail were dismissed as withdrawn by the learned Asj, Delhi. It may also be noted that the anticipatory bail applications on behalf of the petitioners were moved by the same Counseli.e. Sh. Nageshwar Pandey. Advocate who has now moved the presentpetition. In the case of Baldev Singh v. Durga Prasad and Others, 1989 C.C.Cases 313 the question was, whether on the mere fact that in a fresh application for bail the material fact of previous bail application having been rejected on merits is concealed amounts to playing fraud on the Court or amounts to abuse of the process of the Court if bail is granted on such application without coming to know about the previous application for grant of bail having been dismissed on merits by the High Court or even by the Sessions Court earlier. The question was answered in the affirmative and in view of the fraud having been practiced on the Court, the bail was ordered to be cancelled. In the present case also, there is no reference made by the petitioners that they had withdrawn their applications for grant of anticipatory bail. They are, therefore, guilty of practicing fraud also on this Court and if this fact had been disclosed to the Court, the order of issuance of NBWs against the petitioners probably would never have been stayed. In fact, I must deprecate the conduct of Mr. Pandey,Advocate in concealing all these materials facts. It was he who was the moving spirit behind the petitioners in all Courts. This is rather unprofessional. He must realize that the nobility of such a good profession does not brook such wanton onslaughts to tarnish its image, + + (10) While elaborating the contentions under Section 167(2) of theCode, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had remained in judicial custody for about six days under the orders of the learned Magistrate and thereafter they should be deemed to be in the custody of the surety and if the total period of custody was thus counted, the petitioners have already been in custody for more than 90 days and, therefore,they were entitled to grant of bail as a matter of right. If they were entitled to grant of bail as a matter of right, the argument further goes, there was no question of allowing the orders of issue of non-bailable warrants of arrest against them to remain alive. In fact, this argument also seems to be without merit. First of all it may be noted that the petitioners were not released on bail by the learned Magistrate. The order dated 4-8-92(page 47-48 in Crl.M.(M) 2846/92) shows that it was made to appear to the learned Magistrate on behalf of the petitioners that the matter was still under consideration of the Calcutta High Court and that the cancellation of their bail was being considered by the High Court on the telegram of Satya Devi,wife of the deceased. Therefore, the learned Magistrate released the petitioners forthwith. This fact shows that the learned Magistrate did not release the petitioners on bail and, therefore, the concept of the extended custody of the petitioners with surety is not at all applicable. Even if that were so, the surety is not supposed to keep an accused person under detention and he simply makes himself liable to pay a certain amount by way of penalty incase the accused does not appear or the surety is not in a position to producehim. Section 167 of the Code contemplates only two types of custodies i.e.the police custody within the first 15 days of the production of the accused before the Magistrate or judicial custody subsequently. Therefore, this argument also has no merit. It may further be noted-that the fact that the petitioners withdrew their anticipatory bail applications before SessionsCourt. Delhi was also not disclosed to the learned MM. The petitioners are guilty of taking Courts for a ride and such unbecoming conduct of their has to be viewed very seriously. They have displayed scant regard for the majesty and rule of law. +
+
+ +
+ +
(11) Now ultimately the position comes to this. The petitioners are named in the Fir by the deceased himself when he was still alive. the order of anticipatory bail granted under Section 307 Indian Penal Code to the petitioners by the Chief Sessions Judge, Calcutta or even by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta has already been cancelled. Their anticipatory bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn before the learned Asj, Delhi. The only alternative left was to detain them by issue of non-bailable warrants. Therefore, the issue of non-bailable warrants by the learned Magistrate is perfectly in order. It is also not disputed that the petition Cr.M.(M) 2800/92 stands or falls with the other petition. Therefore, both these petitions have no merit and same are hereby dismissed. The petitioners are absent despite orders of this Court to appear today. Therefore, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi is directed to issue non-bailable warrants of arrest against them, detain them in judicial custody and cause their production before the area Metropolitan Magistrate for further proceedings according to law. The matter is already delayed. The police shall give top priority to the investigation of this case. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_40018595.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_40018595.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..645ba810d4f2186bf7a06569ee0708b7a8c3f753 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_40018595.html @@ -0,0 +1,455 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Phudan @ Vishal Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The petitioner is in custody for about 4 years. + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 665 of 2023 + + The instant Revision is filed by CICL himself, + + challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order, + + dated 9th of August, 2023, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2023 + + by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum- + + Children's Court, Banka. The CICL was arrested in connection + + with Banduwa Kurawa P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023, corresponding + + to G.R. No. 1202 of 2023, for the offences punishable under + + Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 + + of the Arms Act. However, later on, Sections 34 of the IPC and + + Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section + + 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes + + (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added. Prayer for + + bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Appeal in + + exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Juvenile + + Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter + + referred to as 'said Act') vide order, dated 15th of June, 2023. + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 687 of 2023 + + The petitioner/CICL was arrested in connection + + with Fesar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, + + 325, 307, 34, 504, 506 and 379 of the IPC along with his father + + and uncle. The petitioner prayed for regular bail before the JJB, + + Aurangabad. In JJB Case No. 932 of 2023, prayer for bail was + + rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 41 + + of 2023 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children's Court, + + Aurangabad. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal + + and affirmed the order of the JJB. The petitioner has assailed the + + said order of the Appellate Court on various grounds, specially + + on the ground that the father and uncle of the petitioner have + + already been granted bail for the same offence. + +
+
+ +
+

Reg. Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2024 + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + The petitioner was booked along with other major + + accused persons in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 237 of + + 2022, dated 13th of August, 2022, under Section 302 and 34 of + + the IPC. The petitioner being a CICL prayed for bail before the + + Juvenile Justice Board, but his prayer for bail was rejected. He + + preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the said Act before the + + learned Special Judge, Children's Court and the said appeal was + + also dismissed and the order of rejection of bail passed by the + + JJB was affirmed. It is stated by the petitioner that the accused + + persons who are major, namely, Sushil Kumar Yadav and Anil + + Yadav were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on + + 26th of April, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 4091 of 2023. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_40739752.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_40739752.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..43d258ca39799fd54d77e6150256c08c08c623fc --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_40739752.html @@ -0,0 +1,490 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Dev Raj vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 24 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

offence and therefore, this Court is of the considered view + + that the bail petitioner is not entitled for further + + + + + + continuance/enlargement on bail. +

+

9(iii). The Status Reports indicate that the bail + + + + + + petitioner has been involved in ten criminal cases. Out + + of the ten cases, the bail petitioner has been acquitted + + in four cases and in four cases the matter has been + + compromised and in two other cases the trial is pending. +

+

A perusal of the two cases, relating to Section 354-A & + + + + Section 376 of IPC spell out that the bail petitioner has + + + + + adopted similar modus-operandi in the year 2017 and + + + + + + 2019 as has been done in the instant case as referred + + to above. +

+
+ +
+

FIR No. 11192011200478 of 2020 registered +

3. at Bhopal Police Station, Ahmedabad + + + + + + Rural u/s 188 of Penal Code, 1860 and + 113 of Gujarat Police Act. +

+

12. For the reasons noted above, we are of + the firm opinion that the respondent No + + .2 was not entitled to any relief in the + + instant case. Respondent No.2 had + remained in custody for barely six months + (23rd September, 2021 to 18th February, + 2022) before he was released on bail in + + + respect of a serious offence under Section + 302 of the IPC. His antecedents also + indicate his propensity towards + + + + + committing crime. Accordingly, the + impugned order dated 18th February, + + + + + + 2022 is quashed and set-aside and + respondent No.2 is directed to surrender + forthwith before the trial Court." +

+
+ +
+

- 42 - +

+

likelihood of his influencing the material + witnesses. It is noteworthy that a + representation has also been submitted by + the appellant's father to the Superintendent + of Police, District Jabalpur expressing the + very same apprehension." +

+

. +

Likewise, while dealing with the claim for + + + + + + bail, in the context of Section 376 and 506 of IPC, where + + + + + + the accused-offender, was allowed to move freely, + + despite the unlawful act of causing onslaught on the + + + + + + dignity of womanhood, who is likely to the prosecution + + witnesses or induce them to fattish the criminal justice + + system, has been outlined, by deprecating the + + release-enlargement on bail, in larger societal interests, + + in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059, titled as Bhagwan Singh + + + + versus Dilip Kumar alias Deepu alias Depak and + + + + + Another, decided on 23.08.2023, as under:- +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_43082812.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_43082812.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..38e84671f8e3452e9a3d139d2e87bac8460399b6 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_43082812.html @@ -0,0 +1,455 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Md. Sahil vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The petitioner is in custody for about 4 years. + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 665 of 2023 + + The instant Revision is filed by CICL himself, + + challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order, + + dated 9th of August, 2023, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2023 + + by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum- + + Children's Court, Banka. The CICL was arrested in connection + + with Banduwa Kurawa P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023, corresponding + + to G.R. No. 1202 of 2023, for the offences punishable under + + Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 + + of the Arms Act. However, later on, Sections 34 of the IPC and + + Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section + + 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes + + (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added. Prayer for + + bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Appeal in + + exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Juvenile + + Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter + + referred to as 'said Act') vide order, dated 15th of June, 2023. + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 687 of 2023 + + The petitioner/CICL was arrested in connection + + with Fesar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, + + 325, 307, 34, 504, 506 and 379 of the IPC along with his father + + and uncle. The petitioner prayed for regular bail before the JJB, + + Aurangabad. In JJB Case No. 932 of 2023, prayer for bail was + + rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 41 + + of 2023 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children's Court, + + Aurangabad. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal + + and affirmed the order of the JJB. The petitioner has assailed the + + said order of the Appellate Court on various grounds, specially + + on the ground that the father and uncle of the petitioner have + + already been granted bail for the same offence. + +
+
+ +
+

Reg. Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2024 + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + The petitioner was booked along with other major + + accused persons in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 237 of + + 2022, dated 13th of August, 2022, under Section 302 and 34 of + + the IPC. The petitioner being a CICL prayed for bail before the + + Juvenile Justice Board, but his prayer for bail was rejected. He + + preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the said Act before the + + learned Special Judge, Children's Court and the said appeal was + + also dismissed and the order of rejection of bail passed by the + + JJB was affirmed. It is stated by the petitioner that the accused + + persons who are major, namely, Sushil Kumar Yadav and Anil + + Yadav were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on + + 26th of April, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 4091 of 2023. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_43168333.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_43168333.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..63aa5a83437e89fd0812526643865bc334b648a0 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_43168333.html @@ -0,0 +1,385 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sri Abdul Kareem Telgi S/O Late Ladsab ... vs The State Of Karnataka By Madiwala ... on 11 July, 2017 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
ORDER + + + Crl.A.No.1187 of 2007, Crl.A.No.1123 of 2007 and + +Crl.A.No.1241 of 2007 are allowed. The impugned judgment of + +conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned XXXV + + + + +Addl. City Civil and Special Sessions Judge and Special Sessions + +Judge (Special Court-To try fake stamp paper cases) Bengaluru + +in Spl.C.C.No.213 of 2004 is hereby set-aside. Accused No.1, + +Accused No.37 and Accused No.38 are acquitted of the offences + +punishable under sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) r/w. section 13(2) of + +P.C. Act r/w. section 120-B of IPC. Bail bonds of Accused No.1, + +Accused No.37 and Accused No.38 with reference to the above + +case stands cancelled. Their sureties are discharged. Fine + +amount, if any, deposited by the respective accused shall be + +refunded. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_44024150.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_44024150.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1585c0911acf7fe1bf5d5eb5befb93c5b5acfc68 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_44024150.html @@ -0,0 +1,516 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 24 May, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

- 15 - +

+

Section 307 IPC was inserted prior to it on 20.02.2024 + + and these bail applications were rejected by Learned + + Trial Court on 29.02.2024, on the ground, that the + + + + + . +

bail petitioners, have suppressed factum of insertion + + + + + + of Section 307 IPC in their bail applications ; coupled + + + + + + with the fact that the offence was grave/serious + + by deadly weapons and the fact that one of the + + + + + + weapon (Sword) has been recovered clearly points + + out, towards the intention of the bail petitioners to + + commit the offence and since the investigation was + + at nascent stage, therefore, grant of pre-arrest bail + + would have prejudiced the investigation, therefore, the + + + + Learned Trial Court dismissed the bail applications of + + the bail petitioners on 29.02.2024. +

+
+ +
+ +

ANALYSIS OF ORDER DATED 29.02.2024 + [Annexure P-2] PASSED BY LEARNED TRIAL + COURT-REJECTING BAIL APPLICATIONS: +

+

10. Though + + originally the FIR + + dated 20.1.2024 was registered under Sections 147, + + + 148, 149, 323 and 506 IPC, but keeping in view + + the medical opinion, gravity of offence, the nature of + + + injuries which were grievous in nature and dangerous + + to life, Section 307 IPC was inserted/added to the + + + + + aforesaid FIR on 20.02.2024, yet the bail petitioners + + + + + + filed the bail applications before Learned Trial Court + + + + + + i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, on 21.02.2024 + + without disclosing factum of Section 307 IPC having + + been inserted/added to the aforesaid FIR. All six bail + + application(s) were rejected by the Learned Trial Court + + + + + +

+
+ +
+
12 The most disturbing feature in this bail + + + + + application is that the bail applicant has + + + + + + misled this court while obtaining pre + arrest. Police report suggests that Section + 307 IPC had already been invoked against + + + + + + bail applicant and others on 20.02.2024 + and this application was admittedly + moved on 21.02.2024 and bail applicant + did not mention this fact in this application. + Thus, they are not entitled to relief from this + court on this count as well. +
+
+ +
+ +

19(ii). Mr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, Learned Senior + + Counsel, contends that another FIR No. 161 of 2022, + + dated 01.06.2022, was registered by one of the bail + + petitioners, namely, Satish Kumar, under Sections 341, + + + + 323 and 506 IPC, cannot be of any avail to the bail + + petitioners when, the aforesaid FIR, nowhere indicates + + + + + that the alleged offences were against or in the context + + + + + + of the complainant [Sandeep Kumar] and two friends, + + + + + + Neema and Kulbir, as in the instant case. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_4449725.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_4449725.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5c2de4beaa2c489d578858249d1f23b52308bfe8 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_4449725.html @@ -0,0 +1,381 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Anu @ Ashoka vs State Of U.P. on 28 April, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. +
+
(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_44510379.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_44510379.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6753d198b6c5c57a3254f0b57312d4f09895f199 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_44510379.html @@ -0,0 +1,424 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Girdhar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:11536) on 7 March, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

4. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.69/2024) +

5. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.69/2024) +

6. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.69/2024) + + +

8. Concerned Police Station Shreekaranpur +

+
+ +
+

12. Date of passing of 21.10.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.14884/2023) + +

14. Concerned Police Station Kotwali Barmer +

15. District Barmer +

16. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 420 and 406 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.14885/2023) +

17. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.14885/2023) +

+
+ +
+

34. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.15296/2023) +

35. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.15296/2023) +

36. Date of passing of 22.11.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.15296/2023) + +

38. Concerned Police Station Pratap Nagar +

+
+ +
+

76. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.90/2024) +

77. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.90/2024) +

78. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.90/2024) + + +

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no + + case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his + + incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in + + the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the + + accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based + + on conjectures and surmises. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_4469304.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_4469304.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..70fb1af8eb4d4c98a142365d43d8d57834a484c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_4469304.html @@ -0,0 +1,429 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Mani Lal vs State on 5 November, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Order + +05/11/2020 + All the above mentioned bail applications shall stand decided + +by this common order as they arise out of same FIR. + +

The present bail applications have been filed under Section + +439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners who are in custody in + +connection with F.I.R. No.252/2020, Police Station Dovada, District + +Dungarpur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, + +394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B of I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12431/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 436, 394, + +384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of + +the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.11515/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, + +384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B of the I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.11861/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 384, + +284, 269, 270, 283 & 336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of + +P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11865/2020), + +under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 436, 394, 284, 269, 270, 283, + +336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11867/2020), under Sections + + (5 of 7) [CRLMB-12431/2020 + a/w connected nmatters] + + +147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, 384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336, + +120-B of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12205/2020), under Sections + +147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B + +of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. + +Bail Application No.12207/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, + +341, 394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 383, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and + +under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail + +Application No.12210/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, + +394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12433/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, + +284, 269, 270, 283, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 + +of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12436/2020). +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_44758815.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_44758815.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8c38df2e50db509ea87f3b7533ecc0fa0d990881 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_44758815.html @@ -0,0 +1,462 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Mohammad Kaif vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 12 March, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

12. To substantiate plea to enlarge the petitioners on bail, + +learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon order dated 5.7.2023 + +passed in Cr.MP (M) No. 1501 of 2023, titled as Ram Singh @ Kaka + +Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has been + +enlarged on bail on 5.7.2023 after remaining in jail for 3 years 2 months. + +

( 2025:HHC:5741 ) + +

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred order + +dated 16.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1494 of 2023, titled as + +Rampal @ Ramphal Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section + +302 IPC has been enlarged on bail after remaining in custody for 4 years + +9 months by considering plea of the petitioner regarding delay in trial. +

+
+ +
+

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners have referred order + +dated 20.10.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2481 of 2023, titled as + +Sanma Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has + +been released on bail after 3 years 3 months detention considering the + +fact that only 22 witnesses out of 30 witnesses were examined by that + +time. +

+

15. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further relied on + +order dated 4.11.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2618 of 2023, titled as + +Jasbir Singh Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC + +has been released on bail after 3 years 5 months detention considering + +the fact that only 16 witnesses out of 39 witnesses were examined by + +that time. +

+
+ +
+ +

18. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further referred + +order dated 1.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1216 of 2023, titled as + +Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 + +IPC has been released on bail after 4 years detention considering the + +fact that only 13 witnesses out of 47 witnesses were examined by that + +time. +

+

19. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further relied on + +order dated 24.7.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1217 of 2023, titled as + +Kulveer Singh Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 + +IPC has been released on bail after 1 year detention considering the fact + +that no witnesses out of 30 witnesses were examined by that time. +

+
+ +
+ +

30. Order dated 3rd September, 2024 passed in Cr.MP (M) No. + +1584 of 2024, titled as Krishan Kumar Vs. State of H.P. has also been + +referred by learned counsel for the petitioners, wherein petitioner an + +accused under Section 302 IPC was enlarged on bail after detention of 5 + +years 5 months by considering the fact that out of 48 witnesses only 16- + +18 witnesses had been examined and there was no likelihood of + +conclusion of trial in near future. +

+

31. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the + +petitioners on order dated 18.9.2024 passed in Cr.MP (M) No. 1804 of + +2024, titled as Suryakant Vs. State of H.P., wherein petitioner, an + +accused under Section 302 IPC, has been enlarged on bail by co- + +ordinate Bench on the ground of delay in trial after custody of more than + +3 years 10 months by taking into consideration the fact that there was no + +likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future as 23 witnesses were yet to + +be examined. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_44833547.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_44833547.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..98500515469144619bf63e5505c62c0592f3d571 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_44833547.html @@ -0,0 +1,429 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ishwar vs State on 5 November, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Order + +05/11/2020 + All the above mentioned bail applications shall stand decided + +by this common order as they arise out of same FIR. + +

The present bail applications have been filed under Section + +439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners who are in custody in + +connection with F.I.R. No.252/2020, Police Station Dovada, District + +Dungarpur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, + +394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B of I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12431/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 436, 394, + +384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of + +the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.11515/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, + +384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B of the I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.11861/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 384, + +284, 269, 270, 283 & 336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of + +P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11865/2020), + +under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 436, 394, 284, 269, 270, 283, + +336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11867/2020), under Sections + + (5 of 7) [CRLMB-12431/2020 + a/w connected nmatters] + + +147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, 384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336, + +120-B of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12205/2020), under Sections + +147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B + +of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. + +Bail Application No.12207/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, + +341, 394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 383, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and + +under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail + +Application No.12210/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, + +394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12433/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, + +284, 269, 270, 283, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 + +of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12436/2020). +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_44978956.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_44978956.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5a5063d436198606a9587873fd75b6c95f40aba9 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_44978956.html @@ -0,0 +1,370 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sunil Gandhi vs State on 6 February, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. BAIL APPLN.3975/2023 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking bail + in the event of arrest in FIR No.64/2016, dated 23.05.2016, registered at + Police Station Economic Offences Wing for offences under Sections + 406/409/420/120B IPC. +

2. BAIL APPLN.3977/2023 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking bail + in the event of arrest in FIR No.116/2016, dated 05.03.2016, registered at + Police Station Sarita Vihar for offences under Sections 406/420/34 IPC. +

+
+ +
+

3. BAIL APPLN.3986/2023 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking bail + in the event of arrest in FIR No.114/2016, dated 04.03.2016, registered at + Police Station Sarita Vihar for offences under Sections 420/34 IPC. +

4. Since all the three bail applications arises from a common set of facts, + with the consent of the parties, all the three bail applications are being + decided by this common order. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_45369058.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_45369058.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e02988a685553a13b8a4d8f1ef60f05d8b19500a --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_45369058.html @@ -0,0 +1,378 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Shailesh Shende vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 April, 2015 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Case dairy is available. Still investigation is + incomplete. +

This is the first bail application filed by the + applicant/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of + bail in connection with Crime No.78/2015, Police Station + Civil Lines, District Jabalpur for the offences registered under + Section 366, 376-D r/w 511of the IPC. +

In the course of argument, learned counsel for the + applicant/accused seeks permission to withdraw this + application with a liberty to the applicant/accused to file again + bail application after filing of the charge-sheet. +

+
+ +
+

This is the second bail application filed by the + applicant/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of + bail in connection with Crime No.32/2015 registered at Police + Station Panagar, District Jabalpur for the offence registered + under Sections 354, 377 of I.P.C. and 4 of Protection of + Children from Sexual Offences Act. +

The first bail application filed by the applicant/accused + under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed by this Court vide + order dated 02.03.2015 passed in M.Cr.C. No.2130/2015 for + want of prosecution. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_456307.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_456307.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..56658250bde2240df0ff1e82e4835cd979a51035 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_456307.html @@ -0,0 +1,508 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Nizamuddin @ Raju vs State on 5 December, 2009 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

In this case, the Investigating Agency proceeded to + +submit the charge-sheet against the accused persons for the + +offence under Section 379 IPC on 30.08.2009. The accused + +persons submitted a bail application bearing number 299/2009 + +that was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, + +Rajsamand on 05.09.2009. +

+

Such relevant aspects concerning Bail Application No. + +5847/2009 are that FIR No. 133/2008 was registered at Police + +Station Devgarh, District Rajsamand on 23.07.2008 on the + +report made by one Yusuf Bhai that his motorcycle bearing + +registration number RJ 30 SA 5904, parked near the Dargah + +gate, had been stolen. It appears that the said FIR was + +registered on 23.07.2008 but the investigation remained + +pending for long. However, the aforesaid accused persons + +including the present petitioner, were arrested in relation to + +this FIR on 27.08.2009; the other accused persons Saleem + +and Rafique stated that the whereabouts of the motorcycle + +could be divulged by the present petitioner Nizamuddin; and + + +upon the information allegedly divulged by the petitioner, the + +said motorcycle was recovered from his place of residence + +and at the time of recovery, it was found that attempts had + +been made to remove or obliterate the chasis number and the + +engine number of the said vehicle. +

+
+ +
+ +

The Investigating Agency proceeded to submit a + +charge-sheet in the case relating to the said motorcycle on + +11.09.2009 against the petitioner and the co-accused persons + +for offences under Sections 379, 411 IPC; and indicated that + +the petitioner Nizamuddin had been involved in other criminal + +cases too, including the one for the offences under Sections + +363, 366 IPC. The bail application as moved in relation to + +this case bearing number 298/2009 was also considered and + +rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand with + +another order dated 05.09.2009. +

+
+ +
+ +

After the aforesaid order dated 14.10.2009, the + +petitioner Nizamuddin @ Raju has moved these second bail + +applications directly to this Court on 26.10.2009. + +

The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently + +argued that mere alleged involvement of the petitioner in other + +criminal case ought not be taken as a ground for denial of bail + +to him in the present cases. It is submitted that the present + +cases, at the most, involve the offences under Sections 379, + +411 IPC and when the co-accused persons have been granted + +bail, no useful purpose would be served by the detention of + +the petitioner and he deserves bail on parity. The learned + + +counsel also submitted that though the petitioner is said to be + +involved in one more criminal case pertaining to offences + +under Sections 363, 366 IPC but he has already been granted + +bail therein and the trial in that relation is pending. The learned + +counsel has particularly referred to Section 437 of the Code of + +Criminal Procedure and submitted that the considerations that + +might be relevant for a person convicted of an offence cannot + +be applied in relation to the person who is merely accused of + +an offence but the case is otherwise pending because, unless + +found guilty, a person is presumed to be innocent. The learned + +counsel has particularly referred to the decisions in Gurcharan + +Singh & Ors. Vs. State (Delhi Administration) : AIR 1978 SC + +179, Gurbaksh Singh Sibba Vs. The State of Punjab : AIR + +1980 SC 1632, Jaipal Vs. State of Rajasthan : 1984 RLR + +1077, Mohammad Ishaq Vs. The State : 1951 RLW 274, Om + +Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan : 2009 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) + +1476. +

+
+ +
+
"Bail-applications are considered on the facts and + circumstances of each individual case." +
+

In the case of Mohammad Ishaq (supra), the petitioner + +was being prosecuted for offence under Section 452 IPC, he + +was said to be involved in other case pertaining to Section 380 + +IPC, and the bail was denied by the Sessions Judge without + +disclosing as to what offence had been made out; and this + +Court found that the case was not such in which the petitioner + +should not be released on bail. The observations therein, + +again, could only be read as relevant for the said case. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_45961307.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_45961307.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d77519f0f481b8d172a5a4a3bbe837cb61bdd9cd --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_45961307.html @@ -0,0 +1,354 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sumathi vs The Secretary To The Government on 1 September, 2014 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
"4.I am aware that Thiru Arun is in remand in F5 Choolaimedu PS Cr.Nos.1462/2012, 2/2014 and 6/2014 and he has not moved any bail application so far. The relatives of Thiru Arun are taking action to take him on bail by filing bail application in F5 Choolaimedu PS Cr.Nos.36/2014 and 6/2014 by filing bail application before the appropriate Court. In a similar case registered at F5 Choolaimedu PS Cr.No.613/2013 registered u/s.294[b], 341, 324 & 506[ii] IPC bail was granted by the 17th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.2333/2013. In a similar case registered at F5 Choolaimedu PS Cr.No.1357/2012 u/s.302 and 506[ii] IPC bail was granted by the Hon'ble High Court in Crl.OP.No.31089/2012. Similarly, in a case registered at F5 choolaimedu PS Cr.No.1302/2012 registered u/s.325, 452, 307 IPC bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Court in Crl.MP.No.10648/2012, since in similar cases bails are granted by the Courts after a lapse of time. Hence, I infer that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail in F5 Choolaimedu PS Cr.Ns.1462/2012, 2/2014 and 6/2014 by filing bail application before appropriate court. If he comes out on bail, he will further indulge in such activities in future, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order..............." +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_46219614.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_46219614.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b97fb0f1343b3c6aa7f44a9034ac63c847744de8 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_46219614.html @@ -0,0 +1,367 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Bhuru @ Bhundara vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 17 April, 2014 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Heard on I.A. No.4213/2014, which is an +application under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for +suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the +appellant. +

The appellant has been convicted under section +394 of I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 5 years with fine +of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation. +

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted +that there is no direct and indirect evidence against the +appellant regarding the alleged offence. He is in jail +since long. He has no criminal past. The appeal would +take considerable time for its final disposal, hence jail +sentence of appellant be suspended and he be released +on bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_46433123.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_46433123.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0645a22c2d3d38ad0a67bc6ba4a44ce7407b2b35 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_46433123.html @@ -0,0 +1,965 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Markas Yohan Thorat vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 25, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Bombay High Court

+

Markas Yohan Thorat vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2020

+ +

Author: Prakash D. Naik

+ +

Bench: Prakash D. Naik

+ +
                                                                                    1-BA No. 909-2020.doc
+
+
+
+
+                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
+                                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
+
+                                          CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.909 OF 2020
+
+                       Markas Yohan Thorat
+                       An Indian Inhabitant, Aged 66 years,
+                       A Senior Citizen, Occ : Business.
+                       R/at. Nagacha Khadak, Near Petrol Pump,
+                       Murbad, Thane, 421 401.                                 ... Applicant
+
+                                 Versus
+
+                       The State of Maharashtra                                ... Respondent
+
+                                                        .....
+                       Mr. I. S. Thakur i/b Mr. Arjun Singh Thakur i/b M/s Global Juris
+                       Consults, Advocates for the Applicant.
+                       Ms. A. A. Takalkar, APP for the Respondent - State.
+                       Ms. Shetye, W.P.I. EOW, Unit-7, Mumbai, Present.
+                                                              .....
+
+                                                       CORAM        : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
+                                                       DATE         : 16th DECEMBER, 2020.
+
+                       PER COURT:
+
+
+                       1.                  This is an application for bail in connection with C.R.
+
+                       No. 11 of 2017, registered with Bhoiwada Police Station, Mumbai,
+
+                       for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120B of Indian
+
+                       Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and Sections 3
+         Digitally
+         signed by
+RajeP.   RajeP. Aher   and 4 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in
+         Date:
+Aher     2020.12.17
+         17:13:33
+         +0530         Financial Establishments) Act (hereinafter referred to as "MPID Act"
+
+                       for short) read with Sections 3, 4 & 5 of Prize Chits and Money
+
+
+
+                       Sajakali Jamadar                    1 of 9
+                                                             1-BA No. 909-2020.doc
+
+
+
+
+Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978. The First Information
+
+Report (hereinafter referred to as "FIR" for short) was registered on
+
+16th January, 2017. The investigation was taken over by EOW,
+
+Mumbai, vide C.R. No.08 of 2017.
+
+
+2.                 The prosecution case is that, the informant has alleged
+
+that accused Temple Rose Real Estate Private Limited, its Directors
+
+and others had accepted deposits from investors by floating buyback,
+
+Guaranteed Double Income, Income Growth Plan, etc. Schemes.
+
+They induced investors by making promise of more profits on the
+
+investments and after maturity failed to return the assured benefits.
+
+The informant was duped for an amount of Rs. 37,38,775/- other
+
+investors were cheated for crores. The applicant was arrested on 5 th
+
+August, 2017 in another case and in the present case he was arrested
+
+on 5th February, 2018. On completing investigation, charge-sheet is
+
+filed. Case is numbered as MPID Special Case No.12 of 2018.
+
+
+3.                 The applicant had preferred Criminal Bail Application
+
+No.2990 of 2018 before this Court which was rejected by order dated
+
+26th February, 2019. Subsequently, he preferred another application
+
+for bail before this Court which has been rejected by order dated 3 rd
+
+February, 2020. However, the trial Court was requested to conclude
+
+the trial within a period of Six months and liberty was granted to
+
+
+Sajakali Jamadar                   2 of 9
+                                                            1-BA No. 909-2020.doc
+
+
+
+
+applicant to prefer fresh application for bail in the event trial is not
+
+concluded within a period of Six Months.
+
+
+4.                 Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the
+
+applicant is in custody in this case from 5th February, 2018, for a
+
+period of about Two years and Ten months. There is no progress in
+
+trial. Charge is not yet framed. The applicant is senior citizen aged
+
+about 66 years. It is not clear as to when the trial would commence
+
+and concluded. The prosecution is relying upon list of fifty witnesses.
+
+He further submitted that total earning out of the salary and other
+
+benefits of applicant were to the tune of Rs.2,16,00,000/-. Except the
+
+applicant and co-accused Keshav Ibdya, all other accused are on bail.
+
+The properties of the company were attached. He relied on the
+
+Notification issued by the Government under the provisions of MPID
+
+Act. The family members of the applicant has filed undertaking
+
+before this Court stating that, the properties i.e. plot of land bearing
+
+Survey No.385, Mauze Kadam Vasti, Lone Haveli, Dist. Pune and
+
+Row house bearing No.38, Amar Nagar, on a part of land bearing
+
+No.261/26/2 at Solapur Road, Hadapsar, Pune are owned by them
+
+and they have no objection for auction proceedings to be undertaken
+
+under the provisions of MPID Act. Learned counsel for the applicant
+
+tendered the valuation report in respect to the properties. The value
+
+
+
+Sajakali Jamadar                   3 of 9
+                                                               1-BA No. 909-2020.doc
+
+
+
+
+of the row house in 2018 was Rs.1,08,62,253/- and the value of the
+
+plot referred to above is Rs.19,64,020/-. The said valuation report is
+
+given by Sub-registrar, Haveli, Pune City. The said document is taken
+
+on record and marked as "A" for identification. It is submitted that
+
+the properties of the company are also attached under the provisions
+
+of MPID Act. While rejecting previous applicaton by order dated 26 th
+
+February, 2019 it was observed that, properties were purchased in
+
+the name of accused and relatives and no Notification was issued
+
+regarding properties of company and its Directors. However,
+
+Notification has been issued and properties were attached. The
+
+applicant is ailing and he was admitted Sasoon hospital and was
+
+discharged. While rejecting subsequent application by order dated 3 rd
+
+February, 2020 this Court had also taken into consideration that
+
+applicant          had   earned   Rs.2,16,64,472/-   and   properties      were
+
+purchased by him out of funds of investment. The properties are
+
+under attachment. The amount earned is secured. The applicant has
+
+not delayed trial. He relied on Roznama of trial Court proceedings.
+
+The co-accused Devidas Sajnani was granted temporary bail on
+
+medical ground by this Court in C.R. No.275 of 2017 registered with
+
+Chatushrungi Police Station, Pune. The cash vouchers were signed by
+
+applicant along with chairman of company Mr. Devidas Sajnani and
+
+the amount withdrawn was exculsively used for purshaing various
+
+Sajakali Jamadar                    4 of 9
+                                                          1-BA No. 909-2020.doc
+
+
+
+
+properties, obtaining permissions etc. The witnessess have not
+
+referred to inducement by applicant. The applicant cannot be
+
+detained in custody for indefinite period. In support of his
+
+submissions he relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the
+
+case of Sharad T. Kabra V/s. Union of India , 2017(4) Crimes (SC)
+
+448, wherein it was observed that the accused was in custody for
+
+more than two years facing charges for offences under Sections 420,
+
+467, 468, 471, & 120B of IPC, the trial has not commenced. Even the
+
+charges have not been framed against the accused. It is submitted
+
+that punishment for offence under Section 467 is imprisonment for
+
+life or up to Ten years. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the
+
+Supreme Court in the case of Pravat Kumar Dash V/s. Vs. Central
+
+Bureau of Investigation 2017(8) SCC 453, in that case the accused
+
+was prosecuted for offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 406,
+
+417, 418, 422, 120(B) of IPC. The accused was directed to be
+
+released on bail. It was observed that, despite several extensions of
+
+time for completion of remaining part of investigation, the
+
+investigation was not completed. Learned counsel also relied upon
+
+the decision in the Case of Mehmood Mohammed Sayeed V/s. State
+
+of Maharashtra AIR 2002 (SC) 482. The accused was prosecuted for
+
+offences under Sections 463, 467, 461, 419 & 120 of IPC. Bail was
+
+granted as it was not certain as to how long trial will take
+
+Sajakali Jamadar              5 of 9
+                                                                     1-BA No. 909-2020.doc
+
+
+
+
+considering conditions of trial Court particularly in Maharashtra.
+
+Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the Case
+
+of Vivek Kumar V/s. State of U.P. AIR 2000, (SC) 3406, the accused
+
+was prosecuted for offence under Sections 394 & 395 r/w Section
+
+149 of IPC. The accused was in jail for a long period and the trial had
+
+not commenced. It is submitted that punishment for offence under
+
+Sections 394 & 395 of IPC is life imprisonment or up to Ten years. He
+
+also relied upon several orders passed by this Court, granting bail to
+
+the accused.
+
+
+5.                  Learned APP submitted that the previous applications of
+
+the applicant were rejected. On instructions it is submitted that,
+
+further investigation is still in progress and hence final charge-sheet
+
+could not be filed. Hence trial had not commenced. In the charge-
+
+sheet which is filed against the applicant, the prosecution has listed
+
+about 50 witnesses. Learned APP tendered the report of the
+
+Investigating Officer wherein it is mentioned that the investigation
+
+revealed           that   the   applicant      had   earned   the    amount          of
+
+Rs.2,16,64,472/- towards commission, salary, interest & dividend etc.
+
+The report also mentions that the properties were purchased in the
+
+name of applicant and his family members. The properties situated at
+
+Murbad Road, Nagcha Khadak House No. 1179, valued at about
+
+
+
+Sajakali Jamadar                      6 of 9
+                                                                  1-BA No. 909-2020.doc
+
+
+
+
+Rs.20,00,000/-. Row house No.38 at Solapur Road, Hadapsar Pune is
+
+having valued of Rs.35,00,000/-. Plot on mouje Kadam Vasti, Loni,
+
+Haveli, is valued Rs. 7,00,000/-. Property bearing S.No. 510, Mouje
+
+Ambegaon, Tal. Murbad, Dist. Thane is valued of Rs.7,00,000/- and
+
+property bearing S.No.111, Mouje Aantroli, Taluka Velhe, Dist.Pune
+
+is valued Rs.50,00,000/-. The total value of properties is One Crore
+
+Nineteen Lakhs. Learned APP on instructions submitted that this was
+
+tentative valuation. All these properties are attached. The report is
+
+taken on record and marked as 'X' for identification.
+
+
+6.                 It is noted that, the applicant is in custody for a period of
+
+about Two years and Ten months. While rejecting the previous
+
+application, trial was expedited and liberty was granted to prefer
+
+fresh application for bail. Trial has not commenced. As stated by
+
+learned APP further investigation is still in progress and further
+
+charge-sheet is yet to be filed. Several other accused are already on
+
+bail. The applicant is senior citizen. It is not clear as to when the trial
+
+would commence. The applicant has not delayed the trial. The
+
+Notification issued by the government under Section 4(1), 5 & 8 of
+
+MPID Act has been placed on record by learned advocate for
+
+applicant. The Notification mentions that the properties specified in
+
+the schedule are alleged to have been acquired by the financial
+
+
+
+Sajakali Jamadar                      7 of 9
+                                                               1-BA No. 909-2020.doc
+
+
+
+
+establishments and their chairman/directors from and out of deposits
+
+collected by establishment. The list of immovable properties attached
+
+is provided. The properties are in the name of company and the
+
+accused including applicant. There are several properties divided into
+
+parts situated at Sogaon, Shahapur, Thane, Pimloli, Karjat, Raigad,
+
+Parhe, Murbad, Thane, Umroli, Mahad, Pune, Satara, Kerala,
+
+Tamilnadu etc. The Notification also contains list of bank accounts
+
+attached. Taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances, bail
+
+can be granted to the applicant. Hence, I pass the following order.
+
+
+                                     ORDER
+
+

(i) Bail Application No.909 of 2020, is allowed; + +

(ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in + + connection with C.R. No. 11 of 2017, registered with Bhoiwada + + Police Station, Mumbai,, investigated by EOW vide C.R. No.8 + + of 2017 on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, + + with one or more sureties in the like amount; + +

(iii) The applicant shall report E.O.W. Unit -7, Mumbai once + + in a month on first Saturday of the month between 11:00 a.m. + + to 1:00 p.m. till further order; +

+

(iv) The applicant shall give an undertaking that he has no + + objection for sale of the attached properties except the + + +Sajakali Jamadar 8 of 9 + 1-BA No. 909-2020.doc + + + + + property which is ancestral house at Murbad Road, Nagcha + + Khadak house No.1179, Murbad, Dist. Thane. + +

(v) Relatives of the applicant Snehal Markas Thorat, + + Vishwas Markas Thorat, Rebecca Markas Thorat and Sagar + + Markas Thorat shall file a fresh undertaking in respect to the + + properties viz. Plot of land bearing Survey No.385, Mauze + + Kadam Vasti Loni, Haveli, Dist. Pune, Row house bearing + + No.38, Amar Nagar, on plot No.261/26/2, Solapur Road, + + Hadapsar, Pune, stating that they have no objection to auction + + proceedings to be undertaken under the provisions of MPID + + for sale of properties. +

+

(vi) Both undertakings shall be filed before trial Court while + + executing bail bond. +

+

(vii) Application stands disposed of accordingly. + + +

7. This order will be digitally signed by the Private + +Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on + +production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

+
+
+
+
+                                                  (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
+
+
+
+
+Sajakali Jamadar                    9 of 9
+
+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_465192.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_465192.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c209099b8b331d0a98e648ec43396997b7d00ece --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_465192.html @@ -0,0 +1,384 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Bijendra @ Virendra Son Of Mukandi Lal, ... vs State Of U.P. And Manoj Kumar Son Of Gopal on 14 February, 2006 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

4. Being apprehensive of arrest in the newly added offence this application Under Section 482 Cr. P. C. invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with the prayer to "direct to the court below to accept the fresh bail bond from the applicants in newly added Section 308 and 325 IPC in case crime No. 256 of 2005 Under Section 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 325 and 308 IPC, Police Station Pahasu district Bulandshahr, as the applicants are already been on bail in the present case which was granted to them by Civil Judge (Junior division)/Judicial magistrate, Khurja, Bulandshahr on 10.10.2005 under Section 147, 148, 323, 324, 504 452 IPC" The ancillary prayer is that the execution of coercive process issued against the applicants be kept in abeyance till the filing of the fresh bail bonds. +

+
+ +
+ +

6. Sri Sunil Kumar, counsel for the applicants on the other hand submitted that since in the same crime number the applicants had already been released on bail for offences Under Section 147, 147, 323, 324, 504 and 452 IPC, (all offences triable by magistrate) therefore, they should be allowed to furnish only fresh bail bond. +

+

7. I have heard both the learned Counsel at a very great length and have gone through the material on record. +

+

8. Before adverting to the facts of the case a glimpse of law. +

+
+ +
+ +

(Emphasis Supplied.) + + +

30. Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. high court is to get law observed and not to get it flouted away. +

+

31. In what has been held herein before the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant, that this Court Under Section 482 Cr. P. C, can pass an order for fresh bail bonds Under Section 308/325 IPC, will be against the enacted provisions of law -- IV proviso Section 437(1) Cr. P.C. and Section 437(4) Cr.P.C. and chapter XXXIII thereof and therefore can not be accepted and is rejected. +

+
+ +
+ +

33. On the above consideration, all the contentions of the learned Counsel for the applicants does not impress me ,as being contrary to the provision of law, and is therefore repelled. Thus the prayer for the applicants for allowing them to furnish them fresh bail bonds Under Section 308/325 IPC in crime number 256 of 2005 PS Pahasu District Bulandshahar cannot be accepted. +

+

34. However under the facts of the case this Court is not powerless to direct the Magistrate as well as learned Sessions Judge to consider and dispose off the bail application of the applicant in the newly added offences Under Section 308/325 IPC as expeditiously as possible and if possible on the same day keeping in mind that they have not misused the liberty granted to them earlier. The change of section no doubt does not entitle the accused not to surrender and to seek fresh bail but certainly their conduct without any material change in the factual matrix of the incident and evidences entitles them to get their bail application considered without any unreasonable and unnecessary delay and if possible on the same day. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_47007149.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_47007149.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2b2bc6a2cb4482543d9c378c6a4f8e8c42523778 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_47007149.html @@ -0,0 +1,4395 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Shyam Patidar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2015 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 66, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Madhya Pradesh High Court

+

Shyam Patidar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2015

+ +
                                   MCRC No.8716/2015
+13.10.2015
+                     Shri Dharmendra Khanchandani, learned counsel for
+
+             the applicants.
+
+                     Shri   Mukesh     Parwal,   learned   counsel   for   the
+
+             respondent/State.
+
+                     Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned counsel for the
+
+             complainant.
+
+                     Case diary is available.
+
+                     This is first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C.
+
+             filed on behalf of present applicant for grant of anticipatory
+
+             bail.
+
+                     The applicant apprehends his arrest by Police Station -
+
+             Barud, District - Khargone in Crime No.146/2015 under
+
+             sections 307, 120-B of IPC and 25, 27 of Arms Act.
+      According to the prosecution story,      in the night of
+
+02.09.2015 at about 2:00 am, complainant Kamal was
+
+attacked by some unknown persons by firing over him
+
+gunshot by 12 bore gun. The crime was registered. During
+
+investigation, on source information, co-accused Dhekaliya
+
+and Deva were arrested. From their possession, 12 bore gun
+
+and some live cartridges were recovered. In their, discloser
+
+memo prepared under section 27 of the Evidence Act, they
+
+disclosed that they attacked on the complainant, as they were
+
+paid Rs.50,000/- by the present applicant Shyam Patidar.
+
+Thus, they were acting as hire assassin and attacked on the
+
+complainant.
+
+     Arguments heard. Case diary perused.
+
+     Counsel for the State and complainant opposed the
+
+application on the ground that it is a case under section 307
+
+of IPC. Custodial interrogation is required against the present
+
+applicant.
+      Counsel for the applicant submits that apart from the
+
+discloser memo given by the co-accused under section 27 of
+
+the Evidence Act, no other evidence is available against the
+
+present applicant. Also, the complainant in this case filed an
+
+affidavit in support of present applicant stating therein that
+
+present applicant is suffering from mental ailment. He has no
+
+dispute with the present applicant.
+
+     While dismissing the application, the 4th Additional
+
+Sessions Judge observed that this affidavit cannot be taken in
+
+to consideration at this stage.
+
+     In the considered opinion of this Court, this affidavit
+
+cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. However,
+
+looking to the evidence available against the present
+
+applicant and also taking into consideration that he is
+
+suffering from mental ailment, this application is allowed.
+
+     It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant
+
+shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a
+             personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) and
+
+            a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
+
+            concerning Magistrate or Arresting Officer as the case may
+
+            be, with the following conditions:-
+
+            (i) that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a
+
+            police officer as and when required.
+
+            (ii) that he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
+
+            inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
+
+            the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
+
+            such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
+
+            (iii) that he would comply with the conditions enumerated
+
+            under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
+
+                 Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+Kratika/-
+                                    MCRC No.8770/2015
+13.10.2015
+                     Shri Anand Soni, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Shri   Mukesh    Parwal,   learned   counsel   for    the
+
+             respondent/State.
+
+                     This is first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C.
+
+             filed on behalf of present applicant for grant of anticipatory
+
+             bail.
+
+                     The applicant apprehends his arrest by Police Station -
+
+             Depalpur, District - Indore in Crime No.330/2015 under
+
+             section 34(2) of MP Excise Act.
+
+                     According to the prosecution story, on source
+
+             information, motorcycle bearing registration No.MP-10-BA-
+
+             2598 was intercepted by the police. The motorcycle was
+
+             being driven by Sabir Kha and in the gunny bags loaded on
+ the motorcycle, total 54 bulk liters of contraband country
+
+liquor was found in his possession.
+
+     During investigation, on his discloser memo prepared
+
+under section 27 of the Evidence Act, he informed the police
+
+that he brought the contraband country liquor from the
+
+present applicant. However, no legal evidence is available
+
+against him at present.
+
+     Arguments heard. Case diary perused.
+
+     Counsel for the State opposes the application on the
+
+ground that his custody shall be required, as it has to be
+
+asserted from where he obtains the contraband country liquor
+
+and supplies to various persons.
+
+     Counsel for the applicant submits that in the similar
+
+case arising from the similar Police Station - Depalpur, he
+
+was granted anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of
+
+this Court in MCRC No.8771/2015 vide order dated
+
+05.10.2015.
+                      However, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
+
+                order of granting bail is based on the facts which do not have
+
+                value of precedence and, therefore, present case has to be
+
+                evaluated on merit. So far as the present case is concerned, it
+
+                is true that his custodial interrogation may be required for
+
+                asserting the source of the contraband country liquor.
+
+                     As such, I find that no case is made out for grant of
+
+                anticipatory bail to the present applicant.
+
+                     The application is accordingly, dismissed.
+
+                     Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                              (Alok Verma)
+                                                                  Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      M.A. No.2452/2014
+13.10.2015
+                     Shri VS Chouhan, counsel for the appellant.
+                     Shri Mayank Upadhyay, counsel for the respondent
+                No.3/Insurance Company.
+                     Heard finally.
+                     Reserved for order.
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                              Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+                                     M.A. No.1371/2015
+13.10.2015
+                   Shri VS Chouhan, counsel for the appellant.
+                   Shri    RJ   Pandit,    counsel   for    the    respondent
+              No.3/Insurance Company.
+                   Heard finally.
+                   Reserved for order.
+
+
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                              Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.9130/2015
+13.10.2015
+                   Shri LS Chandiramani, counsel for the applicant.
+                   Shri Mukesh Parwal, counsel for the respondent/State.
+                   Shri Vikas Jain, counsel for the complainant.
+                   Counsel for the complainant prays for and is granted a
+              week's time to file criminal antecedents of the present
+              applicant.
+                   List alongwith MCRC No.9078/2015 on 19.10.2015, as
+               prayed.
+
+
+                                                        (Alok Verma)
+                                                           Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+                                 M.Cr.C. No.9078/2015
+13.10.2015
+                   Shri LS Chandiramani, counsel for the applicant.
+                   Shri Mukesh Parwal, counsel for the respondent/State.
+                   Shri Vikas Jain, counsel for the complainant.
+                   Counsel for the complainant prays for and is granted a
+              week's time to file criminal antecedents of the present
+              applicant.
+                   List on 19.10.2015, as prayed.
+
+
+                                                        (Alok Verma)
+                                                           Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                  Cr.A. No.1275/2014
+13.10.2015
+                   Shri Vivek Singh, counsel for the applicant.
+                   Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the
+              matter.
+                    List after a week, as prayed.
+
+
+                                                          (Alok Verma)
+                                                             Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+                                  M.Cr.C. No.9608/2013
+13.10.2015
+                   Shri AS Garg, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Sapnesh Jain,
+              counsel for the applicant.
+                   Counsel for the applicant submits that the matter may
+              be heard finally and disposed of at this stage.
+                   Let the matter be listed in the week commencing
+              26.10.2015 for final disposal.
+
+
+                                                          (Alok Verma)
+                                                             Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                  M.Cr.C. No.7770/2015
+13.10.2015
+                   Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the
+              applicants.
+                   Shri     Mukesh   Parwal,    learned    counsel   for   the
+              respondent/State.
+         Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the complainant
+Lal Singh, eye witness.
+        Case diary is available.
+        This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C
+filed on behalf of the present applicants for grant of bail.
+        The present applicants were arrested by Police Station-
+Bhagwanpura, District - Khargone in Crime No.196/15 for the
+offence punishable under sections 326, 325, 147, 149, 294,
+341, 323 and 506-B of IPC.
+        According to the prosecution story, the incident took
+place on 08.06.2015 at about 8:00 pm. It is alleged that
+present applicants alongwith other two co-accused Bhiyaram
+and Bhairam armed with lathi, hockey stick and iron rod etc
+inflicted grievous injuries on Kailash, Tikhla and Mahendra. It
+is further alleged that accused Prakash inflicted injuries on
+the right leg of Kailash by iron rod due to which, he suffered
+fracture of femur bone.
+        Counsel for the applicants objects and submits that
+objection cannot be filed on behalf of eye witness, who is
+neither complainant nor he suffered injuries in the present
+case.
+        The objection is accepted. Counsel for the objector is
+ disallowed to participate in the proceedings.
+     Arguments heard. Case-diary perused.
+     Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
+application.
+     Counsel for the applicants submits that apart from the
+accused Prakash, all other persons were not armed with
+lethal weapons. The injured has been admitted in the hospital
+and discharged after treatment.
+     After     perusing   the   case-diary   and   taking   into
+consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case,
+without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the
+view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application is
+allowed.
+     It is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on
+their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty
+Thousand) each and one solvent surety each of the like
+amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for
+their appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be
+directed in this regard during trial.
+     The applicants are further directed that on being so
+released on bail, they would comply with the conditions
+enumerated under section 437 (3) Cr.P.C meticulously.
+                    C.c. as per rules.
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.7849/2015
+13.10.2015
+                   Shri BL Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                   Shri    Mukesh       Parwal,   learned   counsel   for   the
+              respondent/State.
+                   Counsel for the State is directed to call for the FSL
+              report in this case.
+                   List in the week commencing 26.10.2015, as prayed.
+
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.8766/2015
+13.10.2015
+                   Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                   Shri    Mukesh       Parwal,   learned   counsel   for   the
+              respondent/State.
+                   Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a
+                 week's time to file details of criminal cases pending against
+                the present applicant.
+                     List in the week commencing 26.10.2015.
+
+
+                                                             (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.8773/2015
+ 13.10.2015
+                     Shri Sandeep Billore, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                     Shri    Mukesh      Parwal,   learned   counsel   for   the
+                respondent/State.
+                     Counsel for the State prays for and is granted a week's
+                time to call for the criminal antecedents of the present
+                applicant.
+                     List in the week commencing 26.10.2015.
+
+
+                                                             (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.8854/2015
+13.10.2015
+                     Shri KC Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri      Mukesh     Parwal,   learned   counsel   for   the
+respondent/State.
+     Case diary is available.
+     This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C
+filed on behalf of the present applicant for grant of bail.
+     The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
+Dahi, District - Dhar in Crime No.88/15 for the offence
+punishable under section 354 and 354-A of IPC and under
+section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act.
+     Arguments heard. Case-diary perused.
+     According to the prosecution story, the prosecutrix,
+who was 14 years of age, was going to his maternal uncle's
+place on 29.09.2015 when the present applicant caught hold
+of her both hands, dragged her to one side of the road and
+thereby tried to outrage her modesty.
+     Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
+application.
+     Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there
+was no intention of present applicant to do anything wrong
+with the prosecutrix. He further submits that the prosecutrix
+was also not of 14 years of age. Her age is more than that.
+     After     perusing    the   case-diary   and   taking    into
+                 consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case,
+                without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the
+                view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application is
+                allowed.
+                      It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on
+                his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty
+                Thousand) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the
+                satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance
+                on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard
+                during trial.
+                      The applicant is further directed that on being so
+                released on bail, he would comply with the conditions
+                enumerated under section 437 (3) Cr.P.C meticulously.
+                      C.c. as per rules.
+                                                               (Alok Verma)
+                                                                  Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.8969/2015
+13.10.2015
+                      Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the
+                applicant.
+                      Shri      Mukesh     Parwal,   learned   counsel   for   the
+                respondent/State.
+                    Case diary is not available.
+                   List in the week commencing 26.10.2015.
+
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                  M.Cr.C. No.9031/2015
+13.10.2015
+                   Shri Arun Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the
+              applicants.
+                   Shri     Mukesh    Parwal,     learned   counsel   for   the
+              respondent/State.
+                   Case diary is available.
+                   This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C
+              filed on behalf of the present applicant for grant of bail.
+                   The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
+              Shahar Kotwali, District - Mandsaur in Crime No.512/15 for
+              the offence punishable under section 34(2) of MP Excise Act
+              for keeping in his possession 81 bulk liters of contraband
+              country liquor.
+                   Arguments heard. Case-diary perused.
+                   Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
+             application.
+                  Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is
+            no criminal antecedents of the present applicant. He is falsely
+            implicated in the present case.
+                  After     perusing   the   case-diary   and   taking   into
+            consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case,
+            without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the
+            view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application is
+            allowed.
+                  It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on
+            his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty
+            Thousand) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the
+            satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance
+            on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard
+            during trial.
+                  The applicant is further directed that on being so
+            released on bail, he would comply with the conditions
+            enumerated under section 437 (3) Cr.P.C meticulously.
+                  C.c. as per rules.
+                                                          (Alok Verma)
+                                                             Judge
+Kratika/-
+                                   M.Cr.C. No.8270/2015
+09.10.2015
+                   Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                   Shri    Romesh      Dave,    learned     counsel      for   the
+             respondent/State.
+                   This application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed against
+             the order passed by learned Special Judge under NDPS Act,
+             District - Neemuch in Special Sessions Trial No.01/2014 dated
+             14.07.2015.
+                   The brief facts relevant for disposal of this case are that the
+             applicant filed an application before this Court under section 482
+             of Cr.P.C. in which the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order
+             dated 03.11.2014 issued following directions:-
+                                 Present petitioner is permitted to
+                           withdraw the petition with a direction to the
+                           trial Court to consider the averments and
+                           points raised in the petition at the time of
+                           framing of charge alongwith the averments
+                           of charge-sheet.
+
+                   Learned Special Judge passed the impugned order on
+             04.12.2014 apparently one month after the order passed by this
+             Court by which, learned Magistrate framed charges against the
+             present applicant, however, as directed by this Court, the
+             averments and points raised in the petition were not taken into
+             consideration. Thereafter, the applicant again filed an application
+ before learned Special Judge which was disposed of by order
+dated 11.12.2014 stating therein that a criminal court had no
+jurisdiction to review on its own order and, therefore, giving
+liberty that the order may be challenged in the revision, the
+application was dismissed.
+      Aggrieved by this order, the applicant again approached this
+Court in the second round of litigation under section 482 of Cr.P.C.
+which was disposed of by this Court in MCRC No.54/2015 vide
+order dated 25.06.2015. In this order, following directions were
+issued:-
+                 In view of this observation and in the
+           light of the direction issued by this Court
+           earlier, this application is allowed. The
+           impugned order dated 04.12.2014 is set
+           aside. The matter is remanded back to the
+           concerning Court with the direction that
+           learned Special Judge should reconsider the
+           matter and decide it in the light of the
+           direction issued by this Court earlier in
+           MCRC No.7577/2014.
+
+      After passing of this order, learned Special Judge passed the
+impugned order on 14.07.2015 in which, he again opined that the
+point raised by the respondent cannot be taken into consideration
+at the stage of filing of charge-sheet and without taking them into
+consideration, the impugned order was passed.
+      It is apparent that learned Special Judge has not taken into
+             consideration the averments and points raised by the applicant
+            and without taking into consideration the direction of this Court,
+            the order was passed and, therefore, it appears proper to set aside
+            the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Special
+            Court for reconsideration and pass suitable order as per the
+            direction issued by this Court.
+                  Accordingly, this application is allowed. The impugned
+            order is set aside. Learned Special Judge is directed to consider
+            the averments and points raised by the present applicant and
+            pass a suitable and detailed order this time.
+                  In case, direction issued by this Court is not followed by the
+            Special Judge, the matter may be taken as contempt of Court and
+            necessary proceedings shall be initiated.
+                  With the direction and observation as aforesaid, the
+            application stands disposed of.
+                  Let copy of this order be placed before the Hon'ble portfolio
+            Judge and also be sent to the Sessions Judge, Neemuch, for
+            consideration while writing Confidential Report of the concerning
+            officer.
+                  C.c. as per rules.
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+Kratika/-
+                                  M.Cr.C. No.8110/2015
+09.10.2015
+                   Shri Mahendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the
+             applicants.
+                   Shri    Mukesh    Parwal,   learned    counsel   for   the
+             respondent/State.
+                   Case diary is available.
+                   This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C for
+             grant of bail.
+                   The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
+             Dewas Gate, District - Ujjain in Crime No.30/2015 for the
+             offence punishable under sections 364, 365, 302 and 201/34
+             of IPC and under section 3 (2) (5) of SC/ST (Prevention of
+             Atrocities) Act.
+                   According to the prosecution story, in the intervening
+             night of 18th and 19th February, 2015 at about 01:00 am,
+             present applicant alongwith other co-accused committed
+             murder of deceased Sanjay @ Sanju Jhanjhot. Subsequently,
+             they threw the dead body of the deceased under the culvert
+             of Kalisindh river and also discharged mobile phone and
+             other items of the deceased after pouring petrol on it.
+                   So far as the present applicant is concerned, it is alleged
+ that he was also with the co-accused persons during
+commission of crime.
+     Arguments heard. Case-diary perused.
+     Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
+application.
+     Learned counsel for the applicants submits that initially,
+his name was not included in the accused persons, however,
+on memorandum of co-accused, present applicant was
+arrested and then, on 10.05.2015, statement of Manish Rai
+was recorded in which, he stated that he saw present
+applicant also with the other co-accused, while they were
+committing the murder. He further submits that no
+justification was given why statement of this witness was not
+recorded on 10.05.2015. He further submits that similarly,
+statement of Anil Thakur was recorded on 13.03.2015 and in
+his statement also, no explanation was given why his
+statement was not recorded immediately after the incident.
+     I have gone through the case diary.
+     There are two witnesses, who confirmed presence of
+the present applicant with the co-accused persons. Merely
+because, there statements were recorded with some delay, at
+this stage, no benefit can be given to the present applicant.
+               This apart, blood stained clothes were also recovered on his
+              discloser memo. In the considered opinion of this Court, no
+              case is made out for grant of bail to the present applicant.
+                    The application is accordingly, dismissed.
+                    C.c. as per rules.
+                                                                (Alok Verma)
+                                                                   Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                   M.Cr.C. No.8827/2015
+09.10.2015
+                    Shri    Mukesh       Sinjonia,    learned   counsel   for   the
+              applicants.
+                    Shri    Romesh        Dave,      learned    counsel   for   the
+              respondent/State.
+                    Shri Navneet Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the
+              objector.
+                    Case diary is available.
+                    This is third bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C
+              for grant of bail.
+                    Their first application was dismissed, as withdrawn in
+              MCRC No.6100/2015 vide order dated 23.07.2015 after
+              arguing the matter for some time. Their second application
+ was dismissed in MCRC No.6145/2015 vide order dated
+21.08.2015. Their second application was dismissed, as it was
+filed only after five days of withdrawing the first application,
+which was not found proper and liberty was granted to the
+present applicants to file afresh application to be considered
+on merit after filing of the charge-sheet. Accordingly, this
+third application is filed availing the liberty granted by this
+Court to the applicant after filing of the charge-sheet.
+     Counsel for the Objector raised preliminary objection
+that once the application is dismissed, second application is
+not maintainable, unless there should be a substantial change
+in the circumstances and not cosmetic change. For this, he
+cites judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
+State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao
+reported in SCC-1989-SUPP2-605. But the principle laid
+down in the aforesaid case is not applicable in the present
+case. In that case, three consecutive applications were
+dismissed on merit and, therefore, Hon'ble the Supreme
+Court laid down the above principle.
+     However, in this case, earlier two applications were not
+considered on merit and also, while dismissing the second
+application, liberty was granted to the applicants to file
+ afresh application after charge-sheet is filed. In this view of
+the matter, I find that this third application is maintainable.
+     The present applicants were arrested by Police Station-
+Kalapipal, District - Shajapur in Crime No.250/15 for the
+offence punishable under sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 294,
+323 and 325 of IPC.
+     According to the prosecution story, the incident took
+place on 26.06.2015 at about 11:00 pm. The dispute arose on
+the way between two fields. The co-accused Mansingh
+challenged complainant to come on his land and they were
+waiting for him. Thereafter, accused persons went and
+started started using abusive language against him. When
+Leeladhar came to intervene, he was given blow by Farsi on
+his head.
+     Arguments heard. Case-diary perused.
+     Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
+application.
+     Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is
+a counter case also registered. He further submits that
+charge-sheet has been filed and present applicants are not
+required for investigation.
+     Counsel for the objector, however, submits that two
+             persons suffered more than ten injuries in this case and there
+            is a dispute between two sections of same village and if bail is
+            granted to the present applicants, the dispute may again take
+            place.
+                 After   perusing     the   case-diary   and   taking   into
+            consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case,
+            without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the
+            view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application is
+            allowed.
+                 It is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on
+            their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
+            Thousand) each and one solvent surety each of the like
+            amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for
+            their appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be
+            directed in this regard during trial.
+                 The applicants are further directed that on being so
+            released on bail, they would comply with the conditions
+            enumerated under section 437 (3) Cr.P.C meticulously.
+                 C.c. as per rules.
+                                                         (Alok Verma)
+                                                            Judge
+Kratika/-
+                                         CRR No.1162/2015
+09.10.2015
+
+
+                       Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                       Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
+                 respondent/State.
+                       Heard finally.
+                       Reserved for order.
+
+
+                                                                (Alok Verma)
+                                                                   Judge
+     Kratika/-
+
+
+                                    MCRC No.6633/2015
+09.10.2015
+
+
+                       Shri Hemant Purohit, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                       This application is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for
+                 modification in the order passed in MCRC No.3399/2015 dated
+                 19.06.2015 by which, it was ordered that the applicant should
+                 surrender before the concerning court within fifteen days from
+                 getting certified copy of this order and subject to applicant's
+                 surrender, the Criminal Revision No.673/2013 was restored to
+                 its original number.
+                       Now by this application, it is sought that the condition
+                  imposed in the earlier order be suitably amended and the
+                 revision be restored without surrender by the present applicant.
+                       I have heard counsel for the applicant.
+                       After due consideration, no case is made out for
+                 modification in the aforesaid order. The application is
+                 accordingly, dismissed.
+                       The applicant is given a liberty to surrender before the
+                 concerning court in next fifteen days after receipt of certified
+                 copy of this order.
+                       Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                                 (Alok Verma)
+                                                                    Judge
+     Kratika/-
+
+
+                                       MCRC No.7176/2015
+09.10.2015
+
+
+                       Shri Kushal Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                       Issue notice to the respondent(s) on payment of PF
+                 within a week, returnable within four weeks.
+
+
+                                                                 (Alok Verma)
+                                                                    Judge
+     Kratika/-
+
+
+                                       MCRC No.7677/2015
+09.10.2015
+      Shri Ashish Sharma, learned counsel for the
+applicant.
+     Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
+respondent/State.
+     As directed by the Court vide order dated
+18.09.2015, case diary of Crime Nos.866/2015 and
+867/2014 registered at Police Station - Sanyogitaganj,
+District - Indore, are not available today.
+     Shri Mitesh Jain, learned counsel submits that he
+would file power on behalf of Dr. DK Sharma, who is
+complainant in this case.
+     Learned counsel for the State is directed to call for
+both the case diaries positively on the next date of
+hearing.
+     At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants
+prays that the proceedings in Sessions Trial No.103/2015
+pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Indore,
+be stayed.
+     On due consideration, prayer is allowed.
+     It is directed that till the next date of hearing, the
+proceedings in Sessions Trial No.103/2015 shall remain
+                  stayed.
+                      List in the week commencing 26.10.2015.
+                      Certified copy as per rules.
+
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+     Kratika/-
+
+
+                                  MCRC No.7762/2015
+09.10.2015
+
+
+                      Shri Harish Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the
+                 applicant.
+                      Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted
+                 two weeks' time to argue the matter.
+                      List after two weeks, as prayed.
+
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+     Kratika/-
+
+
+                                  MCRC No.8068/2015
+09.10.2015
+
+
+                      Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                      Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted
+                  two weeks' time to argue the matter.
+                      List after two weeks, as prayed.
+
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+     Kratika/-
+
+
+                                   MCRC No.8157/2015
+09.10.2015
+
+
+                      Smt. Sudha Shrivastav, learned counsel for the
+                 applicant.
+                      Issue notice to the respondents No.A to E on
+                 payment of PF within a week, returnable within four
+                 weeks.
+                      Meanwhile, the proceedings in Criminal Case
+                 No.227/2013 pending before learned JMFC, Hatod,
+                 District - Indore, shall remain stayed till the next date of
+                 hearing.
+                      Certified copy as per rules.
+
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+     Kratika/-
+                                       MCRC No.8284/2015
+09.10.2015
+
+
+                         Shri AS Garg, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Piyush
+                 Shrivastav, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                         Shri   Romesh        Dave,   learned   counsel   for   the
+                 respondent/State.
+                         Counsel for the applicant submits that he would
+                 implead the complainant as respondent No.2 in this case.
+                         Prayer is allowed.
+                         He is directed to file an appropriate application within a
+                 week.
+                         List after a week.
+
+
+                                                                  (Alok Verma)
+                                                                     Judge
+     Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      MCRC No.8286/2015
+ 09.10.2015
+                         Shri Mitesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                         Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the respondent
+                 No.2/State.
+                         Issue notice to the respondent No.1 on payment of PF
+                 within a week, returnable within four weeks.
+
+
+                                                                 (Alok Verma)
+                                                                    Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+                                     MCRC No.8697/2015
+09.10.2015
+                      Shri A. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                      Shri   Mukesh      Parwal,    learned   counsel     for   the
+
+                respondent/State.
+
+                      This is third application under section 439 of Cr.P.C.
+
+                       The main ground taken by counsel for the applicant is that
+
+                present applicant is under custody for the last one year and still,
+
+                there is no progress in trial, as other co-accused are not arrested
+
+                so far. He further submits that other co-accused granted bail under
+
+                section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and the present applicant remains in
+
+                custody though, he is not the main accused in the case.
+
+                      Let a report be called from the Sessions Judge, Indore. He
+
+                may be requested to go through the record of the case and submit
+
+                his report alongwith the reasons for delay in the present case. He
+
+                may further be requested to submit his comments as to time frame
+                 within which, trial in this case shall be over.
+
+                      List in the next week.
+
+                                                                  (Alok Verma)
+                                                                      Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                        CRR No.381/2015
+09.10.2015
+                      Shri KP Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                      Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
+
+                respondent/State.
+
+                      Report of the Probation Officer has not been
+
+                received as yet. On 23.09.2015 also, last opportunity was
+
+                granted to counsel for the State to call for the report of
+
+                Probation Officer.
+
+                      List int the next week with clear understanding that
+
+                if report of the Probation Officer is not produced before
+
+                the Court, the matter shall be decided on merit.
+                                                             (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    CRA No.1293/2015
+09.10.2015
+                     Shri Pankaj Sohani, learned counsel for the
+
+                applicant.
+
+                     Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
+
+                respondent/State.
+
+                     In this case, trial court has suspended jail sentence
+
+                of the appellant upto 25.09.2015 after which, it was not
+
+                clear whether the accused had surrender before the trial
+
+                court.
+
+                     Today, counsel for the appellant submits order-
+
+                sheet of the lower court dated 05.10.2015, according to
+
+                which, the appellant surrendered before the trial court and
+
+                he was taken into custody and sent to the jail for
+  undergoing the remaining sentence awarded to him.
+
+          Accordingly, the application for suspension of jail
+
+ sentence and grant of bail is now considered.
+
+          Heard on I.A. No.7263/2015.
+
+          This is first application under section 389(1) of
+
+ Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant - Rambabu for
+
+ suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.
+
+          The appellant suffered conviction and sentence as
+
+ under:-
+CONVICTION                 SENTENCE
+
+Section        Act         Imprisonment Fine         Imprisonment
+                                                     in lieu of fine
+341            IPC         Nil           Rs.500/-    15 days
+354-A          IPC         6 months RI   Rs.5000/-   3 months
+
+
+
+          Taking into consideration all the facts and
+
+ circumstances of the case, without commenting on the
+
+ merit of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed
+
+ that if, the present appellant furnishes personal bond of
+                 Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) and a solvent
+
+                surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
+
+                court, subject to payment of fine, the remaining portion
+
+                of the jail sentence of the appellant shall be suspended
+
+                and he be released on bail for his appearance before the
+
+                Registry of this Court on 11.01.2016 and thereafter on all
+
+                subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this
+
+                behalf.
+
+                     Certified copy as per rules.
+
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                  MCRC No.9029/2015
+09.10.2015
+                    Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants.
+         Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the
+
+respondent/State.
+
+        This is first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C.
+
+filed on behalf of present applicant for grant of anticipatory
+
+bail.
+
+        The applicants apprehend their arrest by Police Station
+
+- Chhapiheda, Tehsil - Biaora, District - Rajgarh in Crime
+
+No.172/2014 under sections 294, 323, 506/34 and 436 of
+
+IPC.
+
+        According to the prosecution story, present applicants
+
+were earlier arrested in the same crime number under
+
+sections 294, 323 and 506/34 of IPC. They were granted bail
+
+by the Magistrate. However, subsequently, section 436 of
+
+IPC was added and now, present applicants apprehend their
+
+arrest as trial under section 436 is sessions trial and the
+
+Magistrate does not have power to grant bail under this
+
+section.
+      Arguments heard. Case diary perused.
+
+     Counsel for the State opposes the application.
+
+     Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into
+
+consideration, without commenting on the merits of the case,
+
+I find that it is fit case where the benefit of provision under
+
+section 438 of Cr.P.C. may be extended to the present
+
+applicants. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
+
+     It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants
+
+shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a
+
+personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only)
+
+each and a solvent surety each of the like amount to the
+
+satisfaction of the concerning Magistrate or Arresting Officer
+
+as the case may be, with the following conditions:-
+
+(i) that they shall make themselves available for interrogation
+
+by a police officer as and when required.
+
+(ii) that they shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
+
+inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
+                 the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
+
+                such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
+
+                (iii) that they would comply with the conditions enumerated
+
+                under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
+
+                     Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                               (Alok Verma)
+                                                                   Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.8569/2015
+08.10.2015
+                      Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                      Shri   Mukesh     Parwal,     learned   counsel   for   the
+
+                respondent/State.
+
+                      Case diary is available.
+
+                      This is third bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C
+
+                for grant of bail.
+      His first application was dismissed on merit in MCRC
+
+No.128/2015 vide order dated 13.03.2015 on medical ground
+
+and also on the ground that daughter of the present applicant
+
+died recently. His second application for grant of temporary
+
+bail was dismissed in MCRC No.3516/2015 vide order dated
+
+25.06.2015. In the second application, it was directed that if
+
+the present applicant wishes to get himself operated in a
+
+private hospital and if he deposits necessary amount with the
+
+jail authorities as per the estimate given by the concerning
+
+hospital, he may be admitted in the hospital under the
+
+security and necessary operation may be performed on him.
+
+     Now, this third application is filed on the ground that
+
+when the hospital authorities, where the present applicant
+
+wants to get himself operated, were contacted by the family
+
+members of the present applicant, they informed that they
+
+could not give any estimate unless the patient is examined.
+
+Therefore, counsel for the applicant prays that present
+             applicant be released on temporary bail for fifteen days so
+
+            that he may get himself examined and necessary estimate be
+
+            prepared.
+
+                 Counsel for the CBN submits that for the examination,
+
+            he may be taken to the hospital under security and after
+
+            examination, necessary estimate can be prepared.
+
+                 After taking into consideration rival contentions
+
+            putforth by both the counsels, it is directed that the present
+
+            applicant be taken to a private hospital, where he wants to get
+
+            himself operated under proper security and after his
+
+            examination by the doctors, he be re-lodged in jail. It is
+
+            further directed that after estimate is prepared, directions
+
+            issued in the earlier order would operate.
+
+                 C.c. as per rules.
+
+                                                    (Alok Verma)
+                                                      Judge
+Kratika/-
+                                   M.Cr.C. No.8324/2015
+08.10.2015
+                   Shri Anshuman Shrivastav, learned counsel for the
+
+             applicant.
+
+                   Smt    Mamta     Shandilya,    learned   counsel   for   the
+
+             respondent/State.
+
+                   Case diary is available.
+
+                   This is second bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C for
+
+             grant of temporary bail.
+
+                   This second application is filed on the ground that son of
+
+             the present applicant is suffering from rare disease known as
+
+             "Krabbe disease". It is advised by the doctor that child should be
+
+             taken to Mumbai or Delhi and should be treated by the specialist
+
+             doctors, who are not available at Indore. Counsel for the
+
+             applicant has filed medical papers of the child with the
+
+             application, which were duly verified. As per the report, the child
+
+             is suffering from serious disease of brain and he is advised by the
+
+             doctors to be taken to Mumbai for further treatment.
+
+                   I have heard counsel for the parties.
+                      After taking into consideration all the facts and
+
+               circumstances of the case and the medical condition of the child
+
+               of present applicant, the application for grant of temporary bail is
+
+               allowed.
+
+                     It is directed that applicant shall be released on temporary
+
+               bail for the period of thirty days from the date of his release on
+
+               his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
+
+               Thousand) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the
+
+               satisfaction of the trial Judge. The trial Judge is directed to fix a
+
+               date for his surrender before the Court depending upon his
+
+               release from jail.
+
+                     With the aforesaid        observation    and direction, the
+
+               application stands disposed of.
+
+                     Certified copy as per rules.
+
+                                                             (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.8552/2015
+08.10.2015
+       Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+      Shri       Mukesh   Parwal,   learned   counsel   for    the
+
+respondent/State.
+
+      Case diary is available.
+
+      This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C for
+
+grant of bail.
+
+      The present applicant was arrested by Police Station- City
+
+Kotwali, District - Mandsaur in Crime No.502/15 for the offence
+
+punishable under sections 323, 344, 365, 347, 384, 386 and 506
+
+of IPC.
+
+      According to the prosecution story, on 26.07.2015 abductee
+
+Tarachand Gandhi went to a Tea Stall for having tea. There, it is
+
+alleged that present applicant alongwith co-accused Mahesh and
+
+his maternal uncle came in Bolero vehicle and they forcibly took
+
+abductee Tarachand Gandhi to village Khanderiyamaru and kept
+
+him there tied. By threatening him, they pressurized him to
+
+execute power of attorney for transfer of his revenue land and a
+
+house. For making his voter I.D. Card, they took him to
+ Mandsaur Court and there, they completed formalities for making
+
+of Voter I.D. Card. They also got sale deed executed in favour of
+
+Maya W/o Mukesh Pawar. It is further alleged that prior to the
+
+incident also, they took Rs.40,000/- from abductee Tarachand
+
+Gandhi on the promise that they would sale him Nano Car but the
+
+Car was not given to him.
+
+     Arguments heard. Case-diary perused.
+
+     Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application
+
+on the ground that present applicant took law into his hand and
+
+then forcibly got the sale deed of the land executed in favour of
+
+Maya W/o Mukesh Pawar.
+
+     Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it was a civil
+
+dispute. Present applicant and said Tarachand Gandhi had some
+
+financial dealings with each other and some money was due with
+
+Tarachand Gandhi. Due to this reason, he was falsely implicated
+
+in the case. According to him, he voluntarily executed the sale
+
+deed in favour of Maya W/o Mukesh Pawar.
+
+     After perusing the case-diary and taking into consideration
+                all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting
+
+               on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for
+
+               grant of bail. The application is allowed.
+
+                     It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his
+
+               furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand)
+
+               and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
+
+               the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of
+
+               hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
+
+                     The applicant is further directed that on being so released
+
+               on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under
+
+               section 437 (3) Cr.P.C meticulously.
+
+                     C.c. as per rules.
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                              Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                     MCRC No.8837/2015
+08.10.2015
+                      Shri Rohit Shindey, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                      Case diary is available.
+                       Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter
+
+                as the arguing counsel is not available today.
+
+                      List in the next week, as prayed.
+
+                                                                 (Alok Verma)
+                                                                     Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+                                    MCRC No.8858/2015
+08.10.2015
+                      Shri Vinay Saraf, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                      Smt. Mamta Shandily, learned counsel for the
+
+                respondent/State.
+
+                      Case diary is not available.
+
+                      List on 13.10.2015.
+
+                                                                 (Alok Verma)
+                                                                     Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     CRR No.731/2015
+08.10.2015
+                      Shri KC Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                      Service report on notice sent to the respondent has
+
+                not been received as yet.
+
+                     List after a week alongwith service report.
+
+
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+                                    CRR No.732/2015
+08.10.2015
+                     Shri KC Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Service report on notice sent to the respondent has
+
+                not been received as yet.
+
+                     List after a week alongwith service report.
+
+
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+    Kratika/-
+                                    CRR No.1276/2015
+08.10.2015
+                   Shri SK Meena, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                   Smt.   Mamta     Shandilya,    learned    counsel   for   the
+
+             respondent/State.
+
+                   Heard on the question of admission.
+
+                   The revision is admitted for final hearing.
+
+                   Let record of the lower court be called for.
+
+                   Also heard on I.A. No.7593/2015, which is an application
+
+             under section 397(1) read with Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for
+
+             suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of
+
+             present applicant namely - Montu S/o Heeralal.
+
+                   The applicant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-
+ CONVICTION                     SENTENCE
+
+Section         Act            Imprisonment Fine           Imprisonment
+                                                           in lieu of fine
+457 and 380     IPC            1 year RI    Rs.300/-          -
+
+
+
+          Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in
+
+ jail.
+
+          Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of
+
+ the case, without commenting on the merit of the case, the
+
+ application is allowed. It is directed that if, the present applicant
+
+ furnishes personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty
+
+ Thousand) and a solvent surety of the like amount to the
+
+ satisfaction of the trial court, subject to payment of fine, the
+
+ remaining portion of the jail sentence of the applicant shall be
+
+ suspended and he be released on bail for his appearance before
+
+ the Registry of this Court on 07.01.2016 and thereafter on all
+
+ subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.
+
+          Certified copy as per rules.
+
+                                                       (Alok Verma)
+                                                           Judge
+     Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                               CRR No.914/2011
+08.10.2015
+                Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicants.
+
+                Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the
+ respondent/State.
+
+     Heard on I.A. No.6716/2015, which is an application
+
+filed under section 320 read with section 482 of Cr.P.C.
+
+     It is submitted that parties have entered into
+
+compromise. All the five applicants and the injured persons
+
+namely - Brajmohan S/o Banshilal, Vikram Singh S/o
+
+Banshilal and Jamna Bai W/o Banshilal are present today
+
+before this Court. On asking, they submit that they have
+
+entered into compromise without any coercion or duress.
+
+     The applicants have been convicted for the offence
+
+punishable under sections 325/34 and 324/34 of IPC and
+
+have been sentenced to undergo RI for two years each.
+
+Section 324 is compoundable before 31.12.2010. In this case,
+
+the incident took place on 06.02.2008, therefore, at the time
+
+of incident, offence was compoundable.
+
+     Taking    into   consideration    all   the   facts   and
+
+circumstances of the case, the application is allowed. The
+
+applicants are discharged from the charges under sections
+                 325/34 and 324/34 of IPC. Their bail and bonds also stand
+
+                discharged. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the
+
+                applicants be returned to them.
+
+                        Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                              (Alok Verma)
+                                                                  Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      MCRC No.8924/2015
+08.10.2015
+                        Shri Praveen Newalkar, learned counsel for the
+
+                applicants.
+
+                        Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the
+
+                respondent/State.
+
+                        This is first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C.
+
+                filed on behalf of present applicant for grant of anticipatory
+
+                bail.
+      The applicant apprehend his arrest by Police Station -
+
+Kukshi, District - Dhar under sections 366, 506 and 376 of IPC.
+
+     According to the prosecution story, the incident took
+
+place on 01.09.2014 when the prosecutrix and her brother was
+
+going in a Magic Vehicle, about 22 persons came there in
+
+another vehicle and it is alleged that they forcibly took the
+
+prosecutrix with them and co-accused Raju Chouhan, who was
+
+handicapped and to whom, the prosecutrix got married under
+
+Arya Samaj customs, committed rape on her.
+
+     So far as the present applicant is concerned, it is alleged
+
+that co-accused Raju Chouhan and the prosecutrix stayed in the
+
+house of the present applicant for some time.
+
+     Arguments heard. Case diary perused.
+
+      Counsel for the State opposes the application.
+
+     Counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused Raju
+
+Chouhan has already granted bail by the Court below. He
+
+further submits tha present applicant is a government servant
+
+and the only allegation against him is that co-accused Raju
+ Chouhan and the prosecutrix stayed in his house for some
+
+time.
+
+        Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into
+
+consideration, without commenting on the merits of the case,
+
+I find that it is fit case where the benefit of provision under
+
+section 438 of Cr.P.C. may be extended to the present
+
+applicants. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
+
+        It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant
+
+shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a
+
+personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) and
+
+a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
+
+concerning Magistrate or Arresting Officer as the case may
+
+be, with the following conditions:-
+
+(i) that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a
+
+police officer as and when required.
+
+(ii) that he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
+
+inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
+
+the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
+                 such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
+
+                (iii) that he would comply with the conditions enumerated
+
+                under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
+
+                      Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                                (Alok Verma)
+                                                                    Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    MCRC No.8946/2015
+08.10.2015
+                      Case diary is not available.
+
+                      List in the next week.
+
+                                                                (Alok Verma)
+                                                                    Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.8852/2015
+07.10.2015
+       Shri L.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicants.
+
+      Shri   Mukesh    Parwal,   learned    counsel   for   the
+
+respondent/State.
+
+      Shri Ali Hussain, learned counsel for the objector.
+
+      Case diary is available.
+
+      This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C
+
+for grant of bail.
+
+      The present applicants were arrested by Police Station-
+
+Nalkheda, District - Agar in Crime No.185/15 for the offence
+
+punishable under sections 307, 147, 148, 149 & 506 IPC.
+
+      According to the prosecution story, the incident took
+
+place on 14.07.2015. The dispute arose due to passing
+
+through the fields of complainant and then it is alleged that
+
+present applicants have inflicted injury to Shahrukh Khan,
+
+Rajjak Khan and Babu Khan by lathi. Babu Khan sustained
+
+injury on his head with corresponding fracture of skull bone.
+
+      Arguments heard. Case-diary perused.
+      Learned counsel for the State and Objector opposed the
+
+bail application. Learned counsel for the Objector submits
+
+that on being released from jail, accused persons will
+
+threaten them. They used abusive language against them.
+
+They further said that as soon as their brothers come out of
+
+the jail, they will drive them away from the village. They
+
+apprehend that they are going to commit serious offence
+
+against them.
+
+     Learned counsel for the applicants submits that charge
+
+sheet has been filed in this case and injured has been
+
+discharged from hospital. Present applicants are not required
+
+by the Police for investigation. He further submits that a
+
+cross case is also registered at Crime No.186/15 against the
+
+complainant party. He further submits that co-accused
+
+persons granted bail in MCRC Nos.7951/2015 and
+
+8253/2015 vide order dated 09.09.2015 and 28.09.2015
+
+respectively. The case of the present applicants is not
+ different than that of co-accused, who were granted bail,
+
+therefore, on the principle of parity, he prays that bail should
+
+be granted to the present applicants. He further submits that
+
+apprehension of the objector is baseless. No case was
+
+registered by the police and only to keep the applicants in
+
+jail, a false complaint was lodged by the complainant.
+
+     After    perusing    the   case-diary   and   taking   into
+
+consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case,
+
+without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the
+
+view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application is
+
+allowed.
+
+     It is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on
+
+their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
+
+Thousand) each and one solvent surety each of the like
+
+amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for
+
+their appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be
+
+directed in this regard during trial.
+                       The applicants are further directed that on being so
+
+                released on bail, they would comply with the conditions
+
+                enumerated under section 437 (3) Cr.P.C meticulously.
+
+                      C.c. as per rules.
+
+
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                             Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      M.Cr.C. No.7768/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                      Shri Shahid Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                      Shri   Mukesh        Parwal,   learned   counsel   for   the
+
+                respondent/State.
+
+                      Case diary and case file are not available with counsel
+
+                for the State.
+
+                      List in the next week, as prayed.
+
+                                                                ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                    Judge
+    Kratika/-
+                                      Cr.A. No.929/2009
+
+07.10.2015
+                     The appellant is not produced before the Court today.
+
+                     Issue fresh production warrant for his appearance
+
+                before the Court on 27.11.2015.
+
+                                                           ( Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                   M.Cr.C. No.6615/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                     Shri Aniruddh Gokhle, learned counsel for the
+
+                applicant.
+
+                     None for the respondent.
+
+                     As prayed, list in the week commencing 26.10.2015.
+
+
+
+                                                           ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                 Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      M.Cr.C. No.6681/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                     Shri VS Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Heard on application filed under section 378(4) of
+
+                Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal.
+
+                      Perused the impugned judgment.
+
+                     After due consideration, the application is allowed.
+
+                Leave to appeal is granted.
+
+                     Office is directed to register this as regular criminal
+
+                appeal and proceed.
+
+                     C.c as per rules.
+
+                                                             ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                 Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      M.Cr.C. No.6911/2015
+ 07.10.2015
+                Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                List alongwith MCRC No.6910/2015.
+
+
+
+                                                      ( Alok Verma)
+                                                          Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                               M.Cr.C. No.6938/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                None for the applicant.
+
+                List after three weeks.
+
+                                                      ( Alok Verma)
+                                                          Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                               M.Cr.C. No.7511/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                      Shri Sanjay Saini, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Heard on application filed under section 378(4) of
+
+                Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal.
+
+                      Perused the impugned judgment.
+
+                     After due consideration, the application is allowed.
+
+                Leave to appeal is granted.
+
+                     Office is directed to register this as regular criminal
+
+                appeal and proceed.
+
+                     C.c as per rules.
+
+                                                             ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                 Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      M.Cr.C. No.7655/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                     Shri MK Khokar, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     He seeks time to file some additional documents.
+
+                     List after two weeks, as prayed.
+                                                              ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                 Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      M.Cr.C. No.7733/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                     Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the
+
+                applicant.
+
+                     Heard on application filed under section 378(4) of
+
+                Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal.
+
+                      Perused the impugned judgment.
+
+                     After due consideration, the application is allowed.
+
+                Leave to appeal is granted.
+
+                     Office is directed to register this as regular criminal
+
+                appeal and proceed.
+
+                     C.c as per rules.
+
+                                                             ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                 Judge
+    Kratika/-
+                                  M.Cr.C. No.7822/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                  Shri A. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                  Heard on the question of admission.
+
+                  This application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is
+
+             directed against the judgment passed by learned 3rd
+
+             Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas in 01/2015 dated
+
+             10.07.2015 by which learned Additional Sessions judge
+
+             dismissed the appeal filed by the present applicant under
+
+             section 372 of Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment passed by
+
+             learned   JMFC    in   Criminal   Case     No.96/2012   dated
+
+             13.11.2014 acquitting the respondents.
+
+                  I have gone through the impugned judgment passed in
+
+             appeal as well as the judgment of learned Magistrate.
+
+                  Both the courts below concurrently reached to the same
+
+             conclusion and acquitted the accused persons. At this stage,
+
+             no case is made out against the respondents using extra
+                 ordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court under section
+
+                482 of Cr.P.C. The application is accordingly, dismissed.
+
+                     C.c as per rules.
+
+                                                            ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.7837/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                     Shri Vijay Assudani, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Heard on the question of admission as well as I.A.
+
+                No.6643/2015, an application for stay.
+
+                     On payment of PF within a week, issue notice against
+
+                admission as well as of aforesaid I.A. to the non-applicants
+
+                by registered post as well as by ordinary mode.
+
+                     Meanwhile, further proceedings pending before the trial
+
+                Court in Criminal Case No.41/2005 shall remain stayed till
+
+                the next date of hearing.
+
+                     Let the matter be fixed after four weeks alongwith
+                 MCRC Nos.7739/2015, 7744/2015, 7835/2015, 7905/2015
+
+                7893/2015 and 7892/2015 for analogous hearing.
+
+                     C.c as per rules.
+
+                                                            ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.7966/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                     Shri Vijay Assudani, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Heard on the question of admission as well as I.A.
+
+                No.6757/2015, an application for stay.
+
+                     On payment of PF within a week, issue notice against
+
+                admission as well as of aforesaid I.A. to the non-applicants
+
+                by registered post as well as by ordinary mode.
+
+                     Meanwhile, further proceedings pending before the trial
+
+                Court in Criminal Case No.42/2005 shall remain stayed till
+
+                the next date of hearing.
+
+                     Let the matter be fixed after four weeks alongwith
+                 MCRC       Nos.7739/2015,     7744/2015,    7893/2015        and
+
+                7892/2015 for analogous hearing.
+
+                      C.c as per rules.
+
+                                                            ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.7882/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                      Shri Ashish Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                      Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the respondent
+
+                /State.
+
+                      Counsel for the applicant submits that other two co-
+
+                accused persons, who are arraigned as accused in the same
+
+                crime number, the FIR was quashed by the Coordinate
+
+                Bench of this Court in MCRC No.6151/2015 and prays that
+
+                matter be listed before the Bench which passed the earlier
+
+                order.
+
+                      Office is directed to examine the matter and list it
+
+                before the appropriate Bench.
+                                                              ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                 Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      M.Cr.C. No.7894/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                      As prayed by counsel for the applicant, list in the next
+
+                week.
+
+                                                             ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                 Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      M.Cr.C. No.7914/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                      Shri KK Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                      Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the respondent
+
+                /State.
+
+                          Let record of Criminal Case No.490/2005 disposed of
+
+                by learned JMFC, Shajapur dated 22.09.2006 under section
+
+                325 of IPC be called for.
+
+                      List under the same category alongwith the record of
+                 the lower court.
+
+                                                          ( Alok Verma)
+                                                              Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                   M.Cr.C. No.2526/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+      Shri Sudeep Bhargav, learned counsel for the
+
+respondent.
+
+     This is an enquiry under section 340 of Cr.P.C. The
+
+facts which necessitated this enquiry are that Professor
+
+Chintaman     Malviya    (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the
+
+'respondent') is returned candidate from Lok Sabha
+
+Constituency No.2, Ujjain (M.P.) in general election of Lok
+
+Sabha held in the month of March-April, 2014. An Election
+
+Petition was filed against the respondent challenging his
+
+election to Lok Sabha which was registered as Election
+
+Petition No.33/2014. In this petition, notice was issued to the
+
+respondent bearing No.1762 dated 12.08.2014. Notice was
+
+sent to the District Judge, Ujjain, for service upon the
+
+respondent. The notice was served by process server Shri
+
+Arun Bhalerao on 16.08.2014 personally on the respondent.
+
+2.   However, respondent remained absent before the
+
+Election Judge and, therefore, Election Petition filed against
+ him proceeded ex-parte. Subsequent to this, he filed an
+
+application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC for setting aside the
+
+ex-parte order passed against him. In support of the
+
+application, he filed an affidavit stating therein that the notice
+
+was served on his staff while he was busy in the ongoing
+
+session of the Parliament. When he came back to Ujjain, he
+
+came to know about the notice when it was placed before
+
+him and thereafter, immediately, he proceeded to take
+
+necessary action for setting aside of the ex-parte order. When
+
+this application is filed by respondent, the applicant filed I.A.
+
+No.1303/2015 under section 340 of Cr.P.C. stating therein
+
+that respondent made false statement in the affidavit and
+
+thereby he committed offence under section 193 of IPC and
+
+he further prayed that suitable action be taken against the
+
+respondent.
+
+3.   The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to which the
+
+Election Petition was assigned, passed an order dated
+ 24.03.2015 on the application. In para 8 and 9 of the order,
+
+the Co-ordinate Bench observed as under:-
+           (8) So far as the application of petitioner is
+           concerned, prima facie it seems that the
+           respondent No.1 himself has received the notice
+           of this petition on 16.08.2014 whereas, on oath
+           he stated that he received the notice of this
+           petition on 25.01.2015 through his employee.
+           This controversy can be resolved only after the
+           enquiry, therefore, the Principal Registrar of this
+           Bench is directed to register a Misc. Criminal
+           Case under section 340 of the Cr.P.C. against the
+           respondent No.1and initiate the enquiry and after
+           making due enquiry if he finds that respondent
+           NO.1 has filed a false affidavit in support of I.A.
+           No.927/2015 then file a private complaint against
+           respondent No.1 before the competent
+           Magistrate. Thus, the application (I.A.
+           No.1303/2015) is allowed.
+           (9) Reader is directed to send the photocopy of
+           this order alongwith the original second copy of
+           notice of respondent No.1 and service report of
+           process server in a sealed envelope for
+           compliance of the order to Principal Registrar of
+           this Bench. Whereas, the photocopy of the notice
+           and service report of process server be kept with
+           this record.
+4.   The enquiry was assigned to the Principal Registrar of
+ this Bench of High Court. However, it was pointed out by the
+
+registry that under section 340 of Cr.P.C., enquiry should
+
+have been conducted by the Court itself and, therefore, by
+
+order dated 30.06.2015, this Court modified earlier order
+
+passed by the Co-ordinate Bench and directed the registry to
+
+place the matter before the Court for conducting enquiry.
+
+5.   During the enquiry, statements of process server Arun
+
+Bhalerao was recorded on 09.09.2015. He confirmed that he
+
+served notice bearing No.1762 dated 12.08.2014 on the
+
+respondent personally and also respondent signed it before
+
+him. He was also cross examined by counsel for the
+
+respondent. In his statement, he also stated that on that day,
+
+another process server of Ujjain District Court, Bharat Singh
+
+Chouhan was also on beat on that particular day and he was
+
+with him when notice was served. He witnessed that notice
+
+was served personally on the respondent. Subsequently,
+
+statement of Bharat Singh Chouhan was also recorded and he
+ confirmed in his statement that notice was served personally
+
+on the respondent.
+
+6.   After recording the statements and taking into
+
+consideration the served notice bearing No.1762 dated
+
+12.08.2014 and enclosed hukmnama, it is apparent that
+
+notice was served personally on the respondent while in the
+
+affidavit, he mentioned that notice was served on his staff.
+
+7.   Counsel for the respondent cited judgment of Hon'ble
+
+the Supreme Court in the case of Chhaju Ram Vs. Radhey
+
+Shyam reported in 1971 Law Suit (SC) 204. In para 7 of the
+
+Judgment, Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed here as
+
+under:-
+           (6)--------------------------------------------------------
+           (7) The prosecution for perjury should be
+           sanctioned by courts only in those cases where
+           the perjury appears to be deliberate and
+           conscious and the conviction is reasonably
+           probable or likely. No doubt giving of false
+           evidence and filing false affidavit is an evil
+           which must be effectively curbed with a strong
+           hand but to start prosecution for perjury too
+            readily and too frequently with,out due care and
+           caution and on inconclusive and doubtful
+           material defeats its very purpose. Prosecution
+           should be ordered when it is considered
+           expedient in the interests of justice to punish the
+           delinquent and not merely because there is some
+           inaccuracy in the statement which may be
+           innocent or immaterial. There must be prima
+           facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of
+           substance and the court should be satisfied that
+           there is reasonable foundation for the charge.
+           -----------------------------------------------------------
+

8. It is to be seen whether, it is in the interest of justice to + +punish the respondent whether, such lapses on his part are + +immaterial and innocent. +

+

9. Counsel for the respondent argues that it was + +unintentional mistake on the part of the respondent and, + +therefore, no action should be taken against him. + +

10. In my considered opinion, however, more cautious and + +responsible approach was expected from the respondent + +being representative of people and professor himself. He is + +expected to understand the consequences of not appearing + before the Court of law and specially before the High Court. + + Therefore, in this case, lenient and sympathetic view is not + + called for. In this view of the matter, I find that prosecution + + for perjury should be initiated against the respondent. + +

11. The Principal Registrar of this Court is authorised + + under section 195 (1)(b)(i) to file complaint in the concerning + + court of Magistrate. The Principal Registrar is directed to + + draft the complaint and place it before the Court for approval. + + +

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika/- +

+

+ + + MCRC No.7616/2015 + +06.10.2015 + Shri Sanjay Sharma, counsel for the applicant. + + Shri Mukesh Parwal, counsel for the + respondent/State. +

+

Case diary is available. +

+

This is second bail application filed by the applicant + +under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for + +grant of bail. +

+

The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police + +Station - Industrial Area, Jaora, District - Ratlam in Crime + +No.153/2015 under sections 307, 394, 341 and 506 of IPC. + +

According to the prosecution, present applicant + +alongwith other co-accused committed loot on the + +complainant Brajmohan and Babu. They also fired gunshot + +due to which, the complainant sustained some injuries. The + +present applicant alongwith the other co-accused, it is + +alleged, fled away from the spot. The matter was reported to + +the police station - Industrial Area, Jaora, District - Ratlam + +on which Crime No.152/2015 was registered. Thereafter, the + +Station Incharge of police station alongwith Constable + +Deepak Bhuria accompanied by complainant Brajmohan, + Babu and Mohammad Anwar went out in search of the + +miscreants. They were told that three motorcycles went + +towards village Barkhedi and when they were going towards + +village Barkhedi, they saw four persons on three motorcycles. + +Present applicant was also there. When they were challenged + +by the police party, they opened gun fire on them. Nobody + +from the police party sustained any injury, however, in + +return, the police party also opened fire on them due to + +which, present applicant sustained injuries on his both thighs. + +Subsequently, present applicant and another co-accused Sunil + +were arrested. +

+

This second application is filed on the ground that + nd +

(i) co-accused Sunil was granted bail by 2 Additional + +Sessions Judge on the ground that in the earlier part of + +prosecution story, in which present applicant allegedly + +committed loot on the complainant, co-accused Sunil was not + +identified by the complainant. (ii) There were four accused + +persons according to the prosecution story. However, during + investigation, two accused persons fled away. The police did + +not take any action to trace the persons, who fled away from + +the spot and (iii) The prosecution witnesses Ghanshyam @ + +Kalu, Babulal and Mohd. Anwar gave affidavits in which + +they denied that any incident took place with them. + +

In this case, the incident took place in two parts. In the + +first part, loot was committed on the complainant and his + +companion Babu. In the second part, when the matter was + +reported to the police, the police tried to chase accused + +persons and then, it is said that present applicant fired + +gunshot which did not hit any of the police man but when the + +police fired in reply, present applicant sustained gunshot + +injuries. Two separate First Information Reports were + +prepared for Crime Nos.152/2015 and 153/2015. + +

Counsel for the applicant submits that as case of the co- + +accused Sunil is similar to the present applicant, present + +applicant should also be granted bail. +

nd + I have gone through the orders passed by learned 2 + Additional Sessions Judge. +

+

It is unfortunate that learned Additional Sessions Judge + +did not consider whether, case of the co-accused was similar + +to present applicant while bail application of the present + +applicant was dismissed by this Court on merits. There was + +no occasion for learned Additional Sessions Judge to grant + +bail to the co-accused, who was similarly placed. This apart, + +taking the affidavits filed by certain prosecution witnesses + +into consideration, is also not called for at this stage. + +

On merits, it is admitted that present applicant suffered + +gunshot injuries during the incident which shows his + +presence on the spot. The other co-accused, who was granted + +bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, was named in the + +FIR and was identified by witnesses. The police, who went in + +search of the culprits, was an eye witness and even if some + +prosecution witnesses turned hostile, statements of the police + +in this case, cannot be disbelieved merely because they are + +police personnels. When the police personnels are eye + witnesses, their statements must be examined like that of + + interested witnesses. But they are competent witnesses and + + their statements cannot be rejected on the face of it. + +

In this view of the matter, I find no change in the + + circumstances. This second application is not tenable, liable + + to be dismissed and is hereby, dismissed. + +

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Registrar cum + + P.P.S. to Hon'ble the Chief Justice with a request to place the + + same before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for necessary + + directions and suitable action. +

+

Certified copy as per rules. +

+

(Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika/- +

+

+ + + M.Cr.C. No.7959/2015 + +06.10.2015 + Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. + + Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the respondent + /State. +

+

This is first application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. + + Counsel for the applicant fairly submits that in this + +case, quantity of the contraband involved is commercial + +quantity, therefore, bar created by section 37 of NDPS Act + +shall operate. He further submits that looking to the period of + +custody of present applicant, which is about 2 years and 7 + +months, direction be issued to the trial Judge for expeditious + +conclusion of the trial. +

+

Prayer is allowed. +

+

The application is accordingly, dispose of with + +direction to the trial Judge to decide the case, as + +expeditiously as possible and in any case, not later than six + +months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this + +order. If trial is not concluded within the period specified, + +present applicant shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for + +grant of bail. +

With the aforesaid direction and liberty, the application + + stands disposed of. +

+

Certified copy as per rules. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika/- +

+

+ + M.Cr.C. No.7987/2015 +06.10.2015 + + + Shri AK Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. + + Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the respondent + + /State. +

+

Case diary is available. +

+

This is 1st application filed by the applicant under + + section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of + + bail. +

+

The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police + + Station - Raoji Bazar, District - Indore in Crime + + No.249/2015 under section 34 of MP Excise Act for keeping + in her possession 57.6 bulk liters of contraband country + +liquor. +

+

Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail + +application on the ground that as per the report received from + +the concerning police station, present applicant is a habitual + +offender and dealing with in contraband country liquor + +though, there is no crime registered against her apart from the + +present case. +

+

Arguments heard, case diary perused. + + Learned counsel for the applicant submits that present + +applicant is a lady and falsely implicated in the case. + +

Taking into consideration all the facts and + +circumstances of the case, without commenting on the + +merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for + +grant of bail. The application filed under section 439 of + +the Cr.P.C. is allowed on the condition that after being + +released on bail, she will not indulge in any kind of + criminal activities whatsoever. + + It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail + + subject to the aforesaid condition and on her furnishing a + + personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) + + and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction + + of the concerned Magistrate for her appearance on all the + + dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial. + +

She is further directed that on being so released on bail, + + she would comply with the conditions enumerated under + + section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously. + +

In case of breach of the aforesaid condition of this bail + + order, the bail order shall be deemed to have been cancelled + + without reference to this Court. +

+

Certified copy as per rules. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge +Kratika/- +

M.Cr.C. No.8038/2015

+ +06.10.2015 + + + Shri Lokendra Gangarekar, learned counsel for the applicant. + + Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the respondent /State. + + This is second application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. The + + first application was dismissed as withdrawn in MCRC No.5090/2015 + + vide order dated 07.08.2015. +

+

After arguing the matter for some time, counsel for the + + applicant seeks to withdraw the application and prays that direction + + be issued to the trial Court to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as + + possible. +

+

Prayer is allowed. +

+

The application is dismissed, as withdrawn with direction to the + + trial Judge to dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible and + + not later than six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of + + this order. +

+

Certified copy as per rules. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika/- +

M.Cr.C. No.8041/2015

+ +06.10.2015 + Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + + Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the respondent + + /State. +

+

Case diary is available. +

+

This is first bail application under section 439 of the Code + + of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail filed by the applicant. + +

The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police Station - + + Ingoriya, District - Ujjain in Crime No.312/2015 under sections + + 341, 294, 323, 506/34 and 376 (D)/34 of IPC. + +

According to the prosecution story, the incident took place + + on 21.06.2015 when the prosecutrix went to attend call of nature + + at about 08.30 in the night. It is alleged that present applicant + + alongwith two other co-accused caught hold of her and + committed gang rape on her. Thereafter, they also threatened her + +that if she disclose the incident to anybody, they would kill her. + +

When the matter was reported on 21.06.2015, there was no + +mention of committing rape with her in the FIR. In her statement + +recorded on 22.06.2015 also, there was no such allegation of + +rape. However, her statement was again recorded on 24.06.2015 + +then, she added the incident of rape. She was medically examined + +in which some bruises on both her thighs and no other injury was + +found. In her statement made under section 164 of Cr.P.C. also + +which was recorded on 24.06.2015, she narrated the whole + +incident, as she narrated under section 161 of Cr.P.C. + +

Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. + + Arguments heard, case diary perused. + + Learned counsel for the applicant submits that only one + +accused Govind was named in the FIR. However, in her + +statements made under section 164 of Cr.P.C., she stated that she + +knew all the accused persons. +

+

Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances + of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, I + + am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The + + application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. + +

It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on + + his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty + + Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the + + satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all + + the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial. + +

He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he + + would comply with the conditions enumerated under section + + 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously. +

+

Certified copy as per rules. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge +Kratika/- +

+

+ + + M.Cr.C. No.8144/2015 + 06.10.2015 + Shri Anupam Chouhan, counsel for the applicant. + + Shri Mukesh Parwal, counsel for the respondent/State. + + Counsel for the State seeks time to argue the matter, as + + statement of prosecutrix under section 164 of Cr.P.C. is not + + available in the case diary. +

+

List in the next week. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika/- +

+

+ + + M.Cr.C. No.8188/2015 + +06.10.2015 + Case diary is not available. +

+

List in the next week. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika/- +

M.Cr.C. No.8219/2015

+ +06.10.2015 + + + Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. + + Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the respondent + + /State. +

+

Case diary is available. +

+

This is first bail application under section 439 of the + + Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail filed by the + + applicant. +

+

The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police + + Station - Lalghati, District - Shajapur in Crime No.02/2015 + + under sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(n) of IPC and under + + section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence + + Act. +

+

According to the prosecution story, the prosecutrix, + + who was aged about 17 years and 7 months at the time of + + incident, went missing. Subsequently, she was recovered + from possession of the present applicant. In her statement + +made under section 164 of Cr.P.C., she did not support case + +of the prosecution and stated that she was married to the + +present applicant and went with him with her own free will. + +

Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. + + Arguments heard, case diary perused. + + Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the + +Ossification Test, age of the prosecutrix was assessed to be + +18 to 19 years. He further submits that she was major at the + +time of the incident. She went with the present applicant with + +her own consent, therefore, no case is made out against the + +present applicant. +

+

Taking into consideration all the facts and + +circumstances of the case, without commenting on the + +merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for + +grant of bail. The application filed under section 439 of + +the Cr.P.C. is allowed. +

It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail + + on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty + + Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to + + the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his + + appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in + + this regard during trial. +

+

He is further directed that on being so released on bail, + + he would comply with the conditions enumerated under + + section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously. + +

Certified copy as per rules. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika/- +

+

+ + + MCRC No.6967/2015 +05.10.2015 + Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the + +applicants. +

+

Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the + +respondent/State. +

+

This is second application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. + +filed on behalf of present applicants for grant of anticipatory + +bail. Their first application was dismissed, as withdrawn in + +MCRC No.4922/2015 vide order dated 22.06.2015. A liberty + +was granted to the present applicants to surrender before the + +trial Court and direction was given to the trial Court to decide + +the application of regular bail, as expeditiously as possible. + +

This second application is filed on the ground that there is + +subsequent change in the circumstances. The present applicants + +found in possession of Compact Disk in which brother of the + +deceased Dheeraj gave statement to the TV Channel that the + +deceased committed suicide when the police came in search of + +him, as complaint was lodged against him by one Pinky Sen. + +However, such statements given to a news channel or news + published in the news paper do not form any change in the + + circumstances. Instead of availing the liberty granted by this + + Court, this second application is filed. + +

Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this Court, no + + case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the present + + applicants. The application is not maintainable, deserves to be + + dismissed and is hereby, dismissed. + +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika/- +

+

+ + + MCRC No.8184/2015 +05.10.2015 + Shri Manish Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the + +applicants. +

+

Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the + +respondent no.1/State. +

+

This is first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. + +filed on behalf of present applicants for grant of anticipatory + +bail. +

+

The applicants apprehend their arrest in Criminal + +Complaint No.586/2015 pending before learned JMFC, + +Shujalpur under section 467, 468, 420 and 120-B of IPC. + +

As per the allegations made in the complaint, present + +applicants sold the land in joint ownership of the complainant + +and the present applicants and conspiring with the accused + +No.1- Ramesh. They also got the land mutated in their names. + +

Respondent No.2 was served notice of this application but + +he failed to appear before the Court. + +

Counsel for the applicants submits that initially learned + +JMFC refused to take cognizance on the ground that it is purely + a civil matter, however the complainant filed revision of the + +order and on the direction of the revisional court, cognizance + +was taken. According to them, it is a case based on the + +documentary evidence. There is no chance of the present + +applicants' absconding, therefore, bail may be granted to the + +present applicants. +

+

Arguments heard. Case diary perused. + + Counsel for the State opposes the application. + + Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into + +consideration, without commenting on the merits of the case, + +I find that it is fit case where the benefit of provision under + +section 438 of Cr.P.C. may be extended to the present + +applicants. Accordingly, the application is allowed. + +

It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants + +shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a + +personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) + +each and a solvent surety each of the like amount to the + +satisfaction of the concerning Magistrate or Arresting Officer + as the case may be, with the following conditions:- + +

(i) that they shall make themselves available for interrogation + + by a police officer as and when required. +
+
(ii) that they shall not, directly or indirectly, make any + + inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with + + the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing + + such facts to the Court or to any police officer. + +
(iii) that they would comply with the conditions enumerated + + under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously. + +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(Alok Verma) + Judge +Kratika/- +

+

+ + + MCRC No.8565/2015 + 05.10.2015 + Shri Girish Desai, learned counsel for the + + applicants. +

+

Shri Govind Purohit, learned counsel for the + + respondent/EOW. +

+

This is first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. + + filed on behalf of present applicants for grant of + + anticipatory bail. +

+

The applicants apprehend their arrest by Police + + Station - Economic Offences Wing, District - Indore in + + Crime No.35/2012 under sections 420, 406, 409 and 120-B + + of IPC. +

+

According to the prosecution story, present applicants + + were office bearers of the Co-operative Housing Society. + + They purchased some agricultural land in the year 1987. + + According to the prosecution, they purchased land by the + + Cooperative Society in contravention of Nagar Bhoomi + (Seema Evam Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1976. Subsequently, + +about 2 and half acre of the land was sold by the society + +and the society earned profit of Rs.7,00,000/-. According to + +the prosecution, profit earned by the society was not + +distributed by the office bearer to members of the society + +and they also did not alloted the land which remained in + +possession of the society. +

+

According to the applicants, charge-sheet was filed + +under sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC, however, taking + +the present applicants are agents of the members of the + +society, the Magistrate took cognizance under section 409 + +of IPC. +

+

Arguments heard. Case diary perused. + + Counsel for the State opposes the application. + + Counsel for the applicants submits that the matter + +began in the year 1987 when the land was purchased. + +There is no likelihood of the present applicants' + absconding, as they are not habitual offenders and they + +are reputed persons of the society. The matter is based on + +the record and their presence is not required for + +investigation or for custodial interrogation. + +

Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case + +into consideration, without commenting on the merits of + +the case, I find that it is fit case where the benefit of + +provision under section 438 of Cr.P.C. may be extended + +to the present applicants. Accordingly, the application is + +allowed. +

+

It is directed that in the event of arrest, the + +applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail on their + +furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty + +Thousand only) each and a solvent surety each of the + +like amount to the satisfaction of the concerning + +Magistrate or Arresting Officer as the case may be, with + +the following conditions:- +

(i) that they shall make themselves available for + + interrogation by a police officer as and when required. + +
(ii) that they shall not, directly or indirectly, make any + + inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted + + with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from + + disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. + +
(iii) that they would comply with the conditions + + enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously. + +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(Alok Verma) + Judge +Kratika/- +

M.Cr.C. No.5771/2015

+ +05.10.2015 + + + Shri AK Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. + + Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the respondent + + /State. +

+

Case diary is available. +

+

This is first bail application under section 439 of the Code + + of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail filed by the applicant. + +

The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police Station - + + Jawad, District - Neemuch in Crime No.488/2014 under sections + + 8/18 (B), 29 of NDPS Act. +

+

According to the prosecution story, present applicant was + + travelling in car which belongs to co-accused, who was driving + + the car. From the gates of the car, inside the panels, there were + + secret chambers from which total 15 kg of the contraband Opium + + was recovered. +

+

Counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant is a + + handicapped person. He has filed necessary documents to show + that he is handicapped. +

+

However, verification could not be done by counsel for the + +State. Still, he fairly admits that present applicant is handicapped + +person. However, counsel for the State submits that his defence + +that he only took lift in the car, from which the contraband was + +recovered, cannot be seen at this stage. He further submits that as + +per the source information received by the police, name of the + +present applicant was informed, therefore, he seriously opposed + +the bail application. +

+

Counsel for the applicant submits that there is joint memo + +prepared under section 50 of the NDPS Act. He cites judgment of + +Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. + +Parmanand and another reported in 2014 Cr.L.R. (SC) 290 in + +which it was held that joint communication of the right under + +section 50 would result in diluting the right. Accused must + +always be individually informed. + +

However, at this stage, when we are considering bail, the + +effect of such joint memo cannot be seen. The main criteria can + be seen whether the joint memo caused any prejudice to the + + defence of the present applicant, which can only be seen at the + + time of final hearing. At this stage, it cannot be said that merely + + because joint memo was prepared, the present applicant is + + entitled for bail. +

+

So far as his defence is concerned that he took lift in the car + + without knowing that the contraband was being transported in the + + car and also that the contraband was in the door of the car, which + + was not in the knowledge of the present applicant, this fact can + + only be determined at the final stage after recording of the + + evidence. At this stage, no inference can be drawn. Looking to + + the quantity of the contraband, no case for grant of bail to the + + present applicant is made out. +

+

The application is accordingly, dismissed. + + Certified copy as per rules. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge +Kratika/- +

Con.C. No.1023/2014

+ +05.10.2015 + + + None for the applicant. +

+

Ms. Mini Ravindran, counsel for the respondent. + + Shri RS Sisodiya - respondent No.3 is present in person + + before the court. He submits that he has furnished bail in the + + concerning police station. +

+

Counsel for the respondent submits that she has already + + filed reply on behalf of the respondent, therefore, she prays + + that personal appearance of this respondent be exempted. + +

Prayer is allowed. +

+

Respondent No.3 - Shri RS Sisodiya is exempted from + + his personal appearance. +

+

List after two weeks. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika/- +

M.Cr.C. No.8790/2015

+ +05.10.2015 + + + Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the + + applicant. +

+

Smt Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the + + respondent /State. +

+

Case diary is available. +

+

This is first bail application under section 439 of the + + Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail filed by the + + applicant. +

+

The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police + + Station - Khargone, District - Khargone in Crime + + No.276/2015 under sections 364-A of IPC and under section + + 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000. + +

According to the prosecution story, report was lodged + + on 26.05.2015 by brother of the prosecutrix stating therein + + that at about 3 pm in the afternoon, she left her home saying + that she was going to her friend's house and thereafter, she + +did not come back. On 01.06.2015, a message was received + +on the mobile phone asking for ransom of Rs.2,00,000/-, + +which she was using prior to going out from her home. + +Subsequently, it was found that the mobile phone, from + +which the message was given, was registered in the name of + +the present applicant and in further investigation it was found + +that the mobile phone was being used by one Shanu, who + +was cousin of the present applicant and the co-accused. + +

Learned counsel for the State opposes the application + +on the ground that the prosecutrix is still untraceable. + +

Arguments heard, case diary perused. + + Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the + +prosecutrix was 21 years of age when she left her home. She + +is living with one Waseem to whom she is married now. He + +has filed affidavit of the prosecutrix and Waseem + + Taking into consideration all the facts and + circumstances of the case and also the role assigned to the + + present applicant, without commenting on the merits of + + the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of + + bail. The application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. + + is allowed. +

+

It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail + + on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty + + Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to + + the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his + + appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in + + this regard during trial. +

+

He is further directed that on being so released on bail, + + he would comply with the conditions enumerated under + + section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously. + +

Certified copy as per rules. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge +Kratika/- +

M.Cr.C. No.8794/2015

+ +05.10.2015 + Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, counsel for the applicant. + + Smt. Mamta Shandiya, counsel for the respondent/State. + + Case diary is available. +

+

Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the + + matter. +

+

List in the next week, as prayed. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + M.Cr.C. No.8799/2015 + +05.10.2015 + + + Case diary is not available. +

+

List in the next week. +

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + CRR No.1288/2014 + +01.10.2015 + + + Shri Mohanlal Patidar, counsel for the applicant. + + Shri Aniruddh Gokhle, counsel for the respondent. + + Counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the + + matter, as the arguing counsel is not available today. + +

Meanwhile, record of the lower court be called for. + + List after a week alongwith the record of the lower + + court. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika/- +

+

+ + + CRA No.1364/2014 + +01.10.2015 + Accused/appellant - Nagendra Singh is not present + + today before this Court. +

+

None appears on his behalf. +

+

Issue bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.20,000/- against + + the appellant/accused - Nagendra Singh, returnable on + + 11.12.2015. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + M.A. No.1692/2014 + +01.10.2015 + + + Shri Vishwesh Palsikar, counsel for the appellant. + + All parties are duly served. No further orders are + + required on the point of service. +

+

None appeared on behalf of the respondents. + + List for consideration of I.A. No.7400/2014, an + + application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for + condonation of delay after a week. + +

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + M.A. No.2144/2014 + +01.10.2015 + + + Service report of respondents No.1 and 2 is awaited. + + List after two weeks alongwith the service report of + + respondents No.1 and 2. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + M.A. No.79/2015 + +01.10.2015 + + + Respondent No.3 is served and power has been filed on + + his behalf. All other parties are duly served. No further + + orders are required on the point of service. +

Let record of the lower court be called for. + + List for admission in due course. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + M.A. No.644/2015 + +01.10.2015 + + + Service report of respondents No.1 to 3 is awaited. + + List after two weeks alongwith the service report of + + respondents No.1 to 3. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + CRR No.681/2015 + +01.10.2015 + + + Shri Anil Ojha, counsel for the applicant. + + Shri KK Tiwari, counsel for the respondent. + Counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the + + matter. +

+

List in the next week for final disposal, as prayed. + + + +

(Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + M.A. No.1165/2015 + +01.10.2015 + + + Shri Himanshu Paliwal, counsel for the appellant. + + Shri Sadashiv Joshi, counsel for the respondent + + No.4/Insurance Company. +

+

On payment of fresh PF and correct details within two + + weeks, let notice be issued to the respondents No.1 to 3, + + returnable within four weeks. +

+

(Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + CRR No.1184/2015 + +01.10.2015 + + + Shri Nilesh Dave, counsel for the applicant. + + Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State. + + Counsel for the applicant submits that the defect + + pointed out by the office has already been cured. He further + + submits that he has filed I.A. No.7591/2015, which is an + + application for condonation of delay. + +

Office to verify and list for consideration of I.A. + + No.7591/2015 in the next week. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + M.A. No.1380/2015 + +01.10.2015 + + + Shri Subodh Choudhary, counsel for the appellant. + + Respondent's Advocate comes from outside. + List on 07.10.2015. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + M.A. No.1395/2015 + +01.10.2015 + + + Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the appellant/State. + + On payment of fresh PF, issue notice to the respondents + + as directed by the Court vide order dated 23.07.2015. + + + +

(Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + M.A. No.1680/2015 + +01.10.2015 + + + Shri Shahid Sheikh, counsel for the appellant. + + As per the office note, the defect has been cured. + Issue notice to the respondent(s) on payment of PF + + within a week, returnable within four week. + +

Let record of the lower court be called for. + + + +

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + M.A. No.1759/2015 + +01.10.2015 + + + Shri GK Neema, counsel for the appellant. + + Heard on I.A. No.7220/2015, which is an application + + under section 149 read with section 151 of CPC for grant of + + time for payment of Court fees. +

+

After due consideration, the application is allowed. + + Eight weeks' time is granted to the appellant for payment of + + Court fees. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + M.Cr.C. No.4019/2015 + +01.10.2015 + + + Shri Jitendra Mandloi, learned counsel for the + + applicant. +

+

Shri Ramesh Gangare, learned counsel for the + + respondents. +

+

Counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant + + is a very poor person. He works as labourer and earns + + Rs.100/- per day. He further submits that he has deposited + + Rs.26,000/-. +

+

Counsel for the respondent submits that the total + + amount due is Rs.1,26,000/- and he has not deposited 50% of + + the amount. +

+

This Court ordered on 17.07.2015 for deposition of + 50% of the amount of arrears within four weeks, which order + + has not been complied by the applicant. + +

Looking to his financial condition, further six weeks' + + time is granted for payment of 50% of amount of arrears. + + After lapse of this period, the respondent is free to take legal + + action for recovery of the amount against the present + + applicant. +

+

List in the week commencing 26.10.2015. + + + +

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + M.Cr.C. No.6407/2015 + +01.10.2015 + + + Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the + + applicant/State. +

Heard on I.A. No.5391/2015. +

+

Issue notice of I.A. No.5391/2015 as well as main + + application filed under section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. to the + + respondents on payment of PF within a week, returnable + + within four weeks. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + M.Cr.C. No.7855/2015 + +01.10.2015 + + + Shri Shashank Shrivastav, learned counsel for the + + applicant. +

+

Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a + + week's time to cure the defect pointed out by the office. + +

List after a week, as prayed. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_4766673.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_4766673.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef18690e02e34ac12d3938ffed819b8672239e7b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_4766673.html @@ -0,0 +1,2184 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sanjukta Samanta & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 30, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

+

Sanjukta Samanta & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2025

+ +
                                        1
+
+                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
+                   CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
+                            APPELLATE SIDE
+
+
+Present:
+
+The Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
+
+                              W.P.A. 15260 of 2024
+
+                             Sanjukta Samanta & Anr.
+                                       -Vs-
+                               Union of India & Ors.
+
+
+Petitioner No. 1 in person           : Mrs. Sanjukta Samanta
+
+Petitioner No. 2 in person           : Mr. Romit Dutta
+
+For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2        : Mr. Rajdeep Majumdar
+                                       Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Chakraborty
+
+For the State                        : Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury
+                                       Mr. Manas Kumar Sadhu
+                                       Ms. Subhasree Patel
+
+For the Respondent No. 13            : Mr. Neeraj Sekhar
+                                       Ms. Malabika Saha
+
+Heard on                             : 13.03.2025, 28.03.2025,
+                                       25.06.2025, 11.07.2025
+
+Judgment on                          : 26.09.2025
+
+Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-
+
+1. The instant writ petition had been assigned to this Court by the Hon'ble the
+
+  Chief Justice, High Court at Calcutta, after the instant writ petition had
+
+  been released by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court presiding over in
+
+  Court No.14 vide its Order dated 05.08.2024 replicated as follows:-
+
+            "Live streaming of Court proceeding has been paused.
+                                          2
+
+              Heard submission of the petitioner no.2 and the learned advocate
+          representing the respondent no.13.
+              The petitioner no.1 behaves in an extremely unruly manner before
+          the Court. She is highly agitated. The Court is not inclined to hear the
+          matter.
+              Let this matter be released from the list of this Bench and be placed
+          before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for necessary order."
+
+2. The instant writ petition had been filed, inter alia, praying for following
+
+  reliefs:-
+
+          "........
+          B. Writ of an/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+          respondents to declare the impugned proceedings of Chatterjeehat
+          Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 under sections
+          341/365/468/420/506/34         IPC   is   illegal,   void   ab   initio   and
+          unconstitutional;
+
+          C. Writ in nature of mandamus to quash the entire proceedings in
+          connection with Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated
+          04.05.2024 under sections 341/365/468/420/506/34 IPC pending
+          before Learned CJM at Howrah and being investigated by state
+          respondents;
+
+          D. Writ in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondents
+          and its men, subordinates, assignees to unconditionally forthwith
+          withdraw, recall, rescind all steps taken in pursuance of the
+          Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 under
+          sections 341/365/468/420/506/34 IPC;
+
+          E. Writ of an/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+          respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates and each one
+          of them to quash/set aside the impugned Notification issued by the
+          office of Respondent 6 vide Org No.618/CS dated 06.05.2024 through
+                                3
+
+which the investigation of Chatterjeehat Police Station Case no.78 of
+2023 dated 04.05.2023 was taken up by respondent no.7;
+
+F. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents to render appropriate protection to life, liberty and
+possession to the writ petitioner no.1 by the respondents 1, 2;
+
+G. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates and each one
+of them to hand over the Case Diary of Chatterjeehat Police Station
+Case no.78 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 to the office of Respondent no.4
+forthwith;
+
+H. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates to stay the
+investigation of impugned FIR Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 86 of
+2024 dated 04.05.2024 under sections 341/365/468/420/506/34
+IPC by respondent no.9 with immediate effect;
+
+I. Writ of an/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates not to take any
+coercive steps against the petitioners in connection with Chatterjeehat
+Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 under sections
+341/365/468/420/506/34 IPC;
+
+J. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates not to take any
+coercive steps against the petitioners in connection with any frivolous
+FIRs against the Writ Petitioners by the accused respondent 13 and his
+associates;
+
+K. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates to stay the
+impugned further investigation of Chatterjeehat Police Station Case
+no.78 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 by State CID respondents;
+                                           4
+
+         L. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+         respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates not to register
+         any false FIR against the Writ Petitioners by the instant accused
+         respondents and his associates without any preliminary inquiry as
+         well as without leave of this Hon'ble Court;
+
+         M. A writ of and/or in nature of certiorari directing the concerned
+         respondents being respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 thereof to transmit
+         and/or produce all relevant records lying with them to this Hon'ble
+         Court so that conscionable justice may be done after hearing the
+         respective parties to this writ petition;
+
+         N. A writ of and/or in nature of Mandamus commanding the
+         respondent authorities 1, 2 to render appropriate protection to protect
+         life and possession of the petitioner;
+         ......."
+3. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 contended to be the Learned Advocates practising
+
+  in the High Court at Calcutta as well as the Supreme Court of India. The
+
+  petitioners, on invitation by the respondent No.13, visited his house at
+
+  Tamilnadu to hold a conference with the father of respondent No.13
+
+  concerning the filing of affidavit-of-assets and liabilities in connection with a
+
+  dispute regarding domestic violence instituted against the respondent No.13
+
+  pending at the District Court of South 24-Parganas at Alipore.
+
+4. Petitioner No.1 learnt of certain false information presented through an
+
+  affidavit-on-oath before the Court of Learned 6 th Judicial Magistrate at
+
+  Alipore, South 24-Parganas concerning the occupation of respondent No.13
+
+  and confronted the same. The respondent No.13 consequently insulted the
+
+  petitioner, indignifying her with threats, defamation and dire consequences.
+
+  Subsequently, the petitioner No.1 was threatened by an associate of
+                                         5
+
+  respondent no.13 as narrated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the writ petition. The
+
+  petitioners, thereafter, forwarded a complaint through e-mail to the
+
+  respondent no.8 being the Commissioner of Police, Howrah and Kolkata
+
+  Police on 23rd of April, 2023 at 21:44 hours.
+
+5. On 29th of April, 2023 at about 08:30 P.M., the respondent no.13
+
+  accompanied by his associate forcefully entering the chamber of petitioner
+
+  no.1, physically molested and harassed her as stated in paragraph 8 of the
+
+  writ petition. Meanwhile, the unknown associate vandalized the chamber of
+
+  the petitioner and escaped therefrom along with a mobile of model Vivo -
+
+  Y100 and a sum of Rs.65,000/- in cash.
+
+6. The petitioners initially refrained to proceed against the criminal acts of
+
+  respondent no.13, however, ultimately lodged a complaint against the
+
+  aforesaid respondents at the office of respondent no.8 and 9, i.e., Officer-in-
+
+  Charge of Chatterjeehat Police Station at Howrah on 03.05.2023 at 20:21
+
+  hours and the complaint was registered as Chatterjeehat Police Station Case
+
+  No.78      of      2023       dated       04.05.2023      under       Sections
+
+  420/406/448/341/323/354B/307/376/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal
+
+  Code. The respondent no.13 was, thereafter, arrested by the office of the
+
+  respondent no.9 who later on obtained an order of bail from the Hon'ble
+
+  Court.
+
+7. The petitioners had filed a complaint registered by the police being Howrah
+
+  P.S. Case No.262 of 2023 dated 27.07.2023 under Sections 195A/506/34 of
+
+  the Indian Penal Code against the associates of respondent no.13 for being
+
+  threatened as mentioned in paragraph 15 of the writ petition.
+                                          6
+
+8. The petitioners contended to have been insinuated through various means
+
+  as stated in paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the writ petition. The
+
+  predicaments of the petitioners had been vividly described in paragraphs 25,
+
+  26, 27, 28, and 29 of the writ petition. The petitioner no.1 claimed herself to
+
+  be a member of a political party, who had dealt with a Public Interest
+
+  Litigation in person addressing the grievances in connection with an incident
+
+  which occurred at Sandeshkhali in West Bengal through a writ petition
+
+  being No.WPA(P) 78 of 2024 before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and
+
+  SLP(C ) No.9462/9465 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
+
+  The petitioner no.1's combat and opposition against injustice towards
+
+  general women through the aforesaid writ petition rendered her aged senior
+
+  citizen parents to suffer from trauma and threats at the behest of her
+
+  competitive political party. The petitioner no.1 narrated the conduct of the
+
+  Learned Public Prosecutor of the State of West Bengal in paragraphs 35 and
+
+  36 of the writ petition.
+
+9. The petitioners in the instant writ petition further stated as follows:-
+
+       (i) The State respondents in collusion and conspiracy with the accused
+
+          respondent no. 13 had registered the said FIR being Chatterjeehat PS
+
+          Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 against the petitioner no.1 and
+
+          petitioner no.2, who was prime witness of the heinous crime
+
+          happened to her in the form of Chatterjeehat PS Case No.78 of 2023
+
+          dated 04.05.2023 to achieve their ulterior motive to put the instant
+
+          petitioner no.1 and 2, behind the bar for restraining the petitioner
+
+          no.1 from representing herself for the sexual assault victims of
+                                    7
+
+   Sandeshkhali, West Bengal as in person PIL Writ petitioner therein
+
+   before Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in WPA (P) 78 of 2024.
+
+(ii) The instant false and fabricated FIR being Chatterjeehat PS Case
+
+   No.86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 was the delayed counterblast of the
+
+   Chargesheeted Case being Chatterjeehat Police Station Case no 78 of
+
+   2023 dated 04.05.2023, Howrah PS Case 262 of 2023 dated
+
+   27.07.2023 and Chatterjeehat PS Case 23 of 2024 dated 05.02.2024.
+
+(iii) The instant false FIR against Writ Petitioners was lodged by complete
+
+   misusing the liberty granted by Hon'ble High Court in WPA 23711 of
+
+   2023 while the Hon'ble High Court while disposing WPA 23711 of
+
+   2023 vide order dated 16.04.2024 never granted liberty to the
+
+   accused respondent 13 to lodge a fresh /de novo complaint before
+
+   police against petitioners with inordinate delay for registration of FIR.
+
+(iv) The accused respondent no.13 in collusion and conspiracy with the
+
+   State police had misused and abused the Hon'ble High Court given
+
+   liberty to fabricate instant petitioners into a false, fabricated FIR.
+
+(v) The respondent no.3, being clubbed up with the state respondents
+
+   had been actively involved in terrorizing the victim writ petitioner and
+
+   prime eye witness her husband of the case being Chatterjeehat PS
+
+   Case No.78 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 by way of taking up
+
+   investigation of the case by CID in completely mala fide manner
+
+   totally contradictory as mandated by law as well as by way of filing
+
+   such false and fabricated FIR against the petitioner and her husband.
+                                  8
+
+(vi) After coming out of judicial custody and police custody for
+
+   commission of crime of sexual violence against petitioner in
+
+   connection with Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 78 of 2923 dated
+
+   04.05.2023, to wreak personal vengeance the prime               accused
+
+   respondent 13 had created a false, fabricated story of his alleged
+
+   abduction of himself at same time while he committed crime and had
+
+   lodged FIR against writ petitioner after one year of inordinate delay.
+
+(vii) She, being the de-facto complainant of Chatterjeehat PS Case 78 of
+
+   2023 dated 04.05.2023, was not being able to return at her home city
+
+   Calcutta as well as she had not been able to represent the sexual
+
+   assault victims of Sandeshkhali, West Bengal in the PIL WPA(P) 78 of
+
+   2024 (physically , which was the PIL filed by her as in person at first
+
+   instance for protection of Vulnerable victims therein) before the
+
+   Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and before this Hon'ble Supreme
+
+   Court as SLP (C) No. 9462-9465 of 2024 .
+
+ (viii) Due to registration of said false FIR being Chatterjeehat PS Case
+
+   86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 upon a deviated version of original
+
+   crime incident happened to the writ petitioner no. 1, she would not be
+
+   able to represent herself as in person petitioner de-facto complainant
+
+   before the Learned Trial Courts and before Hon'ble High Court in
+
+   several proceedings under severe threat of her and her husband's
+
+   arrest by the State police machineries upon said false FIR registered
+
+   against the Writ Petitioner and her husband.
+                                         9
+
+       (ix) The petitioner stated that the FIR being Chatterjeehat PS Case 86 of
+
+          2024 dated 04.05.2024 was registered to wreak personal vengeance
+
+          against the writ petitioner and her husband by the state police
+
+          respondents in collusion and conspiracy with the accused respondent
+
+          no.13.
+
+10. The investigation in Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.78 of 2023 dated
+
+   04.05.2023 was entrusted upon respondent no.6 C.I.D., West Bengal at the
+
+   instance of the Learned Public Prosecutor, State of West Bengal unilaterally
+
+   without an order passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta to the
+
+   astonishment of the petitioners which, according to the petitioners, had been
+
+   biased and politically motivated.
+
+11. The petitioners are of the firm conviction to be betrayed with right to fair
+
+   investigation and fair trial to their utter detriment and prejudice. The
+
+   petitioners, being intimidated by the action on the part of the State agencies,
+
+   further sought for personal protection as she had been constantly threatened
+
+   by the police offices, CID officials etc. The petitioners, as would appear from
+
+   the order-sheets of the instant writ petition, appeared before this Court in
+
+   person and agitated their trauma and agony to have been continuously
+
+   threatened by the respondents and other State officials resulting in their
+
+   apprehension of life and property to be in extreme danger and peril.
+
+12. The petitioner no.1 claimed to have been physically molested by the
+
+   respondent no.13 and the State agencies constantly threatened and
+
+   harassed her preventing her to pursue her profession as a lawyer and to
+
+   fight for the cause demanding protection of women's life, right and dignity.
+                                          10
+
+   Petitioners appearing in person submitted the Learned Public Prosecutor on
+
+   his own accord had transferred the investigation to the CID agencies without
+
+   an order of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta to investigate the
+
+   Chatterjeehat Police Station Case being No.78 of 2023 as aforesaid to wreak
+
+   vengeance against them.
+
+13. The order dated 23.08.2024 passed by this Court is replicated hereinbelow:-
+
+             "The learned advocates for the respondent nos.3 to 11 and the
+
+          respondent no.13 are present.
+
+             The petitioner no.1 appeared online prior to the recess expressing
+          her extreme urgency for listing the matter for hearing. Accordingly, a
+          supplementary list was prepared fixing the matter at 2.00 p.m.
+             The petitioner no.1 did not appear before the Court either in-person
+          or online at the time of hearing though the petitioner no.2 appeared
+          online and submitted due to medical emergency, the petitioner no.1
+          could not appear before the Court.
+             It was further submitted by the petitioner no.2 that the Union of
+          India being the respondent no.1 and the Central Industrial Security
+          Force being the respondent no.2, should be providing proper security to
+          the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and their presence was required for
+          adjudication of the instant writ petition at the time of hearing.
+             The petitioner nos.1 and 2 are directed to serve a notice upon the
+          learned advocate for the respondent nos.1 and 2 intimating the next
+          date of hearing on 3rd September, 2024 and to file an affidavit of
+          service to that effect.
+             Next date be fixed on 3rd September, 2024 at 2.00 p.m. for further
+
+          hearing."
+
+14. Subsequently, on 03.09.2024 the petitioner no.1 and 2 appeared in person
+
+   and submitted the arbitrary action on the part of the Learned Public
+                                          11
+
+   Prosecutor to have initiated the investigation through CID, West Bengal
+
+   without the direction obtained from the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
+
+   Howrah based on a communication addressed to the same and referred to an
+
+   order dated 08th April, 2024 passed by an Hon'ble Co-Ordinate Bench of this
+
+   Court in CRR 1023 of 2024.
+
+15. Considering the submissions of the petitioners in person, this Court passed
+
+   an order dated 03.09.2024 as replicated hereinbelow:-
+
+             "The supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner no.1-in-person
+          be kept on record. Copies of the same have been served upon the
+          leaned advocates appearing for the other respective respondents.
+             The petitioners-in-person referred to the order dated 8 th April, 2024
+          passed by a Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of Court in CRR 1023 of 2024
+          as well as to the communication addressed to the learned Chief
+          Judicial Magistrate, Howrah Court, marked as "annexure P-10" to the
+          writ petition. The petitioners as aforesaid further submitted that the
+          communication to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah Court
+          referring to CID investigation was not directed through an order of this
+          Court, as aforesaid.
+             The learned advocate for the State refers to the Police Regulation
+          Bengal, 1943 whereby the CID can on its own take up the
+          investigation. The learned advocate for the State is requested to inform
+          the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Debasis Ray to be present before
+          this Court on the next date of hearing to explain as to what prompted
+          him to submit before the Coordinate Bench that the investigations were
+          to be conducted up by the CID, West Bengal.
+             The learned advocate for the respondents are to file respective reply
+          to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners-in-person before
+          the Court on the next date with regard to the possibility of security to
+          be provided to the petitioner no.1 as claimed in the instant writ petition.
+                                         12
+
+             Heard the submission of the learned advocate representing the
+          respondent no.13.
+             The status report filed by the learned advocate for the State be kept
+          on record. A copy of the same has been served upon the petitioner
+          nos.1 and 2 in Court.
+             Next date be fixed on 17th September, 2024."
+16. Vide order dated 17.09.2024, this Court had appointed Learned Senior
+
+   Advocate Mr. Milon Mukherjee, the Learned Advocate Mr. Souvik Mitter and
+
+   Learned Advocate Ms. Sutapa Sanyal to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae in
+
+   order to dispose of the instant writ petition which was accepted by the
+
+   aforesaid Learned Advocates. The order dated 17.09.2024 passed by this
+
+   Court replicated as follows:-
+
+             "The learned senior advocate Mr. Milon Mukherjee, the learned
+          advocate Mr. Souvik Mitter and the learned advocate Ms. Sutapa
+          Sanyal have been requested to assist the Court as amicus curiae in
+          order to dispose of the instant writ petition and the same has been
+          accepted by the aforesaid learned advocates.
+             The learned advocate representing the respondent no.13 submits to
+          serve a copy of the writ petition along with the annexed documents and
+          the orders to the learned advocates appointed as amicus curiae in this
+          matter.
+             The learned advocate representing respondent nos.1 and 2 are
+          present and submitted the opinion of the Union of India with regard to
+          the provision of safety and security, generally accorded to specific
+          individuals subject to certain circumstances.
+             It is further submitted that the Ministry of Home Affairs is the
+          appropriate authority to provide safety and security to an individual
+          considering the threat perception after thorough assessment of the
+          facts and circumstances of a distinct case.
+                                          13
+
+                Heard the submissions of the learned advocates appointed as
+          amicus curiae and also the submissions of the petitioner no.1 and 2
+          appearing in-person.
+                The learned advocate representing the respondent no.13 seeks time
+          to file an affidavit-in-opposition to the supplementary affidavit filed by
+          the petitioner nos.1 and 2 appearing in-person after the processes for
+          filing the same gets endorsed through the concerned authority
+          pertaining to Bangladesh and the same is allowed.
+                Next date be fixed on 4th October, 2024 at 2.00 p.m. for further
+          hearing."
+17. On 04th October, 2024, the petitioner no.2 appeared online and submitted to
+
+   have preferred an appeal before the Division Bench presided over by the
+
+   Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court at Calcutta and sought for time on
+
+   that ground. PW-1 did not appear before the Court. Petitioner no.1 and
+
+   petitioner no.2 were directed to file an affidavit preferring an appeal as
+
+   aforesaid.
+
+18. On 18th November, 2024, petitioner no.1 did not appear before this Court
+
+   either in person or online. Petitioner no.2 appeared online and filed a
+
+   supplementary affidavit through is concerned Learned Advocate Mr. Arkadeb
+
+   Nag in open Court which, inter alia, stated the grievance of the petitioners
+
+   against the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by this Court in WPA 15260 of
+
+   2024 for seeking assistance of the Learned Advocates of this Court to act as
+
+   Amicus Curiae as aforesaid.
+
+19. The appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Division Bench presided over by
+
+   the Hon'ble the Chief Justice being MAT 2051 of 2024 on 6 th of November,
+
+   2024. Moreover, the fate of the said appeal had not been communicated to
+
+   this Court, if at all the hearing had been conducted. On 18 th November,
+                                            14
+
+   2024, the Learned Public Prosecutor appeared before this Court in
+
+   compliance with the order dated 03.09.2024 whereby this Court had sought
+
+   for an explanation as to what prompted him to submit before the Co-
+
+   ordinate Bench that the investigation of the Chatterjeehat Police Station
+
+   Case Nos.86 of 2024, 78 of 2023 and 23 of 2024 was to be conducted by the
+
+   CID, West Bengal.
+
+20. The Learned Public Prosecutor submitted several complaints and allegations
+
+   against two Hon'ble Judges of this Court and the officials of the
+
+   Chatterjeehat Police Station by the petitioners compelled him to ensure the
+
+   investigation to be carried out by an agency not comprising of the said
+
+   officials   of   the   Chatterjeehat   Police   Station   and   to   obliterate   the
+
+   apprehension of partial and biased investigation, the same was asked to be
+
+   conducted by the CID, State of West Bengal.
+
+21. On 19th of December, 2024, the Learned Public Prosecutor in compliance
+
+   with the order dated 18th November, 2024 filed a report stating the status of
+
+   investigation concerning the aforesaid police station cases. On 19 th
+
+   December, 2024, the Learned Public Prosecutor filed the report as aforesaid
+
+   along with an explanation as sought for. The petitioner no.1 was neither
+
+   present before the Court nor appeared online. Petitioner no.2 appeared
+
+   online and stated the appeal filed before the Division Bench was appearing
+
+   in the Daily List to be called for hearing. The petitioner no.1 and 2 had been
+
+   time and again asked by this Court to produce the details of the complaint or
+
+   G.D. Entry number which they claimed to have filed in the concerned police
+
+   station on several occasions for being threatened, physically manhandled,
+                                             15
+
+   molested and harassed. The petitioners did not produce any reference to that
+
+   effect before this Court.
+
+22. An order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in
+
+   WPA 23711 of 2023 is replicated as follows:-
+
+               "The respondent no. 12 appears in-person and tries to out shout
+             others. In spite of request made by the Court to calm down, she does
+             not relent and continues with her belligerent demeanour.
+               In view of this, I am not inclined to take up this matter.
+               Accordingly, the matter is released from my list."
+23. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners and the respondent no.13 who
+
+   had been the erstwhile client of the petitioners who sought for legal
+
+   assistance of the petitioners engaging them to be his advocates had filed writ
+
+   petitions being No.WPA 23711 of 2023 and WPA 21868 of 2023 wherein
+
+   several complaints had been filed against each other. Vide an order dated
+
+   16.04.2024, a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following
+
+   order:-
+
+               "Both these writ petitions are taken up for hearing together. It
+             appears that the petitioners in both the cases have filed several
+             complaints against each other.
+                                In Re: W.P.A. No.23711 of 2023
+               The petitioners in WPA No.23711 of 2023 lodged several complaints
+             against the petitioner in WPA No.21868 of 2023 before the Criminal
+             Investigation Department, West Bengal. In this writ petition, some of
+             the complaints have been annexed at annexure P/15. The petitioners
+             allege that no case has been registered or investigation has been
+             initiated following the said complaints.
+               I am of the view that the petitioners should lodge complaint before
+             the concerned police station at the first instance.
+                               16
+
+  Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty upon the
+petitioners to lodge complaint before the concerned police station. If the
+complaint discloses any cognizable offence, the relevant police station
+shall take steps to register F.I.R. and investigate the matter in
+accordance with law.
+  Accordingly,    W.P.A.    No.23711      of    2023     and    connected
+applications, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024 and CAN 2 of 2024 are
+disposed of.
+                   In Re: W.P.A. No.21868 of 2023
+  The petitioner in this case is a lady advocate. It appears that she
+also filed several complaints against the petitioners in WPA No.23711
+of 2023.
+  Following the complaints, the Investigating Agency has filed
+Chatterjeehat P.S. charge sheet no.191/23 dated 31.10.2022 under
+Sections 420/406/448/341/ 323/307/379/354B/376/506/34 of the
+Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Howrah P.S. charge sheet no.277/23
+dated 30.09.2023 under Sections 195A/506/34 of the 3 Indian Penal
+Code, 1860, before the jurisdictional Court. The trials have not yet
+commenced.
+  It is the grievance of the petitioner that while attending the Courts in
+connection with the aforesaid criminal cases, she is being harassed
+and even attacked by the petitioners in WPA No.23711 of 2023. These
+allegations have been vehemently denied by the petitioners in WPA
+No.23711 of 2023.
+  This Court is not in a position to appreciate the factual disputes. It is
+only expected that if the petitioner approaches the learned Trial Court
+seeking her protection, to ensure a free and fair trial, her prayer shall
+be considered by the Court below by passing necessary order.
+  Accordingly,    W.P.A.    No.21868      of    2023     and    connected
+applications, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2023 and CAN 2 of 2024 are
+disposed of."
+                                           17
+
+24. The present petitioners in the instant writ petition had filed an appeal
+
+   against the order dated 16.04.2024 passed in WPA 23711 of 2023 and WPA
+
+   21868 of 2023 before the Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble the
+
+   Chief Justice of this Court. By a judgment dated 21.05.2024 in MAT 831 of
+
+   2024, the Hon'ble Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice
+
+   of this Court had passed a judgment replicated as follows:-
+
+          "1. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties.
+          2. The appellant no.2, who is appearing online and he had sent a
+          message in the chat box praying that the live streaming of the
+          proceedings be paused. Acceding to the request made by the appellant
+          no.2, live streaming of the proceeding was paused.
+          3. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order passed in
+          W.P.A. No.23711 of 2023. The said writ petition was filed by the
+          respondent herein stating that several complaints have been lodged
+          against the respondents before the Criminal Investigation Department,
+          West Bengal and some of the complaints were annexed to the writ
+          petition. Further, the writ petitioners allege that no case has been
+          registered or investigated based on the complaints lodged by the
+          respondents/writ petitioners.
+          4. The learned Single Bench did not go into the merits of the matter but
+          disposed of the writ petition by the impugned order observing that the
+          writ petitioners, if aggrieved, should lodge complaint before the
+          concerned police station, at the first instance. Accordingly, the writ
+          petition was disposed of granting liberty to the writ petitioners to lodge
+          complaint before the concerned police station with an observation that
+          if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the relevant police
+          station shall take steps to register F.I.R. and investigate the matter in
+          accordance with law.
+          5. We failed to understand as to how the appellants before us, whose
+          names have been masked at their request, are aggrieved by the order
+                                          18
+
+          passed in the writ petition as the learned Writ Court has not gone into
+          the merits of the matter and left it open to the writ petitioners to work
+          out their remedy before the concerned police station.
+          6. The appellant no.2, who is appearing online, submitted that several
+          cases have been registered against them and there is a threat of
+          arrest. If that be so, it is well open to the appellants to invoke the
+          provisions of law available to them and approach the competent forum
+          for necessary relief.
+          7. Thus, we find no ground has been made out to interfere with the
+          order passed in the writ petition.
+          8. With the above observations/directions, appeal as well as the
+          connected application (IA No. CAN 1 of 2024) stand dismissed.
+          9. No costs.
+          10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
+          furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal
+          formalities."
+25. Subsequent to the aforesaid orders passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench and
+
+   the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner no.1 and 2 failed to
+
+   place any document of complaint filed by them before the concerned police
+
+   authorities claiming threat to their personal life and property and of any
+
+   action restricting their liberty to pursue their profession with dignity.
+
+26. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.1 and 2 submitted the
+
+   opinion of the Union of India specifically the Ministry of Home Affairs to be
+
+   the appropriate authority to provide safety and security to an individual
+
+   considering the threat perception after thorough assessment of the facts and
+
+   circumstances of a distinct case. It was further urged neither the police
+
+   authorities concerned nor this Court can assess whether the petitioners
+
+   required to be provided safety and security on the basis of personal claim of
+                                            19
+
+   a threat perception since it was within the absolute domain of the Ministry of
+
+   Home Affairs to ascertain and decide the seriousness and gravity of the
+
+   situation to provide safety and security to any individual.
+
+27. The Learned Advocate representing the State-respondents submitted despite
+
+   the order of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioners did not co-
+
+   operate with the investigation and suspected the investigating agency of
+
+   biasedness, arbitrariness and to wreck vengeance against the petitioners for
+
+   having dealt with a Public Interest Litigation against the State authorities
+
+   concerning an incident at Sandeshkhali. The petitioners were of the opinion
+
+   to be prejudicially prevented and impartial hearing and failed a transfer
+
+   petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India being Transfer Petitions
+
+   Criminal Nos.701/702 of 2024 which was dismissed as the Hon'ble Supreme
+
+   Court observed no case for transfer to have been made out vide its order
+
+   dated September 2, 2024.
+
+28. The petitioners had also filed writ petition criminal No.236 of 2024 before the
+
+   Supreme Court of India which was withdrawn by the petitioners. The
+
+   petitioners had accused the police personnels and other officials and had
+
+   impleaded them in the instant writ petition without plausible reasons and
+
+   did   not   deliberately   co-operate    with   the   investigation   citing   their
+
+   dissatisfaction as the same had been conducted by the CID, West Bengal
+
+   further stating to the Investigating Officer that the investigation should be
+
+   conducted by the CBI.
+
+29. The Learned Advocate representing the State further submitted it would not
+
+   be possible for the Writ Court to quash the proceedings since the complaint
+                                         20
+
+   as well as the FIR delineated commission of cognizable offences and the
+
+   charge-sheet had been submitted with further prayer on the part of the
+
+   Investigating Officer to file a supplementary charge-sheet. The Writ Court in
+
+   case of the offences being cognizable and the conundrum between the
+
+   parties should be decided through trial by the competent court. The Writ
+
+   Court should not exercise its jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.
+
+30. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 submitted the
+
+   petitioners to have instituted false and malicious complaints against the
+
+   respondent no.13 with an intention to incriminate him in serious offences of
+
+   rape, theft etc. The father of the respondent no.13 being a nonagenarian
+
+   person had been dragged mercilessly into humiliation, despair, agony and
+
+   trauma. The petitioners on being asked to be relieved of their professional
+
+   responsibility to represent the respondent no.13 and to withdraw the cases
+
+   on account of reconciliation between the respondent no.13 and his wife
+
+   infuriated the petitioners to lodge frivolous and baseless complaints against
+
+   the respondent no.13 whereby the same being a professional oncologist
+
+   practising in Bangladesh had been arrested and was released on bail. It was
+
+   further submitted the respondent no.13 to have been kidnapped by the
+
+   petitioners, physically assaulted and captivated.
+
+31. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 submitted that the
+
+   petitioner no.1 had instituted complaint cases against her and the same had
+
+   not been taken cognizance of by the CMM vide order dated 13.07.2023
+
+   passed in CS/71375/2023.
+                                         21
+
+32. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 further submitted
+
+   to have been repeatedly threatened and abused by the petitioners on the
+
+   corridor of this Court along with her junior who happened to be a practising
+
+   advocate in this Court. Against complaints registered as FIR, criminal
+
+   revisional applications have been pending before the respective Co-Ordinate
+
+   Bench of this Court.
+
+33. The petitioners were trying to frustrate the proceedings by delaying the
+
+   hearing of the same on several pretexts to the predicament of the respondent
+
+   no.13. Moreover, since the investigation had proceeded to a considerable
+
+   extent, the writ petition should not be entertained.
+
+34. The relationship between the petitioners and the respondent no.13
+
+   apparently had been cordial at the inception whereby the petitioners
+
+   accorded legal assistance to respondent no.13 to defend him in several cases
+
+   instituted against him in the Court of law, which gradually might have
+
+   evolved to be trustworthy and amicable to the extent the petitioners
+
+   accompanied the respondent no.13 to his parents' house at Tamil Nadu to
+
+   assist the respondent no.13 and his father in property related issues and its
+
+   assessment thereof. In course of time, the professional and congenial
+
+   relationship seemingly transformed into resentment and hostility.
+
+35. The petitioner no.1 subsequently on 28.04.2023 was asked to withdraw the
+
+   following cases pending before the respective Courts as stated below:-
+
+          "(i) Divorce Case 1647 of 2022 pending at 13 th ADJ, Alipore
+          (ii) Objection in Restitution Case 1535 of 2022 pending at 6 th ADJ,
+          Alipore
+                                              22
+
+             (iii) All my objection petitions and non maintainability petitions filed by
+             me in Maintenance Case 613 of 2021 pending at 6 th JM, Alipore
+             (iv) Non-maintainability petition in DV Case 561 of 2023 pending at 6 th
+             JM, Alipore"
+36. Respondent no.13 asked the petitioner no.1 through a communication dated
+
+   03.05.2023 for relieving her to take any further steps in the following legal
+
+   matters pending before the various Courts alleging the petitioner no.1 and 2,
+
+   inter alia, to have failed to maintain their professional ethics and discipline
+
+   as mentioned therein:-
+
+             "(i) 613/2021 - 6th JM, Alipore
+             (ii) 1535/2022 - 6th ADJ, Alipore
+             (iii) 1647/2022 - 13th ADJ, Alipore
+             (iv) 561/2023 - 6th JM, Alipore
+             (v) 38867/2023 - 14th Metropolitan Magistrate, Bankshall Court"
+
+37. The relationship between the disputants worsened with lapse of time and the
+
+   petitioner filed complaints against the respondent no.13 and his associates.
+
+38. Based on the complaint filed by the petitioner herein Chatterjeehat Police
+
+   Station     Case    No.23    of    2024     dated   05.02.2024    under    Sections
+
+   341/323/325/326B/354A/354B/509/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code
+
+   anticipatory bail was granted in favour of the accused therein vide order
+
+   dated 13.03.2024 passed by this Court in CRM(A) 880 of 2024.
+
+39. Based on the complaint of the petitioner herein Chatterjeehat Police Station
+
+   Case       No.78      of    2023      dated     04.05.2023       under     Sections
+
+   420/406/448/341/323/307/379/354B/376/506(2)/34 of the Indian Penal
+
+   Code had been instituted against the accused persons mentioned therein.
+                                            23
+
+40. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 submitted the
+
+   complaint filed by the respondent no.13 dated 28 th April, 2024 accused the
+
+   petitioners of abduction, extortion, physical assault, threat to murder,
+
+   defamation, confiscation of passport, ATM card and other official documents
+
+   perjury, forgery implicating in false and fabricated criminal cases to extort
+
+   money.
+
+41. Records further reveal an FIR to have been instituted by the Sathuvachari
+
+   Police Station, Vellore, on the basis of the complaint received from one Dr.
+
+   Debidas Rai who alleged that his son was missing referring to the present
+
+   petitioners to have visited his house claiming for further money to defend his
+
+   sons petitioners' case.
+
+42. The respondent no.13 who had been an accused in Chatterjeehat Police
+
+   Station       Case     No.78      of         2023   filed   under    Sections
+
+   420/406/448/341/323/379/354B/307/376/506/34 of the Indian Penal
+
+   Code was granted bail vide order dated 03.08.2023 passed by this Court in
+
+   CRM (DB) 3080 of 2023.
+
+43. The Learned Public Prosecutor had submitted the status report prepared by
+
+   the concerned Investigating Officer:-
+
+             "1. Case No. and date of registration: Chatterjeehat (Howrah Police
+             Commissionerate) PS Case No 78/2023 dt 04/05/2023
+             2. Sections of law: U/S 420/ 406/ 448/ 341/ 323/ 379/ 354B/
+             307/376/506/34 IPC.
+             3. Control order No. & Date: The case was assumed by CID W.B.
+             Vide Org No 618/CS. Dt. 06/08/24.
+                               24
+
+4. Name and rank of investigating officer: (i) SI Sudipta Kar of
+Chatterjeehat (Howrah Police Commissionerate) PS (ii) Inspector
+Swapna Ghosh O/C, POWC Cell, CID, WB.
+5. Gist of FIR: On 04/05/2023 at 17.25 hrs to the Officer In-Charge of
+Chatterjeehat PS received a written complaint from the complainant
+and perused the complaint properly. On the basis of a written
+complaint of the Victim Lady against one Deepak Shankar Ray and
+others to the effect that she was appointed as an advocate by the
+alleged person since month of December, 2021. The accused person
+was very reluctant to pay her professional fees as per norms of several
+Vakalatnamas executed by him in several cases. Till date the
+complainant owes Rs 1000000/- to the alleged person as her
+professional fees. But in spite of several reminders, he refused to pay
+her the same and threatened her with dire consequences. Thereafter
+on 29.04.2023 at around 20.30 hrs the alleged person came at the
+chamber of the complainant situated at 93 Abinash Banerjee Lane, PS-
+Chatterjeehat, Howrah and forcefully entered in to the chamber and
+committed theft in respect of some cash and mobile phone, then on
+being protest the alleged person outrage her female modesty and also
+trying to kill her by grabbing her throat. Then while the complainant
+felt down on the floor, the alleged person kicked in her lower private
+part and also forcibly inserted one of his left-hand finger at her lower
+private part. Over the complaint of the complainant Chatterjeehat PS
+Case No. 78/23 dated 04.05.2023 u/s 420/406/448/341/323/379
+3548/307/376/506/34 IPC has been started.
+6. Details of FIR named accused: (i) Deepak Shankar Ray(53yrs),
+S/O Debidas Ray of S-3, 2nd street, Sathuvachari, CMC Colony, Vellore,
+Tamil
+Nadu- 632009 and Flat No - 303, Sailagreen, 1137 Kalikapur,
+Purbalok, PS Purba Jadavpur, Kolkatta- 700099 (ii) Kanad Saha- S/O
+Lt Kunal Saha of Block - D2, Flat No - 402, Kendriya Vihar, Phase - II,
+PO- Birati, Dist North 24 Prgns, Kolkata - 700051. (iii) Debidas Ray
+                              25
+
+s/o of Lt. Nagendranath Ray of S-3, 2nd street, Sathuvachari, CMC
+Colony, Vellore, Tamil Nadu- 632009.
+7. Details of arrest: (i) Deepak Shankar Ray(53yrs), s/o Debidas Ray
+of S-3, 2nd street, Sathuvachari, CMC Colony, Vellore, Tamil Nadu-
+632009 and Flat No - 303, Sailagreen, 1137 Kalikapur, Purbalok, PS
+Purba Jadavpur, Kolkatta- 700099, was arrested on 11.07.2023 and
+forwarded before Ld. CJM, Howrah Sadar Court on 12.07.2023. (ii)
+Kanad Saha - S/O Lt Kunal Saha of Block - D2, Flat No - 402,
+Kendriya Vihar, Phase - II, PO- Birati, Dist North 24 Prgns, Kolkata -
+700051 was released on bail by Hon'ble High Court Calcutta on
+21.08.2023 and Ld. CJM, Howrah Sadar Court on 25.09.23. (iii)
+Debidas Ray s/o of Lt. Nagendranath Ray of S-3, 2nd street,
+Sathuvachari, CMC Colony, Vellore, Tamil Nadu- 632009 was granted
+anticipatory Bail by Hon'ble High Court Calcutta on 25.09.2023.
+8. Steps Taken During Investigation by the District Police:
+During investigation of the case I Sudipta Kar of Chatterjeehat PS
+visited the place of Occurrence and prepared a details index of the PO
+and prepared a rough sketch map. The IO examined the complainant
+and others available witnesses and recorded their statement U/S 161
+Cr.P.C. Medico legal examination of Victim Lady was performed by the
+Dr. Debhina Ghosal of Howrah District Hospital. He also arranged to
+record the Judicial Statement of the victim lady with the help of LSI
+Nitu Biswas of Howrah Women PS and produced the victim lady before
+the Ld Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 4th Court, Howrah, recorded her
+statement judicially U/S 164 Cr.P.C and also collected the copy of
+judicial statement from Ld Court, Howrah District.
+Previous IO collected the medico legal report along with one sealed
+envelope containing one glass tube & one glass slide containing the
+swab/ spermatozoa from Howrah District Hospital. IO sent prayer to
+ACP DD, HPC for providing the CDR of the accused person's mobile
+number which was provided by the VG to trace them out and also
+prayed for IMEI searching of the complainant's mobile phone which
+                                26
+
+was taken away by the accused from the PO. In course of
+investigation, IO seized the wearing apparels of the victim lady which
+were worn by her at the time of incident and also seized the bill of the
+alleged mobile which was taken away by the accused and one
+prescription of Dr Souvik Roy who examined the victim lady after the
+incident. In course of investigation, IO held several raids under Purba
+Jadavpur PS area & Naihati PS area to arrest the accused persons but
+no fruitful result achieved. Then IO collected the Passport details and
+prayed to the concerned authority after following all legal procedures
+for issuing Look Out Circular' against the principal accused namely
+Deepak Shankar Ray on 01.07.2023 LOC was initiated by the
+concerned authority against the accused person. On 11.07.2023
+received information that in the immigration Centre of Haridaspur
+under Petrapole PS, North 24 Pgs, said accused person was detained
+as LOC subject. IO along with force went to Haridaspur Immigration
+Centre and with the assistance of Petrapole PS police team, arrested
+the FIR named principle accused person namely Deepak Shankar Ray
+and brought him to PS and forwarded him before Ld. Court and took
+him into Police Custody for 02 days as per kind order of Ld. CJM,
+Howrah. During PC period after obtaining necessary orders from Ld.
+Court,   IO   produced   the   arrested   accused   person   before   the
+Superintendent of Howrah District Hospital for his medico legal
+examination. Dr. Chitta Ranjan Bhattacharya of Howrah District
+Hospital, has done the medico legal examination of the accused
+Deepak Shankar Ray and collected one sealed envelope containing one
+glass tube & one glass slide containing Urethral Swab/smears of said
+accused person. IO along with force and PC accused held raid to
+recover the alleged stolen articles and to arrest the other co accused
+persons, but no fruitful result was achieved. On 19.07.2023 IO sent the
+exhibits before Ld. C.JM. Howrah Sadar Court and collected CMR No.
+vide CMR No. 427/2023 dated 19.07.2023. On 31.08.2023 IO sent the
+exhibits to FSL Kolkata for examination and Expert Opinion. IO further
+                                 27
+
+contacted with the FSL authority over phone regarding the expert
+opinion but informed that the expert opinion is not ready yet. IO
+submitted Charge Sheet vide Chatterjehat PS C.S. No- 191/23 dated-
+31/10/2023 u/s 420/406/448/341/323/379/354B /307/376/506
+IPC against the Principal accused person namely Deepak Shankar Ray,
+53 yrs s/o Debidas Ray and u/s 509/506/34 IPC against the other 2
+FIR named accused persons namely (1) Kanad Saha - S/O Lt Kunal
+Saha (2) Debidas Ray s/o of Lt. Nagendranath Ray and IO also
+submitted prayer before the Ld. Court for allowing to submit
+Supplementary Charge Sheet after receiving the FSL report.
+  9. Steps Taken During Investigation by CID W.B:
+The investigation of the said case was taken up by CID W.B. as per
+order of Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta vide order CRR 1023 of
+2024, dt 08.04.2024 in compliance of the Order passed by Hon'ble
+High Court is "Quote" "Mr. Debasish Roy, learned Public Prosecutor
+appearing for the State submits that State would take up all the
+investigations for being investigated by the CID, West Bengal.
+However, it is the prerogative of the State at this stage as the de facto
+complainant has expressed her apprehension as she has complained
+to different dignitaries in respect of this Court.
+Targeting the Courts are a soft option as has been settled in several
+judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Article 219 of the
+Constitution of India states that court of law is supposed to act without
+any fear or favour. A professional having claimed herself to be a victim
+of sexual assault has raised issues not only in respect of this Court but
+also in respect of four other senior Judges of this Court. There cannot
+be any issue regarding the Court to proceed with the present case as
+the only issue which was expressed is that all the cases of
+Chatterjeehat Police Station in between the self same parties are to be
+transmitted to the CID or any Women Grievance Cell connected with
+the CID so that under the same umbrella investigation and in respect of
+different cases could be conducted.
+                                 28
+
+However, having regard to the attitude and approach of the de facto
+complainant and for preserving the sobriety of the judicial system, I
+intend to leave the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court for
+deciding the issue.
+Let the matter go out of the list and be placed before the Hon'ble Chief
+Justice for assignment.
+All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded
+from the official website of this Court.
+In respect of the said order CID WB has assumed investigation of the
+case vide Org No 618/CS. Dt. 06/08/24. I Inspector Swapna Ghosh,
+OC, POWC Cell was detailed as the Investigating officer.
+During investigation, I submitted a prayer and collected the Case
+Docket from learned CJM, Court, Howrah on 7/05/2024. I perused the
+case diary and learnt that the previous I/0 had submitted charge sheet
+with provision for submitting Supplementary Charge sheet on receipt of
+the FSL report. I submitted a prayer to FSL Kolkata vide memo no-
+79/POWC/CID WB on 14/05/2024 to hand over the FSL report and
+exhibits to me for the interest of investigation.
+On 22/05/2024 I received the exhibits and report from FSL Kolkata
+vide report no- BIO/5783/2023/3606/FSL dated 22/05/2024 and the
+opinion of the examination is "Quote" "No semen (no spermatozoon), no
+Gonococcus could be detected on the contents of the items marked A
+(vaginal swab & vaginal smears) and B (urethral swab & smears).
+"Unquote.
+Hon'ble High Court Calcutta vide order dated 08.04.2024 in CRR 1023
+OF 2024 had directed that all FIR's lodged against the complainants
+and accused persons at Chatterjeehat Police Station be investigated by
+CID, WB.
+O/C Chatterjeehat Police Station informed that along with the current
+case, there are 2 (two) more cases that have been lodged against both
+complainant and accused i.e Chatterjeehat PS case no- 23/2024
+dated-05/02/2024 u/S 341/ 323/ 325/ 326B/ 354A/ 354B/ 354/
+                                29
+
+509/ 506/34 IPC against (i) Dr. Deepak Shankar Roy s/o Dr. Debidas
+Roy (ii) Kanad Saha s/o Late Kunal Saha and (2) Chatterjeehat PS
+case no 86/2024 dated- 04/05/2024 u/s 341/363/468/420/506 IPC
+against Sanjukta Samanta w/o Romit Dutta.
+I had sent message to the complainant through Chatterjeehat PS for
+meeting her in c/w the investigation of the case, this refers to org no
+70/ POWC/CID WB dated 20/05/2024 and org no 73/ POWC/CID
+WB dated 25/05/2024 • However no response was received her till
+date. I also contacted with her over telephone and she told me that she
+don't want to meet investigation by CID, as rather she want CBI
+investigation.
+The complainant on 20/05/2024 had filed a WP (S) (Criminal) No (S)
+236/2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. But later the
+complainant withdrew her petition, this refers to Order dated
+03/06/2024 in WP (CL).
+Later, I came to learn from Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated
+1/07/2024 in c/w WPA Number 15260 of 2024 that "Quote" Let the
+case diary with the progress report of Chatterjeehat PS case no
+78/2023 be produced before this Court as because the petitioners
+apprehend arrest in c/w Chatterjeehat PS case no 86/2024.
+For the ends of justice the police is restrained from taking any coercive
+steps against the petitioner till 12th July, 2024 or until further order,
+which is earlier. "Unquote".
+Later, I came to learn from Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated
+30/07/2024 in c/w WPA Number 15260 of 2024 that "Quote"
+Petitioner No. 1 appears in-person and prays for release of the matter.
+Let this matter be released and placed before the Hon'ble the Chief
+Justice for appropriate assignment. "Unquote".
+In course of investigation, it is necessary to examine the complainant
+for which I have communicated with her over the telecommunication of
+CID West Bengal vide org no-144/ POWC dated 25/11/24.
+Reason for pending of investigation
+                                         30
+
+          Investigation is almost complete and will end in submission of
+          supplementary charge sheet.
+          The Investigation is pending as the complainant is not cooperating with
+          the investigation. During investigation several messages were sent to
+          the complainant but she did not respond. As per latest status dated
+          25/11/24 message was sent to the petitioner whose response was
+          recived by me vide Chatterjeehat PS org no - CHT/9033/24 which was
+          serviced dated 27/11/2024. Chatterjeehat PS. Received the following
+          response in writing against the above petition from the complainant
+          Quote "strongly objected to matter pending for challenging the
+          false FIR filed & counter case to harass me". Unquote.
+          This is submitted for your kind perusal."
+
+44. In compliance with the order dated 18.11.2024 of this Court, the report of
+
+   the Learned Public Prosecutor stated as follows:-
+
+             "The petitioner has initiated multiple proceedings before this Hon'ble
+          Court, asserting various grievances. Her claims are diverse, yet a
+          recurring theme is her assertion that the investigating agency has
+          failed to conduct its investigation impartially, thereby causing her
+          significant injustice. She has gone further to allege that the opposing
+          party is being supported by state machinery. According to her, the
+          advocates representing the state, acting in collusion, have sought to
+          suppress her voice and prevent her from receiving a fair hearing.
+             The petitioner's conduct has been noted on numerous occasions, and
+          there have been several instances where her matters have been
+          released by the Hon'ble Justices of this Court. In WPA 23711/2023, by
+          an order dated October 3, 2023, Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
+          observed the petitioner's belligerent demeanor and subsequently
+          released the matter. Similarly, in CRR 1023/2024, by an order dated
+          April 8, 2024, Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh reflected upon the
+          petitioner's attitude, noting her conduct as targeting the sanctity of the
+          judicial system, and consequently released the matter. This matter
+                                31
+
+was earlier released by Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh on April 4,
+2024.
+   In WPA 15260 of 2024, the petitioner herself sought the release of
+the matter before Hon'ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj, as indicated in
+the order dated July 30, 2024. Subsequently, by an order dated
+August 5, 2024, Hon'ble Justice Amrita Sinha released the same
+matter, attributing the decision to the petitioner's unruly behaviour
+during the proceedings. The petitioner has also alleged that during the
+hearing of the Sandeshkhali matter, WPA(P) 78/2024, she was
+subjected to abuse and threats by state advocates, which she claims
+were motivated by her political affiliations.
+   It is pertinent to mention herein that the aforesaid allegations have
+found place in the Special Leave Petition filed by the Writ Petitioner
+herein before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Writ Petition
+(Criminal) No 236/2024.
+   The petitioner has consistently expressed distrust in the police
+officials involved in the investigations of her matters. She alleges that
+these officials are influenced and biased, undermining her confidence
+in the fairness of the ongoing investigations.
+   Under such circumstances, I was constrained to direct the CID to
+take up the investigation of the cases filed by the instant writ petitioner
+as well as the case filed against her to ensure neutral investigation
+devoid of any blemish, as alleged by her.
+   The petitioner's allegations, demeanor, and conduct across various
+proceedings have drawn attention and have been noted by various
+benches this Hon'ble Court. These observations reflect a pattern of
+dissatisfaction on the part of the petitioner with the judicial and
+investigative processes, alongside allegations of undue influence and
+partiality.
+   It is however, necessary to bring to the notice of this Hon'ble Court
+that the Writ petitioner has consistently refrained from co operating
+with the CID to get her statement recorded or for any other purpose, as
+                                            32
+
+           required by the Investigating Agency thus rendering them incapable of
+           continuation and/or completion of the investigation of the cases
+           instituted by the instant writ petitioner.
+              This report has been prepared in pursuance to paragraph no. 5 of
+           the order dated November 18, 2024 passed by Her Ladyship Hon'ble
+           Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay."
+45. The petitioner no.1 appearing before the Court submitted her plight, agony
+
+   and helplessness being subjected to physical molestation, outrage of
+
+   modesty, theft of mobile and cash sum of Rs.65,000/- on the part of
+
+   respondent no.13 and his associates and non-payment of professional fees.
+
+   The petitioner no.1 submitted her associates. The petitioner no.1 submitted
+
+   her lawyer's chamber to have been impaired and damaged by the respondent
+
+   no.13 and his associates with continuous threat to both the petitioners and
+
+   their family members disrupting mental peace causing physical trauma and
+
+   being indignified with insinuations and ignominies. Both the petitioners
+
+   could not repose faith and trust on the investigating agencies whose actions
+
+   had been suspiciously frustrating to deliberately deprive the petitioners of
+
+   fair justice.
+
+46. The respondent no.13 filed a complaint dated 28 th April, 2024 accusing the
+
+   petitioners of abduction, extortion, physical assault, threat to murder,
+
+   defamation, confiscation of passport, ATM card and other official documents,
+
+   perjury, forgery implicating in false and fabricated criminal cases to extort
+
+   money etc. which had been serious allegations.
+
+47. The serious allegations by the petitioners the counter allegations resulting in
+
+   the institution of the aforementioned criminal cases being registered through
+
+   formal FIRs had been challenged through filing of Criminal Revisional
+                                              33
+
+   Applications pending before the co-ordinate bench of this Court for quashing
+
+   of the proceedings/FIRs being Nos. Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.86
+
+   of 2024 and No.78 of 2023.
+
+48. The allegations of the petitioner no.1 are indubitably grave and deprecated in
+
+   nature which can only be tested in terms of its veracity through trial to
+
+   inculpate the perpetrator. Contrarily the allegations of the respondent no.13
+
+   whether to have been genuine or a counterblast to the allegations of the
+
+   petitioners cannot be decided unless the investigation of the respective cases
+
+   are concluded and the process of trial being conducted by the court of
+
+   competent    jurisdiction   to   arrive    at   a   conclusive   determination   for
+
+   incrimination or exculpation.
+
+49. A web-search on the query as to who decides to provide security to private
+
+   individual in India and on what ground, the following answer has been
+
+   received by this Court:-
+
+
+           "The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), on the recommendation of
+           intelligence agencies, decides to provide security to private individuals
+           in India, based on perceived threats to life or injury from groups or
+           terrorists. While government officials typically receive security based
+           on their position, a call on security for private citizens is made by the
+           MHA using information from bodies like the Intelligence Bureau (IB)
+           and Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW). The Central Reserve Police
+           Force (CRPF) and other forces then provide this security.
+           The Process
+
+             1) Intelligence Gathering: Intelligence Agencies like the IB and R&AW
+                monitor potential threats and gather information from various
+                                           34
+
+               sources, including phone intercepts, human intelligence, and
+               threat analysis.
+             2) Threat   Assessment:      These   agencies   provide   a   subjective
+               assessment of the threat to an individual's life or safety from
+               potential attackers like terrorists or other groups.
+             3) Decision by the MHA: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) reviews
+               the intelligence inputs and decides whether a private individual
+               requires security cover.
+             4) Deployment of Forces: If security is granted, a central agency,
+               often the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), is tasked with
+               providing the security.
+50. The petitioners herein despite the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench of this
+
+   Court in WPA 23711 of 2023 and the Hon'ble Division Bench in MAT 831 of
+
+   2024 presiding over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court at Calcutta,
+
+   having directed to file complaints at the concerned police station for being
+
+   threatened as claimed by the petitioners reiterated by this Court during
+
+   consecutive hearings failed to provide the copy of the complaint or the G.D.
+
+   Entry number concerning such complaints claimed to have been lodged by
+
+   the petitioners.
+
+51. Considering the role of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the submissions of
+
+   the Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.1 and 2 Union of
+
+   India, the prayer of the petitioner for providing personal security on the
+
+   ground of their perception cannot be allowed. The petitioners could not
+
+   establish a case serious and strong enough to be granted protection as
+
+   sought for which otherwise had to be decided by the Ministry of Home Affairs
+
+   on the basis of imminent and persistent threat. The petitioners could not
+
+   justify inaction on the part of the police administration or the investigating
+                                           35
+
+   agency, however, claimed the same to be biased and revengetic in its attitude
+
+   towards the petitioners primarily petitioner no.1 for her active role against
+
+   the State administration defending injustice to women's rights concerning an
+
+   unfortunate event at Sandeshkhali through a Public Interest Litigation.
+
+52. The status report of the Learned Public Prosecutor as aforesaid explaining
+
+   the course of investigation did not endorse police inaction.
+
+53. Vide Order dated 08.07.2024, the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in WPA
+
+   15260 of 2024 observed as follows:-
+
+             "As per the request of the petitioners, the live streaming has been
+          paused.
+             Learned advocate representing the State respondents submits, upon
+          instruction that, the petitioners are not cooperating with the police in
+          the process of investigation.
+             From the documents handed over by the learned advocate
+          representing the State respondents it appears that, after protection
+          was granted to the petitioners vide the order passed by this Court on
+          1st July, 2024, no notice was served upon the petitioners directing their
+          appearance for investigation.
+             The respondents are directed to proceed with the investigation but
+          not take any coercive steps against the petitioners without the leave of
+          the Court.
+             The petitioners and all other parties are directed to cooperate with
+          the police for the sake of investigation.
+             List on 12th August, 2024.
+             Liberty to mention.
+             Report dated 08.07.2024 be kept with the records."
+54. The petitioners despite an order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this
+
+   Court to co-operate in the investigation refrained from participating in the
+
+   investigation as claimed by the Learned Advocate representing the State
+                                          36
+
+   respondents suspecting the Investigating Officers and accusing them of
+
+   arbitrary, biasedness being capricious and revengeful. The Co-Ordinate
+
+   Bench of this Court directed the investigating agency not to take any
+
+   coercive steps against the petitioners. Despite such an order, the petitioners
+
+   denied to co-operate with the investigating agency as had been stated in the
+
+   report filed by the Learned Public Prosecutor as aforesaid.
+
+55. The Learned Public Prosecutor on an explanation sought by this Court for
+
+   transferring the case of investigation to the CID, West Bengal anxiously
+
+   stated for the purpose of an impartial and unbiased investigation, the same
+
+   had been entrusted to the CID, West Bengal conforming to the police
+
+   regulations stated as follows:-
+
+          "II.- Control and assistance in enquiries and investigations.
+          ....
+

618. Method of assuming control. +

(a) The Deputy Inspector-General, Criminal Investigation. Department, + may assume control 0f an enquiry or investigation at any stage. On + assuming control he shall inform the Deputy Inspector-General of the + Range forthwith, sending a copy 0f his intimation direct to the + Superintendent Or Superintendents concerned. +
(b) In excise cases in which the investigation must extend to more than + one district, or in which there are intricacies which cannot be dealt with + without the aid of a specially skilled detective, the services of an officer + of the Criminal Investigation Department, shall be requisitioned by the + Commissioner of Excise. In emergencies such requisition may also be + made by an officer of lower rank. The Deputy Inspector-General, + Criminal Investigation Department, shall, if he thinks fit and if he has + an officer available, depute one and also decide whether the officer + deputed shall be placed at the disposal of the Commissioner of Excise + 37 + + or whether the control of the enquiry shall be taken over by the + Criminal Investigation Department." +

56. It was further submitted several Judges of this Hon'ble High Court had been + + accused along with the police officers and the Learned Public Prosecutor + + himself which compelled him to transfer the responsibilities of conducting + + investigation on the CID, State of West Bengal without any other alternative + + or option being third party to conduct the investigation independently + + without the involvement of the police officers of the concerned police station + + against whose conduct several objections had been raised by the petitioners. + +

57. The status report filed by the Learned Public Prosecutor as aforesaid did not + + reveal police inaction to the detriment of the petitioners' interest. The + + petitioners had filed a transfer petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + + India being Transfer Petitions Criminal No.701/702 of 2024 being Sanjukta + + Samanta vs. the State of West Bengal and Ors. etc. whereby the petitioners + + appeared in person. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated + + 02.09.2024 observed: "No case for transfer is made out. The transfer petitions + + are dismissed." +

+

58. The petitioners, therefore, cannot refuse to participate in the investigation + + violating the order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court on + + 08.07.2024 in WPA 15260 of 2024. Both the parties have filed criminal + + revisional applications before the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court, the + + criminal revisional applications being CRR 1023 of 2024 and CRR 3203 of + + 2023. The petitioners as well as the respondent no.13 have availed the + + jurisdiction to redress their grievances in an alternative form under Section + + 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner no.1 being a + 38 + + complainant in connection with Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.78 of + + 2023 filed under Sections + + 420/406/448/341/323/379/354B/307/376/506/34 sought for stay of the + + investigation in the said case further seeking the investigation to be + + conducted by the State respondent no.4 whose actions had been challenged + + by the petitioners to be against her interest intending to deprive her of fair + + trial and natural justice. +

+

59. In the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajanlal and Others 1, + + the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- +

+
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant + provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law + enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise + of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers + under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and + reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of + illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent + abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of + justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly + defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid + formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases + wherein such power should be exercised. +
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the + complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in + their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a + case against the accused. +
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other + materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable + offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section + + 1 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 + 39 + + 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the + purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. +

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint + and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the + commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. + (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable + offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is + permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as + contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. +

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd + and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can + ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for + proceeding against the accused. +

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the + provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal + proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the + proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or + the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the + aggrieved party. +

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide + and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior + motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite + him due to private and personal grudge." +

60. Since the contents of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet claimed to have + + been filed by the investigating agency as per the report filed by the Learned + + Public Prosecutor in Case No.78 of 2023 and the complaint as well as the + + FIR in Case No.86 of 2024 to have revealed allegations of cognizable offences + + in both the aforesaid cases, this Court is not inclined to stay the further + + proceedings in the aforesaid cases. +

40

+ +

61. The petitioners being young, responsible and bright advocates practising in + + this Hon'ble Court as well as in the Supreme Court, out of shock and + + displeasure probably by the turn of events cannot trust the investigating + + agencies at the moment perhaps due to mental agony. One has to confide in + + the prevailing justice delivery system to attain a finality to a dispute which + + definitely can be assailed at a Higher Forum statutorily. The petitioners did + + not appear before this Court on the dates fixed for hearing as reflected in the + + order-sheets of the instant writ petition and the case was reserved for + + judgment on 17.02.2025. Subsequently the petitioners filed several CAN + + applications in the Court and directly addressed the same in the name of the + + presiding judge of this Court as would be evident from the postal envelopes + + on record. Considering the context of the CAN applications, this Court + + thought it prudent to grant a further opportunity to the petitioners to + + address this Court for a final hearing and recalled the order dated + + 17.02.2025 on 16.05.2025, fixing the next date of hearing on 11.07.2025. + + The petitioner no.2 appeared online only to contradict the court proceedings + + without submissions on merits. Finally on 11.07.2025 the instant writ + + petition was reserved for pronouncing judgment. +

+

62. The contention of the petitioner no.1 to have been a victim of rape and her + + name and presence to be masked is contrary to the cause title of the instant + + writ petition where the name of the petitioner no.1 had been mentioned by + + herself conspicuously claiming the relief sought for revealing her identity for + + quashing of the aforesaid Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.86 of 2024 + + dated 04.05.2024 under Sections 341/365/468/420/506/34 of the Indian + 41 + + Penal Code. The petitioner no.1 appeared before the Hon'ble Supreme Court + + in person to move the Transfer Petition as aforesaid without seeking her + + presence to be masked as the same would not transpire from the order of the + + Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioners did not appear before the Court on + + the dates fixed for hearing and subsequently could not blame this Court for + + not granting them an opportunity of hearing. This Court did hear the + + submissions of the petitioners on earlier dates and recorded the same in the + + order-sheets as well as in the instant judgment. +

+

63. Moreover, the petitioners as well as the respondent no.13 have already + + sought for relief of quashing the proceedings of the criminal cases instituted + + against each other under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as + + stated above before the Co-Ordinate Benches of this Court. The allegations + + and counter-allegations in the complaints do not reveal the same to be prima + + facie frivolous which are in the facts and circumstances of the case serious + + in nature with grave implications and ramifications. + +

64. The Writ Court can quash the criminal proceedings if the same has been + + frivolously instituted, however, in the instant case, the gamut of allegations + + and counter-allegations are complex in terms of severity necessitating to + + unravel the authenticity and credibility of the same which in the facts and + + circumstances of the instant writ petition shall be subjected to the process of + + trial by the competent Court. +

+

65. In view of the above discussions, the instant writ petition being WPA + + No.15260 of 2024 along with its connected CAN applications stand + + dismissed. +

42

+ +

66. There is no order as to costs. +

+

67. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on + + priority basis on compliance of all formalities. +

+

+

(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.) +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_50068134.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_50068134.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7ee25458805a2ab285282d50d6383a7ee5cc3049 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_50068134.html @@ -0,0 +1,365 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Robin Bansal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 22 August, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, then Court below, in order to secure his presence, can issue proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and if the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_50663671.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_50663671.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dc3251e705edb2f41728edaf549b9935637f8de7 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_50663671.html @@ -0,0 +1,389 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Respondent vs Petitioner on 4 January, 2012 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

The question involved in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is + +whether the order of bail granted by the High Court in favour of the + +accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the + +crime stage can be cancelled by the High Court after the final report + +was filed and after the Sessions Court granted regular bail to the + +accused, on the ground that the accused violated the conditions in + +the order passed by the High Court. +

+

+

2. As per the order dated 21.1.2010 in B.A.No.202 of 2010, + +bail was granted to the respondent and three others in Crime No.213 + +of 2009 of Badiadka Police Station. The offences alleged against + +the accused were under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 302 read + +with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Bail was granted to the + +respondent and others at the crime stage. Later, as per the order + +passed by this Court in a Writ Petition, investigation of the crime was + +handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation ("the CBI" for + +short). The CBI deleted some accused from the array of accused + +CRL.M.C. NO.4280 OF 2011 + + :: 2 :: +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_5118870.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_5118870.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..542d2237fa8dbb26ad3c6ef826415a1c2e7a56cb --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_5118870.html @@ -0,0 +1,455 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sonu Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The petitioner is in custody for about 4 years. + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 665 of 2023 + + The instant Revision is filed by CICL himself, + + challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order, + + dated 9th of August, 2023, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2023 + + by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum- + + Children's Court, Banka. The CICL was arrested in connection + + with Banduwa Kurawa P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023, corresponding + + to G.R. No. 1202 of 2023, for the offences punishable under + + Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 + + of the Arms Act. However, later on, Sections 34 of the IPC and + + Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section + + 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes + + (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added. Prayer for + + bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Appeal in + + exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Juvenile + + Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter + + referred to as 'said Act') vide order, dated 15th of June, 2023. + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 687 of 2023 + + The petitioner/CICL was arrested in connection + + with Fesar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, + + 325, 307, 34, 504, 506 and 379 of the IPC along with his father + + and uncle. The petitioner prayed for regular bail before the JJB, + + Aurangabad. In JJB Case No. 932 of 2023, prayer for bail was + + rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 41 + + of 2023 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children's Court, + + Aurangabad. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal + + and affirmed the order of the JJB. The petitioner has assailed the + + said order of the Appellate Court on various grounds, specially + + on the ground that the father and uncle of the petitioner have + + already been granted bail for the same offence. + +
+
+ +
+

Reg. Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2024 + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + The petitioner was booked along with other major + + accused persons in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 237 of + + 2022, dated 13th of August, 2022, under Section 302 and 34 of + + the IPC. The petitioner being a CICL prayed for bail before the + + Juvenile Justice Board, but his prayer for bail was rejected. He + + preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the said Act before the + + learned Special Judge, Children's Court and the said appeal was + + also dismissed and the order of rejection of bail passed by the + + JJB was affirmed. It is stated by the petitioner that the accused + + persons who are major, namely, Sushil Kumar Yadav and Anil + + Yadav were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on + + 26th of April, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 4091 of 2023. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_51408509.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_51408509.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ab6f38266c9def33a6a8d13642ca00c47f0a63c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_51408509.html @@ -0,0 +1,2203 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Simhadri Subba Rao Alias Subba Rao Goud vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 34, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

+

Simhadri Subba Rao Alias Subba Rao Goud vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025

+ +
        THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
+
+
+CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475,
+
+ 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839,
+
+                     5920 and 9083 of 2024
+
+
+COMMON ORDER:
+ + +

Crl.P.No.5197 of 2024 + + + This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A32 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

2

+ + + + +

2. Sri N. Harinadh, learned Counsel for petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, + +learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- + +State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.4896 of 2024 + + +

3. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A46 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

4. Sri Mukkamalla Rama Swamy, the learned counsel for + +petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + 3 + + + + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5230 of 2024 + + +

5. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A35 and A51 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

6. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + 4 + + + + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5256 of 2024 + + +

7. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A43 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

8. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + 5 + + + + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.5367 of 2024 + + +

9. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A4 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

10. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 6 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5475 of 2024 + + +

11. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A64 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

12. Sri Karanki Yaswanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, the learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

7

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5487 of 2024 + + +

13. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A47 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

14. Ms.P.Srilatha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 8 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5503 of 2024 + + +

15. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A19 and A20 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

16. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 9 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5550 of 2024 + + +

17. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A2, A16, A37 and A45 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

18. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

10

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5553 of 2024 + + +

19. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A7 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

20. Sri Peta Gnana Teja, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 11 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5585 of 2024 + + +

21. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A1 and A67 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

22. Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

12

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5652 of 2024 + + +

23. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A15 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

24. Sri Chalasani Venkat, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

13

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5718 of 2024 + + +

25. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A8, A22, A36 and A68 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

26. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 14 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5724 of 2024 + + +

27. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A3 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

28. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

15

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5752 of 2024 + + +

29. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A31, A53 and A65 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime + +No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna + +District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections + +143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) + +of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

30. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

16

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5839 of 2024 + + +

31. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A55 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

32. Sri B.V Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 17 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5920 of 2024 + + +

33. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A6, A13, A14, A17, A27, A28, A30, A39, A42, A52, + +A54, A56, A61 and A69 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

34. Ms.V.Devi Satya Sri, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

18

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.9083 of 2024 + + +

35. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A75 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

36. Sri G.L.Nageswar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor + +appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments. + + +

37. In all the above bail petitions, detailed counters were filed + +by the respondent-State. +

19

+ + + + +

38. All these criminal petitions pertain to Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station. By these petitions these + +accused pray for pre-arrest bail. All these petitions were heard + +together and by this common order they shall be disposed of. + +The crime incident allegedly occurred on 20.02.2023. Upon a + +written information dated 22.02.2023 F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was + +registered. The scene of offence was Telugu Desam Party office, + +Gannavaram. Sri Mudunuri Satyavardhan belonging to Madiga + +caste, which is a scheduled caste, was computer operator + +working in Telugu Desam Party office and living in the said office. + + +

39. During the time when this crime incident allegedly occurred + +the party in power was YSR Congress Party. Investigation + +commenced and went on for some time. Thereafter there were + +general elections and the then opposition party/Telugu Desam + +Party came into power. Thereafter investigation continued + +further. The allegations and counter allegations in this case + +disclosed the rift between both the political parties. Petitioners + +contend that this is a case falsely alleged against them out of + +political vendetta. According to State, for political reasons there + +was inadequate investigation soon after commission of the + +offence. By the time this crime incident occurred Sri Vallabhaneni + 20 + + + + +Vamsi Mohan was Member of Legislative Assembly for + +Gannavaram Assembly Constituency. He is one of the accused + +in the present crime. +

+

+

40. The version of the prosecution is that on 18.02.2023 during + +afternoon hours a press meet was held by Sri Vallabhaneni + +Vamsi Mohan wherein he allegedly made certain insulting + +remarks as against Sri N.Chandrababu Naidu, Sri Nara Lokesh + +and their family members and used indecent language. In + +response to it, certain leaders of Telugu Desam Party conducted + +a press meeting on 19.02.2023 in the morning hours and + +condemned the statements made by the opponent political party + +people. +

+

+

41. In the above backdrop of facts, the crime incident allegedly + +occurred. It is stated that on 20.02.2023 at about 5:00 P.M. + +Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan went to Telugu Desam Party + +office and on noticing followers of Telugu Desam Party he caused + +enquiries about Mr. Pattabhi of Telugu Desam Party and warned + +them that they would finish Telugu Desam Party and left the + +place. +

21

+ + + + +

42. In the next 30 minutes at about 5:30 P.M. about 100 + +persons belonging to YSR Congress Party came to Telugu + +Desam Party office wielding sticks, stones, petrol bottles and + +various other arms and while hailing Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi + +Mohan they attacked the party office. They threw stones, entered + +into the party office and destroyed the furniture, broke two + +computers and two televisions and caused tremendous panic + +among everyone available there. In the first information report + +the de facto complainant was able to mention the names of 44 + +accused. It also made a mention about four named accused who + +came upon him and abused him by his caste name. The further + +case of the prosecution is that these hooligans caused chaos and + +some of them using their sticks and cricket playing wickets + +seriously damaged three cars/AP 39 K 1999, AP 16 DJ 9499 and + +TS 10 EC 4099. It is also stated that one Mr. Rabbani poured + +petrol on the car bearing No.AP 16 DA 5555 and lit fire to it. The + +version of the de facto complainant is that there were police + +people at the Telugu Desam Party office and they remained mute + +spectators. During investigation it was found that some of the + +accused made attempts to burn the party office as walls in one + +room were found with charred marks. +

22

+ + + + +

43. Investigation has been in progress. Some of the accused + +were arrested and were remanded to judicial custody. According + +to prosecution, at least 44 accused were absconding. After + +gaining contact with about 28 accused they were questioned + +about their mobile phones and only seven out of them + +surrendered their mobile phones and 20 of the accused furnished + +false information with regard to the instruments they used and + +their mobile numbers. +

+

+

44. During the investigation, CCTV footage was collected. + +When the crime incident occurred, various people captured it on + +their mobile phones and all such material was collected. Based + +on these investigative efforts, allegations are made against all + +these petitioners by the prosecution that they are all involved in + +this crime incident. +

+

+

45. Broadly stated all these petitioners raised the following + +contentions: +

+

+

 That there was unexplained delay in registration of crime. + + The incident occurred on 20.02.2023 and F.I.R. was + + registered on 22.02.2023. That around the same time and + + place certain incidents occurred which resulted in + 23 + + + + + registration of multiple F.I.Rs. and many of which disclosed + + accusation of criminal acts of followers of Telugu Desam + + Party as against members of YSR Congress Party + + members and this case is in a way a counter blast to Crime + + Nos.132 of 2023 and 133 of 2023. +
+
+  F.I.R. does not contain any allegations of overt acts against + + these petitioners. +
+
+  After change in political party in power witnesses were + + planted and false evidence is created. +
+
+  The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. were bailable and + + many of these petitioners were served with Section 41A + + Cr.P.C. notice. However, after the change of political + + Government police have unlawfully brought additional + + penal provisions to nullify the rightful reliefs available to the + + petitioners. +
+
+

46. Plethora of precedent is cited on behalf of the petitioners + +and on behalf of some of the accused meticulous written + +arguments are filed leaving one to wonder that this to pronounce + +a judgment as if it is one after trial. +

24

+ + + + +

47. The following significant aspects are required to be noticed: + + +

F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was registered for the offences + +punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435 and 506 read with + +149 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989'). Since caste atrocity was one of + +the offences alleged, on the instructions of Superintendent of + +Police, Krishna, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gannavaram + +took up investigation. After recording the statements of about six + +witnesses, the investigation officer found that the provisions of the + +Act, 1989 were not applicable. Therefore, he applied to the + +Superintendent of Police to accord permission to delete those + +provisions. By proceedings dated 04.07.2023 the Superintendent + +of Police granted such permission. Investigation went further and + +scores of witnesses were examined. Thereafter by way of an + +alteration memo dated 07.08.2024 the investigation agency got + +added Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989. It + +also added Sections 436, 450 and 452 I.P.C. It is also to be + +noticed that in this case so far there are 71 accused. + 25 + + + + +

48. Since in the present crime incident not only offences under + +the Indian Penal Code but also offences under the Act, 1989 are + +alleged, the forceful argument raised by the State is that + +anticipatory bail petitions are not maintainable by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. The further argument is + +that the High Court does not now possess concurrent original + +jurisdiction for bails as well as anticipatory bails and it has only + +appellate jurisdiction by virtue of Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and + +therefore, these petitions are to be dismissed. In such + +circumstances, this Court on 13.11.2024 requested the learned + +counsels on both sides to address arguments in that regard since + +the jurisdictional bar has arisen. +

+

+

49. Valiant submissions are made by the learned counsels for + +petitioners wherein references are made to Sections 18 and 18A + +of the Act, 1989 and precedent is cited to show that if there is no + +prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989 is + +made out, anticipatory bail could be considered. It is also argued + +that this Court in these petitions during hearing granted interim + +protection and therefore, the same may be made absolute since + +these petitioners have not violated anything thereafter. + 26 + + + + +

50. The point that falls for consideration is: + + +

"What is the effect of Section 14A of the Scheduled + + Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the concurrent original + + jurisdiction of the High Court in considering bails + + and anticipatory bails where offences under the Act, + + 1989 are involved? +
+
+POINT: +
+
+

51. Offences under the Act, 1989 can be taken cognizance of + +and tried and be disposed of by Special Courts and Exclusive + +Special Courts as provided in Section 14 of the Act, 1989. Those + +Courts since now empowered to take cognizance hold power to + +take remand of the accused and consider bails. There is no + +provision in the Act, 1989 adverting to the aspects that are to be + +considered by those Courts when they entertain bail petitions. + +Therefore, those Courts draw their powers from the Code of + +Criminal Procedure. Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal + +Procedure is headed as provisions as to bail and bonds. It + +consists of Sections 436 to 450. They refer to bail in cases of + +bailable offences and bail in cases of non-bailable offences. + 27 + + + + +Section 438 Cr.P.C. is given heading direction for grant of bail to + +person apprehending arrest. To the extent the said provision is + +required alone is extracted here: +

+
"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending + arrest: +
+
(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be + arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- +

bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the + Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the + event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that + Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the + following factors, namely:- +

+
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; + +
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to + whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on + conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; + +
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and + +
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of + injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so + arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an + interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail: + +
Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, + the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order + under this sub-Section or has rejected the application for + grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer + 28 + + + + + incharge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the + applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in + such application." +
+

52. Thus, as per the above provision, those accused who + +anticipate their arrest may seek pre-arrest bail and they could + +move such applications either before this Court or before the + +Court of Sessions. It is in the light of such a provision the + +petitioners have straightaway moved this Court for their prayers + +for pre-arrest bail. +

+

+

53. The first submission of the State is that in cases of caste + +atrocities anticipatory bails cannot be maintained by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. Those provisions read as + +below: +

+

+

"18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons + committing an offence under the Act.-- Nothing in + section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case + involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of + having committed an offence under this Act. + + 18A. No enquiry or approval required.--(1) For the + purposes of this Act,-- (a) preliminary enquiry shall not be + required for registration of a First Information Report against + any person; or + 29 + + + + +
(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the + arrest, if necessary, of any person, + + against whom an accusation of having committed an + offence under this Act has been made and no procedure + other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall + apply. +
+
(2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply + to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or + order or direction of any Court." +
+

54. The crisp response from the learned counsels for the + +petitioners is that the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would + +apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist + +pointing towards the commission of an offence under the Act, + +1989. If the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under + +the Act, 1989 are not disclosed on the prima facie reading of the + +allegations levelled in the complaint or F.I.R. then in such + +circumstances, the bar of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would not + +apply and the Courts would not be absolutely precluded from + +granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons. In justification of + +this argument they cited ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + +India in Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala1. + +1 + 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601 + 30 + + + + +

55. If one goes by the contentions of the learned counsel for + +petitioners this Court is to take a view whether the allegations in + +the F.I.R./written information of the de facto complainant prima + +facie disclose caste atrocity or not. However, according to the + +State, even such a view cannot be taken by this Court by virtue of + +interdict contained in Section 14A of the Act, 1989. Therefore, it + +is required to notice what this provision says. The provision reads + +as below: +

+

+

"14A. Appeals:--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained + in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an + appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not + being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an + Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and + on law. +
+
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section + (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, + 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court + against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive + Special Court granting or refusing bail. + + (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for + the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall + be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of + the judgment, sentence or order appealed from: Provided + that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry + of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the + 31 + + + + + appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal + within the period of ninety days: Provided further that no + appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of + one hundred and eighty days. +
+
(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far + as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months + from the date of admission of the appeal." + +

56. As per Sub-Section (2) of Section 14Aof the Act, the + +petitions for bail are to be considered by the Special Court and in + +the event of their granting or refusing to grant such bails the + +aggrieved can prefer an appeal before this Court. Thus, the + +concurrent jurisdiction for consideration of anticipatory bails + +provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C. stood excluded. It is not as + +though the aggrieved is deprived of all the remedies. After + +inviting an order on the bail petition from the Special Court the + +aggrieved is entitled to prefer an appeal before this Court in terms + +of Section 14A of the Act, 1989. In the case at hand, the + +petitioners have moved bail petitions straightaway before this + +Court. At any rate, what is before this Court is not an appeal + +against an order passed by the Special Court with reference to + +bails. It shall be stated that on the same subject matter High + +Court could not be said to possess concurrent original jurisdiction + 32 + + + + +as well as appellate jurisdiction. If one is to state that a bail is + +different from anticipatory bail the result is that in anticipatory + +bails this Court holds original jurisdiction and in regular bails it + +holds only appellate jurisdiction. Assuming that in a case a + +petition for anticipatory bail being moved before the Special Court + +resulted in dismissal, then according to the logic applied by the + +petitioners the petitions would have to move only another bail + +petition before this Court and not an appeal. Such logic is in + +violation of what is clearly provided in Section 14A of the Act, + +1989. It is to be seen that the question of bail presupposes + +detention or custody of the person. In a case where a person is + +arrested he prays for a regular bail. In cases of anticipatory bail + +in the event of granting the relief, it has no effect unless and until + +the accused is arrested. In other words, the order of anticipatory + +bail comes into effect only after a person is arrested and not + +otherwise. In contrast to regular bail, in cases of anticipatory bail + +the order is obtained in advance. In regular bails it was obtained + +after arrest. The timing at which a prayer is made, and an order + +is granted, have no relevance when it comes to operation of + +those orders as in both the cases they come into operation only in + +those cases where a person is arrested. In such view of the + 33 + + + + +matter the word bail used in Section 14A of the Act, 1989 + +encompasses regular bail as well as anticipatory bail. Therefore, + +it must be stated that an application for bail or anticipatory bail + +can be filed only before the Special Court or the Exclusive + +Special Court as the case may be and not before the High Court. + +An order granting or refusing bail or anticipatory bail by the + +Special Court or Exclusive Special Court can be assailed before + +this Court invoking its appellate jurisdiction provided in Section + +14A of the Act, 1989. This Court had deliberated these aspects + +on earlier occasions when similar questions were raised and it + +reached to the same conclusions and reference can be made to + +the following: +

+

+

1. Nakka Nagireddy v. State of A.P.2 + + +
2. Deepak Kumar Tala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh3. + + +

57. Similar conclusions were reached at by other High Courts. + +Reference can be made to the following: +

+

+

1. K.M.Basheer v. Rajani K.T.4 + +2 + 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5322 Order dated 11.11.2024 +3 + Order dated 22.10.2024 in Criminal Petition No.6487 of 2024 +4 + 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 472 + 34 + + + + +
2. Lokesh v. State of Karnataka5 + + +
3. In re Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 v. Nil6 + + +
4. Atul Rajput v. The State of Madhya Pradesh7 + + +

58. At the bar, for petitioners, Abhishek Awasthi v. State of + +U.P.8 is cited. That is a case where other subsections of Section + +14A of the Act, 1989 fell for consideration and the powers of the + +High Court were considered under Section 482 of Code of + +Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings. + +Finally, it was held that with a view to prevent the misuse or + +abuse of the Court or law, the High Court holds inherent + +jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. + +Such question is not available before this Court. Even otherwise + +a brief reference to what was stated by their Lordships in Shajan + +Skaria's case9 would be sufficient here. At paragraph No.49 their + +Lordships stated that if the accused puts forward the case of + +malicious prosecution on account of political or private vendetta + +5 + 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15742 +6 + 2018 SCC OnLine ALL 2087 +7 + Order dated 10.04.2024 in Crl.A.No.3261 of 2024 of the High Court of +Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur +8 + MANU/UP/4595/2024 + 35 + + + + +such aspects can be considered only by the High Court in + +exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code or + +in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the + +Constitution of India. However, powers under Section 438 of the + +Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised once the + +contents of the complaint/F.I.R. disclose a prima facie case. In + +fact, in that case Section 14A of the Act, 1989 did not come up for + +consideration since the anticipatory bail petition was first moved + +before the trial Court and as against those orders appeal was + +preferred before the High Court. +

+

+

59. The plethora of precedent cited before this Court is not with + +reference to Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and therefore any + +reference to those cherished principles of those rulings is not + +required. This Court refrains from delving into other facts and the + +principles of law governing anticipatory bails since any such + +discussion may unnecessarily prejudice the contentions of both + +sides when appropriate applications are filed before appropriate + +Courts for the reliefs or when the maters come up before this + +Court in appeal. +

+

9 + Supra 1 + 36 + + + + +

60. Learned counsel for petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5920 + +of 2024 argued that this very Bench on earlier occasions + +considered and granted anticipatory bail and therefore, the same + +benefit can be extended to the present petitioners. The attention + +of this Court is brought to Sri Settipalli Raghurami Reddy v. + +The State of Andhra Pradesh10 and Julakanti Brahma Reddy + +@ Brahma Nanda Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 11. In + +both those matters the question about Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 was never raised by either side and therefore, there was no + +occasion for this Court to express itself on that aspect of the + +matter. After those orders it was in October and November 2024 + +only this Court had occasion to consider Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 and accordingly decided the earlier referred Nakka + +Nagireddy's case12 and Deepak Kumar Tala's case13. + +Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions of the learned + +counsel for the petitioners. +

+

+

61. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition + +No.5920 of 2024 further argued that the investigating agency is + +10 + Order dated 23.07.2024 in Criminal Petition No.3807 of 2024 +11 + Order dated 13.08.2024 in Criminal Petition No.10005 of 2023 +12 + supra 2 +13 + supra 3 + 37 + + + + +not entitled to add new penal provisions and cited State of + +Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde14. That was a case + +where on written information police registered a crime and + +investigating into it and filed charge sheet specifying certain penal + +provisions. At that stage the informant filed a petition to add + +Sections 364, 394 and 398 I.P.C. The question arose about the + +powers of the Magistrate at that stage as to whether he can + +incorporate those penal provisions as requested by the informant + +in a charge sheet filed by the police. Their Lordships stated that + +allowing incorporation of new provisions into the charge sheet as + +requested by the written informant at that stage is impermissible. + +However, the Court which is to try the case has to consider the + +first information report and all the other material collected and + +take a decision to frame appropriate charges under all the + +relevant penal provisions. Thus, the cited ruling has no relevance + +to the present case at hand. In the case at hand, the + +investigating police, exercising their right of investigation, have + +found it appropriate that the material on record do attract various + +provisions which were not originally mentioned in the F.I.R. Such + +power cannot be questioned. Informant would only put forth the + +14 + AIR 2014 SC 620 + 38 + + + + +facts before the registering officer and the Station House Officer + +on receiving such information using his own diligence + +incorporates the relevant penal provisions in the F.I.R. During + +investigation certain facts may be found incorrect and certain new + +facts may have been discovered and certain new accused may + +have been found having connection with the crime. There can be + +no legal hurdle in that regard since investigation is a voyage of + +truth. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsels for + +petitioners that provisions under the Act, 1989 were brought into + +effect during investigation and therefore have to be discarded is + +an argument that cannot be sustained. It may be recorded here + +that even to begin with in the case at hand the F.I.R. mentioned + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989. At the present also + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989 are alleged by the + +prosecution. Simply because at one stage such penal provisions + +were dropped does not mean that at a later stage they cannot be + +brought in. The argument that the new addition was not granted + +by the Superintendent of Police cannot be countenanced since + +the method of investigation is sole prerogative of the investigation + +officer. For the above reasons, the point is answered against the + +petitioners. +

39

+ + + + +

62. In the result, all these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. It is + +made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate + +petitions for appropriate reliefs before the appropriate Court. In + +the event such petitions are filed, the Court where they are filed is + +to consider the petitions on judicial side and dispose of them in + +accordance with law. Any observations made herein are confined + +to these petitions and they have no bearing on the merits or + +demerits of the case on either side. +

+

________________________ + Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J +Date: 06.01.2025 +Ivd + 40 + + + + + THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR + + + + +CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475, + 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839, + 5920 and 9083 of 2024 + + + + + Date: 06.01.2025 + + + +Ivd +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_51612194.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_51612194.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..980764884b08ba378e5da4e28aaf1e4a80f56843 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_51612194.html @@ -0,0 +1,469 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Muzammil Hussain vs State Of H.P on 19 March, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

11. To substantiate plea to enlarge the petitioner on bail, + +learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon order dated + +5.7.2023 passed in Cr.MP (M) No. 1501 of 2023 , titled as Ram + +Singh @ Kaka Vs. State of H.P. , wherein accused under Section + +302 IPC has been enlarged on bail on 5.7.2023 after remaining in + +jail for 3 years 2 months. +

+

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred + +order dated 16.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1494 of 2023 , + +titled as Rampal @ Ramphal Vs. State of H.P ., wherein accused + 7 ( 2025:HHC:6736 ) + +under Section 302 IPC has been enlarged on bail after remaining + +in custody for 4 years 9 months by considering plea of the + +petitioner regarding delay in trial. +

+
+ +
+ +

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied + +on order dated 6.10.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2461 of 2023, + +titled as Balwinder Singh @ Kadu Vs. State of H.P., wherein + +accused under Section 302 IPC has been released on bail after 3 + +years 1 month detention considering the fact that only 12 + +witnesses out of 34 witnesses were examined by that time. +

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred + +order dated 21.8.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1942 of 2023 , + +titled as Robin Patrwal Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under + +Section 302 IPC has been released on bail after 2 years 2 months + 8 ( 2025:HHC:6736 ) + +detention considering the fact that only 10 witnesses out of 51 + +witnesses were examined by that time. +

+
+ +
+ +

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred + +order dated 1.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1216 of 2023 , + +titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. , wherein accused under + +Section 302 IPC has been released on bail after 4 years detention + +considering the fact that only 13 witnesses out of 47 witnesses + +were examined by that time. +

+

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied + +on order dated 24.7.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1217 of 2023, + +titled as Kulveer Singh Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under + +Section 302 IPC has been released on bail after 1 year detention + +considering the fact that no witnesses out of 30 witnesses were + +examined by that time. +

+
+ +
+
328. + +
28. Order dated 26.11.2024 passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 2530 + +of 2024, titled as Ashok Kumar @ Governor Vs. State of H.P. has + +also been referred by learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein + +petitioner an accused under Section 302 IPC was enlarged on bail + +after detention of about 4 years 2 months by taking into + +consideration the fact that only 5 witnesses had been examined + +till then out of 38 witnesses and there was no likelihood of earlier + +conclusion of trial. +
+
29. Order dated 3rd September, 2024 passed in Cr.MP (M) + +No. 1584 of 2024, titled as Krishan Kumar Vs. State of H.P. has + +also been referred by learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein + +petitioner an accused under Section 302 IPC was enlarged on bail + +after detention of 5 years 5 months by considering the fact that + +out of 48 witnesses only 16-18 witnesses had been examined and + +there was no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_52037999.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_52037999.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a0f2ecd4835dc08fc2cc0eea8ae58ee236fbc942 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_52037999.html @@ -0,0 +1,453 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Kumari Ruzada Ashikali Gilani vs State Of Gujarat on 4 May, 2022 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

3.1 Learned advocate Mr.Champaneri, has submitted that +pursuant to the release of the respondent-accused on bail for +the aforesaid offence punishable under Sections 354A(1), +354D(1) and 114 of the IPC and Sections 11(1) and 11(4) of the +POCSO Act, subsequently, serious charges of Section 376 of +the IPC came to be added, hence the trial court should not +have rejected the application for cancellation of bail filed by +the State Government only for the reason that earlier bail +application filed by the respondent-accused was passed after +the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded. It is submitted +that after the addition of the serious offences under Section + + + + + + R/CR.MA/23833/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2022 + + + + +376 of the IPC, the trial court either could have cancelled the +bail application or the accused should have been arrested, +however, nothing was done and hence, the applicant was +constrained to file the present application, challenging the +impugned order. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned +order may be quashed and set aside and the matter may be +remanded back. +

+
+ +
+ +

4. Learned advocate Mr.Tejas Barot, appearing for the +respondent No.3 - accused has submitted that the impugned +order does not require any interference, since the same is +precisely passed. He has submitted that the incident had +occurred on 06.07.2015 and the FIR has been registered on +07.07.2015 at 1:15 p.m. and, therefore, there is delay in +registering the FIR. It is submitted by him that there are +various disputes going-on between the respondent-accused +and the family members of the complainant and in order to +harass the respondent-accused, the FIR has been registered. It +is submitted by him that the addition of the offence under +Section 376 of the IPC will not alter the position in any manner +and the bail granted to the respondent-accused under the +provisions of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., does not require +interference. It is submitted that the FIR does contain any +allegation with regard to the offence under Sections 376D(B) +and 376D(C) of the IPC. It is thus, submitted that the impugned +order may not be interfered with. In support of his submissions, +he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in +the case of Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, +(2019) 17 SCC 326. Finally, it is submitted that the State did +not prefer any application challenging the aforesaid order and +hence, the impugned order may not be disturbed. +

+
+ +
+ +

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has tendered the +statement of the prosecutrix. The same is ordered to be taken +on record. This Court has also perused such statement . +

+

8. The only issue which requires consideration is whether in +view of the addition of charges under Section 376 of the IPC, +the regular bail, which was granted to the respondent-accused +for the offence punishable under Sections 354A(1), 354D(1) +and 114 of the IPC and Sections 11(1) and 11(4) of the POCSO +Act, is required to be cancelled or not. The respondent-accused +was released on bail by the order dated 15.07.2015 passed in +Criminal Misc. Application No.1223 of 2015. The statement of +the prosecutrix under Section 164 was recorded on +16.07.2015. It is not in dispute that there was an addition of +charge under the offence punishable under Section 376 of the +IPC and on addition of such charges, the State preferred an +application being Criminal Misc. Application No.1860 of 2015 +for cancellation of bail of the respondent-accused. By the +impugned order dated 28.10.2015, such application was +rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special POCSO +Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad. On perusal of the +order, it reveals that the Sessions Judge, has very cursorily + + + + + + R/CR.MA/23833/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2022 + + + + +rejected the application filed by the State for cancellation of +the bail, by only assigning one reason that the earlier bail +application was granted considering the statement of the +prosecutrix. It is also recorded that since the respondent- +accused has not violated any condition mentioned in the order +granting bail the same cannot be disturbed. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_52322867.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_52322867.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0a424f143b1bc322e95f0128fe974a1bff389a5e --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_52322867.html @@ -0,0 +1,373 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sonu Sharma vs State Of U.P. on 16 December, 2019 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

16. We may also notice a pertinent observation made by this Court in Prahlad Singh Bhati (supra). In the above case, a case was registered under Sections 306 and 498-A I.P.C. Application for anticipatory bail was dismissed, however, while dismissing the application, the Additional Sessions Judge had observed that if on facts a case under Section 302 is made out against the accused, State shall be at liberty to arrest the accused. After investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 302, 406 and 498-A. The accused was directed to appear before the Magistrate since he did not appear, non-bailable warrants were issued. The accused had filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the High Court. Subsequently, the accused appeared before the Magistrate, he was admitted on bail even in a case under Section 302 IPC. The revision petition was dismissed by the High Court against the order releasing the accused on bail. The complainant had approached this Court. In paragraph Nos. 4 and 9, following observations have been made by this Court:- +

+
+ +
+ +

22. One of the judgments, which needs to be noticed in the above reference is Hamida Vs. Rashid alias Rasheed (supra). In the above case, the accused was granted bail for offences under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC. The victim succumbed to his injuries in the night intervening 16.06.2005 and 17.06.2005. The offence thereafter was converted into Section 304 IPC. An application was filed in the High Court by the accused to permit them to remain on same bail even after conversion of the offence into one under Section 304 IPC, which was allowed by the High Court. The complainant filed an appeal by special leave in this Court against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. This Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and directed the accused to be taken into custody with liberty to apply for bail for the offences for which he was charged before proper Court in accordance with law. This Court further held that accused could apply for bail afresh after the offence had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC. This Court laid down following in paragraph Nos. 10, 11 and 12:- +

+
+ +
+ +
"10. In the case in hand, the respondents-accused could apply for bail afresh after the offence had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC. They deliberately did not do so and filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC in order to circumvent the procedure whereunder they would have been required to surrender as the bail application could be entertained and heard only if the accused were in custody. It is important to note that no order adverse to the respondents-accused had been passed by any court nor was there any miscarriage of justice or any illegality. In such circumstances, the High Court committed manifest error of law in entertaining a petition under Section 482 CrPC and issuing a direction to the subordinate court to accept the sureties and bail bonds for the offence under Section 304 IPC. The effect of the order passed by the High Court is that the accused after getting bail in an offence under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC on the very day on which they were taken into custody, got an order of bail in their favour even after the injured had succumbed to his injuries and the case had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC without any court examining the case on merits, as it stood after conversion of the offence. The procedure laid down for grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC, though available to the respondents-accused, having not been availed of, the exercise of power by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is clearly illegal and the impugned order passed by it has to be set aside. +
+
+ +
+ +
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that charge under Section 302 IPC has been framed against the respondents-accused by the trial court and some subsequent orders were passed by the High Court by which the accused were ordered to remain on bail for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC on furnishing fresh sureties and bail bonds only on the ground that they were on bail in the offence under Section 304 IPC. These orders also deserve to be set aside on the same ground." +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_53272789.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_53272789.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2c72ec29b1a24504172b3dee9255d2df85ccd8e4 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_53272789.html @@ -0,0 +1,355 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + In Re- Procedure To Be Followed In ... vs State Of U.P. on 22 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
"43. This Court in its order passed in Ramesh Kumar Singh Vs. Jhabbar Singh 2003 (10) SCC 195 has held that if the accused misused the liberty by committing other offences during the suspension of sentence under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C., they are not entitled to the privilege of being released on bail. In that case, the accused was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. for killing the father of the complainant. During the suspension of his sentence, when he was out on bail, he had committed the murder of the brothers of the complainant. This Court set aside the bail that was granted to the accused by the High Court." +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_544012.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_544012.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d34b62c45ded5fb13c1202507d463879e59f988d --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_544012.html @@ -0,0 +1,366 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Raju vs State Of U.P. on 2 February, 2010 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned +A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of +sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. +

The accused-appellants Pankaj Kumar Tewari and Rakesh +Kumar Tewari have been convicted in Sessions Trial No.82 of 2002 +(Case Crime No.383/2001) for the offence punishable under Section +323/34 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo one year's simple +imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment +of fine to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment and have +have been acquitted to the charge for the offence punishable under +Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C. Accused-appellants were on bail during +trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on +record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_54549607.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_54549607.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ad098a9f8eeea227ee311db09a1779796ba02e6f --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_54549607.html @@ -0,0 +1,375 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Smt. Usha Rani vs State Of U. P. And Anr. on 11 December, 2019 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

19. In Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. (2014)16 SCC 508, this Court had granted bail to accused for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 394, 411, 454, 506, 120B and 34 IPC on the ground of parity as another accused Ashok was already enlarged on bail. The wife of deceased filed appeal for setting aside order of bail granted by this Court. Court considered various earlier authorities and said in para 13 of judgment as under : +

+
"...It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail and have not been taken note of bail or it is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the Court does not dwell upon the violation of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the Court." +
+
+ +
+ +

20. Thereafter, referring to 15 cases registered against accused showing that he was a history-sheeter and mostly under Section 302 IPC, order of bail was set aside. Court observed that there has to be a balance between personal liberty of an individual and peace and harmony of Society. No individual interest can be allowed to create a concavity in the stem of social stream otherwise it would bring chaos and anarchy in the Society. Relevant observations made in this regard are reproduced as under : +

+
+ +
+ +

25. In X vs. The State of Telangana and Ors. (2018)16 SCC 511, accused, a Film Producer, based in Mumbai, was charged of offences under Sections 376, 342, 493, 506, 354(C) of IPC. Accused got anticipatory bail from Sessions Judge on 13.01.2017 and had advantage of that order for about eight months. The said order was cancelled by Sessions Judge on the ground that accused has not disclosed that he was also accused in 2G Spectrum case. This cancellation order was affirmed by High Court and also by Supreme Court. Thereafter accused moved a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by High Court and accused was released on bail. This order was challenged in appeal before Supreme Court. Upholding the said order, Court said that bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case, based on supervening event has been made out. +

+
+ +
+ +

26. In Seema Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. (2018) 16 SCC 10 bail granted to accused by High Court in the case registered under Sections 498-A, 302, 120-B IPC was challenged in appeal before Supreme Court. Court noticed that accused-2's bail application was rejected by Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ghaziabad and thereafter bail was granted by High Court. Court said that gravity of offence is a relevant factor but not the sole ground to deny bail if there are other overwhelming circumstances justifying grant of bail. Noticing special feature, Court upheld order of High Court granting bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_55480935.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_55480935.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cb1f7d26d0bd21c38676693ab088e7a0ba0b3abd --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_55480935.html @@ -0,0 +1,406 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Amit Kataria @ Kallu vs State Of Haryana on 28 November, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. The petitioner, who is incarcerated for the offence of murder and other connected +offences in the FIR captioned above, had come up before this Court under Section 439 +CrPC seeking bail, primarily on the ground that he is in custody since 18.2.2020. +

+

2. In paragraph 13 of the bail application, the accused declares the following +criminal antecedents: +

"i) FIR No.646/2014, under Sections 148, 149, 323 IPC, Police Station Sector + 10A, Gurugram. +
ii) FIR No.744 dated 16.11.2015, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 452, 506 + IPC, Police Station Sector 10A, Gurugram. (on Bail vide order dated + 31.08.2018). +
+
+ +
+
vi) FIR No.1352 dated 23.07.2019 under Section 302, 120B, 34 IPC and Section + 25 of Arms Act at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, District Gurugram. (On bail + vide order dated 24.10.2019) +
vii) FIR No.346/2019 under Section 399, 402 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act at + Police Station Kherki Daula, District Gurugram. (On bail vide order dated + 10.10.2019); +
viii) FIR No.235 dated 21.08.2020 under Section 302, 307, 148, 149, 216 IPC and + Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station Sector 9A, Gurugram (On bail vide + order dated 21.01.2022). The copy of the order dated 21.01.2022 is + annexed herewith as Annexure P-5. +
+
+ +
+ +
vii. That on 11.08.2020, the petitioner was granted interim bail for a period of + 45 days and he was to surrender himself at District Prison, Bondsi, + Garügram on 24.09.2020. However, the petitioner was involved in a case + relating to commission of a triple murder during the period when he was + + + 3 of 6 + + Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151721 + + + + + + + + + on interim bail and the said triple murder is the subject matter of + investigation of FIR No. 235 dated 21.08.2020, under Sections 302/ + 307/148/149/216 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959. During the interim + bail, he also committed the offences subject matter of FIR No. 251 dated + 08.10.2020, under Sections 186/353/307/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the + Arms Act, 1959. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_55930826.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_55930826.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1d7c99e70120eef302e2a9530fb06e93002b2591 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_55930826.html @@ -0,0 +1,360 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Tmt S.Nirmaladevi vs The Secretary To The Government on 7 July, 2014 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

3. Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.V.Paarthiban, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention. +

4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the detenu has been in remand in the ground case in Cr.No.1316/2013 and in the 3rd adverse case registered by the H8 Thiruvottiyur Police Station and the bail applications filed by the detenu in the said cases before the learned District Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, in Crl.MP.Nos.3287/2013 and 3290/2013 were pending as on the date of the passing of the detention order. Further, the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is very likely of the detenu coming out on bail in the said by relying upon the similar cases registered by [1]M5 Ennore Police Station Cr.No.1017/2013 for offences u/s.294[b], 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 and 506[ii] IPC, wherein bail was granted to the accused Santhosh Kumar by the learned Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.1171/2013 ; and [2]M5 Ennore PS Cr.No.1143/2013 u/s.448, 307 and 506[ii] IPC wherein bail was granted to the accused Manimaran vide Crl.MP.No.1668/2013 by the learned Sessions Judge, Chennai. The learned counsel would add that admittedly, in this case, the bail application filed by the detenue in the ground case is pending and she is in remand in the said case. When a bail application is pending, there is no presumption that the detenue would be granted bail. No cogent materials are available before the Detaining Authority to conclude / to apprehend that the detenue is likely to get bail in the ground case. The apprehension entertained in the mind of the detaining authority that there is a real possibility of detenue coming out on bail as the bail application in the ground case is pending is not justifiable for the reason that he has pre-judged the matter. Concedingly he could not foresee the nature of the order that would be passed by the Court. By the reason of pendency of the application, one could not easily come to the conclusion that the Court would certainly grant bail to the accused. He adds that though the Detaining Authority placed reliance on the similar cases wherein bails were granted to the accused persons by the learned Sessions Judge, Chennai, the bail orders furnished to the detenu in the Booklet relates to the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur. This non-furnishing of the relevant particulars would deprive of the detenue from making an effective representation. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non-application of mind and the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority that there is real possibility of the detenue coming out on bail is a mere ipse dixit without any cogent materials. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [a] 2006 [1] MLJ [Crl.] 539, [T.V.SARAVANAN @ S.A.R.PRASANNA VENKATACHARIAR CHATURVEDI V. STATE OF TAMILNADU THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER] ; [b]2005 [1] CTC 577 [VELMURUGAN @ VELU Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE] ; [c] 2012 [7] SCC 181 [HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR] ; [d]2013 [1] LW (Crl.) 460 [LAKSHMI BAI NAT VS. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HOME, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPT., FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI-9 AND ANOTHER] and [e] 2008 [3] MLJ (Crl.) 144 [S.ANDAL VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MADURAI DISTRICT, MADURAI AND ANOTHER]. +

+
+ +
+
"4.I am also aware that Thiru Sentil Kumar @ Thendral who was remanded in H8 Thiruvottiyur PS Cr.Nos.1287/2013 and 1448/2013 has filed bail applications in H8 Thiruvottiyur PS Cr.Nos.1287/2013 and 1448/2013 before the District Sessions Court, Tiruvallur vide crl.MP.No.3287/2013 and 3290/2013 respectively and both the petitions were pending. In a similar case registered at M5 Ennore PS. Cr.No.1017/2013 u/s.294[b], 336, 427, 392 r/w 397, 506[ii] IPC bail was granted to the accused Santhosh Kumar by the Hon'ble Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.1171/2013 and in a similar case referred at M5 Ennore PS Cr.No.1143/2013 u/s.448, 307, 506[ii] IPC bail was granted to the accused Manimaran vide Crl.MP.No.1668/2013 by the Hon'ble Sessions Court, Chennai. Hence, I infer that there is very likely of him coming out on bail since in similar cases bails are granted by the courts after a lapse of time. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in such activities in future, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order..............." +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_56214079.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_56214079.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..128b9abd746c1950814c053c3f9408f919a91d09 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_56214079.html @@ -0,0 +1,2203 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Anagani Ravi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 34, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

+

Anagani Ravi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025

+ +
        THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
+
+
+CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475,
+
+ 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839,
+
+                     5920 and 9083 of 2024
+
+
+COMMON ORDER:
+ + +

Crl.P.No.5197 of 2024 + + + This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A32 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

2

+ + + + +

2. Sri N. Harinadh, learned Counsel for petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, + +learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- + +State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.4896 of 2024 + + +

3. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A46 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

4. Sri Mukkamalla Rama Swamy, the learned counsel for + +petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + 3 + + + + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5230 of 2024 + + +

5. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A35 and A51 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

6. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + 4 + + + + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5256 of 2024 + + +

7. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A43 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

8. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + 5 + + + + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.5367 of 2024 + + +

9. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A4 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

10. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 6 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5475 of 2024 + + +

11. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A64 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

12. Sri Karanki Yaswanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, the learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

7

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5487 of 2024 + + +

13. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A47 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

14. Ms.P.Srilatha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 8 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5503 of 2024 + + +

15. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A19 and A20 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

16. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 9 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5550 of 2024 + + +

17. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A2, A16, A37 and A45 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

18. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

10

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5553 of 2024 + + +

19. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A7 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

20. Sri Peta Gnana Teja, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 11 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5585 of 2024 + + +

21. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A1 and A67 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

22. Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

12

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5652 of 2024 + + +

23. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A15 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

24. Sri Chalasani Venkat, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

13

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5718 of 2024 + + +

25. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A8, A22, A36 and A68 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

26. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 14 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5724 of 2024 + + +

27. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A3 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

28. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

15

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5752 of 2024 + + +

29. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A31, A53 and A65 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime + +No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna + +District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections + +143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) + +of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

30. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

16

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5839 of 2024 + + +

31. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A55 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

32. Sri B.V Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 17 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5920 of 2024 + + +

33. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A6, A13, A14, A17, A27, A28, A30, A39, A42, A52, + +A54, A56, A61 and A69 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

34. Ms.V.Devi Satya Sri, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

18

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.9083 of 2024 + + +

35. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A75 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

36. Sri G.L.Nageswar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor + +appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments. + + +

37. In all the above bail petitions, detailed counters were filed + +by the respondent-State. +

19

+ + + + +

38. All these criminal petitions pertain to Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station. By these petitions these + +accused pray for pre-arrest bail. All these petitions were heard + +together and by this common order they shall be disposed of. + +The crime incident allegedly occurred on 20.02.2023. Upon a + +written information dated 22.02.2023 F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was + +registered. The scene of offence was Telugu Desam Party office, + +Gannavaram. Sri Mudunuri Satyavardhan belonging to Madiga + +caste, which is a scheduled caste, was computer operator + +working in Telugu Desam Party office and living in the said office. + + +

39. During the time when this crime incident allegedly occurred + +the party in power was YSR Congress Party. Investigation + +commenced and went on for some time. Thereafter there were + +general elections and the then opposition party/Telugu Desam + +Party came into power. Thereafter investigation continued + +further. The allegations and counter allegations in this case + +disclosed the rift between both the political parties. Petitioners + +contend that this is a case falsely alleged against them out of + +political vendetta. According to State, for political reasons there + +was inadequate investigation soon after commission of the + +offence. By the time this crime incident occurred Sri Vallabhaneni + 20 + + + + +Vamsi Mohan was Member of Legislative Assembly for + +Gannavaram Assembly Constituency. He is one of the accused + +in the present crime. +

+

+

40. The version of the prosecution is that on 18.02.2023 during + +afternoon hours a press meet was held by Sri Vallabhaneni + +Vamsi Mohan wherein he allegedly made certain insulting + +remarks as against Sri N.Chandrababu Naidu, Sri Nara Lokesh + +and their family members and used indecent language. In + +response to it, certain leaders of Telugu Desam Party conducted + +a press meeting on 19.02.2023 in the morning hours and + +condemned the statements made by the opponent political party + +people. +

+

+

41. In the above backdrop of facts, the crime incident allegedly + +occurred. It is stated that on 20.02.2023 at about 5:00 P.M. + +Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan went to Telugu Desam Party + +office and on noticing followers of Telugu Desam Party he caused + +enquiries about Mr. Pattabhi of Telugu Desam Party and warned + +them that they would finish Telugu Desam Party and left the + +place. +

21

+ + + + +

42. In the next 30 minutes at about 5:30 P.M. about 100 + +persons belonging to YSR Congress Party came to Telugu + +Desam Party office wielding sticks, stones, petrol bottles and + +various other arms and while hailing Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi + +Mohan they attacked the party office. They threw stones, entered + +into the party office and destroyed the furniture, broke two + +computers and two televisions and caused tremendous panic + +among everyone available there. In the first information report + +the de facto complainant was able to mention the names of 44 + +accused. It also made a mention about four named accused who + +came upon him and abused him by his caste name. The further + +case of the prosecution is that these hooligans caused chaos and + +some of them using their sticks and cricket playing wickets + +seriously damaged three cars/AP 39 K 1999, AP 16 DJ 9499 and + +TS 10 EC 4099. It is also stated that one Mr. Rabbani poured + +petrol on the car bearing No.AP 16 DA 5555 and lit fire to it. The + +version of the de facto complainant is that there were police + +people at the Telugu Desam Party office and they remained mute + +spectators. During investigation it was found that some of the + +accused made attempts to burn the party office as walls in one + +room were found with charred marks. +

22

+ + + + +

43. Investigation has been in progress. Some of the accused + +were arrested and were remanded to judicial custody. According + +to prosecution, at least 44 accused were absconding. After + +gaining contact with about 28 accused they were questioned + +about their mobile phones and only seven out of them + +surrendered their mobile phones and 20 of the accused furnished + +false information with regard to the instruments they used and + +their mobile numbers. +

+

+

44. During the investigation, CCTV footage was collected. + +When the crime incident occurred, various people captured it on + +their mobile phones and all such material was collected. Based + +on these investigative efforts, allegations are made against all + +these petitioners by the prosecution that they are all involved in + +this crime incident. +

+

+

45. Broadly stated all these petitioners raised the following + +contentions: +

+

+

 That there was unexplained delay in registration of crime. + + The incident occurred on 20.02.2023 and F.I.R. was + + registered on 22.02.2023. That around the same time and + + place certain incidents occurred which resulted in + 23 + + + + + registration of multiple F.I.Rs. and many of which disclosed + + accusation of criminal acts of followers of Telugu Desam + + Party as against members of YSR Congress Party + + members and this case is in a way a counter blast to Crime + + Nos.132 of 2023 and 133 of 2023. +
+
+  F.I.R. does not contain any allegations of overt acts against + + these petitioners. +
+
+  After change in political party in power witnesses were + + planted and false evidence is created. +
+
+  The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. were bailable and + + many of these petitioners were served with Section 41A + + Cr.P.C. notice. However, after the change of political + + Government police have unlawfully brought additional + + penal provisions to nullify the rightful reliefs available to the + + petitioners. +
+
+

46. Plethora of precedent is cited on behalf of the petitioners + +and on behalf of some of the accused meticulous written + +arguments are filed leaving one to wonder that this to pronounce + +a judgment as if it is one after trial. +

24

+ + + + +

47. The following significant aspects are required to be noticed: + + +

F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was registered for the offences + +punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435 and 506 read with + +149 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989'). Since caste atrocity was one of + +the offences alleged, on the instructions of Superintendent of + +Police, Krishna, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gannavaram + +took up investigation. After recording the statements of about six + +witnesses, the investigation officer found that the provisions of the + +Act, 1989 were not applicable. Therefore, he applied to the + +Superintendent of Police to accord permission to delete those + +provisions. By proceedings dated 04.07.2023 the Superintendent + +of Police granted such permission. Investigation went further and + +scores of witnesses were examined. Thereafter by way of an + +alteration memo dated 07.08.2024 the investigation agency got + +added Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989. It + +also added Sections 436, 450 and 452 I.P.C. It is also to be + +noticed that in this case so far there are 71 accused. + 25 + + + + +

48. Since in the present crime incident not only offences under + +the Indian Penal Code but also offences under the Act, 1989 are + +alleged, the forceful argument raised by the State is that + +anticipatory bail petitions are not maintainable by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. The further argument is + +that the High Court does not now possess concurrent original + +jurisdiction for bails as well as anticipatory bails and it has only + +appellate jurisdiction by virtue of Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and + +therefore, these petitions are to be dismissed. In such + +circumstances, this Court on 13.11.2024 requested the learned + +counsels on both sides to address arguments in that regard since + +the jurisdictional bar has arisen. +

+

+

49. Valiant submissions are made by the learned counsels for + +petitioners wherein references are made to Sections 18 and 18A + +of the Act, 1989 and precedent is cited to show that if there is no + +prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989 is + +made out, anticipatory bail could be considered. It is also argued + +that this Court in these petitions during hearing granted interim + +protection and therefore, the same may be made absolute since + +these petitioners have not violated anything thereafter. + 26 + + + + +

50. The point that falls for consideration is: + + +

"What is the effect of Section 14A of the Scheduled + + Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the concurrent original + + jurisdiction of the High Court in considering bails + + and anticipatory bails where offences under the Act, + + 1989 are involved? +
+
+POINT: +
+
+

51. Offences under the Act, 1989 can be taken cognizance of + +and tried and be disposed of by Special Courts and Exclusive + +Special Courts as provided in Section 14 of the Act, 1989. Those + +Courts since now empowered to take cognizance hold power to + +take remand of the accused and consider bails. There is no + +provision in the Act, 1989 adverting to the aspects that are to be + +considered by those Courts when they entertain bail petitions. + +Therefore, those Courts draw their powers from the Code of + +Criminal Procedure. Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal + +Procedure is headed as provisions as to bail and bonds. It + +consists of Sections 436 to 450. They refer to bail in cases of + +bailable offences and bail in cases of non-bailable offences. + 27 + + + + +Section 438 Cr.P.C. is given heading direction for grant of bail to + +person apprehending arrest. To the extent the said provision is + +required alone is extracted here: +

+
"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending + arrest: +
+
(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be + arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- +

bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the + Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the + event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that + Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the + following factors, namely:- +

+
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; + +
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to + whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on + conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; + +
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and + +
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of + injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so + arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an + interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail: + +
Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, + the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order + under this sub-Section or has rejected the application for + grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer + 28 + + + + + incharge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the + applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in + such application." +
+

52. Thus, as per the above provision, those accused who + +anticipate their arrest may seek pre-arrest bail and they could + +move such applications either before this Court or before the + +Court of Sessions. It is in the light of such a provision the + +petitioners have straightaway moved this Court for their prayers + +for pre-arrest bail. +

+

+

53. The first submission of the State is that in cases of caste + +atrocities anticipatory bails cannot be maintained by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. Those provisions read as + +below: +

+

+

"18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons + committing an offence under the Act.-- Nothing in + section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case + involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of + having committed an offence under this Act. + + 18A. No enquiry or approval required.--(1) For the + purposes of this Act,-- (a) preliminary enquiry shall not be + required for registration of a First Information Report against + any person; or + 29 + + + + +
(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the + arrest, if necessary, of any person, + + against whom an accusation of having committed an + offence under this Act has been made and no procedure + other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall + apply. +
+
(2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply + to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or + order or direction of any Court." +
+

54. The crisp response from the learned counsels for the + +petitioners is that the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would + +apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist + +pointing towards the commission of an offence under the Act, + +1989. If the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under + +the Act, 1989 are not disclosed on the prima facie reading of the + +allegations levelled in the complaint or F.I.R. then in such + +circumstances, the bar of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would not + +apply and the Courts would not be absolutely precluded from + +granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons. In justification of + +this argument they cited ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + +India in Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala1. + +1 + 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601 + 30 + + + + +

55. If one goes by the contentions of the learned counsel for + +petitioners this Court is to take a view whether the allegations in + +the F.I.R./written information of the de facto complainant prima + +facie disclose caste atrocity or not. However, according to the + +State, even such a view cannot be taken by this Court by virtue of + +interdict contained in Section 14A of the Act, 1989. Therefore, it + +is required to notice what this provision says. The provision reads + +as below: +

+

+

"14A. Appeals:--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained + in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an + appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not + being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an + Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and + on law. +
+
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section + (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, + 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court + against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive + Special Court granting or refusing bail. + + (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for + the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall + be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of + the judgment, sentence or order appealed from: Provided + that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry + of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the + 31 + + + + + appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal + within the period of ninety days: Provided further that no + appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of + one hundred and eighty days. +
+
(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far + as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months + from the date of admission of the appeal." + +

56. As per Sub-Section (2) of Section 14Aof the Act, the + +petitions for bail are to be considered by the Special Court and in + +the event of their granting or refusing to grant such bails the + +aggrieved can prefer an appeal before this Court. Thus, the + +concurrent jurisdiction for consideration of anticipatory bails + +provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C. stood excluded. It is not as + +though the aggrieved is deprived of all the remedies. After + +inviting an order on the bail petition from the Special Court the + +aggrieved is entitled to prefer an appeal before this Court in terms + +of Section 14A of the Act, 1989. In the case at hand, the + +petitioners have moved bail petitions straightaway before this + +Court. At any rate, what is before this Court is not an appeal + +against an order passed by the Special Court with reference to + +bails. It shall be stated that on the same subject matter High + +Court could not be said to possess concurrent original jurisdiction + 32 + + + + +as well as appellate jurisdiction. If one is to state that a bail is + +different from anticipatory bail the result is that in anticipatory + +bails this Court holds original jurisdiction and in regular bails it + +holds only appellate jurisdiction. Assuming that in a case a + +petition for anticipatory bail being moved before the Special Court + +resulted in dismissal, then according to the logic applied by the + +petitioners the petitions would have to move only another bail + +petition before this Court and not an appeal. Such logic is in + +violation of what is clearly provided in Section 14A of the Act, + +1989. It is to be seen that the question of bail presupposes + +detention or custody of the person. In a case where a person is + +arrested he prays for a regular bail. In cases of anticipatory bail + +in the event of granting the relief, it has no effect unless and until + +the accused is arrested. In other words, the order of anticipatory + +bail comes into effect only after a person is arrested and not + +otherwise. In contrast to regular bail, in cases of anticipatory bail + +the order is obtained in advance. In regular bails it was obtained + +after arrest. The timing at which a prayer is made, and an order + +is granted, have no relevance when it comes to operation of + +those orders as in both the cases they come into operation only in + +those cases where a person is arrested. In such view of the + 33 + + + + +matter the word bail used in Section 14A of the Act, 1989 + +encompasses regular bail as well as anticipatory bail. Therefore, + +it must be stated that an application for bail or anticipatory bail + +can be filed only before the Special Court or the Exclusive + +Special Court as the case may be and not before the High Court. + +An order granting or refusing bail or anticipatory bail by the + +Special Court or Exclusive Special Court can be assailed before + +this Court invoking its appellate jurisdiction provided in Section + +14A of the Act, 1989. This Court had deliberated these aspects + +on earlier occasions when similar questions were raised and it + +reached to the same conclusions and reference can be made to + +the following: +

+

+

1. Nakka Nagireddy v. State of A.P.2 + + +
2. Deepak Kumar Tala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh3. + + +

57. Similar conclusions were reached at by other High Courts. + +Reference can be made to the following: +

+

+

1. K.M.Basheer v. Rajani K.T.4 + +2 + 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5322 Order dated 11.11.2024 +3 + Order dated 22.10.2024 in Criminal Petition No.6487 of 2024 +4 + 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 472 + 34 + + + + +
2. Lokesh v. State of Karnataka5 + + +
3. In re Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 v. Nil6 + + +
4. Atul Rajput v. The State of Madhya Pradesh7 + + +

58. At the bar, for petitioners, Abhishek Awasthi v. State of + +U.P.8 is cited. That is a case where other subsections of Section + +14A of the Act, 1989 fell for consideration and the powers of the + +High Court were considered under Section 482 of Code of + +Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings. + +Finally, it was held that with a view to prevent the misuse or + +abuse of the Court or law, the High Court holds inherent + +jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. + +Such question is not available before this Court. Even otherwise + +a brief reference to what was stated by their Lordships in Shajan + +Skaria's case9 would be sufficient here. At paragraph No.49 their + +Lordships stated that if the accused puts forward the case of + +malicious prosecution on account of political or private vendetta + +5 + 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15742 +6 + 2018 SCC OnLine ALL 2087 +7 + Order dated 10.04.2024 in Crl.A.No.3261 of 2024 of the High Court of +Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur +8 + MANU/UP/4595/2024 + 35 + + + + +such aspects can be considered only by the High Court in + +exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code or + +in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the + +Constitution of India. However, powers under Section 438 of the + +Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised once the + +contents of the complaint/F.I.R. disclose a prima facie case. In + +fact, in that case Section 14A of the Act, 1989 did not come up for + +consideration since the anticipatory bail petition was first moved + +before the trial Court and as against those orders appeal was + +preferred before the High Court. +

+

+

59. The plethora of precedent cited before this Court is not with + +reference to Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and therefore any + +reference to those cherished principles of those rulings is not + +required. This Court refrains from delving into other facts and the + +principles of law governing anticipatory bails since any such + +discussion may unnecessarily prejudice the contentions of both + +sides when appropriate applications are filed before appropriate + +Courts for the reliefs or when the maters come up before this + +Court in appeal. +

+

9 + Supra 1 + 36 + + + + +

60. Learned counsel for petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5920 + +of 2024 argued that this very Bench on earlier occasions + +considered and granted anticipatory bail and therefore, the same + +benefit can be extended to the present petitioners. The attention + +of this Court is brought to Sri Settipalli Raghurami Reddy v. + +The State of Andhra Pradesh10 and Julakanti Brahma Reddy + +@ Brahma Nanda Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 11. In + +both those matters the question about Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 was never raised by either side and therefore, there was no + +occasion for this Court to express itself on that aspect of the + +matter. After those orders it was in October and November 2024 + +only this Court had occasion to consider Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 and accordingly decided the earlier referred Nakka + +Nagireddy's case12 and Deepak Kumar Tala's case13. + +Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions of the learned + +counsel for the petitioners. +

+

+

61. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition + +No.5920 of 2024 further argued that the investigating agency is + +10 + Order dated 23.07.2024 in Criminal Petition No.3807 of 2024 +11 + Order dated 13.08.2024 in Criminal Petition No.10005 of 2023 +12 + supra 2 +13 + supra 3 + 37 + + + + +not entitled to add new penal provisions and cited State of + +Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde14. That was a case + +where on written information police registered a crime and + +investigating into it and filed charge sheet specifying certain penal + +provisions. At that stage the informant filed a petition to add + +Sections 364, 394 and 398 I.P.C. The question arose about the + +powers of the Magistrate at that stage as to whether he can + +incorporate those penal provisions as requested by the informant + +in a charge sheet filed by the police. Their Lordships stated that + +allowing incorporation of new provisions into the charge sheet as + +requested by the written informant at that stage is impermissible. + +However, the Court which is to try the case has to consider the + +first information report and all the other material collected and + +take a decision to frame appropriate charges under all the + +relevant penal provisions. Thus, the cited ruling has no relevance + +to the present case at hand. In the case at hand, the + +investigating police, exercising their right of investigation, have + +found it appropriate that the material on record do attract various + +provisions which were not originally mentioned in the F.I.R. Such + +power cannot be questioned. Informant would only put forth the + +14 + AIR 2014 SC 620 + 38 + + + + +facts before the registering officer and the Station House Officer + +on receiving such information using his own diligence + +incorporates the relevant penal provisions in the F.I.R. During + +investigation certain facts may be found incorrect and certain new + +facts may have been discovered and certain new accused may + +have been found having connection with the crime. There can be + +no legal hurdle in that regard since investigation is a voyage of + +truth. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsels for + +petitioners that provisions under the Act, 1989 were brought into + +effect during investigation and therefore have to be discarded is + +an argument that cannot be sustained. It may be recorded here + +that even to begin with in the case at hand the F.I.R. mentioned + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989. At the present also + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989 are alleged by the + +prosecution. Simply because at one stage such penal provisions + +were dropped does not mean that at a later stage they cannot be + +brought in. The argument that the new addition was not granted + +by the Superintendent of Police cannot be countenanced since + +the method of investigation is sole prerogative of the investigation + +officer. For the above reasons, the point is answered against the + +petitioners. +

39

+ + + + +

62. In the result, all these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. It is + +made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate + +petitions for appropriate reliefs before the appropriate Court. In + +the event such petitions are filed, the Court where they are filed is + +to consider the petitions on judicial side and dispose of them in + +accordance with law. Any observations made herein are confined + +to these petitions and they have no bearing on the merits or + +demerits of the case on either side. +

+

________________________ + Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J +Date: 06.01.2025 +Ivd + 40 + + + + + THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR + + + + +CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475, + 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839, + 5920 and 9083 of 2024 + + + + + Date: 06.01.2025 + + + +Ivd +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_56214256.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_56214256.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..daf22874382054fc3174360d1f0a3ab108c5ace7 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_56214256.html @@ -0,0 +1,385 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Omendra Yadav @ Mishra vs State Of U.P. on 10 October, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
II. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
III. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
+ +
+ +
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. +
+
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 19 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S.-Faridpur, District-Bareilly with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +
+
It has been contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that a First Information Report in Case Crime No.16 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B, 435, 504 and 34 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S.-Faridpur, District-Bareilly was lodged by one Khahanchi Lal Sharma against 18 named accused and 10-15 unknown persons and in the aforesaid incident, Sardar Devendra Singh, Sardar Parmendra Singh and one more person died and Sardar Surendra Singh received serious injuries. As a counter blast, an F.I.R. was lodged on 15.1.2023 in Case Crime No.19 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S.-Faridpur, District-Bareilly. In the counter version also the date of incident is 11.01.2023 and along with applicant Khajanchi Lal Sharma, informant in Case Crime No.16 of 2023 and six named accused namely Dharm Singh, Ravindra Yadav, Vikal, Devendra Singh, Parmendra Singh, Surendra Singh and 7-8 unknown persons were implicated. It has been alleged in the FIR that one Gul Mohammad has died in the aforesaid incident. After investigation, Police has submitted charge-sheet in both the cases. +
+
+ +
+ +
II. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
III. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
+ +
+ +
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. +
+
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 19 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S.-Faridpur, District-Bareilly with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +
+
It has been contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that a First Information Report in Case Crime No.16 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B, 435, 504 and 34 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S.-Faridpur, District-Bareilly was lodged by one Khahanchi Lal Sharma against 18 named accused and 10-15 unknown persons and in the aforesaid incident, Sardar Devendra Singh, Sardar Parmendra Singh and one more person died and Sardar Surendra Singh received serious injuries. As a counter blast, an F.I.R. was lodged on 15.1.2023 in Case Crime No.19 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S.-Faridpur, District-Bareilly. In the counter version also the date of incident is 11.01.2023 and along with applicant Khajanchi Lal Sharma, informant in Case Crime No.16 of 2023 and six named accused namely Dharm Singh, Ravindra Yadav, Vikal, Devendra Singh, Parmendra Singh, Surendra Singh and 7-8 unknown persons were implicated. It has been alleged in the FIR that one Gul Mohammad has died in the aforesaid incident. After investigation, Police has submitted charge-sheet in both the cases. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_56320771.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_56320771.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..65d13a45577d1dc28beea8566b8b3737c90413c5 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_56320771.html @@ -0,0 +1,464 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Decided On : November 25 vs State Of H.P on 25 November, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

10. To substantiate plea to enlarge the petitioner on + +bail, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon order + +dated 5.7.2023 passed in Cr.MP (M) No. 1501 of 2023, titled + +as Ram Singh @ Kaka Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused + +under Section 302 IPC has been enlarged on bail on 5.7.2023 + +after remaining in jail for 3 years 2 months. +

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred + +order dated 16.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1494 of + +2023, titled as Rampal @ Ramphal Vs. State of H.P., wherein + +accused under Section 302 IPC has been enlarged on bail + +after remaining in custody for 4 years 9 months by + +considering plea of the petitioner regarding delay in trial. +

+
+ +
+

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied + +on order dated 6.10.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2461 of + +2023, titled as Balwinder Singh @ Kadu Vs. State of H.P., + +wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has been released on + +bail after 3 years 1 month detention considering the fact that + +only 12 witnesses out of 34 witnesses were examined by that + +time. +

+

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further + +referred order dated 21.8.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. + +1942 of 2023, titled as Robin Patrwal Vs. State of H.P., + +wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has been released on + +bail after 2 years 2 months detention considering the fact + 2025:HHC:39846 + + + + ...7... +

+
+ +
+

that only 10 witnesses out of 51 witnesses were examined by + +that time. +

+

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further + +referred order dated 1.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1216 + +of 2023, titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P., wherein + +accused under Section 302 IPC has been released on bail + +after 4 years detention considering the fact that only 13 + +witnesses out of 47 witnesses were examined by that time. +

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied + +on order dated 24.7.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1217 of + +2023, titled as Kulveer Singh Vs. State of H.P., wherein + +accused under Section 302 IPC has been released on bail + +after 1 year detention considering the fact that no witnesses + +out of 30 witnesses were examined by that time. +

+
+ +
+

Central Bureau of Investigation, wherein accused under + +Section 302 IPC has been released on bail after 6½ years. + +

20. Reliance has also been placed upon order dated + +15.2.2023 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to + +Appeal (Crl.) No. 11714 of 2022, titled as Mukesh Kumar Vs. + +The State of Rajasthan & another, whereby an accused under + +Section 302 IPC was released on bail, after custody of 15 + +months, in case FIR No. 164 of 2020, dated 8.6.2020 + +registered under Section 307 IPC, but converted into Section + +302 IPC on account of death of injured person on account of + +injuries caused in the incident of free fight, wherein cross + +FIRs were registered by and on behalf of both sides. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_5632781.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_5632781.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..41774c61090e3d7ff9b27ba2eb1d53444d0a3acf --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_5632781.html @@ -0,0 +1,412 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ankush S/O Shivnarayan Jaiswal vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Imamwada Nagpur ... on 14 December, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

24. Also there is one case of the Hon'ble Apex Court +between Hamida and Rashid alisa Rasheed and others , +reported in (2008) 1 SCC 474. In this case, the complainant + 13 141220apl800.20.odt + +approached to the Hon'ble Apex Court challenging the +judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court, by which the +petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent/ +accused was disposed of with certain directions. By the +impugned order, it was directed that the respondent/accused +who was finally granted bail in an offence under Sections 324, +353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Chief +Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, would continue to remain +on bail even after the offence had been converted to one under +Section 304 of Indian Penal Code, if they furnished the +requisite personal bonds and sureties before the Court +concerned. In this backdrop, the Hon'ble Apex Court in +paragraph 10, ruled as under : +

+
+ +
+ +
"10. In the case in hand, the respondents- + accused could apply for bail afresh after the + offence had been converted into one under + Section 304 IPC. They deliberately did not do so + and filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in + order to circumvent the procedure whereunder + they would have been required to surrender as + the bail application could be entertained and + heard only if the accused were in custody. It is + important to note that no order adverse to the + accused respondents had been passed by any + Court nor there was any miscarriage of justice or + any illegality. In such circumstances, the High + Court committed manifest error of law in + entertaining a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. + and issuing a direction to the subordinate court + to accept the sureties and bail bonds for the + offence under Section 304 IPC. The effect of the + order passed by the High Court is that the + accused after getting bail in an offence under + Section 324, 352 and 506 IPC on the very day on + 14 141220apl800.20.odt + + which they were taken into custody, got an order + of bail in their favour even after the injured had + succumbed to his injuries and the case had been + converted into one under Section 304 IPC + without any Court examining the case on merits, + as it stood after conversion of the offence. The + procedure laid down for grant of bail under + Section 439 Cr.P.C., though available to the + accused respondents, having not been availed of, + the exercise of power by the High Court under + Section 482 Cr.P.C. is clearly illegal and the + impugned order passed by it has to be set aside. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_5635984.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_5635984.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..62597b2facb2ba22c963c0af0d926cc6d621acfc --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_5635984.html @@ -0,0 +1,424 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Girdhar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:11536) on 7 March, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

4. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.69/2024) +

5. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.69/2024) +

6. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.69/2024) + + +

8. Concerned Police Station Shreekaranpur +

+
+ +
+

12. Date of passing of 21.10.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.14884/2023) + +

14. Concerned Police Station Kotwali Barmer +

15. District Barmer +

16. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 420 and 406 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.14885/2023) +

17. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.14885/2023) +

+
+ +
+

34. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.15296/2023) +

35. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.15296/2023) +

36. Date of passing of 22.11.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.15296/2023) + +

38. Concerned Police Station Pratap Nagar +

+
+ +
+

76. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.90/2024) +

77. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.90/2024) +

78. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.90/2024) + + +

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no + + case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his + + incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in + + the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the + + accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based + + on conjectures and surmises. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_56683763.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_56683763.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6325af321735232b7b635d429d716c0fe41863a1 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_56683763.html @@ -0,0 +1,4624 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sukai Mahto @ Shukai Mahto vs The State Of Bihar on 4 September, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 55, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Patna High Court

+

Sukai Mahto @ Shukai Mahto vs The State Of Bihar on 4 September, 2025

+ +

Author: Mohit Kumar Shah

+ +

Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah, Shailendra Singh

+ +
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
+                      CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 131 of 2016
+
+       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-197 Year-2013 Thana- BAGAHA District- West Champaran
+     ======================================================
+1.   Sukai Mahto @ Shukai Mahto Son of Late Lalbabu Mahto, resident of
+     Village - Kotawakapardhika, P.S.- Bagaha, District - West Champaran
+
+2.   Arbind     Mahto       Son   of    Sharma      Mahto,    resident    of   Village-
+     Kotawakapardhika, P.S.- Bagaha, District - West Champaran
+
+3.   Moti Mahto @ Motilal Mahto Son of Late Jagarnath Mahto, resident of
+     Village - Kotawakapardhika, P.S.- Bagaha, District - West Champaran
+
+4.   Shambhu Mahto @ Shukul Mahto Son of Sharma Mahto, resident of Village
+     - Kotawakapardhika, P.S.- Bagaha, District - West Champaran
+                                                              ... ... Appellant/s
+
+                                           Versus
+     The State of Bihar
+                                               ... ... Respondent/s
+     ======================================================
+                               with
+                      CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 176 of 2016
+       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-197 Year-2013 Thana- BAGAHA District- West Champaran
+     ======================================================
+     Chhota Mahto S/o Late Lalbabu Mahto, resident of Village - Kapardhika, P.S.
+     - Bagaha, District - West Champaran.
+                                                                      ... ... Appellant/s
+
+                                           Versus
+
+     The State of Bihar
+                                               ... ... Respondent/s
+     ======================================================
+     Appearance:
+     (In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 131 of 2016)
+     For the Appellant/s     :         Mr. Ram Chandra Sahni, Advocate
+     For the Respondent/s    :         Ms. S.B. Verma, APP
+     (In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 176 of 2016)
+ Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025
+                                           2/88
+
+
+
+
+       For the Appellant/s      :        Mr. Ram Chandra Sahni, Advocate
+       For the Respondent/s     :        Ms. S.B. Verma, APP
+       ======================================================
+       CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
+               and
+               HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
+       CAV JUDGMENT
+       (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
+       Date: 04-09-2025
+
+                 The aforesaid appeals preferred under Section 374 (2) of
+
+         the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
+
+         the "CrPC") arise out of the same judgment of conviction and
+
+         order of sentence dated 17.12.2015 and 18.12.2015 respectively,
+
+         passed in Sessions Trial No. 267 of 2014 (arising out of Bagaha
+
+         P.S. Case No.197 of 2013), by the learned 3 rd Additional
+
+         Sessions Judge, Bagaha (hereinafter referred to as the "learned
+
+         Trial Judge"), hence these appeals have been heard together and
+
+         are being disposed off by the present common judgment and
+
+         order. By the said judgment dated 17.12.2015, the learned Trial
+
+         Judge has convicted all the appellants of the aforesaid appeals
+
+         under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred
+
+         to as the "IPC") and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the
+
+         IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
+
+         life under Section 302/149 of the IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/-
+
+         each and in default thereof, they have been further directed to
+
+         undergo simple imprisonment for six months separately. The
+ Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025
+                                           3/88
+
+
+
+
+         appellants of the aforesaid two cases have also been directed to
+
+         undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year under
+
+         Section 148 of the IPC. Both the sentences have been directed to
+
+         run concurrently.
+
+         2.      Short facts of the case are that the fardbeyan of the
+
+         informant, namely, Kishore Mahto was recorded by Jainath
+
+         Prasad, Sub-Inspector of Police, Bagaha Police Station on
+
+         11.05.2013

at 07:45 p.m. at Emergency Ward of Sub-divisional + + Hospital, Bagaha, West Champaran. The informant Kishore + + Mahto has stated in his fardbeyan that on 11.05.2013 at about + + 03:45 in the evening, his elder brother Adalat Mahto along with + + Prahlad Mahto (PW-2) and Nandu Mahto (PW-3) had gone to + + the mango orchard situated towards west of village-Kotwa + + Kapardhika for cutting branch of mango tree for making stool + + (peedha) for marriage purpose and during the course thereof, the + + appellants and others totaling ten in all had arrived there. Chhota + + Mahto was armed with farsa, Sukai Mahto and Arbind Mahto + + were armed with bhala while all others were armed with lathi + + and danda. As soon as the aforesaid accused persons had arrived + + there, Chhota Mahto started assaulting the elder brother of the + + informant with farsa with the intention of killing him, + + whereafter Prahlad Mahto and Nandu Mahto, who were cutting + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 4/88 + + + + + the branch of mango tree had tried to save themselves and + + during the course thereof, Prahlad received injury on the left + + small finger with the butt of axe. Thereafter, Prahlad Mahto and + + Nandu Mahto had fled away, fearing that they would be + + assaulted and came running to the house, however in the + + meantime the accused persons had caught hold of the elder + + brother of the informant, namely Adalat Mahto and with an + + intention to kill him, Chhota Mahto had assaulted him with + + farsa on his right arm and on the portion below elbow of the + + wrist of left hand as also on the right leg below knee, resulting + + in the deceased being cut badly. Thereafter, Arbind Mahto had + + assaulted the elder brother of the informant by bhala on his + + waist, leading to deep injury being inflicted. The informant has + + further stated in his fardbeyan that his cousin brother, who was + + along with his elder brother, had come to the house and + + informed him about the occurrence, whereafter they had gone to + + the place of occurrence where the informant saw his elder + + brother in an unconscious state, whereupon they had taken him + + to the Sub-divisional Hospital, Bagaha for treatment, from + + where he was referred for better treatment to Bettiah. The + + informant has further stated that it is his claim that the accused + + persons had assaulted his elder brother with the intention of + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 5/88 + + + + + killing him, have badly cut his hands and legs and there is little + + chance of his survival. The fardbeyan was read over to the + + informant, which he had also read and heard and after having + + understand the same as also finding the same to be correct, he + + had put his thumb impression over the same in presence of his + + nephew Pramod Mahto. +

+

3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant, + + namely Kishore Mahto, a formal FIR bearing Bagaha P.S. + + Case No. 197 of 2013 was registered for the offences under + + Sections 147/148/149/447/323/324/326/307/504/34 of the IPC + + on 11.05.2013 at 21:00 hours. Subsequently, on account of death + + of Adalat Mahto (deceased), Section 302 of the IPC was added + + by the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 13.05.2013. After + + investigation and finding the case to be true against the six + + accused persons, namely Sharma Mahto, Arbind Mahto, Parikha + + Mahto, Chhota Mahto, Sukai Mahto @ Harendra Mahto and + + Moti Mahto, the police had submitted charge-sheet dated + + 13.8.2013. Thereafter, the police had submitted another charge- + + sheet dated 31.12.2013 against Shukul Mahto @ Shambhu + + Mahto, however female members were not sent up for trial. The + + learned Trial Court had then taken cognizance of the offences + + under the aforesaid sections against all the appellants vide + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 6/88 + + + + + orders dated 09.04.2014 and 10.04.2014, whereafter the case + + was committed to the Court of Sessions by an order dated + + 10.4.2014 and was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 267 of 2014. + + After taking into consideration the charge-sheet and the + + materials collected during the course of investigation, the Ld. + + Trial Court framed charges against the aforesaid appellants, vide + + order dated 28.05.2014 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447/149, + + 323/149, 324/149, 326/149, 307/149, 302/149 and 504/149 to + + which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. + +

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined + + 14 witnesses, PW-1 Gopal Mahto, PW-2 Prahlad Mahto, PW-3 + + Nandu Mahto and PW-5 Rajendra Mahto are stated to be eye + + witnesses. The prosecution has also led the evidence of PW-4 + + Binod Mahto, PW-9 Pramod Mahto, PW-10 Jawahir Ram, PW- + + 13 Kishore Mahto (informant) and PW-14 Ram Prasad Ram. As + + far as PW-6 Manoj Patel and PW-12 Lallan Thakur are + + concerned, they have been declared hostile. PW-7 Dr. Ashok + + Kumar Chaudhari had conducted the postmortem examination + + of the dead body of the deceased Adalat Mahto while PW-8 Dr. + + A.K. Tiwari had examined and prepared the injury reports of the + + injured persons, i.e. Gopal Mahto (PW-1) & Prahlad Mahto (PW- + +

2), as also had examined Adalat Mahto before his death. PW-11 + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 7/88 + + + + + Suraj Kumar Gupta is the Investigating Officer of the case. + +

5. The prosecution, by way of documentary evidence, had + + proved the following documents, which were marked as exhibits + + during the course of the trial:- +

+
         Exhibit No.                          DESCRIPTION
+
+          Exhibit-1      Signature of Nandu Mahto on seizure list.
+
+

Exhibit-2 Writing and signature of Dr. A. K. Chaudhari on + the photo copy of the postmortem report of the + deceased Adalat Mahto. +

+

Exhibit-3 Writing and signature of Dr. A. K. Tiwary on the + injury report of Adalat Ram. +

+

Exhibit-4 Writing and signature of Dr. A. K. Tiwari on the + injury report of Gopal Mahto. +

+

Exhibit-5 Writing and signature of Dr. A. K. Tiwari on the + injury report of Prahlad Mahto. +

+

Exhibit-6 Formal FIR of Bagaha P.S. Case No.197 of 2013 + + Exhibit-7 Writing and signature of Jay Nath Prasad on the + fardbeyan of Kishore Mahto. +

+

Exhibit-8 Chargesheet No. 257/13 dated 13.08.2013 + produced by Ganesh Ram. +

+

6. The defence had not examined any witness, however the + + list of exhibits marked on behalf of the defence are enumerated + + herein below:- +

+
         Exhibit No.                           DESCRIPTION
+
+          Exhibit-A       Certified copy of plaint of Title Suit No. 39/2011.
+
+          Exhibit-B       Certified copy of written statement filed by
+                          defendants no.1 to 5 in Title Suit No. 39/11.
+

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 8/88 + + + + + Exhibit-C Certified copy of the deposition of Adalat Mahto + in T.S. No.39/11. +

+

Exhibit-C1 Certified copy of the deposition of Prahlad Mahto + in T.S.No.39/11 + + Exhibit-C2 Certified copy of the deposition of Nandu Mahto + in T.S.No.39/11. +

+

Exhibit-D Certified copy of deposition of Moti Mahto in + T.S.No.39/11.

+
+          Exhibit-E       Certified copies of Parcha Forms and rent
+          to E/15         receipts.
+
+
+

7. The learned counsel for the appellants of the aforesaid + + two cases has submitted that the postmortem report of the + + deceased Adalat Mahto, prepared by PW-7 shows that the + + deceased had received six injuries by sharp cutting substance, + + however the evidence of the prosecution witnesses shows that + + apart from the appellant Arbind Mahto and Chhota Mahto, rest + + of the appellants had assaulted by lathi but no injury has been + + found on the person of the deceased, which can be said to have + + been inflicted by hard and blunt substance. It is further + + submitted that the injury report of Gopal Mahto, which has been + + marked as Exhibit-4 shows that the injuries have been caused by + + hard and blunt substance, nonetheless the evidence shows that + + he was assaulted on left and right thigh by bhala, however no + + injury has been found on the person of Gopal Mahto, which may + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 9/88 + + + + + be attributable to a sharp cutting weapon. Thus, it is submitted + + that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not trustworthy + + and cannot be used to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond + + all reasonable doubts. It is next contended that though PW-1 has + + stated that 50-60 people had come at the place of occurrence, + + but most of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution + + are interested and related witnesses. It is also contended that + + while PW-1 has stated that Adalat Mahto was conscious after he + + had been assaulted, PW-10 and PW-14 have stated that Adalat + + Mahto had become senseless after being assaulted. It is also + + stated that the deceased had not received any injury on the vital + + parts, therefore the appellants did not have any intention to kill + + the deceased. Thus, alternatively it is argued that the present + + case shall fall within the purview of Section 304 Part-II of the + + IPC. It is also submitted that neither inquest report has been + + exhibited much less proved nor the first Investigating Officer + + has been examined, which has caused grave prejudice to the + + appellants. It is also submitted that the evidence led by the + + prosecution would show that main assailants are the appellants + + Arbind Mahto and Chhota Mahto, however as far as the other + + appellants are concerned, no specific role has been attributed + + and they have not stated to have assaulted the deceased. As far + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 10/88 + + + + + as the factum of Gopal Mahto being assaulted by the appellants + + is concerned, it has been submitted that the statement recorded + + under Section 313 of the CrPC of the appellants would show + + that the said circumstance has not been put to the appellants, + + thus it is submitted that the same cannot be used against them. + + Therefore, as far as the allegation of assault of Gopal Mahto by + + the appellants is concerned, the same does not stand proved on + + the ground of the said circumstance having not been put to the + + appellants while recording their statements U/s. 313 CrPC. In + + this regard, reliance has been placed on a judgment rendered by + + the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Singh vs. State of + + Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2007 SC 2188, para nos. 11 to 14 + + whereof are reproduced herein below:- +

+
"11. So far as the prosecution case that kerosene was + found on the accused's dress is concerned, it is to be + noted that no question in this regard was put to the + accused while he was examined under Section 313 of the + Code. +
12. The purpose of Section 313 of the Code is set out in + its opening words- "for the purpose of enabling the + accused personally to explain any circumstances + appearing in the evidence against him". In Hate Singh + Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat [1951 SCC + 1060] it has been laid down by Bose, J. (AIR p. 469, para +
8) that the statements of the accused persons recorded + under Section 313 of the Code "are among the most + important matters to be considered at the trial". It was + pointed out that: +
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 11/88 + + + + +

"8. ... The statements of the accused recorded by the + committing Magistrate and the Sessions Judge are + intended in India to take the place of what in England + and in America he would be free to state in his own + way in the witness box [and that] they have to be + received in evidence and treated as evidence and be + duly considered at the trial." +

This position remains unaltered even after the insertion of + Section 315 in the Code and any statement under Section + 313 has to be considered in the same way as if Section + 315 is not there. +

13. The object of examination under this section is to give + the accused an opportunity to explain the case made + against him. This statement can be taken into + consideration in judging his innocence or guilt. Where + there is an onus on the accused to discharge, it depends + on the facts and circumstances of the case if such + statement discharges the onus. +

14. The word "generally" in sub-section (1)(b) does not + limit the nature of the questioning to one or more + questions of a general nature relating to the case, but it + means that the question should relate to the whole case + generally and should also be limited to any particular + part or parts of it. The question must be framed in such a + way as to enable the accused to know what he is to + explain, what are the circumstances which are against + him and for which an explanation is needed. The whole + object of the section is to afford the accused a fair and + proper opportunity of explaining circumstances which + appear against him and that the questions must be fair + and must be couched in a form which an ignorant or + illiterate person will be able to appreciate and + understand. A conviction based on the accused's failure to + explain what he was never asked to explain is bad in law. + The whole object of enacting Section 313 of the Code was + that the attention of the accused should be drawn to the + specific points in the charge and in the evidence on which + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 12/88 + + + + + the prosecution claims that the case is made out against + the accused so that he may be able to give such + explanation as he desires to give." +

8. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for + + the appellants on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex + + Court in the case of Kalicharan & Ors. vs. State of Uttar + + Pradesh, reported in (2023) 2 SCC 583, paragraph nos. 27 to 29 + + and 32 whereof are reproduced herein below:- +

+
"27. Questioning an accused under Section 313 CrPC is + not an empty formality. The requirement of Section + 313CrPC is that the accused must be explained the + circumstances appearing in the evidence against him so + that accused can offer an explanation. After an accused is + questioned under Section 313CrPC, he is entitled to take + a call on the question of examining defence witnesses and + leading other evidence. If the accused is not explained the + important circumstances appearing against him in the + evidence on which his conviction is sought to be based, + the accused will not be in a position to explain the said + circumstances brought on record against him. He will not + be able to properly defend himself. +
28. In para 21 of the decision of this Court in Jai Dev v. + State of Punjab [Jai Dev v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC + 612], it was held thus: +
"21. In support of his contention that the failure to put + the relevant point against the appellant Hari Singh + would affect the final conclusion of the High Court, Mr + Anthony has relied on a decision of this Court in Hate + Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat [Hate Singh v. State of + Madhya Bharat, 1951 SCC 1060]. In that case, this + Court has no doubt referred to the fact that it was + important to put to the accused each material fact + which is intended to be used against him and to afford + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 13/88 + + + + + him a chance of explaining it if he can. But these + observations must be read in the light of the other + conclusions reached by this Court in that case. It + would, we think, be incorrect to suggest that these + observations are intended to lay down a general and + inexorable rule that wherever it is found that one of the + points used against the accused person has not been + put to him, either the trial is vitiated or his conviction + is rendered bad. The examination of the accused + person under Section 342 is undoubtedly intended to + give him an opportunity to explain any circumstances + appearing in the evidence against him. In exercising its + powers under Section 342, the court must take care to + put all relevant circumstances appearing in the + evidence to the accused person. It would not be enough + to put a few general and broad questions to the + accused, for by adopting such a course the accused + may not get opportunity of explaining all the relevant + circumstances. On the other hand, it would not be fair + or right that the court should put to the accused person + detailed questions which may amount to his cross- + examination. The ultimate test in determining whether + or not the accused has been fairly examined under + Section 342 would be to enquire whether, having + regard to all the questions put to him, he did get an + opportunity to say what he wanted to say in respect of + prosecution case against him. If it appears that the + examination of the accused person was defective and + thereby a prejudice has been caused to him, that would + no doubt be a serious infirmity. It is obvious that no + general rule can be laid down in regard to the manner + in which the accused person should be examined under + Section 342. Broadly stated, however, the true position + appears to be that passion for brevity which may be + content with asking a few omnibus general questions is + as much inconsistent with the requirements of Section + 342 as anxiety for thoroughness which may dictate an + unduly detailed and large number of questions which + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 14/88 + + + + + may amount to the cross-examination of the accused + person. Besides, in the present case, as we have + already shown, failure to put the specific point of + distance is really not very material." +

29. In para 145 of the well-known decision of this Court + in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra + [(1984) 4 SCC 116], it was held thus: +

"145. It is not necessary for us to multiply authorities + on this point as this question now stands concluded by + several decisions of this Court. In this view of the + matter, the circumstances which were not put to the + appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the + Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have to be completely + excluded from consideration." +

32. Therefore, we considered whether the case can be + remanded for framing of a proper charge and for + recording additional statements of the accused under + Section 313. But the incident is of December 2000. + Therefore, it will be unfair to the accused if they are + called upon to answer the circumstances appearing + against them in evidence about the incident which has + taken place more than 22 years back. In fact, such a + course will cause serious prejudice to the accused." + +

9. Thus, it is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the appellants + + that the Ld. Trial Judge has erred in convicting the appellants, + + hence they are fit to be acquitted inasmuch as the prosecution + + has failed to prove their guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. + +

10. Per contra, the learned APP for the State, Ms. Shashi Bala + + Verma, has submitted that the appellants were armed with lethal + + weapons and as far as the appellants Arbind Mahto and Shukai + + Mahto are concerned, they were armed with bhala while Chhota + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 15/88 + + + + + Mahto was armed with farsa and rest of the appellants were + + armed with lathi and all of them had indiscriminately assaulted + + the deceased - Adalat Mahto badly leading to his death on the + + very same day. It is also submitted that all the prosecution + + witnesses have deposed consistently and the defence has failed + + to elicit any contradictions in their evidence. It is next stated that + + even one injury is enough for causing death, nonetheless in the + + present case, several injuries were inflicted upon the deceased - + + Adalat Mahto. Thus, it would not matter as to whether the injury + + was inflicted on vital or non-vital parts of the body of the + + deceased inasmuch as the injuries were so grievous in nature + + that the death was inevitable. It is also submitted that the motive + + is also present in the present case inasmuch as there is pre- + + existing land dispute and a civil dispute is also going on in + + between the parties. Thus, it is submitted that the judgment of + + conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Trial + + Judge does not require any interference, as such the same is + + required to be upheld. +

+

11. Besides hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we + + have minutely perused both the evidence, i.e. oral and + + documentary. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to + + cursorily discuss the evidence led by the prosecution. + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 16/88 + + + + +

12. PW-1 Gopal Mahto has stated in his deposition that the + + occurrence dates back to 15 months and 5 days at about 03:45 in + + the evening. He has stated that he was near the place of + + occurrence in his field situated near the grove of Adalat Mahto. + + Adalat and Prahlad had arrived for making stool (peedha) out of + + mango wood. The said persons then started cutting branch of + + mango tree, whereafter Chhota Mahto and Arbind Mahto had + + cut the leg of Adalat as also cut his hand and had then assaulted + + him in his stomach by bhala. Parikha Mahto, Moti Mahto, + + Sharma Mahto, Shambhu Mahto, Sukai Mahto and 4-5 females + + armed with lathi and farsa, had also arrived there and had + + engaged in assault. Prahlad had ran away after being assaulted + + and when PW-1 had gone there, the accused persons started + + assaulting him as well resulting in him sustaining injuries. He + + has also stated that he received bhala blow on his left leg. PW-1 + + has next stated that he was taken to Bettiah for treatment. He has + + stated that his treatment as also that of Prahlad was undertaken + + and while Adalat was being taken to Bettiah, he died on the way + + near cantonment. PW-1 had recognized the accused persons, + + namely, Chhota Mahto, Sharma, Sukai, Moti and Parikha + + Mahto, who were standing in the dock. +

+

13. In cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that he is the + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 17/88 + + + + + agnate of the deceased - Adalat but the accused persons are not + + his agnates. He has also stated that a land dispute was going on + + in between the informant and the accused persons in which the + + land pertaining to grove is also involved and one case is going + + on before the Sub-Judge in which he is also one of the plaintiff + + and the evidence is going on. He has also stated that the said + + case pertains to nine and a half bigaha land and the accused + + persons have only nine and a half bigaha land. In paragraph no.4 + + of his cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that his statement was + + recorded by the police in the night of the date of occurrence and + + the statement of Adalat, Prahlad and Nandu was also recorded. + + PW-1 has further stated that he had said before the police that + + his field is situated near the place of occurrence and upon being + + informed, he had gone to the grove where he saw all the accused + + persons, armed with lathi, danda, phatta, assaulting Adalat as + + also saw that Moti, Sukai, Mukul @ Shambhu, Parikhan were + + assaulting by lathi-danda. PW-1 has also stated that he had + + stated before the police that he had seen that Adalat had been + + grievously injured on his hand and leg. In paragraph no.5 of his + + cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that after sustaining injuries, + + he had become unconscious and he had regained consciousness + + at 5:00-6:00 hours in the evening. He has also stated that when + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 18/88 + + + + + he had gone to the place of occurrence, Prahlad and Adalat were + + conscious and he had spoken with them whereupon they had + + disclosed as to who had assaulted them. Thereafter, 50-60 + + people from the village had arrived there and were standing + + separately. They were then referred for treatment to Bettiah and + + then Adalat, Prahlad and PW-1 had gone to Bettiah. He has also + + stated that while Adalat was being taken to Bagaha, he was + + conscious and when he was being taken to Bettiah, he was + + speaking. Medicine was given to him and thereafter, saline + + water was also administered. In paragraph no.6 of his cross- + + examination, PW-1 has stated that he was assaulted by bhala, + + which had got inserted 2-3 inch inside, however his head had + + not been injured. In paragraph no.7 of his cross-examination, + + PW-1 has stated that the grove is at a distance of one bigaha + + from the village. He has also stated that adjacent to the grove, + + houses of Harihar Mahto, Kashi Yadav, Kamlesh Yadav and + + Bhim Yadav are situated. He has next stated that if hulla (alarm) + + is made from the grove, he can hear the same at his house. + + Bagaha Police Station is situated at a distance of 8-9 kilometre + + from the grove and Bhairavganj Police Station is at a distance of + + 9-10 kilometre from Kapardhika village. In paragraph no.8 of + + his cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that after he was injured, + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 19/88 + + + + + he had not gone into the grove and at that time mango fruit was + + growing in the mango grove. He had also seen the partly cut + + branch of mango tree and the same is hanging from the tree till + + date. He has stated that Prahlad had climbed the tree to cut the + + branch of mango tree. PW-1 has next stated that blood had fallen + + down on the ground and the ground was plain since no grass had + + grown over the same. He has next stated that the police officials + + had seized the blood soaked mud. In paragraph no.9 of his cross- + + examination, PW-1 has stated that after Adalat had died, he was + + brought home but he had stayed in the hospital for 5-6 days. He + + has also stated that he along with Adalat, Prahlad, Kishore and + + their family members had gone to the hospital. In paragraph + + no.10 of his cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that the land + + over which the grove is situated is in the name of Bihari and is a + + khatiyani land and he had died 70 years ago. He has denied the + + suggestion that the accused persons have been wrongly + + implicated in the present case on account of land dispute. He has + + also denied the suggestion that in the night, Adalat had gone to + + pluck mangoes and he was killed by unknown accused persons. + +

14. PW-2 Prahlad Mahto has stated in his evidence that the + + occurrence dates back to 16 months at about 03:45 p.m. when he + + had gone to cut wood in his grove and along with him, Adalat + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 20/88 + + + + + Mahto and Nandu (PW-3) had also gone. He has also stated that + + he had gone to cut wood for making stool for marriage of his + + daughter and at that time Adalat started preparing khaini + + (tobacco). PW-2 has further stated that at that time, Moti, + + Sarikha, Sharma, Chhota, Shukul @ Shambhu, Parikha and five + + ladies had arrived there and while Chhota was armed with farsa, + + Arbind was armed with bhala, Shambhu was armed with sword, + + the rest were armed with lahti and phatta. Thereafter, upon + + being ordered by Moti, Chhota had assaulted Adalat by farsa, + + resulting in cutting of his both arms and right leg and the same + + had separated, whereafter the other accused persons started + + assaulting by danda and phatta. Gopal had then come to save + + him but he was assaulted by bhala on his thigh, whereafter PW- + + 2 was also assaulted by lahti on his left hand, resulting in + + breaking of his three fingers. In paragraph no.3, PW-2 has stated + + that he had then taken Adalat and Gopal to Bagaha Hospital, + + whereafter they had gone to Bettiah and there Adalat had died at + + 11:00 p.m. in the night. PW-2 had recognized the accused + + persons standing in the dock, namely, Sharma, Moti and + + Harendra @ Sukai Mahto. In paragraph no.5 of his cross- + + examination, PW-2 has stated that the accused persons are not + + his agnates, however in between them civil case is going on + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 21/88 + + + + + pertaining to partition of land in question, however no + + application has been given before in the circle for partition. He + + has also stated that the grove is situated at a distance of one + + kilometre from his village towards the western-southern side + + and on the southern side of Kapardhika village. + +

15. In paragraph no.7 of his cross-examination, PW-2 has + + stated that Sharma was present at the grove from before and he + + had then called the other accused persons. PW-2 has also stated + + that earlier no quarrel had taken place with Sharma and he was + + armed with tangi (axe). PW-2 has stated that upon seeing the + + accused persons coming there, his brother did not flee away. The + + accused persons had come from the northern side of the grove + + and after seeing the accused persons, he had jumped from the + + tree, besides the branch of the bamboo tree, however he was not + + injured. He has also stated that they had stayed at the grove for + + 10-15 minutes. In paragraph no.9 of his cross-examination, PW- + + 2 has stated that after Sharma had gone, other accused persons + + had come within two minutes and at that time, he was over the + + tree and others, who were standing beneath the tree did not try to + + flee away and after 10 minutes Nandu had gone to the village, + + raising alarm but he was not assaulted by the accused persons. + + Gopal (PW-1) had then come to save them but he was also + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 22/88 + + + + + assaulted by bhala from the front from a distance of 5-6 hands + + on the left thigh. PW-2 has also stated that Adalat was assaulted + + within five minutes by the accused persons and at that time also + + he was on the tree and his body parts had got separated but he + + did not die there. PW-2 has further stated that blood was present + + over the cloth of Adalat and both his hands and left leg had been + + cut as also had got separated from the body. PW-2 has further + + stated that he had received injury on his finger on the hand + + below wrist and x-ray of the hand was done at Bagaha Hospital. + + He has stated that where the hand had broken, swelling was + + present. PW-2 has next stated that the injuries were present all + + over the body of Gopal and injuries were also present on the + + back and in the front. +

+

16. In paragraph no.10 of his cross-examination, PW-2 has + + stated that the police official had come at the place of + + occurrence after Adalat and Gopal had gone away and not in his + + presence. He has also stated that they had gone to Bagaha + + Hospital by tempo and he, his wife, Adalat and Kishore had sat + + in the tempo. He has stated that they had gone from the village + + by tempo to Banchatti, which is at a distance of 150 metre from + + his house. He has further stated that when they had gone to + + Bagaha, they had crossed Bagaha Police Station in between, + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 23/88 + + + + + which is situated beside the road and they had also passed + + through the said road where the said police station is situated, + + however nobody had gone to Bagaha Police Station to give + + information. In paragraph no.11 of his cross-examination, PW-2 + + has stated that they were admitted at Bagaha Hospital and after + + giving medicine, they were referred immediately. They had + + reached Bagaha at 05:00 p.m. where they had stayed for an hour + + and then they were referred to Bettiah where they had gone by + + government ambulance and while they were going to Bettiah, + + Adalat died on the way. He has also stated that they had reached + + Bettiah at 8-9 p.m. in the night where postmortem examination + + of the dead body of the deceased was held. PW-2 has stated that + + the case was neither registered at Bettiah nor at Bagaha Police + + Station, however the police had come at Bagaha and they had + + met the police for the first time at Bagaha. In paragraph no.12 of + + his cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that he had given his + + clothes and that of Adalat to the police at Bagaha. + +

17. PW-3 Nandu Mahto has stated in his evidence that the + + occurrence dates back to 11.05.2013 at about 03:45 p.m. in the + + evening when he was at his house and Prahlad had told him to + + come along with him to the grove for cutting wood for preparing + + stool for marriage, whereafter he along with Adalat Mahto and + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 24/88 + + + + + Prahlad Mahto had gone to the grove and then Prahlad had + + climbed on the tree for cutting the branch of the tree, however + + after ten minutes, Chhota Mahto, Sukai Mahto, Parikh Mahto, + + Sharma Mahto, Moti Mahto, Arbind Mahto and Shukul @ + + Shambhu Mahto had arrived there. Chhota was armed with + + farsa while Arbind was armed with bhala and the rest of people + + were armed with lathi and phatta. As soon as the accused + + persons had arrived there, Chhota had assaulted Adalat by farsa + + on his arm and thereafter, he had given a second blow on the + + other arm resulting in both arms having hung down and then he + + had given third blow of farsa on the leg of Adalat resulting in + + his left leg having been cut. Arbind had then assaulted Adalat by + + bhala on the left rib cage. In the meantime, brother of PW-3, + + namely Gopal (PW-1) had arrived there, whereupon all the + + accused persons started assaulting him by lathi and then Arbind + + had assaulted him on his leg by bhala. The elder brother of PW- + + 3, namely Prahlad Mahto, who was on the tree was also + + assaulted by lathi resulting in three fingers of his right hand + + being broken. In paragraph no.3, PW-3 has stated that Adalat + + Mahto died at Bettiah Hospital and treatment had also taken + + place at Bagaha Hospital. He has also stated that the police had + + recovered leaves and mud laced with blood from the place of + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 25/88 + + + + + occurrence, whereafter seizure-list was prepared which he has + + identified and the same has been marked as Exhibit-1. He had + + recognized all the accused persons standing in the dock. + +

18. In paragraph no.5 of his cross-examination, PW-3 has + + stated that the tree from which the branch was being cut was a + + dried tree. He has next stated that after Prahlad had seen the + + accused persons, he had climbed down slowly whereupon tangi + + (axe) had fallen down from his hand. He has stated that one case + + is going on in the Munsif court in between them and the accused + + persons and in the said case PW-3 is also a party and the said + + case pertains to the grove land as well. The grove land is about + + 12 katha, the said land is khatiyani and the khatiyan is in the + + name of Bihari Mahto, however the accused persons do not + + belong to his family. PW-3 has also stated that they did not get + + the receipt made for the said land but he is 4 th generation of + + Bihari Mahto, who has died. PW-3 has stated that they had not + + ever made any attempt to get the said land transferred in their + + name. In paragraph no.6 of his cross-examination, PW-3 has + + stated that the branch of the tree was being cut prior to 10 + + minutes of arrival of the accused persons and while the branch + + was still attached to the tree and had not been cut completely, + + the accused persons had arrived from the northern side armed + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 26/88 + + + + + with bhala in their hand. PW-3 has also stated that he had seen + + the accused persons as soon as they had entered the grove. He + + has also stated that the entry point to the grove is at a distance of + + 3 laggi (stick length). He has next stated that on the northern + + side of the grove, rasta (way) is there and anybody coming from + + the village is visible from there. He has stated that upon seeing + + the accused persons, he had not made an attempt to run away + + and the accused persons had first assaulted Adalat upon coming + + there, however he had not gone to save Adalat but had stood up. + + In paragraph no.7 of his cross-examination, PW-3 has stated that + + Adalat had not sustained any injury either on his back or on his + + head and he was sitting down and after being assaulted, he + + moved around but fell down, whereafter they had remained at + + the grove for half an hour. He has stated that they had also + + assaulted by bhala by holding the same by both hands and not + + by throwing bhala. The front portion of bhala was four finger + + length wide. He has stated that Prahlad had not fled away but he + + had stood there and was present there for half an hour. He has + + also stated that no outsider from Kapardhika village had come. + + Thereafter, people from his house including his brother Rajendra + + (PW-5), Pramod (PW-9), Kishore (PW-13) and others had + + arrived there. Gopal (PW-1) had also arrived earlier and he was + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 27/88 + + + + + standing in the field. +

+

19. In paragraph no.8 of his cross-examination, PW-3 has + + stated that he had not stated before the police that after assault + + had taken place, he had met Gopal on the way. He has also + + stated that the accused persons had badly injured the body of + + Gopal, bhala blow had been inflicted on his left leg and bhala + + injuries were present on both legs, i.e. two injuries on the left leg + + and one on the right leg. PW-3 has also stated that he has stated + + before the police that Arbind was holding bhala and Chhota was + + holding farsa in his hand. He has stated that he had not stated + + before the police that the accused persons had assaulted Prahlad + + by bhala and farsa. He has next stated that phone call was made + + to the police by a mobile from the grove, however the police had + + not arrived there but he met the police at Bagaha Hospital for + + the first time. He has also stated that Adalat was brought to the + + road from the grove by Pramod, Prahlad and Kishore after being + + lifted and at the place where he was kept on the ground, blood + + had fallen and in fact blood had been falling down all + + throughout the rasta (way). In paragraph no.9 of his cross- + + examination, PW-3 has stated that they had reached Bagaha + + Hospital at 05:00 p.m. in the evening by tempo which was being + + driven by Mukesh and he was also present there. He has also + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 28/88 + + + + + stated that though on the way to Bagaha Hospital, Bagaha Police + + Station is situated in between, however they had not stopped + + there and had not gone to the police station but had rang Bagaha + + Police Station upon which the police officer had told him to stay + + there and they would come there. He has also stated that Adalat + + had died in the hospital at Bettiah. In paragraph no.10 of his + + cross-examination, PW-3 has stated that he had reached home + + from Bagaha at 05:30 p.m. while Adalat and Gopal had been + + referred to Bettiah, but he had not gone to Bettiah Hospital. On + + the next day, at about 10-11 a.m., Prahlad had brought the dead + + body from Bettiah and Gopal had stayed there and he had come + + after 4-5 days. PW-3 has denied the suggestion that because of + + previous land dispute with the accused persons, under a + + conspiracy they have been falsely implicated in the present case. + +

20. PW-4 Binod Mahto is the son of the deceased and he has + + stated in his deposition that the occurrence dates back to 22 + + months at about 03:45 p.m. in the evening when his father + + Adalat Mahto had gone to the grove for cutting branch of the + + tree for making stool for marriage purpose. He has stated that + + the grove is situated near Kapardhika. He has also stated that his + + father had gone along with Nandu Mahto (PW-3) and Prahlad + + (PW-2) to the grove. He has next stated that while Adalat was + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 29/88 + + + + + sitting beneath the tree, Prahlad Mahto had climbed the tree and + + was cutting wood when Chhota Mahto, Moti Mahto, Sharma + + Mahto, Arbind Mahto, Shukul Mahto, Parikha Mahto and + + Harendra Mahto had arrived there, whereafter Chhota Mahto + + had assaulted Adalat Mahto by farsa and cut him as also his + + both arms and right leg were cut, which had hung down. PW-4 + + has next stated that Arbind Mahto had then assaulted Adalat + + Mahto in his stomach by bhala. PW-4 has also stated that + + Parikha was armed with lahti, Sharma was armed with bhala, + + Arbind was armed with bhala, Moti was armed with bhala, + + Chhota was armed with farsa, Harendra was armed with bhala + + and Shukul was armed with lathi. Thereafter, Gopal had gone to + + save them and after the occurrence had taken place, other + + persons had arrived from behind, however in the meantime the + + accused persons had assaulted and broken the leg of Gopal as + + also he had been assaulted badly on his knee by Sukai and + + Arbind. In paragraph no.3, PW-4 has stated that he, Pramod + + (PW-9) and Prahlad (PW-2) had taken Adalat to the Government + + Hospital at Bahaga, however the doctor had shown his + + helplessness, whereafter they had reached Bettiah at 10:00 p.m. + + in the night where the doctor had seen Adalat and declared him + + to be dead. He had recognized the accused person standing in + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 30/88 + + + + + the dock and claimed to recognize the other accused persons. + +

21. In cross-examination, PW-4 has stated that his statement + + was recorded at 07:00 p.m. in the evening by the police on the + + date of occurrence and he had not stated before the police that + + after Prahlad Mahto and Nandu Mahto had come running home, + + they had narrated the entire incident, whereafter they had gone + + to the place of occurrence. In paragraph no.6 of his cross- + + examination, PW-6 has stated that he is neither on talking terms + + with the accused persons nor they visit each other house. In + + paragraph no.7 of his cross-examination, PW-4 has stated that + + Nandu and Prahlad had not fled towards his house however, he + + has again stated that they had come running to the house. PW-4 + + has also stated that he cannot say as to whether they had met + + Pramod or not but at that time, though Pramod was at home but + + he had gone into the village. He has also stated that the branch + + of tree was partly cut. PW-4 has next stated that the assault was + + made by bhala from a hand's distance and then it was pulled. + + The bhala was three finger length wide in the front. + +

22. PW-4 has also stated that he had stayed in the grove for + + half an hour and then he had taken away his father from the + + grove by lifting him on his hands and at that time, his father was + + speaking and was saying that he was assaulted by farsa and + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 31/88 + + + + + bhala which he, his brother Pramod (PW-9), Gopal (PW-1), + + Prahlad (PW-2), wife of Prahlad, namely Tetari Devi had also + + heard on the way. PW-4 had gone to Bagaha Hospital where he + + had reached at 07:00 p.m. and he had sat on the seat of tempo + + with his father, where blood had fallen not only in the tempo but + + had spread all over his body. He has also stated that while going + + to Bagaha Hospital, nobody had got down from the tempo on + + the way at the Bagaha Police Station. He has stated that after + + they had reached the hospital, the doctor had examined after ten + + minutes, while his father was lying on the bed and after bandage + + was applied on the injury of his father, he was referred to + + Bettiah, whereafter they had taken father on an ambulance to + + Bettiah where they had reached at 09:30-10:00 p.m. in the night, + + however the doctor had not treated him at Bettiah and upon + + examination, the doctor said that Adalat has died. PW-4 has also + + stated that he, Prabhu, Pramod (PW-9), Prahlad (PW-2) and + + Kishore (PW-13) had gone to Bettiah. On the next day, after the + + postmortem examination was done, the dead body was brought + + at 11:00 a.m. PW-4 has denied that on account of previous + + enmity, the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the + + present case. +

+

23. PW-5 Rajendra Mahto has stated in his deposition that the + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 32/88 + + + + + occurrence dates back to 22 months at about 03:45 p.m. in the + + evening when he was beneath a tree near the village at the canal. + + The marriage of the daughter of Prahlad was going to be + + solemnized, hence Prahlad (PW-2), Nandu (PW-3) and Adalat + + (deceased) had gone to cut wood for making stool for marriage + + purposes, whereafter Prahlad had climbed on the tree and was + + cutting the branch of the tree while Nandu Singh was slowly + + walking by and Adalat was sitting near the tree and preparing + + khaini (tobacco). The accused persons including the appellants + + had then gone to the said place. Chhota was armed with farsa, + + Arbind with bhala, Shukul with khand (weapon used to cut + + buffalo) and others were armed with lahti-phatta and they had + + gone to the said grove while Prahlad was cutting branch of the + + tree and Adalat was sitting and preparing tobacco. As soon as + + the accused persons had reached there, Chhota had assaulted + + Adalat with farsa resulting in his both arms being cut, + + whereafter Chhota had assaulted on his leg resulting in the same + + being cut and then Arbind had assaulted Adalat by bhala in the + + belly and Shukul had assaulted by khand on the ribs of the chest, + + whereupon other accused persons had started assaulting by + + lathi-phatta. Gopal had then come running to save them, + + however he was also assaulted by lathi resulting in his leg being + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 33/88 + + + + + broken and then Shukul had assaulted him on his right leg with + + bhala. PW-5 has next stated that the accused persons had then + + fled away, whereafter Adalat and Gopal were taken by Kishore, + + Nandu, Prahlad and their sons to the road after being lifted by + + them. PW-5 has also stated that he was watching the incident + + from a distance of 2-3 bigaha. He has stated that he had also + + gone along with Adalat to Bagaha Hospital where the doctor had + + tied bandage and referred him to Bettiah, whereafter they had + + taken Adalat to Bettiah but he had returned back from Bagaha, + + however Adalat had died at Bettiah. PW-5 had recognized the + + accused persons standing in the dock. +

+

24. In paragraph no.4 of his cross-examination, PW-5 has + + stated that a civil case pertaining to the land where the + + occurrence had taken place is going on before the Munsif Court + + and he is also a plaintiff in the said case but the said case has not + + been filed for his possession and the area of the grove is 12 + + katha. He has also stated that partition has not taken place in + + between the parties and the dispute between the parties pertain + + to 10 bigaha land. In paragraph no.5 of his cross-examination, + + PW-5 has stated that his statement was recorded by the police on + + the day of occurrence at the hospital at 08:00 p.m. in the night + + and in his statement made before the police, he had not stated + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 34/88 + + + + + that Prahlad had come running to home and then he had said + + about the incident, whereafter he had gone to the grove. In + + paragraph no.6 of his cross-examination, PW-5 has stated that + + the grove is at a distance of 2-3 bigaha from his house. Prahlad + + was sitting in the grove near the tree on the eastern side. He has + + also stated that prior to him reaching the grove, three persons + + were present there, namely Prahlad (PW-2), Nandu (PW-3) and + + Adalat (deceased) and he had stayed at the grove for ten + + minutes, during which period no other person had come there. + + He has also stated that he had reached there after Nandu and the + + accused persons had held khand by both hands, whereafter they + + had assaulted and the entire khand had got inserted. + +

25. PW-5 has also stated that there were five injuries on the + + body of Adalat and Prahlad had received injury only on his + + finger. He has stated that at the place of occurrence, Prahlad + + (PW-2), Nandu (PW-3), Kishore (PW-13), Brajesh, Pramod + + (PW-9), Binod (PW-4) and Rajendra (PW-5) were present. In + + paragraph no.7 of his cross-examination, PW-5 has stated that + + 10-11 people had gone in the tempo. He has also stated that he + + had returned back to his home after sometime and after an hour, + + he received a phone call from Bettiah that Adalat has died, + + however he did not go to Bettiah. In para no.8 of his cross- + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 35/88 + + + + + examination, PW-5 has stated that Gopal had received injuries + + on 3 places by bhala and farsa. PW-5 has denied the suggestion + + that on account of land dispute, the accused persons have been + + falsely implicated in this case. +

+

26. PW-6 Manoj Patel has stated in his deposition that the + + occurrence dates back to 3-4 years back. He has stated that he + + was not present at the place of occurrence and his statement was + + not recorded by the police, hence he was declared hostile, + + nonetheless the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had cross- + + examined him on behalf of the prosecution, however nothing + + significant could be elicited. +

+

27. PW-7 Dr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhari is the doctor, who had + + conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of + + Adalat Mahto on 12.05.2013 and he has stated in his deposition + + that on the said date, he was posted as Medical Officer, MJK + + Hospital, Bettiah. He had found the following ante-mortem + + injuries on the dead body of Adalat Mahto upon external + + examination:- +

+
"(i) one incised wound over right arm 2½" x ¼" x bone + cut with fracture of lower part of humerus. +
+
(ii) one incised wound over right leg lower part, size- +

2½" x ¼ " to bone cut with fracture of Tibia, + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 36/88 + + + + +

(iii) one incised wound over right leg upper part 2½" x ¼" +

x bone cut with fracture of Tibia. +
+
(iv) one incised wound over left forearm size-2½" x ¼" x + bone cut with fracture of radius and ulna. +
+
(v) one incised wound over left palm size- 2½ " x ¼" x + bone cut. +
+
(vi) one incised wound over right iliac crest (lower part of + the abdomen) size- 2½" x ¼" x iliac bone cut." +
+ +

PW-7 on dissection had found the following: - +

+
Above injuries were confirmed. All abdominal viscera + were found pale, hard. Both heart-chambers empty. + Stomach -empty. Urinary bladder- empty. Time elapsed + since death - within 24 hours. All the injuries are ante- + mortem caused by sharp cutting substance. +
+
The cause of death has been stated by PW-7 to be shock + + and hemorrhage due to above injuries. In paragraph no.3 of his + + deposition, PW-7 has stated that the postmortem report has been + + prepared by him and bears his signature as also he has identified + + the photocopy of the postmortem report, which has been marked + + as Exhibit-2. He has also stated that the dead body was + + identified by Pramod Mahto, son of the deceased. In para no.5 + + of his cross-examination, PW-7 has stated that hands and legs + + are not vital parts of human body. The injuries in the lower part + + of abdomen are not involving intestine and abdominal viscera. + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 37/88 + + + + +

28. PW-8 Dr. A. K. Tiwari is the doctor who had examined + + Adalat Mahto (deceased), Gopal Mahto (PW-1) and Prahlad + + Mahto (PW-2). He has stated that on 11.05.2013, he was posted + + as D.S. at Sub-divisional Hospital, Bagaha and on the said date + + at 06:30 p.m., he had examined Adalat Mahto and found the + + following injuries on his person:- +

+
"(i) Compound fracture of right tibia and fibula. +
+
(ii) Incised wound over mid of right leg 4" x ½" x ½" red + in colour. +
+
(iii) Incised wound over right leg 3" x ½ " x ¼" red in + colour. +
+
(iv) Incised wound over right iliac fossa 3" x 1½" x ¼" +

red in colour. +

+

(v) Left forearm amputated. +

+

(vi) Incised wound over right arm 3" x ½" x 1" red in + colour. +

+

(vii) Fracture of right humerus of right arm (compound + fracture). +

+

(viii) Incised wound over right arm 3" x 1½" x ½" medial + to injury no.6." +

+

PW-8 has stated that the aforesaid injuries were caused by + + sharp cutting weapon and the duration of the injuries is within + + six hours. He has also stated that the condition of patient is very + + serious and dangerous to his life. PW-8 had identified the injury + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 38/88 + + + + + report prepared by him, which is in his writing as also he had + + identified his signature put over the same and the same had been + + marked as Exhibit-3. +

+

29. PW-8, on the same day, i.e. on 11.05.2013 had also + + examined Gopal Mahto (PW-1) at 06:40 p.m. and found the + + following injuries on his person:- +

+
"(i) Lacerated wound over left leg 1½" x ½" x 2½" red in + colour. +
+
(ii) Lacerated wound over right knee ½" x ½" x ¼" red in + colour. +
+
(iii) Abrasion over right cheek 1" x ½" x superficial, + swelling around it. +
+
(iv) Right hand swollen. +
+

All caused by hard blunt substance. Duration within six + hours. Patient was advised X-ray of affected parts." + + PW-8 has further stated that later on, x-ray plate was + + provided which showed commuted fracture of right ulna and + + commuted fracture of proximal phalanx-III, IV and V fingers. + + He also found intercondylar right femur fracture and right + + shoulder was dislocated. He has next stated that all the injuries + + cumulatively are dangerous to life. PW-8 had identified the + + injury report prepared by him in his writing as also his signature + + made over the same, which had been marked as Exhibit-4. + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 39/88 + + + + +

30. PW-8 has stated that on the same day, i.e. on 11.05.2013 + + at 06:50 P.M, he had examined Prahlad Mahto (PW-2) as well + + and found the following injury:- +

+
"(1) Lacerated wound over right little finger ½" x ¼" +

superficial red in colour." +

+

PW-8 has stated that the aforesaid injury has been caused + + by hard and blunt substance and duration of injury is within six + + hours as also nature thereof is simple. PW-8 had identified the + + injury report prepared by him in his writing as also his signature + + put over the same, which had been marked as Exhibit-5. In his + + cross-examination, PW-8 has stated that injury no.6 of Adalat is + + incised but not penetrating. He has stated that bhala causes + + penetrating wound. The injuries of Gopal and Prahlad may be + + sustained by falling on hard substance. PW-8 has denied the + + suggestion that his report is collusive in nature. + +

31. PW-9 Pramod Mahto is the son of the deceased and he + + has stated in his deposition that the occurrence dates back to + + 11.05.2013 at 03:45 p.m. when he was coming from his in-laws' + + place to his home and when he had reached near Kotwa village, + + he heard hulla (alarm) and then he went in the grove and saw + + that Chhota Mahto has cut both hands of his father by farsa and + + both the hands were hanging as also he had assaulted his father + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 40/88 + + + + + by farsa on leg and had cut it. Sukai Mahto and Arbind Mahto + + had assaulted his father-Adalat by bhala on his waist, whereafter + + other accused persons had assaulted his father by lathi. In the + + meantime, Gopal had come to save him, however Chhota Mahto + + had assaulted him by lathi. Arbind and Sukai had also assaulted + + Gopal by bhala on his knee. Gopal was also assaulted by other + + accused persons by lathi. Thereafter, people present there had + + taken the father of PW-9 to Bagaha Hospital along with Gopal + + Mahto for treatment where the doctor had referred them to + + Bettiah and at Bettiah, the doctor had declared his father to be + + dead. He has also stated that on account of marriage of daughter + + of his uncle, they had gone to cut the wood of mango tree and + + then the said occurrence had taken place. He had recognized the + + accused persons standing in the dock. In paragraph no.4 of his + + cross-examination, PW-9 has stated that his in-laws' place is + + situated towards northern side at a distance of 3 kilometre and + + the grove is situated towards the western side of his house at a + + distance of half a kilometre. In paragraph no.5 of his cross- + + examination, PW-9 has stated that he had started from his in- + + laws' place at 03:15 p.m. in the evening and while he was + + coming through the way besides the canal, he had not met + + anyone. In paragraph no.6 of his cross-examination, PW-9 has + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 41/88 + + + + + stated that his statement was recorded by the police only at + + Bettiah and not at any other place and the said statement was + + taken by Bettiah police on the second day, at about 09:00 a.m. + + He has stated that when he was giving his statement, Kishore + + Mahto, Prahlad Mahto, Gopal Mahto besides several other + + persons were present there, whose name he cannot say. + +

32. In paragraph no.7 of his cross-examination, PW-9 has + + stated that the motive for the occurrence is land dispute and + + from before a civil case is going on between the parties. He has + + also stated that he had not stated before the police that his father + + Adalat Mahto was cutting branch of the tree. He has stated that + + he had not gone home but after hearing hulla (alarm), he had + + firstly gone to the grove towards eastern corner and had seen + + Chhota assaulting his father, whereafter his father's hand had + + hung down as also he had seen Chhota cutting the leg of his + + father, whereupon other people started arriving there. He has + + also stated that from before Prahlad, Adalat, Nandu Mahto and + + Kishore Mahto were present there. He has next stated that his + + father had fallen down and blood was oozing out from his body + + and his hands and leg had been cut as also he had been injured + + by bhala twice on the left side but his father was conscious and + + was speaking as also had told him that while Prahlad Mahto was + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 42/88 + + + + + cutting wood, Chhota Mahto had come and assaulted by farsa. + + Thereafter, the persons present there had lifted the father of PW- + + 9 and taken him to the road and then he was taken to Bagaha + + Hospital, from where his father was taken to Bettiah Hospital + + but he did not become unconscious on the way. In paragraph + + no.8 of his cross-examination, PW-9 has stated that blood had + + fallen on the road and Gopal had been hit by bhala on the knee + + and his left leg had been broken as also Prahlad had received + + injury on the ring finger of his left hand. He has also stated that + + they had reached at Bettiah at 09:00 p.m. in the night and had + + gone to the Government Hospital, where his father was admitted + + and then the doctor had come and said that he has died. PW-9 + + has denied the suggestion that on account of civil case, the + + accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case + + and has stated that it is not a fact that his father was a person of + + short-temper, hence some unknown miscreants had killed him. + +

33. PW-10 Jawahir Ram has stated in his deposition that the + + occurrence dates back to two years one month at 04:00 p.m. + + while he was at the house of Tapan Ram, when he saw that + + Nandu, Prahlad and Adalat had come and had started cutting + + wood, whereafter four persons of the other party, i.e. Chhota + + Mahto, Sharma Mahto, Parikh Mahto and Arbind Mahto had + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 43/88 + + + + + arrived there armed with lathi, bhala and farsa. While one + + person, namely Prahlad had climbed on the tree and was cutting + + wood, quarrel started taking place leading to Prahlad and Nandu + + having fled away. Adalat was sitting and preparing tobacco and + + the aforesaid four persons started assaulting him by lathi, bhala + + and farsa leading to his both hands being cut as also his leg was + + cut. Thereafter, Adalat was lifted and taken for treatment. He + + had recognized the accused persons standing in the dock. In + + cross-examination, PW-10 has stated that the grove is situated at + + a distance of an acre of land. There is also a school on the + + northern side near the grove. He has also stated that when the + + accused persons came out of the village, everyone had seen + + them but the villagers had not accompanied them and he had + + also not gone. PW-10 has stated in his cross-examination that he + + had reached at the grove after 20 minutes of the occurrence and + + at that time Adalat was unconscious and Nandu and Prahlad had + + fled away, whereafter he had gone back to his house. In + + paragraph no.4 of his cross-examination, PW-10 has stated that + + Adalat had fallen flat on the ground and blood stains were + + present all over his clothes as also his shirt was cut. He has next + + stated that his statement was not recorded by the police and + + since long case is going on in between the parties pertaining to + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 44/88 + + + + + the said land. He has denied the suggestion that upon being + + tutored by the prosecution, he is giving the present statement + + against the accused persons. +

+

34. PW-11 Suraj Kumar Gupta is a police official and he has + + stated in his deposition that on 27.12.2013, he was handed over + + the charge of investigation of Bagaha Police Station Case No. + + 197 of 2013 by the then In-charge of the police station, namely + + Subhash Singh and then he had gone through the case-diary. He + + has further stated that he had recorded the statements of Ranjit + + Kumar, Manoj Patel (PW-6), Lalan Thakur (PW-12) and Ram + + Prasad Rai (PW-14). He had received the third supervision note + + of the senior officials. He had filed Charge-Sheet No. 549/13 + + under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 323, 324, 307, 302, 504/34 + + of the IPC. He has next stated that the formal FIR of Bagaha + + Police Station Case No.197 of 2013 is in the writing of the then + + Officer-in-charge, Ganesh Rai and bears his signature, which he + + has identified and the same has been marked as exhibit. He has + + also stated that the fardbeyan of the informant Kishore Mahto + + (PW-13) is in the writing of Sub-Inspector, Bagaha Police + + Station, Jainath Prasad and he had also signed the same which + + he has identified and the same has also been marked as exhibit. + + He has stated that in the aforesaid case, Charge-Sheet No. 257 of + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 45/88 + + + + + 2013 dated 13.08.2013 was also filed, which he has identified + + and the same has been marked as exhibit. In paragraph no.2 of + + his cross-examination, PW-11 has stated that Ganesh Rai is alive + + and works at Motihari while Jainath Prasad is posted at Balmiki + + Police Station. He has also stated that FSL report of the articles + + sent for examination has not been received and he had not made + + any effort to obtain the same. He has also stated that the place of + + occurrence has been mentioned in paragraph no.35 of the case- + + diary and the branch of the tree was being cut by a saw. He has + + stated that it has not been mentioned in the case-diary as to + + where the statements of the witnesses were recorded. In + + paragraph no.39 of the case-diary, the statement of Shrawan + + Thakur has been recorded to the effect that the grove is in + + possession of the family member of Sharma Mahto since several + + years and there were big trees in the grove. Lastly, PW-11 has + + stated that it is not a fact that his investigation is defective. + +

35. PW-12 Lallan Thakur has stated in his deposition that the + + incident dates back to about two years, however he does not + + know as to who had carried out the killing and for what reason. + + He has also stated that he had not made any statement before the + + police. The said witness had been declared hostile, however he + + was cross-examined but nothing significant could be elicited. + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 46/88 + + + + +

36. PW-13 Kishore Mahto is the informant of the case and + + has stated in his deposition that the occurrence dates back to + + 11.05.2013 at 03:45 p.m. The marriage of the daughter of + + Prahlad was going to be solemnised and for the purposes of + + making a stool, Nandu (PW-3), Adalat (deceased) and Prahlad + + (PW-2) had gone to cut the branch of the tree. While Prahlad + + was cutting the branch of the tree and Nandu and Adalat were on + + the ground, Sharma Mahto, Chhota Mahto, Parikhan Mahto, + + Moti Mahto, Arbind Mahto, Shukul Mahto, Sukai Mahto @ + + Harendra Mahto and his sons and family members had arrived + + there and started assaulting. Chhota Mahto had assaulted Adalat + + by farsa resulting in his both hands being cut and his right leg + + was also cut and only skin was attached to the body. Thereafter, + + Arbind had assaulted Adalat on his waist by bhala. Prahlad was + + assaulted by Sharma Mahto by lathi resulting in his fingers + + being broken. The other accused persons had assaulted Gopal, + + leading to his arm and leg being broken and on his right thigh, + + Shambhu Mahto had inflicted injury by bhala. In paragraph no. + + 2, PW-13 has stated that land dispute is going on in between the + + accused persons and the members of the prosecution side for + + which one title suit is pending. In paragraph no.4 of his cross- + + examination, PW-13 has stated that upon phone call being made, + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 47/88 + + + + + the police officer had come from the police station to the village, + + when he had gone for medical treatment. +

+

37. In paragraph no.6 of his cross-examination, PW-13 has + + stated that his statement was recorded by the police only once + + and whatsoever he had stated before the police, he is stating + + before the Court. He has also stated that he had not stated before + + the police that his cousin brother had returned back to home and + + told others about the incident whereafter, they had reached at the + + place of occurrence and had taken his elder brother in an + + unconscious state for treatment to Bagaha. PW-13 has further + + stated that at the time of occurrence, he was ploughing in the + + adjacent field on the western side. He has also stated that several + + co-villagers, namely, Dharmdev Thakur, Mukesh Yadav, + + Shambhu Yadav, Phirangi Sah and Shankar Sah, etc. had arrived + + there. In paragraph no.7 of his cross-examination, PW-13 has + + stated that he was ploughing field since 02:00 p.m.. He has next + + stated that he had left his house at 01:30 for ploughing his field + + and had reached the grove at 03:45 p.m., when he saw that + + assault was taking place, whereafter he had raised hulla (alarm) + + and then people from the nearby area had arrived there leading + + to the accused persons fleeing away. Adalat Mahto had stayed at + + the grove for 15 minutes and at that time he was speaking and + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 48/88 + + + + + was saying that he be taken for treatment since his legs and + + hands have been cut. Thereafter, Adalat was put in a tempo by + + PW-13, Prahlad, Nandu, Rajendra and at that time, he had tied + + the injury of Adalat. +

+

38. PW-13 has also stated that dhoti of Adalat was opened + + and given to the police officer. Adalat was taken to the hospital + + by tempo and he had gone to the hospital while speaking. He has + + also stated that on the way to Bagaha Hospital from the house, + + the police station is situated in between, however he had neither + + gone to the police station nor given his statement. His statement + + was recorded at the hospital. Adalat was kept at Bagaha Hospital + + for an hour, where the doctor had administered saline and after + + initial treatment he was referred and at that time also Adalat was + + speaking. He has also stated that they had gone to Bettiah by + + ambulance along with Prahlad, Pramod, Binod and Gopal. He + + has next stated that he had stayed at Bettiah in the night and had + + returned on the next date at 10:30 a.m. He has stated that Adalat + + was not admitted at Bettiah Hospital but he was kept there for + + postmortem examination. In paragraph no.9 of his cross- + + examination, PW-13 has stated that when he was giving his + + statement to the police, Prahlad was also present there and + + Pramod had gained knowledge about the police case. He has + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 49/88 + + + + + next stated that the sharp portion of farsa is two and a half inch + + wide and one feet in length. Farsa was bent (curved) and bhala + + was sharp (pointed), about four finger length in width. He has + + also stated that on the body of Gopal, injuries were at eight + + places and he had been inflicted with injury on his thigh by + + bhala, which had penetrated inside. PW-13 has stated that it is + + not a fact that on account of land dispute, the accused persons + + have been falsely implicated in this case. +

+

39. PW-14 Ram Prasad Ram has stated in his deposition that + + the occurrence dates back to two years at about 04:00 p.m. in the + + evening while he was ploughing the field of Kishore, when he + + heard hulla (alarm) whereupon he went running to the place of + + occurrence and saw that hands and legs of Adalat have been cut + + and blood was oozing out. Prahlad, Kishore, Nandu and Gopal + + were present there. He has also stated that after seeing blood, he + + became perplexed and went back to his home. He has next + + stated that at the time he came to the place of occurrence, + + quarrel had already taken place and Chhota Mahto was holding + + farsa, while Sharma Mahto, Moti and Parikha were holding + + lathi. He had recognized the appellants present in the dock. In + + cross-examination, PW-14 has stated that his statement was + + recorded by the police in the village after 10 days of the + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 50/88 + + + + + incident. In cross-examination, PW-14 has stated that the field of + + Kishore is situated on the western side of the grove at a distance + + of 4-5 katha length and in the field sugar cane is growing. He + + has also stated that at the time when he went to Adalat, at that + + time Harihar, Koiri and some females had arrived there. He has + + stated that when he went there, accused persons and Harihar + + were present and Adalat had become unconscious, however he + + had not tied the injuries of Adalat. He has stated that he had + + come back from the place of occurrence after 10 minutes and + + that land dispute is existing in between the parties. + +

40. After closing the prosecution evidence, the learned Trial + + Court recorded the statement of the appellants of the aforesaid + + two appeals on 05.10.2015 under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. for + + enabling them to personally explain the circumstances appearing + + in the evidence against them, however they claimed themselves + + to be innocent and have stated that they have been falsely + + implicated on account of land dispute and they would give + + evidence. +

+

41. The trial Court, upon appreciation, analysis and scrutiny + + of the evidence adduced at the trial, has found the aforesaid + + appellants guilty of the offences and has sentenced them to + + imprisonment and fine, as noted above, by its impugned + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 51/88 + + + + + judgment and order. +

+

42. We have perused the impugned judgment of the learned + + Trial Court, the entire materials on record as also the evidence + + adduced at the trial and have given our thoughtful consideration + + to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the + + appellants as well as the learned APP for the State. + +

43. The first and foremost aspect, which is required to be + + adjudged is as to whether any ocular evidence is available on + + record to prove the guilt of the aforesaid appellants for the + + offences with which they have been charged. The prosecution + + has led the evidence of PW-1 Gopal Mahto, PW-2 Prahlad + + Mahto, PW-3 Nandu Mahto, PW-4 Binod Mahto, PW-5 + + Rajendra Mahto, PW-9 Pramod Mahto, PW-13 Kishore Mahto + + and PW-14 Ram Prasad Ram, apart from having led the + + evidence of the doctors, i.e. PW-7 Dr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhari + + and PW-8 Dr. A.K. Tiwari as also the Investigating Officer, i.e. + + PW-11 Suraj Kumar Gupta and based upon the same the learned + + Trial Court has convicted the appellants. Whereas, on the + + contrary, the appellants have primarily taken the defence that + + most of the witnesses produced by the prosecution are interested + + and related, the medical evidence does not support the injuries + + sustained by the deceased and as far as the factum of Gopal + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 52/88 + + + + + Mahto being assaulted by the appellants is concerned, the same + + does not stand proved on the ground of the said circumstances + + having not been put to the appellants while recording their + + statements U/s. 313 Cr.P.C.. Alternatively, the learned counsel + + for the appellants has submitted that the appellants did not have + + any intention to kill the deceased, inasmuch as no injuries have + + been inflicted by the appellants on the vital parts of the body of + + the deceased, thus at best, the present case would fall under Part- + + II of Section 304 of the IPC. +

+

44. We find, upon having examined the evidence led by the + + prosecution that the place of occurrence, date and time of + + occurrence and the mode and manner of occurrence has stood + + proved, which is apparent from the deposition of the injured eye + + witnesses, i.e. PW-1 Gopal Mahto and PW-2 Prahlad Mahto as + + also from the evidence of other eye witnesses, i.e. PW-3 Nandu + + Mahto, PW-5 Rajendra Mahto, PW-9 Pramod Mahto, PW-13 + + Kishore Mahto and PW-14 Ram Prasad Ram, apart from that of + + the Investigating Officer (PW-11 Suraj Kumar Gupta). We find + + that as far as the mode and manner of occurrence is concerned, + + PW-1 Gopal Mahto, PW-2 Prahlad Mahto and PW-3 Nandu + + Mahto have all stated that the incident dates back to 11.05.2013 + + at about 03:45 p.m. in the evening when they had gone to the + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 53/88 + + + + + mango grove of Adalat Mahto for cutting mango wood for + + making stool (peedha) for being used in the marriage of the + + daughter of Prahlad Mahto. While Prahlad Mahto had climbed + + on a tree to cut a branch of the tree, Adalat Mahto and Nandu + + Mahto were beneath the tree and Adalat was preparing khaini + + (tobacco). Thereafter, the appellants had arrived there and while + + Chhota was armed with farsa, Arbind was armed with bhala, + + Shambhu was armed with sword and rest of the appellants were + + armed with lahti and phatta. Chhota had then assaulted Adalat + + by farsa resulting in cutting of his both arms and right leg and + + the same had separated, whereafter the other accused persons + + had assaulted him by danda and phatta. In the meantime, Gopal + + had arrived there to save him, but he was assaulted by bhala on + + his thigh and then PW-2 Prahlad Mahto was also assaulted by + + lahti on his left hand, resulting in breaking of his three fingers. + + As far as PW-1 Gopal Mahto is concerned, he was near the place + + of occurrence in his field situated near the mango grove of + + Adalat Mahto and he had witnessed the alleged occurrence as + + also was assaulted by the appellants resulting in him sustaining + + grievous injuries. At this juncture, it would be relevant to state + + that PW-8 Dr. A. K. Tiwari had not only examined Adalat Mahto + + (deceased) but had also examined PW-1 Gopal Mahto and PW-2 + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 54/88 + + + + + Prahlad Mahto and has stated in his evidence that the injuries + + caused on the person of Adalat Mahto and Gopal Mahto are + + serious and dangerous to their life and as far as PW-2 Prahlad + + Mahto is concerned, though the injury has been caused by hard + + and blunt substance but the same is simple in nature. We find it + + relevant to state here that it is a well settled law that injured + + witnesses are granted special status and they offer an extremely + + valuable piece of evidence. In this regard, reference be had to a + + judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of + + Abdul Sayeed vs State of Maharashtra, reported in 2010 (10) + + SCC 259, wherein it has been held that where a witness to the + + occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the + + testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very + + reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in-guarantee + + of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to + + spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate + + someone. It has also been held that convincing evidence is + + required to discredit an injured witness. +

+

45. It would also be apt to refer to a judgment rendered by + + the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Birbal Nath vs State of + + Rajasthan, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1396, wherein it + + has been held that greater evidentiary value is attached to the + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 55/88 + + + + + injured witness unless compelling reasons exist to doubt the + + same. It would also be pertinent to refer to yet another + + judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of + + Balu Sudam Khalde & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra, + + reported in (2023) 13 SCC 365, paragraph No. 26 whereof is + + reproduced hereinbelow:- +

+
"26. When the evidence of an injured eyewitness is to be + appreciated, the undernoted legal principles enunciated + by the courts are required to be kept in mind: +
26.1. The presence of an injured eyewitness at the time + and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless + there are material contradictions in his deposition. + 26.2. Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, + it must be believed that an injured witness would not + allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the + accused. +
26.3. The evidence of injured witness has greater + evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, + their statements are not to be discarded lightly. + 26.4. The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted + on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or + minor contradictions. +
26.5. If there be any exaggeration or immaterial + embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, + then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment + should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not + the whole evidence. +
26.6. The broad substratum of the prosecution version + must be taken into consideration and discrepancies + which normally creep due to loss of memory with + passage of time should be discarded." +

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 56/88 + + + + +

46. We also find that PW-5 Rajendra Mahto was beneath a + + tree near the canal at the time of occurrence and he has stated + + that he had seen the incident from a distance of 2-3 bigha and + + has Ad-verbatim recited the sequence of events as has been + + narrated by the aforesaid injured eye witnesses. We also find + + that PW-9 Pramod Mahto, son of the deceased, who was + + coming from his in-laws' place has stated in his evidence that + + when he had reached near Kotwa village, he heard hulla + + (alarm) and then he had gone running inside the grove, + + whereupon he saw Chhota having cut the hands and legs of his + + father by farsa as also Sukai and Arbind had assaulted his + + father by bhala on his waist and then other accused persons had + + assaulted him by lathi apart from Arbind and Sukai having also + + assaulted Gopal on his legs by bhala. As far as PW-13 Kishore + + Mahto (informant) is concerned, he is stated to be ploughing + + the field situated adjacent, on the western side of the mango + + grove since 2 p.m. and he is also stated to have witnessed the + + aforesaid incident and had recited the sequence of events as + + have been narrated by the aforesaid injured eye witnesses. PW- + + 14 Ram Prasad Ram is stated to be ploughing the field of the + + informant and upon hulla (alarm) he had gone to the place of + + occurrence and had seen the incident. Thus we find that the + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 57/88 + + + + + ocular evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, i.e. PW-1, PW-2, + + PW-3, PW-5, PW-9, PW-13 and PW-14 are cogent, convincing, + + creditworthy and reliable as also have stood the test of cross- + + examination, apart from being totally reconcilable and + + consistent with the medical evidence and moreover, the defence + + has not been able to elicit any contradictions while cross- + + examining the said witnesses. Hence, there is no reason to + + create any doubt about the truthfulness of the said witnesses, + + thus there is no reason to doubt the guilt of the appellants of the + + aforesaid appeals in the alleged occurrence, which stands + + proved beyond all reasonable doubt. +

+

47. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the + + appellants that as far as the postmortem report of the deceased + + Adalat Mahto is concerned, all the six injuries inflicted upon + + his body have been found to have been caused by sharp cutting + + substance, however the ocular evidence shows that he was also + + assaulted by lathi by some of the appellants but no injury has + + been found to have been inflicted by hard and blunt substance + + and similarly as far as Gopal Mahto is concerned, the injury + + report shows that all the injuries inflicted on his person have + + been caused by hard and blunt substance, however the evidence + + on record would show that he was assaulted by bhala. In this + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 58/88 + + + + + regard, it would suffice to state that as far as Adalat Mahto is + + concerned, he has also suffered fracture on various parts of the + + body which can obviously been caused by hard and blunt + + substance and as far as Gopal Mahto (PW-1) is concerned, he + + has sustained lacerated wound which can also be as a result of + + bhala blow, inasmuch as a bhala consists of two portions, one + + is shaft usually made of bamboo/wood and another is its metal + + head, hence shaft can very well cause an injury attributable to + + hard and blunt substance. Thus, the aforesaid arguments + + advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants has got no + + force. It has been also submitted by the learned counsel for the + + appellants that most of the witnesses are interested and related, + + hence they are not trustworthy. However, in this regard, as far + + as the issue of credibility of a related/interested witness is + + concerned, we may quote paragraph no. 26 of an old classic + + judgment rendered by a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble + + Apex Court, in the case of Dalip Singh and Others vs. The + + State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1953 SC 364, which is + + reproduced herein below:- +

+
"26. A witness is normally to be considered + independent unless he or she springs from sources + which are likely to be tainted and that usually means + unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 59/88 + + + + + the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. + Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen + the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent + person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is + personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to + drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has + a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be + laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of + relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure + guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any + sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on + its own facts. Our observations are only made to + combat what is so often put forward in cases before us + as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general + rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by + its own facts." +
+

48. As regards the lacuna in the case of prosecution to the + + effect that the circumstance of Gopal Mahto being assaulted by + + the appellants has not been put to them while recording of their + + statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., thus such circumstances + + which were not put to the appellants in their examination under + + Section 313 Cr.P.C. have to be completely excluded from + + consideration. In this regard, we find that the ocular evidence + + of the prosecution witnesses would show that there is no doubt + + about the mode and manner of occurrence which we have + + already held to have been proved and the defence has not been + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 60/88 + + + + + able to discredit the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, + + from which we find that the deceased was not only assaulted by + + Chhota Mahto by farsa and by Arbind Mahto and Sukai Mahto + + by bhala but also by other appellants by danda and phatta. + + Hence, even if the circumstance of Gopal Mahto being + + assaulted is left out of consideration for the moment, we find + + that all the appellants are members of an unlawful assembly + + and were having common object to commit the aforesaid crime + + in question. It is a well settled law that if an offence is + + committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in + + furtherance of the common purpose, or if members knew such + + an offence was likely to be committed, then every member of + + that assembly is liable for that offence. It is equally a well + + settled law that in cases where a large number of accused + + constituting an "unlawful assembly" are alleged to have + + attacked and killed one or more persons, it is not necessary that + + each of the accused should inflict fatal injuries or any injury at + + all and by invoking Section 149 of the IPC, the members of an + + unlawful assembly can be punished on the ground of vicarious + + liability even though they are not accused of having inflicted + + fatal injuries. Reference in this regard be had to a judgement + + rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nitya Nand + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 61/88 + + + + + vs. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in (2024) 9 SCC 314, + + paragraph nos. 41 to 48 whereof are reproduced hereinbelow:- + +

"41. Section 141 IPC defines "unlawful assembly". It + says an assembly of five or more persons is designated + as unlawful assembly if the common object of the + persons composing that assembly is to commit an illegal + act by means of criminal force. +
42. As per Section 148 IPC which deals with rioting + armed with deadly weapon, whoever is guilty of rioting, + being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything + which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause + death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either + description for a term which may extend to three years, + or with fine, or with both. "Rioting" is defined in Section + 146IPC. As per the said definition, whenever force or + violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any + member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of + such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty + of the offence of rioting. +
43. This brings us to the pivotal section which is Section + 149 IPC. Section 149 IPC says that every member of an + unlawful assembly shall be guilty of the offence + committed in prosecution of the common object. Section + 149 IPC is quite categorical. It says that if an offence is + committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in + prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or + such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely + to be committed in prosecution of that object, every + person who, at the time of committing of that offence, is + a member of the said assembly; is guilty of that offence. + Thus, if it is a case of murder under Section 302 IPC, + each member of the unlawful assembly would be guilty + of committing the offence under Section 302 IPC. +
44. In Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka [(2012) 11 SCC + 237], this Court while examining Section 149 IPC held as + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 62/88 + + + + + follows: (SCC p. 243, paras 20-21) + "20. It is now well-settled law that the provisions of + Section 149 IPC will be attracted whenever any offence + committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in + prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or + when the members of that assembly knew that offence + is likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, + so that every person, who, at the time of committing of + that offence is a member, will be also vicariously held + liable and guilty of that offence. Section 149 IPC + creates a constructive or vicarious liability of the + members of the unlawful assembly for the unlawful acts + committed pursuant to the common object by any other + member of that assembly. This principle ropes in every + member of the assembly to be guilty of an offence + where that offence is committed by any member of that + assembly in prosecution of common object of that + assembly, or such members or assembly knew that + offence is likely to be committed in prosecution of that + object. +
21. The factum of causing injury or not causing injury + would not be relevant, where the accused is sought to + be roped in with the aid of Section 149 IPC. The + relevant question to be examined by the court is + whether the accused was a member of an unlawful + assembly and not whether he actually took active part + in the crime or not." +

45. Thus, this Court in Krishnappa case [Krishnappa v. + State of Karnataka, (2012) 11 SCC 237] held that + Section 149 IPC creates a constructive or vicarious + liability of the members of the unlawful assembly for the + unlawful acts committed pursuant to the common object + by any other member of that assembly. By application of + this principle, every member of an unlawful assembly is + roped in to be held guilty of the offence committed by + any member of that assembly in prosecution of the + common object of that assembly. The factum of causing + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 63/88 + + + + + injury or not causing injury would not be relevant when + an accused is roped in with the aid of Section 149IPC. + The question which is relevant and which is required to + be answered by the court is whether the accused was a + member of an unlawful assembly and not whether he + actually took part in the crime or not. +

46. As a matter of fact, this Court in Vinubhai + Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel [(2018) + 7 SCC 743] has reiterated the position that Section 149 + IPC does not create a separate offence but only declares + vicarious liability of all members of the unlawful + assembly for acts done in common object. This Court has + held: (SCC pp. 752-53 & 756, paras 20, 22 & 34) + "20. In cases where a large number of accused + constituting an "unlawful assembly" are alleged to + have attacked and killed one or more persons, it is not + necessary that each of the accused should inflict fatal + injuries or any injury at all. Invocation of Section 149 + is essential in such cases for punishing the members of + such unlawful assemblies on the ground of vicarious + liability even though they are not accused of having + inflicted fatal injuries in appropriate cases if the + evidence on record justifies. The mere presence of an + accused in such an "unlawful assembly" is sufficient to + render him vicariously liable under Section 149IPC for + causing the death of the victim of the attack provided + that the accused are told that they have to face a + charge rendering them vicariously liable under Section + 149IPC for the offence punishable under Section + 302IPC. Failure to appropriately invoke and apply + Section 149 enables large number of offenders to get + away with the crime. +

*** +

22. When a large number of people gather together + (assemble) and commit an offence, it is possible that + only some of the members of the assembly commit the + crucial act which renders the transaction an offence + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 64/88 + + + + + and the remaining members do not take part in that + "crucial act" -- for example in a case of murder, the + infliction of the fatal injury. It is in those situations, the + legislature thought it fit as a matter of legislative policy + to press into service the concept of vicarious liability + for the crime. [Ramu Gope v. State of Bihar, 1968 SCC + OnLine SC 74, para 5: +

"5. ... When a concerted attack is made on the + victim by a large number of persons it is often + difficult to determine the actual part played by each + offender. But on that account for an offence + committed by a member of the unlawful assembly in + the prosecution of the common object or for an + offence which was known to be likely to be + committed in prosecution of the common object, + persons proved to be members cannot escape the + consequences arising from the doing of that act + which amounts to an offence."] Section 149IPC is + one such provision. It is a provision conceived in the + larger public interest to maintain the tranquillity of + the society and prevent wrongdoers (who actively + collaborate or assist the commission of offences) + claiming impunity on the ground that their activity + as members of the unlawful assembly is limited. +
*** +
34. For mulcting liability on the members of an + unlawful assembly under Section 149, it is not + necessary that every member of the unlawful assembly + should commit the offence in prosecution of the + common object of the assembly. Mere knowledge of the + likelihood of commission of such an offence by the + members of the assembly is sufficient. For example, if + five or more members carrying AK 47 rifles collectively + attack a victim and cause his death by gunshot injuries, + the fact that one or two of the members of the assembly + did not in fact fire their weapons does not mean that + they did not have the knowledge of the fact that the + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 65/88 + + + + + offence of murder is likely to be committed." +

(emphasis in original) +

47. It is true that there are certain lacunae in the + prosecution. The scribe Kuldeep was not examined. + Similarly, the younger brother Laxmi Narain was not + examined though it has come on record that Laxmi + Narain was killed in the year 1993 and in that case one + of the accused is the appellant himself. It is also true + that neither any country-made pistol was recovered nor + any cartridge, empty or otherwise, recovered. However, + the appellant has been roped in with the aid of Section + 149IPC. Therefore, as held by this Court in Yunis v. State + of M.P. [(2003) 1 SCC 425], no overt act is required to + be imputed to a particular person when the charge is + under Section 149IPC; the presence of the accused as + part of the unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction. + It is clear from the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 that the + appellant was part of the unlawful assembly which + committed the murder. Though they were extensively + cross-examined, their testimony in this regard could not + be shaken. +

48. In view of what we have discussed above, we have no + doubt in our mind that the trial court had rightly + convicted the appellant under Section 148IPC read with + Sections 302/149IPC and that the High Court was + justified in confirming the same. The question framed in + para 16 above is therefore answered in the affirmative." + +

49. We thus find from the evidence of the prosecution + + witnesses that all the accused persons, including the appellants + + of the aforesaid two appeals were members of unlawful + + assembly as also they had participated in the incident in + + prosecution of the common object of that assembly and as a + + result of commission of the offence in question, Adalat Mahto + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 66/88 + + + + + has died, hence all the aforesaid appellants, who were members + + of the said unlawful assembly at the time of commission of the + + offence in question are definitely guilty of that offence, i.e. the + + one under Section 302 of the IPC by invocation of Section 149 + + of the IPC. Thus, even though the deceased may have died + + primarily on the account of fatal blow inflicted by the appellant + + of second case, i.e Chhota Mahto as also by the appellant no. 1 + + and appellant no.2 of the first case, namely Sukai Mahto and + + Arbind Mahto respectively, nonetheless all the other appellants + + and other accused persons are liable to be convicted under + + Section 302 of the IPC with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC, + + keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court + + in the case of Nitya Nand (supra). +

+

50. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present + + case and the evidence which has been brought on record to + + prove the allegations levelled against the appellants beyond + + pale of any reasonable doubt as well as considering the + + credibility and trustworthiness of the evidence of the + + prosecution, which has not been discredited during the course + + of cross-examination coupled with the medical evidence on + + record, i.e the postmortem report and injury reports and for the + + reasons mentioned hereinabove, we find that there is no reason + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 67/88 + + + + + to create any doubt in our minds. We have examined the + + materials available on record and do not find any apparent error + + in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, + + hence the same does not require any interference. + +

51. We would now take up for consideration the alternative + + argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants to + + the effect that the appellants had no intention to cause death, + + inasmuch as all the injuries have been inflicted on non-vital + + parts of the body of the deceased and moreover, it is apparent + + from the case as set up by the prosecution that at the time of + + occurrence, apart from the deceased PW-2 Prahlad Mahto and + + PW-3 Nandu Mahto were present at the place of occurrence as + + also other witnesses, i.e. PW-1 Gopal Mahto, PW-5 Rajendra + + Mahto, PW-9 Pramod Mahto, PW-13 Kishore Mahto and PW- + + 14 Ram Prasad Ram had also arrived there. Moreover, it is + + evident from the evidence of PW-2 that Sharma Mahto was + + present at the grove from before and he had then called the + + other accused persons, whereafter the other accused persons + + had arrived there within two minutes and then they had + + engaged in overt-act as aforesaid, which also shows that the + + appellants did not have any premeditated mind to kill anyone. + + In fact, it does not appear from the evidence on record that + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 68/88 + + + + + repeated farsa/bhala/lathi blows were inflicted on the deceased + + apart from the fact that the medical evidence would show that + + no injury has been inflicted on the vital parts of the body of the + + deceased. Hence, we are of the view that the present case + + would not fall within the purview Section 302 of the IPC rather + + it would, at best attract Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, in + + absence of any intention to cause death of the deceased. + +

52. From the entire conspectus of the case and considering + + the factual matrix, it can be gathered that the act done by the + + appellant(s), who had caused death of the deceased, was with a + + knowledge that such an act is likely to cause death but the facts + + are not such, so as to establish the intention of the appellant(s) + + to cause death of the deceased. "Intent" and "knowledge" are + + ingredients of Section 299 I.P.C. and so far as an act done by an + + accused which causes death with a knowledge that the death + + was likely to be caused by such act but the accused did not + + have any intention to cause death, would come within the + + purview of Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. Having considered + + the facts and circumstances of the present case as also the well + + settled law on the said issue, we safely conclude that the + + present case, in absence of any intention on the part of the + + appellants to cause death, cannot be described as a murder but + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 69/88 + + + + + it would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder. + +

53. We may refer to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble + + Apex Court in the case of Litta Singh & Anr. Vs. State of + + Rajasthan, reported in (2015) 15 SCC 327, wherein the + + Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while converting the + + conviction under Section 302 to 304 Part-II of the IPC has held + + as under:- +

+
"23. Considering the nature of the injury caused to + the deceased and the weapons i.e. lathi and gandasi + (sickle) used by them, it cannot be ruled out that they + assaulted the deceased with the knowledge that the + injury may cause death of the person. Moreover, there + is no evidence from the side of the prosecution that + the accused persons preplanned to cause death and + with that intention they were waiting for the deceased + coming from the field and then with an intention to + kill the deceased they assaulted him. +
24. It is a well-settled proposition of law that the + intention to cause death with the knowledge that the + death will probably be caused, is a very important + consideration for coming to the conclusion that death + is indeed a murder with intention to cause death or + the knowledge that death will probably be caused. + From the testimonies of the witnesses, it does not + reveal that the accused persons intended to cause + death and with that intention they started inflicting + injuries on the body of the deceased. Even more + important aspect is that while they were beating the + deceased the witnesses reached the place and shouted + whereupon the accused persons immediately ran + away instead of inflicting more injuries with the intent + to kill the deceased. +
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 70/88 + + + + +
26. After analysing the entire evidence, it is evidently + clear that the occurrence took place suddenly and + there was no premeditation on the part of the + appellants. There is no evidence that the appellants + made special preparation for assaulting the deceased + with the intent to kill him. There is no dispute that the + appellants assaulted the deceased in such a manner + that the deceased suffered grievous injuries which + were sufficient to cause death, but we are convinced + that the injury was not intended by the appellants to + kill the deceased. +
27. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our + considered opinion, the instant case falls under + Section 304 Part II I.P.C. as stated above. Although + the appellants had no intention to cause death but it + can safely be inferred that the appellants knew that + such bodily injury was likely to cause death, hence + the appellants are guilty of culpable homicide not + amounting to murder & are liable to be punished + under Section 304 Part II I.P.C." +
+

54. Thus, based on an encapsulation of the above mentioned + + facts and circumstances of the case and the law prevailing on + + the subject matter, it has weighed upon us to come to a finding + + that the present case would fall under Section 304 Part-II of the + + IPC, especially in view of the fact that from the evidence + + adduced by the prosecution, intention to kill the deceased does + + not get established and the elements of intention to cause death + + seems to be missing, however it can safely be inferred that the + + appellants knew that the bodily injuries inflicted upon the + + deceased on account of the assault made by them was likely to + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 71/88 + + + + + cause death. Therefore, upon considering the entire case of the + + prosecution and the evidence adduced in support of the same, + + we feel that the appellants of all the aforesaid two appeals are + + liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. As + + such, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/149 of + + the IPC and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life with + + fine of Rs.10,000/- each, awarded there under are set aside and + + instead the appellants are convicted under Section 304 Part-II + + of the IPC, however conviction under Section 148 of the IPC + + would stand against the appellants but with no separate + + sentence being awarded there under. +

+

55. Before coming to the sentencing part, we would like to + + refer to few case laws wherein the conviction of the accused + + persons have been converted from Section 302 IPC to one + + under Section 304 Part-II IPC and lesser than the maximum + + sentence has been awarded or the accused persons have been + + sentenced to undergo the custody period already undergone by + + them. In this connection, reference be had to the following + + judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court:- + +

(i) Camilo Vaz vs. State of Goa, reported in (2000) 9 + SCC 1; +
+
(ii) Rampal Singh vs. State of U.P., reported in (2012) 8 + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 72/88 + + + + + SCC 289; +
+
(iii) Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra, + reported in (2013) 6 SCC 770; +
+
(iv) Chenda vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in + (2013) 12 SCC 110; +
+
(v) Surain Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2017) + 5 SCC 796; +
+

(vi) Anbazhagan vs. State, reported in 2023 SCC + OnLine SC 857; and + +

(vii) Velthepu Srinivas vs. State of Telangana, reported + in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 107. +

+

56. It would be apt to refer to a judgment rendered by the + + Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 471 (Buddhu + + Singh & Others Vs. State of Bihar), wherein once again the + + issue of conversion of conviction from Section 302 IPC to + + Section 304 Part-II of the IPC was raised although the death + + was caused by an axe blow on the head of the deceased. The + + Hon'ble Apex Court, considering the absence of element of + + intention, held that the offence constituted culpable homicide + + not amounting to murder and converted the conviction of the + + accused from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC and + + sentenced each of them to the period already undergone. We + + think it proper to quote paragraphs No. 8 and 9 of the said + + judgment herein below:- +

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 73/88 + + + + + "8. Considering the overall material, we are of the + view that there is hardly anything on record which can + be said against accused Ledwa Singh and Balchand + Singh though the common intention on their part + could be attributed since they had done the overt act + of grappling with and pinning down the deceased. +

Now, seeing that his father and brother had been + grappling with the deceased, accused Buddhu Singh + dealt an axe-blow which could not be said to be + intended towards the head. It could have landed + anywhere. However, it landed on the head of the + deceased. Therefore, the element of intention is ruled + out. Again the defence raised on behalf of the accused + that there could not have been the intention to commit + the murder of the deceased is justified by the fact that + accused Buddhu Singh did not repeat the assault. + Under the circumstances, we feel that the prosecution + has been able to establish the guilt of the accused + persons under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. +

9. We, accordingly, modify the finding of the High + Court and convert the conviction of the accused from + Section 302 I.P.C. to Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and + sentence each of them to the period already + undergone. Accused Buddhu Singh is stated to be in + jail for the last five years whereas other accused + persons, namely, Ledwa Singh and Balchand Singh + are stated to be in jail for the last ten years. They be + released from the jail forthwith unless they are + required in any other case." +

+

57. We would also like to gainfully reproduce paragraph + + nos.18 and 19 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex + + Court in the case of Gopal Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand, + + reported in (2013) 7 SCC 545 hereinbelow: - +

+
"18. Just punishment is the collective cry of the society. + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 74/88 + + + + + While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the + mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality + between the crime and punishment cannot be totally + brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the + bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. + A punishment should not be disproportionately + excessive. The concept of proportionality allows a + significant discretion to the Judge but the same has to + be guided by certain principles. In certain cases, the + nature of culpability, the antecedents of the accused, + the factum of age, the potentiality of the convict to + become a criminal in future, capability of his + reformation and to lead an acceptable life in the + prevalent milieu, the effect - propensity to become a + social threat or nuisance, and sometimes lapse of time + in the commission of the crime and his conduct in the + interregnum bearing in mind the nature of the offence, + the relationship between the parties and attractability + of the doctrine of bringing the convict to the value- + based social mainstream may be the guiding factors. + Needless to emphasise, these are certain illustrative + aspects put forth in a condensed manner. We may + hasten to add that there can neither be a straitjacket + formula nor a solvable theory in mathematical + exactitude. It would be dependent on the facts of the + case and rationalised judicial discretion. Neither the + personal perception of a Judge nor self-adhered + moralistic vision nor hypothetical apprehensions + should be allowed to have any play. For every offence, + a drastic measure cannot be thought of. Similarly, an + offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency + solely on the ground of discretion vested in a court. The + real requisite is to weigh the circumstances in which + the crime has been committed and other concomitant + factors which we have indicated hereinbefore and also + have been stated in a number of pronouncements by + this Court. On such touchstone, the sentences are to be + imposed. The discretion should not be in the realm of + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 75/88 + + + + + fancy. It should be embedded in the conceptual essence + of just punishment. +
19. A court, while imposing sentence, has to keep in + view the various complex matters in mind. To structure + a methodology relating to sentencing is difficult to + conceive of. The legislature in its wisdom has conferred + discretion on the Judge who is guided by certain + rational parameters, regard been had to the factual + scenario of the case. In certain spheres the legislature + has not conferred that discretion and in such + circumstances, the discretion is conditional. In respect + of certain offences, sentence can be reduced by giving + adequate special reasons. The special reasons have to + rest on real special circumstances. Hence, the duty of + the court in such situations becomes a complex one. + The same has to be performed with due reverence for + the rule of law and the collective conscience on one + hand and the doctrine of proportionality, principle of + reformation and other concomitant factors on the + other. The task may be onerous but the same has to be + done with total empirical rationality sans any kind of + personal philosophy or individual experience or any a + priori notion." +
+

58. It would be apposite to refer to a judgment rendered by + + the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. + + Suresh, reported in (2019) 14 SCC 151, paragraph nos.10 to 20 + + whereof are reproduced herein below:- +

+
"10. The respondent was tried for the offence under + Sections 302 and 201 IPC. With the evidence on + record, it was clearly established that the respondent + was author of the fatal injury in question. The trial + court, with reference to the nature of the act of the + respondent and the attending circumstances, convicted + him for culpable homicide not amounting to murder + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 76/88 + + + + + under Section 304 Part II IPC and let him off for the + offence under Section 201 IPC because he had been + convicted for the main offence. This part of the order of + the trial court having attained finality and having not + been questioned even in this appeal, we would leave + the matter as regards conviction at that only. However, + the question remains as to whether all the facts and + circumstances of case taken together justify such + indulgence that the punishment of rigorous + imprisonment for a period of 3 years, as awarded by + the trial court, be reduced to that of 3 months and 21 + days? In our view, the answer to this question could + only be in the negative. +
11. In State of M.P. v. Ghanshyam Singh [(2003) 8 SCC + 13], relating to the offence punishable under Section + 304 Part I IPC, this Court found sentencing for a + period of 2 years to be too inadequate and even on a + liberal approach, found the custodial sentence of 6 + years serving the ends of justice. This Court + underscored the principle of proportionality in + prescribing liability according to the culpability; and + while also indicating the societal angle of sentencing, + cautioned that undue sympathy leading to inadequate + sentencing would do more harm to the justice system + and undermine public confidence in the efficacy of law. + This Court observed, inter alia, as under: +
"12. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose + inadequate sentence would do more harm to the + justice system to undermine the public confidence in + the efficacy of law and society could not long endure + under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty + of every court to award proper sentence having + regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in + which it was executed or committed, etc. This + position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in + Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N. [(1991) 3 SCC] +
13. Criminal law adheres in general to the principle + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 77/88 + + + + + of proportionality in prescribing liability according + to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It + ordinarily allows some significant discretion to the + Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, + presumably to permit sentences that reflect more + subtle considerations of culpability that are raised + by the special facts of each case. Judges, in essence, + affirm that punishment ought always to fit the crime; + yet in practice sentences are determined largely by + other considerations. Sometimes it is the + correctional needs of the perpetrator that are offered + to justify a sentence, sometimes the desirability of + keeping him out of circulation, and sometimes even + the tragic results of his crime. Inevitably, these + considerations cause a departure from just deserts + as the basis of punishment and create cases of + apparent injustice that are serious and widespread. +
14. Proportion between crime and punishment is a + goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant + notions, it remains a strong influence in the + determination of sentences. The practice of + punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is + now unknown in civilised societies, but such a + radical departure from the principle of + proportionality has disappeared from the law only in + recent times. Even now for a single grave infraction + drastic sentences are imposed. Anything less than a + penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is + thought then to be a measure of toleration that is + unwarranted and unwise. But in fact, quite apart + from those considerations that make punishment + unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the + crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment has + some very undesirable practical consequences. +
15. After giving due consideration to the facts and + circumstances of each case, for deciding just and + appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, + the aggravating and mitigating factors and + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 78/88 + + + + + circumstances in which a crime has been committed + are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really + relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by + the court. Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult + task. It has been very aptly indicated in McGautha v. + California [1971 SCC OnLine US SC 89 : 402 US + 183 (1971)] that no formula of a foolproof nature is + possible that would provide a reasonable criterion in + determining a just and appropriate punishment in + the infinite variety of circumstances that may affect + the gravity of the crime. In the absence of any + foolproof formula which may provide any basis for + reasonable criteria to correctly assess various + circumstances germane to the consideration of + gravity of crime, the discretionary judgment in the + facts of each case is the only way in which such + judgment may be equitably distinguished. +
17. Imposition of sentence without considering its + effect on the social order in many cases may be in + reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the + crime e.g. where it relates to offences against + women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of + public money, treason and other offences involving + moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have + great impact on social order and public interest + cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary + treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meagre + sentences or taking too sympathetic a view merely + on account of lapse of time in respect of such + offences will be resultwise counterproductive in the + long run and against societal interest which needs to + be cared for and strengthened by a string of + deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system. +
19. Similar view has also been expressed in Ravji v. + State of Rajasthan [(1996) 2 SCC 175]. It has been + held in the said case that it is the nature and gravity + of the crime but not the criminal, which are germane + for consideration of appropriate punishment in a + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 79/88 + + + + + criminal trial. The court will be failing in its duty if + appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime + which has been committed not only against the + individual victim but also against the society to + which the criminal and victim belong. The + punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be + irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent + with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime + has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime + warranting public abhorrence and it should + 'respond to the society's cry for justice against the + criminal'." +

(emphasis supplied) +

12. In Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, + [(2012) 2 SCC 648], the allegations against the + appellant had been that while driving a car in drunken + condition, he ran over the pavement, killing 7 persons + and causing injuries to 8. He was charged for the + offences under Sections 304 Part II and 338 IPC; was + ultimately convicted [State of Maharashtra v. Alister + Anthony Pareira, 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 1490] by the + High Court under Sections 304 Part II, 338 and 337 + IPC; and was sentenced to 3 years' rigorous + imprisonment with a fine of Rs 5 lakhs for the offence + under Section 304 Part II IPC and to rigorous + imprisonment for 1 year and for 6 months respectively + for the offences under Sections 338 and 337 IPC. Apart + from other contentions, one of the pleas before this + Court was that in view of fine and compensation + already paid and willingness to make further payment + as also his age and family circumstances, the appellant + may be released on probation or his sentence may be + reduced to that already undergone. As regards this plea + for modification of sentence, this Court traversed + through the principles of penology, as enunciated in + several of the past decisions [This Court referred, + amongst others, to the decisions in State of Karnataka + v. Krishnappa, (2000) 4 SCC 75; Dalbir Singh v. State + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 80/88 + + + + + of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82; State of M.P. v. Saleem, + (2005) 5 SCC 554; Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) + 2 SCC 175; State of M.P. v. Ghanshyam Singh, (2003) + 8 SCC 13] and, while observing that the facts and + circumstances of the case show "a despicable + aggravated offence warranting punishment + proportionate to the crime", this Court found no + justification for extending the benefit of probation or + for reduction of sentence. On the question of + sentencing, this Court re-emphasised as follows: +

"84. Sentencing is an important task in the matters of + crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal + law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and + proportionate sentence commensurate with the + nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which + the crime is done. There is no straitjacket formula + for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The + courts have evolved certain principles: the twin + objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and + correction. What sentence would meet the ends of + justice depends on the facts and circumstances of + each case and the court must keep in mind the + gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of + the offence and all other attendant circumstances. +
85. The principle of proportionality in sentencing a + crime-doer is well entrenched in criminal + jurisprudence. As a matter of law, proportion + between crime and punishment bears most relevant + influence in determination of sentencing the crime + doer. The court has to take into consideration all + aspects including social interest and consciousness + of the society for award of appropriate sentence." +

(emphasis supplied) +

13. Therefore, awarding of just and adequate + punishment to the wrongdoer in case of proven crime + remains a part of duty of the court. The punishment to + be awarded in a case has to be commensurate with the + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 81/88 + + + + + gravity of crime as also with the relevant facts and + attending circumstances. Of course, the task is of + striking a delicate balance between the mitigating and + aggravating circumstances. At the same time, the + avowed objects of law, of protection of society and + responding to the society's call for justice, need to be + kept in mind while taking up the question of sentencing + in any given case. In the ultimate analysis, the + proportion between the crime and punishment has to + be maintained while further balancing the rights of the + wrongdoer as also of the victim of the crime and the + society at large. No straitjacket formula for sentencing + is available but the requirement of taking a holistic + view of the matter cannot be forgotten. +

14. In the process of sentencing, any one factor, + whether of extenuating circumstance or aggravating, + cannot, by itself, be decisive of the matter. In the same + sequence, we may observe that mere passage of time, + by itself, cannot be a clinching factor though, in an + appropriate case, it may be of some bearing, along + with other relevant factors. Moreover, when certain + extenuating or mitigating circumstances are suggested + on behalf of the convict, the other factors relating to + the nature of crime and its impact on the social order + and public interest cannot be lost sight of. +

15. Keeping in view the principles aforesaid, when the + present matter is examined, we find that the respondent + is convicted of the offence under Section 304 Part II + IPC. Section 304 IPC reads as under: +

"304. Punishment for culpable homicide not + amounting to murder.--Whoever commits culpable + homicide not amounting to murder, shall be + punished with imprisonment for life, or + imprisonment of either description for a term which + may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to + fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done + with the intention of causing death, or of causing + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 82/88 + + + + + such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with + imprisonment of either description for a term which + may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if + the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to + cause death, but without any intention to cause + death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to + cause death. +

16. Therefore, when an accused is convicted for the + offence under Part II of Section 304 ibid., he could be + sentenced to imprisonment for a term which may + extend to a period of 10 years, or with fine, or both. In + this case, the trial court chose to award the punishment + of 3 years' rigorous imprisonment to the respondent. + The punishment so awarded by the trial court had itself + been leaning towards leniency, essentially in view of + the fact that the respondent was 26 years of age at the + time of the incident in question. However, the High + Court further proceeded to reduce the punishment to + the period already undergone (i.e. 3 months and 21 + days) on consideration of the factors: (i) that the + incident had taken place on spur of the moment; (ii) + that the respondent was 26 years of age at the time of + incident; and (iii) that the respondent himself took his + father to hospital. On these considerations and after + finding that the respondent had spent 3 months and 21 + days in custody, the High Court concluded that "no + useful purpose would be served in sending the + appellant back to jail". We are clearly of the view that, + further indulgence by the High Court, over and above + the leniency already shown by the trial court, was + totally uncalled for. +

17. So far the mitigating factors, as taken into + consideration by the High Court are concerned, + noticeable it is that the same had already gone into + consideration when the trial court awarded a + comparatively lesser punishment of 3 years' + imprisonment for the offence punishable with + imprisonment for a term that may extend to 10 years, + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 83/88 + + + + + or with fine, or with both. In fact, the factor that the + incident had happened on the "spur of the moment": +

had been the basic reason for the respondent having + been convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not + amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC + though he was charged for the offence of murder under + Section 302 IPC. This factor could not have resulted in + awarding just a symbolic punishment. Then, the factor + that the respondent was 26 years of age had been the + basic reason for awarding comparatively lower + punishment of 3 years' imprisonment. This factor has + no further impelling characteristics which would justify + yet further reduction of the punishment than that + awarded by the trial court. Moreover, the third factor, + of the respondent himself taking his father to hospital, + carries with it the elements of pretence as also + deception on the part of the respondent, particularly + when he falsely stated that the victim sustained injury + due to the fall. Therefore, all the aforementioned + factors could not have resulted in further reduction of + the sentence as awarded by the trial court. +

18. The High Court also appears to have omitted to + consider the requirement of balancing the mitigating + and aggravating factors while dealing with the + question of awarding just and adequate punishment. + The facts and the surrounding factors of this case make + it clear that, the offending act in question had been of + the respondent assaulting his father with a blunt object + which resulted in the fracture of skull of the victim at + parietal region. Then, the respondent attempted to + cover up the crime by taking his father to hospital and + suggesting as if the victim sustained injury because of + fall from the roof. Thus, the acts and deeds of the + respondent had been of killing his own father and then, + of furnishing false information. The homicidal act of + the respondent had, in fact, been of patricide; killing of + one's own father. In such a case, there was no further + scope for leniency on the question of punishment than + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 84/88 + + + + + what had already been shown by the trial court; and + the High Court was not justified in reducing the + sentence to an abysmally inadequate period of less + than 4 months. The observations of the High Court that + no useful purpose would be served by detention of the + accused cannot be approved in this case for the reason + that the objects of deterrence as also protection of + society are not lost with mere passage of time. +

19. In the given set of facts and circumstances, the + observations in Jinnat Mia v. State of Assam, [(1998) 9 + SCC 319] on the powers of the High Court to review + the entire matter in appeal and to come to its own + conclusion or that the practice of this Court not to + interfere on questions of facts except in exceptional + cases shall have no application to the present case, + particularly when we find that the High Court has + erred in law and has not been justified in reducing the + sentence to a grossly inadequate level while ignoring + the relevant considerations. +

20. To sum up, after taking into account all the + circumstances of this case, we are of the considered + view that the High Court had been in error in + extending undue sympathy and in awarding the + punishment of rigorous imprisonment for the period + already undergone i.e. 3 months and 21 days for the + offence under Section 304 Part II IPC. In our view, + there was absolutely no reason for the High Court to + interfere with the punishment awarded by the trial + court, being that of rigorous imprisonment for 3 + years." +

+

59. We would now like to give a careful consideration to the + + facts of the present case for the purposes of awarding a proper + + sentence, considering the principles laid down by the Hon'ble + + Apex Court in a catena of judgments, as has been referred to + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 85/88 + + + + + hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs. The facts and + + circumstances of the present case depicts that the appellants did + + not cause any fatal injuries on the vital parts of the body of the + + deceased and moreover, it does not appear that repeated blows + + were inflicted by the appellants upon the deceased apart from + + the fact that though the incident had taken place on 11.05.2013 + + at 03.45 p.m., however the deceased was first taken to Bagaha + + Hospital where they had reached at about 5 p.m. in the evening + + and had stayed there for an hour, whereafter they had gone to + + Bettiah and reached there at 8-9 p.m. but the deceased is stated + + to have been brought dead at Bettiah Hospital, which can also + + be said to be an mitigating circumstance, inasmuch as proper + + treatment was not given immediately to the deceased. This + + leads us to a prudent consideration that the appellants never + + planned to inflict such type of injuries which would cause + + death of the deceased, hence this takes away the element of + + intention of causing death. Factually, the appellant no.1 of the + + first case, i.e Sukai Mahto @ Shukai Mahto, the appellant no.3 + + of the first case, i.e Moti Mahto @ Motilal Mahto and the + + appellant no.4 of the first case, i.e Shambhu Mahto @ Shukul + + Mahto have been in custody for around one year, while the + + appellant no.2 of the first case Arbind Mahto has been in jail + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 86/88 + + + + + for around 10 years. As far as the sole appellant of 2 nd case, + + namely Chhota Mahto is concerned, he has been in custody for + + around 12 years. +

+

60. Now, adverting to the requirement of balancing the + + aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which + + a crime has been committed on the basis of really relevant + + circumstances, though we find that the appellants of the + + aforesaid appeals have been suffering the rigors of trial since + + the year 2013, i.e. for a substantially long period of about 12 + + years and they are stated to be having a clean antecedent, + + however considering the principles laid down by the Hon'ble + + Apex Court to the effect that with mere passage of time, the + + objects of deterrence as also protection of society are not lost, + + there is no scope for leniency on the question of sentencing. + + Moreover, the appellants have now stood convicted for the + + offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under + + Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, though they were charged and + + had also been convicted by the Ld. Trial Judge for the offence + + of murder under Section 302/149 of the IPC, hence we are of + + the view that no symbolic punishment should be awarded, + + especially in view of the principle of proportionality in + + prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of + Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 87/88 + + + + + criminal conduct, inasmuch as showing of undue sympathy to + + impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice + + system, leading to undermining the public confidence in the + + efficacy of law as also would be resultantly counterproductive + + in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be + + cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the + + sentencing system. +

+

61. Thus, taking into account an overall perspective of the + + entire case, as indicated hereinabove as also considering the + + principles of sentencing laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, + + as aforesaid, apart from the fact that we have already convicted + + the appellants under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, we deem it + + fit and proper to sentence the appellants, for the altered + + conviction, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years each. + +

62. The appellant no.2 of the first case Arbind Mahto and the + + sole appellant of 2nd case, namely Chhota Mahto have now + + stood convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and + + sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years by the + + instant judgment, however since they have already undergone + + sentence of more than five years and are in custody, they are + + directed to be released from jail forthwith unless required in + + any other case. +

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.131 of 2016 dt.04-09-2025 + 88/88 + + + + +

63. As far as the appellant no.1 of the first case, i.e Sukai + + Mahto @ Shukai Mahto, the appellant no.3 of the first case, i.e + + Moti Mahto @ Motilal Mahto and the appellant no.4 of the first + + case, i.e Shambhu Mahto @ Shukul Mahto are concerned, + + since they have also now stood convicted under Section 304 + + Part II of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 + + years by the instant judgment, their bail bonds are hereby + + cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the learned + + Trial Court within a period of four weeks from today, for being + + sent to jail for serving the remaining sentence. + +

64. Accordingly, the aforesaid two appeals bearing Criminal + + Appeal (DB) No.131 of 2016 and Criminal Appeal (DB) + + No.176 of 2016 are partly allowed to the extent indicated + + hereinabove. +

+

+ +

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) + + I agree. +

Shailendra Singh, J + + (Shailendra Singh, J) +kanchan/- +

AFR/NAFR                AFR
+CAV DATE                07.05.2025
+Uploading Date          04.09.2025
+Transmission Date       04.09.2025
+
+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_56789666.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_56789666.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6eb9728dc88692aefd2dc6c531e29ded748a0169 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_56789666.html @@ -0,0 +1,784 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Pargat Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 25 May, 2009 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

The petitioner who is the complainant in case FIR No.107 dated + +29.11.2008 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Ramdass, District Amritsar + +(Rural) for the offences under Sections 302, 201/34 Indian Penal Code ("IPC" - for + +short) seeks cancellation of bail that has been granted to Rattan Singh (respondent + +No.5) by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ajnala in terms of Section 167 (2) + +of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("CrPC" - for short). +

+

The petitioner lodged the FIR (Annexure P.1) on the allegations that his + +sister Kamaljit Kaur (deceased) was married to the accused Rattan Singh (respondent + +No.5). There were differences between his sister (deceased) and his brother-in-law + +Rattan Singh (respondent No.5) in connection with their domestic affairs. Rattan + +Singh (respondent No.5) used to beat the sister of the complainant. One Jarnail + +Singh had thrice got a compromise effected between them. On the date of the + +incident i.e. on 29.11.2008 at about 5.00 p.m. Havaldar Mukthiar Singh who was + + + +posted at Chowki Ramo Mahil and in relationship is an uncle of the complainant + +(petitioner), informed the complainant on mobile phone that Kamaljit Kaur had died + +due to consuming some poisonous substance. The complainant at that time was + +purchasing articles for his personal need at Jahajgarh, Amritsar. On receiving the + +information, the complainant informed his father at his home and also informed his + +elder sister Daljit Kaur on telephone. Then the complainant, Daljit Kaur, Rajbir Kaur + +and brother-in-law of the complainant namely Surjit Singh son of Gopal Singh got + +together at bus-stand Ramdass at about 7.00 p.m. There they came to know that + +Kamaljit Kaur was being cremated. When they reached the cremation ground they + +found that she had been cremated. Rattan Singh (respondent No.5) and some other + +persons were standing there. The complainant asked Rattan Singh (respondent No.5) + +as to why he had not informed them about the death of Kamaljit Kaur and why had + +she been cremated. To this, Rattan Singh (respondent No.5) said that they had done + +what they had to do. The complainant side were definite that Rattan Singh + +(respondent No.5), mother-in-law of Kamaljit Kaur (deceased) namely Deepo and + +her sister-in-law (Nanad) namely Narinder Kaur in connivance with each other had + +killed Kamaljit Kaur by administering some poisonous substance and thereafter had + +cremated her dead body. The complainant along with his sisters Daljit Kaur, Rajbir + +Kaur and brother-in-law Surjit Singh were going to inform the police when they met + +the police party at Talab Chowk Ramdass. The statement of the complainant was + +recorded by HC Nirmaljit Singh and was sent to the Police Station for registration of + +a case (FIR) against Rattan Singh (respondent No.5), Deepo and Narinder Kaur. On + +these allegations, the FIR (Annexure P1) was registered against the said accused for + +the offences under Sections 302, 201/34 IPC. The accused Rattan Singh (respondent + +No.5) was arrested in the case on 2.12.2008 and investigations were carried out. + +During investigation, samples of ashes and the bones of the deceased were taken + +from the cremation ground on 30.11.2008. These were deposited with the chemical + +examiner to Government of Punjab on 19.12.2008. During the course of + + + +investigation, the petitioner apprehended that the police was going to exonerate the + +accused persons who were named in the FIR. Therefore, he filed a petition i.e. + +Criminal Misc. No. M-3167 of 2009 in this Court for issuance of directions to the + +concerned police authorities to expedite the investigation of the case and file a status + +report of the investigations. It was submitted that the SHO Police Station Ramdass + +District Amritsar (respondent No.3) was delaying the investigation of the case under + +the influence of Rattan Singh (respondent No.5). Notice of motion was issued in the + +said petition, which was disposed of vide order dated 18.2.2009 (Annexure P2). It + +was stated in the said petition by the learned counsel for the State on instructions + +from SI Kuldeep Singh that challan in the case was ready and would be presented + +within a week. In view of the said statement, the petition was dismissed as having + +been rendered infructuous. During investigations in the case an inquiry was also + +conducted by Sh. Tilak Raj, PPS, DSP, Sub-Division Ajnala. In the said inquiry, it + +was concluded by Sh. Tilak Raj, PPS, DSP, Ajnala that as per statement of Shere + +Punjab Singh son of the deceased Kamaljit Kaur, that she (Kamaljit Kaur) had + +suffered from an attack. Besides, Gurdeep Kaur @ Deepo and Narinder Kaur + +mother-in-law and sister-in-law (Nanad) respectively of deceased Kamaljit Kaur were + +found innocent. It was also held that the offence under Section 302 IPC was not + +made out and the offences under Sections 306 and 201 IPC only were made out + +against Rattan Singh (respondent No.5). Case diary No.18 dated 27.1.2009 was + +recorded in this regard. The challan in the case was prepared on 28.1.2009. Rattan + +Singh (respondent No.5) submitted an application for his release under Section 167 + +(2) CrPC which has been allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class vide + +impugned order dated 19.2.2009 (Annexure P3). It was observed that till the said + +date i.e. 19.2.2009, the challan had not been submitted though a period of more than + +60 days was over. As such, Rattan Singh (respondent No.5) was ordered to be + +released on bail. On the next day i.e. 20.2.2009, the charge report (challan) + + + +(Annexure P5) was filed. The order dated 19.2.2009 (Annexure P3), whereby Rattan + +Singh (respondent No.5) has been released on bail is assailed in this petition. + +

+
+ +
+ +

Learned counsel for respondent No.5 has vehemently opposed the prayer + +of the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted copy of the order dated 30.4.2009 + +passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby anticipatory bail + +has been granted to respondent No.5-Rattan Singh as the learned trial Court on + +9.4.2009 had charge-sheeted Rattan Singh (respondent No.5) for the offences under + +Sections 302 and 201 IPC. It is submitted that since charge had been framed against + +respondent No.5 for the offence under Section 302 IPC, respondent No.5 applied for + +anticipatory bail which has been allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. + +Therefore, it is submitted that in view of the release of respondent No.5-Rattan Singh + +for non-filing of challan within the stipulated period of 60 days and after grant of + +anticipatory bail, the merits of the orders are not to be gone into and it is to be only + +seen whether there has been any misuse of the concession of bail by respondent No.5 + +and in the absence of there being no misuse of the concession, the bail that has been + +granted is not liable to be cancelled. It is also submitted that the petitioner was fully + +aware that the offence under Section 302 IPC had been converted to that under + +Section 306 IPC after inquiry was conducted by Sh. Tilak Raj, DSP, Ajnala on + +22.1.2009. The DSP had found that the offence under Section 302 IPC was not made + +out and he recommended for filing the challan for the offences under Sections 306 + +and 201 IPC. Therefore, it is submitted that challan having not been presented + +within the prescribed period, respondent No.5 had a statutory right to be released on + +bail. In any case, respondent No.5 has been granted anticipatory bail by the learned + +Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 30.4.2009. As such, the petition + +is liable to be dismissed. +

+
+ +
+ +

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed + +that the factual position on record is that the incident occurred on 29.11.2008 on + +which date the FIR (Annexure P1) was registered. The samples of ashes and the + +bones of the deceased were taken from the cremation ground on 30.11.2008. These + +were deposited with the chemical examiner to Government of Punjab on 19.12.2008. + +Ratan Singh (respondent No.5) was arrested on 2.12.2008. From the date of arrest, + +the period of 60 days was to lapse on 31.1.2009. With respect to the occurrence, Sh. + +Tilak Raj, DSP, Sub Divisional, Ajnala had conducted an inquiry which he completed + +on 22.1.2009. It was concluded in the said enquiry that Gurdeep Kaur @ Deepo and + +Narinder Kaur mother-in-law and sister-in-law (Nanad) respectively of deceased + + + +Kamaljit Kaur to be not involved in the incident. Besides, he found the offence under + +Section 302 IPC to be not made out and that under Section 306 IPC to be made out + +only against Rattan Singh (respondent No.5). Accordingly, the challan was prepared + +on 28.1.2009 for the offences under Sections 306 and 201 IPC against Rattan Singh + +(respondent No.5). The said challan in fact was liable to be immediately filed as the + +period of 60 days for filing the challan was about to lapse on 31.1.2009. However, + +it was not filed upto 20.2.2009. In any case, neither party was informed that the + +challan had been prepared for the offence under Section 306 IPC and not under + +Section 302 IPC. Had Rattan Singh (respondent No.5) been informed about this, he + +would have immediately after 31.1.2009 when the period of 60 days detention had + +lapsed filed an application for his release in terms of Section 167 (2) CrPC. It + +appears that the police authorities did not disclose about the offence under Section + +302 IPC being reduced to that under Section 306 IPC in view of the pendency of the + +earlier petition i.e. Crl. Misc. No. M-3167 of 2009 filed by Pargat Singh (petitioner) + +seeking issuance of appropriate directions to the police authorities to expedite the + +investigation in the case. The said petition was listed for hearing in this Court on + +18.2.2009 and it was stated by learned counsel for the State who was assisted by SI + +Kuldeep Singh that the challan was ready in the case and would be presented within a + +week. In view of the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner had + +submitted that the petition had been rendered infructuous. Accordingly, the said + +petition was dismissed as having been rendered infructuous on 18.2.2009. The stand + +that learned counsel for the State was verbally informed by SI Kuldeep Singh that + +challan had been prepared for the offence under Section 306 IPC, is not discernible + +from the record. The same appears to be only a cover-up by the police authorities for + +their failure to disclose that the challan had been prepared by converting the offence + +under Section 302 IPC to that under Section 306 IPC. It may also be possible that the + +police had advised Rattan Singh (respondent No.5) not to take any steps for his + +release on bail till the earlier petition i.e. Crl. Misc. No. M-3167 of 2009 filed by + + + +Pragat Singh (petitioner) is disposed of. It is after the said petition was dismissed as + +infructuous on 18.2.2009 that Rattan Singh (respondent No.5) filed an application for + +his release under Section 167 (2) CrPC on the very next day i.e. on 19.2.2009, which + +has been allowed vide order dated 19.2.2009 (Annexure P3) passed by the learned + +Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ajnala. Then on the very next day i.e. on 20.2.2009, the + +charge report (challan) (Annexure P5) was filed for the offences under Sections 306 + +and 201 IPC. After filing of challan, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has vide + +order dated 9.4.2009 framed charges for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 + +IPC. At present the case is pending trial and was listed for hearing on 21.5.2009 and + +Rattan Singh (respondent No.5) is being tried for the offences under Sections 302 and + +201 IPC. Therefore, it is quite evident that on the basis of material and evidence on + +record, the offence under Section 302 IPC is prima facie found to have been + +committed by Rattan Singh (respondent No.5). and it is for this reason that charge has + +been framed for the said offence. As such, it is quite possible that the offence under + +Section 302 IPC was deliberataly reduced to that under Section 306 IPC and + +thereafter the challan was not filed within a period of 60 days so as to enable Rattan + +Singh (respondent No.5) to get bail in view of the statutory provisions of Section 167 + +(2) CrPC. It may also be noticed that after charge had been framed on 9.4.2009 + +including that for the offence under Section 302 IPC against Rattan Singh + +(respondent No.5), he filed an application seeking grant of anticipatory bail before + +the Sessions Court at Amritsar for the said offence under Section 302 IPC and the + +learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar before whom the trial in the case is + +pending, allowed anticipatory bail to him vide order dated 30.4.2009. It was + +observed in the said order that Rattan Singh (respondent No.5) had approached the + +Ilaqa Magistrate in terms of Section 167 (2) CrPC for his release on bail which was + +allowed holding that challan had not been presented within 60 days. It was also + +observed that charge had been framed against Rattan Singh (respondent No.5) for the + +offence under Section 302 IPC. Rattan Singh (respondent No.5) had submitted that + + + +regular bail was granted for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Therefore, his + +application for bail under Section 438 CrPC for the offence under Section 302 IPC be + +allowed. The said contention was not opposed by learned Additional PP for the + +State. Accordingly, it was observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, + +Amritsar after considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the + +investigation had already been completed and custodial interrogation of the accused + +(respondent No.5) was not required. As such, no useful purpose, it was observed, + +would be served by sending him to custody. In the said circumstances, the + +anticipatory bail application filed by respondent No.5 was allowed. Therefore, the + +learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar granted anticipatory bail to Rattan Singh + +(respondent No.5) on the premise that investigation in the case had been completed + +and that respondent No.5 was not wanted for custodial interrogation. However, the + +manner in which the initial bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.PC that was granted to + +Rattan Singh (respondent No.5) was quite inappropriate inasmuchas the offence from + +that under Section 302 IPC was reduced to under Section 306 IPC and then the + +filing of the challan was delayed to a date beyond 31.1.2009 so that the period of 60 + +days expired. This was despite the fact that the challan was prepared on 28.1.2009. + +Besides, the said facts and circumstances were not brought to the notice of the + +learned Additional Sessions Judge at the time of passing the order dated 30.4.2009 + +granting anticipatory bail to respondent No.5. The question, therefore, arises as to + +whether the merits of the order granting bail can be gone into or the bail that has been + +granted can only be cancelled in case of misuse of the concession. + +

+
+ +
+ +

In the facts and circumstances of the present case even though the + +charge report (challan) was prepared on 28.1.2009 and the period of 60 days for + +filing it was to expire on 31.1.2009, the same was not filed till Crl. Misc. No. M-3167 + +of 2009 was disposed of by this Court on 18.2.2009. The FIR had been registered for + +the offence under Section 302 IPC which was reduced to that under Section 306 IPC + +and this fact was not disclosed by the police and a cover up has been pleaded that it + +was verbally disclosed to the State counsel at the time of hearing of Crl. Misc. No. + +M-3167 of 2009 which was dismissed as infructuous on 18.2.2009. On the next day + +i.e. on 19.2.2009, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for release on bail in + +terms of Section 167(2) Cr.PC which was allowed vide order dated 19.2.2009 + +(Annexure P-3). Thereafter, on the next day i.e. on 20.2.2009 the challan (Annexure + +P-5) was filed for the offences under under Section 306 and 201 IPC it had in fact + + + +been prepared on 28.1.2009. The accused Rattan Singh (respondent No.5) was, + +however, on the basis of evidence and material on record, chargesheeted for the + +offence under Section 302 IPC on 9.4.2009. Thereafter, Rattan Singh (respondent + +No.5) filed an application for anticipatory bail which has been allowed by the learned + +Additional Sessions Judge on 30.4.2009. In the facts and circumstances, the order + +dated 19.2.2009 (Annexure P3) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ajnala and + +the order dated 30.4.2009 granting anticipatory bail to Rattan Singh (respondent + +No.5) which is based on the order dated 19.2.2009 (Annexure P.3) are liable to be + +cancelled. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_56853184.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_56853184.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fa7dc4dc57e4f0f8587901c0b0c6b8e2681637ac --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_56853184.html @@ -0,0 +1,354 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Mumtaj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 August, 2014 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
"4.I am aware that Thiru.Mohamed Rafeeq is in remand in R-8 Vadapalani Police Station Crime Nos.847/2013, 1410/2013 and 1437/2013 and he has not moved any bail application for R-8 Vadapalani Police Station Cr.Nos.847/2013, 1410/2013 and 1437/2013 so far. The sponsoring authority stated that Thiru.Mohamed Rafeeq's relatives are taking action to take him out on bail in R-8 Vadapalani Police Station Cr.Nos. 847/2013, 1410/2013 and 1437/2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate court. It is pertinent to note that in a similar case registered u/s.457 and 380 IPC at P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station Crime No.200/2009 bail was granted by the Learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.674/2009. In a similar case registered at R-4 Soundarapandiyanar Angadi Police Station Cr.No.1173/2011 under Sections 341, 294(b), 307, 392, 397, 336, 427 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.11090/2011. Hence, I infer that there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail application for R-8 Vadapalani Police Station Cr.Nos.847/2013, 1410/2013 and 1437/2013 before the appropriate court since in similarly placed cases bails are granted by courts after a lapse of time. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further, the recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On the materials placed before me, I am fully satisfied that the said Thiru.Mohamed Rafeeq is also a Goonda and that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982." +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_57068247.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_57068247.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..275a650cd0dbe7b2b569794a38617e8fa8004bd8 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_57068247.html @@ -0,0 +1,360 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Vanaja vs State Of Tamilnadu on 1 September, 2015 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

3. Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.C.C.Chellappan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention. +

4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the detenu has been in remand in the ground case in Cr.No.772/2015 and in the second and third adverse cases in Cr.Nos.758 and 771/2015 registered by H-1, Washermenpet Police Station and he has not filed any bail application in the second and third adverse cases in Cr.Nos.758 and 771/2015 and the bail application filed by him in the ground case before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.7108/2015 and the same was pending as on the date of the passing of the detention order. He would also contend that the detaining authority has placed reliance on the statement of the sponsoring authority to the effect that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail by filing bail application in the said second the third adverse cases. Further, the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is very likely of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case and that there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail in the second and third adverse cases by relying upon the similar cases, viz., [a]the case registered by H-1 Washermenpet Police Station in Cr.No.107/2015 u/s.341, 324, 307 and 506(ii) IPC, wherein bail was granted by the learned Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.1666/2015; and [b]the case registered at D-1 Triplicane Police Station Cr.No.752/2013 u/s.341, 294[b], 336, 427, 397 and 506[ii] IPC, wherein bail was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.6863/2013. The learned counsel would add that admittedly, in this case, the bail application filed by the detenu in the ground case is pending and no bail application has been filed by him in the second and third adverse cases and he is in remand in the said cases. When a bail application is pending, there is no presumption that the detenu would be granted bail and when no bail application is filed, there is no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. No cogent materials are available before the Detaining Authority to conclude / to apprehend that the detenu is likely to get bail in the ground case as well as in the second and third adverse cases. The apprehension entertained in the mind of the detaining authority that there is a real possibility of detenu coming out on bail as the bail application in the ground case is pending is not justifiable for the reason that he has pre-judged the matter. Concedingly he could not foresee the nature of the order that would be passed by the Court. By the reason of pendency of the application, one could not easily come to the conclusion that the Court would certainly grant bail to the accused. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non-application of mind and the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is a mere ipse dixit without any cogent materials. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [a] 2006 [1] MLJ [Crl.] 539, [T.V.SARAVANAN @ S.A.R.PRASANNA VENKATACHARIAR CHATURVEDI V. STATE OF TAMILNADU THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER] ; [b]2005 [1] CTC 577 [VELMURUGAN @ VELU Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE] and [c] 2012 [7] SCC 181 [HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR] . +

+
+ +
+
"4.I am aware that Thiru Mururan @ Gate Murugan is in remand in H.1 Police Washwermenpet Police Station Cr.Nos.758/2015, 771/2015 and 772/2015 and he moved a bail application before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Cr.M.P.No.7108/2015 for H.1 Washermenpet PS Cr.No.772/2015 and the same is pending. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru Murugan @ Gate Murugan are taking action to file bail applicatin in H.1 Washermenpet Police Station Cr.Nos.758/2015, 771/2015 and before the Court. In a similarly case regisered at H.1 Police Washermenpet Police Station Cr.No.107/2015 registered under Sections 341, 324, 307 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted by the Principal Seswsions Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.1666/2015. Similarly in a case registered at D.1 Triplicane Police Station Cr.No.752/2013 registered under sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.6863/2013. Hence, I infer that it is very likely of his coming out on bail in H.1 Washermenpet Police Station Cr.Nos.772/2015 and there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail in H.1 Washermenpet Police Station Cr.Nos.758/2015, 771/2015and and by filing bail applications before the appropriate court, since in similarly placed cases bails are granted by the Courts after a lapse of time. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order........" +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_57189.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_57189.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ca8ebb7746a9297a181f7dc805c566fb70d4865b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_57189.html @@ -0,0 +1,366 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sharvan Kumar vs The State Of U.P. on 2 February, 2010 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned +A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of +sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. +

The accused-appellants Pankaj Kumar Tewari and Rakesh +Kumar Tewari have been convicted in Sessions Trial No.82 of 2002 +(Case Crime No.383/2001) for the offence punishable under Section +323/34 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo one year's simple +imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment +of fine to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment and have +have been acquitted to the charge for the offence punishable under +Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C. Accused-appellants were on bail during +trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on +record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_58120526.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_58120526.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6df9433a58b7e73de7bc2832175e346823ae9770 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_58120526.html @@ -0,0 +1,376 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Priyanka Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 12 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. Heard Mr. Raj Kishor Mishra, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Alok Singh Yadav, the learned counsel representing first informant. +

+

2. Perused the record. +

+

3. Instant application for bail has been filed by applicant-Priyanka Yadav seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 575 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 306 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station-Jeeyanpur, District-Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial. +

+

4. At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant submits that Suryamani Yadav @ Guddu, the husband of the deceased has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 04.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.24060 of 2023 (Suryamani Yadav @ Guddu Vs. State of U.P.) For ready reference, the order dated 04.07.2023 is reproduced herein-under: +

+
+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_59252917.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_59252917.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ffe392a87a5e2bf0b71a33a88735b2228c20de65 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_59252917.html @@ -0,0 +1,375 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Raj Kishor Mishra And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. on 15 October, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

The law with respect to the arrest and detention of a person who has been granted bail and further sections are added during the course of investigation, have been duly enunciated by the Supreme Court in Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand [2019 SCC Online SC 825] where it was held as under- +

+
"10. Learned counsel for the parties have also relied on several judgments of different High Courts in regard to the circumstance when new cognizable and nonbailable offences are added. We may briefly refer to few of the decisions of the High Courts in the above regard. Patna High Court in Sita Ram Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (2) BLJR 859 had considered the case where case was initially instituted under Section 307 I.P.C. FIR was lodged on 24.08.2000 under Section 307 I.P.C. The accused was granted bail on 01.09.2000. Thereafter, due to death of the injured on 06.09.2000, Section 302 I.P.C. was added. Informant had applied for cancellation of the bail. The bail earlier granted was cancelled in view of subsequent development. In the above context, Patna High Court relying on judgment of this Court in Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280 held that on a serious change in the nature of the offence, the accused becomes disentitled to the liberty granted to him in relation to a minor offence and in such circumstances, the correct approach of the Court concerned would be to apply its mind afresh as to whether the accused is entitled for grant of bail, in the changed circumstances. +
+
+ +
+ +

22. One of the judgments, which needs to be noticed in the above reference is Hamida Vs. Rashid alias Rasheed (supra). In the above case, the accused was granted bail for offences under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC. The victim succumbed to his injuries in the night intervening 16.06.2005 and 17.06.2005. The offence thereafter was converted into Section 304 IPC. An application was filed in the High Court by the accused to permit them to remain on same bail even after conversion of the offence into one under Section 304 IPC, which was allowed by the High Court. The complainant filed an appeal by special leave in this Court against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. This Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and directed the accused to be taken into custody with liberty to apply for bail for the offences for which he was charged before proper Court in accordance with law. This Court further held that accused could apply for bail afresh after the offence had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC. This Court laid down following in paragraph Nos. 10, 11 and 12:- +

+
+ +
+ +
"10. In the case in hand, the respondents-accused could apply for bail afresh after the offence had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC. They deliberately did not do so and filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC in order to circumvent the procedure whereunder they would have been required to surrender as the bail application could be entertained and heard only if the accused were in custody. It is important to note that no order adverse to the respondents-accused had been passed by any court nor was there any miscarriage of justice or any illegality. In such circumstances, the High Court committed manifest error of law in entertaining a petition under Section 482 CrPC and issuing a direction to the subordinate court to accept the sureties and bail bonds for the offence under Section 304 IPC. The effect of the order passed by the High Court is that the accused after getting bail in an offence under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC on the very day on which they were taken into custody, got an order of bail in their favour even after the injured had succumbed to his injuries and the case had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC without any court examining the case on merits, as it stood after conversion of the offence. The procedure laid down for grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC, though available to the respondents-accused, having not been availed of, the exercise of power by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is clearly illegal and the impugned order passed by it has to be set aside. +
+
+ +
+ +
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that charge under Section 302 IPC has been framed against the respondents-accused by the trial court and some subsequent orders were passed by the High Court by which the accused were ordered to remain on bail for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC on furnishing fresh sureties and bail bonds only on the ground that they were on bail in the offence under Section 304 IPC. These orders also deserve to be set aside on the same ground." +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_59392008.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_59392008.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ae0f63d6cd9808c8102e8fab235268b9de6d3fc6 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_59392008.html @@ -0,0 +1,455 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Lalli Sharma @ Laliya @ Lalli Singh @ Lali ... vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The petitioner is in custody for about 4 years. + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 665 of 2023 + + The instant Revision is filed by CICL himself, + + challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order, + + dated 9th of August, 2023, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2023 + + by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum- + + Children's Court, Banka. The CICL was arrested in connection + + with Banduwa Kurawa P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023, corresponding + + to G.R. No. 1202 of 2023, for the offences punishable under + + Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 + + of the Arms Act. However, later on, Sections 34 of the IPC and + + Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section + + 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes + + (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added. Prayer for + + bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Appeal in + + exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Juvenile + + Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter + + referred to as 'said Act') vide order, dated 15th of June, 2023. + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 687 of 2023 + + The petitioner/CICL was arrested in connection + + with Fesar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, + + 325, 307, 34, 504, 506 and 379 of the IPC along with his father + + and uncle. The petitioner prayed for regular bail before the JJB, + + Aurangabad. In JJB Case No. 932 of 2023, prayer for bail was + + rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 41 + + of 2023 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children's Court, + + Aurangabad. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal + + and affirmed the order of the JJB. The petitioner has assailed the + + said order of the Appellate Court on various grounds, specially + + on the ground that the father and uncle of the petitioner have + + already been granted bail for the same offence. + +
+
+ +
+

Reg. Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2024 + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + The petitioner was booked along with other major + + accused persons in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 237 of + + 2022, dated 13th of August, 2022, under Section 302 and 34 of + + the IPC. The petitioner being a CICL prayed for bail before the + + Juvenile Justice Board, but his prayer for bail was rejected. He + + preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the said Act before the + + learned Special Judge, Children's Court and the said appeal was + + also dismissed and the order of rejection of bail passed by the + + JJB was affirmed. It is stated by the petitioner that the accused + + persons who are major, namely, Sushil Kumar Yadav and Anil + + Yadav were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on + + 26th of April, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 4091 of 2023. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_60022863.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_60022863.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bacd0c348f4584f8f0a7d1e0206318972fcce910 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_60022863.html @@ -0,0 +1,388 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Raj vs State Of U.P. on 25 November, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State + +

2. Perused the record. +

+

3. Rejoinder affidavit filed by the learned counsel for applicant in Court today is taken on record. +

+

4. This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Raj seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 410 of 2023 under Section 201 I.P.C., Police Station-Murad Nagar, District-Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial. +

+

5. The applicant has already been enlarged on bail by this Court under Sections 302, 147, 149, 364, 34 I.P.C. vide order dated 15.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6363 of 2024 (Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Raj Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the order dated 15.05.2024 is reproduced herein under: +

+
+ +
+ +
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under section 229-A I.P.C. +
+
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +

11. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicants, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above. +

+

Order Date :- 15.5.2024 " +

+
6. Learned counsel for applicant contends that subsequent to above order dated 15.05.2024, applicant has also been charge-sheeted under Section 201 Cr.P.C. by means of supplementary charge-sheet (police report) dated 27.09.2023. He therefore contends that since applicant has already been enlarged on bail under the main sections, therefore, no justifiable ground now exists to deny bail to applicant under Section 201 I.P.C. On the above premise, he therefore submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_60203163.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_60203163.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d05f074b01aba86884ea39b14fea861ac17caba --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_60203163.html @@ -0,0 +1,381 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Dr. Ashfaq @ Nehal vs Union Of India & 3 Others on 13 April, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

33. The aforesaid assertions of the petitioner have been substantially met by the Detaining Authority in paragraph no. 23 of his counter affidavit. The relevant part of it is quoted below: +

+
"23...............................It is submitted that the deponent while passing the detention order took note of the fact that hectic efforts are being made from the side of the petitioner for getting him to be released on bail. The bail applications moved by the petitioner was taken note by the deponent. It is humbly submitted that while forming the subjective satisfaction, what is to be seen, is the effort being made by the petitioner for setting him free. The safeguard as provided under the National Security Act has been duly followed by the deponent and on each and every step the petitioner has been informed about his rights and therefore the detention order is wholly in accordance with law and the present habeas corpsus petitioner filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. More so ever, the petitioner has been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court on 09.08.2017 in Case Crime No. 2 of 2017, under Sections 147, 323, 452, 427 and 395 IPC. In Case Crime No. 1 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 435, 436, 395, 397, 323, 504, 506, 332, 353, 427, 186, 336, 34, 452, 120-B of IPC section ¾ Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act and section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. Bail has been granted to the petitioner on 26.05.2017 by this Hon'ble Court. In Case Crime No. 3 of 2017, under sections 147, 148, 149, 435, 307, 352, 436, 397, 34 and 120-B of IPC bail has been granted to the petitioner on 09.08.2017 by this Hon'ble Court and in Case Crime No. 4 of 2017, under Section 147, 323, 452, 395 and 427 of IPC bail has been granted to the petitioner by this Hon'ble Court on 09.08.2017." +
+
+ +
+ +2 +

10/05/17 + +The bail application was filed by the petitioner before Session Court Deoria in Case Crime No. 2 of 2017, under Sections 147, 323, 427, 452, 395 IPC P.S. Madanpur, District Deoria (Annexure No.8 to the petition, Page 98) (in this case, bail application no. 26857 of 2017 was granted by this Court on 9.8.2017) + + + +10/05/17 + +The bail application was filed by the petitioner before Session Court Deoria in Case Crime No. 3 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 435, 307, 352 IPC P.S. Madanpur, District Deoria (Annexure No.8 to the petition, Page 98) (in this case, bail application no. 26858 of 2017 was granted by this Court on 9.8.2017) + + + +10/05/17 + +The bail application was filed by the petitioner before Session Court Deoria in Case Crime No. 4 of 2017, under Sections 147, 323, 452, 395, 427 IPC P.S. Madanpur, District Deoria (Annexure No.8 to the petition, Page 98) (in this case, bail application no. 26856 of 2017 was granted by this Court on 9.8.2017) + + + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_61044820.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_61044820.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1e64db40722daf2f9508f92b903e466524340d0a --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_61044820.html @@ -0,0 +1,386 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + A.Kamala vs The State on 9 August, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

27. The detenu is in remand in CCB, CCD-I Crime No.158 of 2024 + + and he has moved Bail Application in the above case before the Court of + + Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB and CBCID. Cases in Sl.No.608 of 2024 + + and the bail petition were pending on the date of passing the Detention Order. + + Since in the similar case in CCB Crime No.66 of 2023 under Sections 420 + + IPC @ 406, 420, 465, 468, read with 120(B) of IPC, bail was granted to the + + accused concerned in a similar case, the Detaining Authority has inferred that + + + +https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis + + + it is very likely of the detenu will be released on bail in the ground case at the + + time of disposal of pending bail application. The bail order in a similar case + + has been considered and discussed on the grounds of detention only with a + + view to justifying the possibility of the detenu being released on bail in the + + ground case at the time of disposal of the pending bail application. Hence, the + + Detaining Authority has raised his apprehension on the grounds of detention. + + + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_61167345.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_61167345.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..44563157b5e15c57a46193ea2eaebbc5a2d85e6b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_61167345.html @@ -0,0 +1,23040 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rajave Textiles Private Ltd. vs Sourabh Biotech Throuh Sanjay Agrawal on 1 November, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 402, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Madhya Pradesh High Court

+

Rajave Textiles Private Ltd. vs Sourabh Biotech Throuh Sanjay Agrawal on 1 November, 2018

+ +
                 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                              Cr.A. No.5527/2018
+                     (Shivnarayan & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore, Dated:01/11/2018
+     Shri C.K. Patne, learned counsel for the appellants.
+     Shri     Vaibhav      Jain,   learned     counsel      for   the
+respondent/Lokayukta.
+     Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.4704/2018-this is
+first application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
+suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
+appellant No.2-Shyamlal.
+     Appellant No.2-Shyamlal has been convicted for the offence
+punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
+1988 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years and to pay fine of
+Rs.5,000/- with usual default stipulation.
+     Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No.2-
+Shyamlal is the son of appellant No.1-Shivnarayan, who was working
+as Patwari of Halka No.11, Teh. Biaora. Learned counsel for the
+applicants submitted that the prosecution is unable to adduced any
+evidence to establish the motive for receipt of illegal gratification
+and demand made by appellant No.2-Shyamlal, which is Sine-quo-
+non for fastening the criminal liability upon the accused under the
+provisions of Anti Corruption Act. He further submits that besides the
+complainant, the prosecution has not examined any other independent
+witness for establishing the demand made by the appellant No.2 for
+illegal gratification, therefore, the conviction of the appellant No.2 by
+learned trial Court is wholly unwarranted. Although, the learned trial
+Court has    relied upon    the transcript of tape recorder, recording
+allegedly the voice of the appellants and complainant-Lakhan for
+ proving the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant No.2,
+however, the tape recorded transcript cannot at all be considered to be
+an admissible piece of evidence against the appellants because
+provision of Section 65(B) of the IT Act has not complied with. It is
+further submitted that the appellant No.2 was on bail during the trial
+and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. There are fair
+chances of success of this appeal and the appellant No.2 cannot be
+kept in custody unnecessarily, otherwise, this appeal filed by him may
+turn infructuous and he is ready to deposit the fine amount. Custodial
+sentence of appellant No.1-Shivnarayan, has already been suspended
+by    this   Court,   vide   order   dated   01/10/2018.   Under   these
+circumstances, he pays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and
+grant of bail to appellant No.2-Shyamlal.
+      On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
+respondent/Lokayukta opposed the application by contending that
+appellant No.2-Shyamlal is the son of appellant No.1-Shivnarayan,
+who was working as Patwari of Halka No.11, Teh. Biaora and made a
+demand of Rs.4,000/- for conducting the partition and mutation in
+respect of land owned by him. When complainant and trap party
+reached at the house of Patwari-Shivnarayan, he was not present there
+and     appellant No.2-Shyamlal has taken Rs.4,000/- from the
+complainant on behalf of his father and at that time he was caught red
+handed by the trap party. The documents relating to mutation
+proceedings were also seized from the possession of appellant No.2-
+Shaymalal and transcript of tape regarding conversation between the
+present appellant and        complainant in respect of demand of
+gratification amount is also available on record, therefore, there is
+                sufficient material available on record to prove guilt against the
+               appellant No.2. Under these circumstances, he prays for rejection of
+               the application.
+
+                                    After considering the arguments advanced by the learned
+               counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of
+               the case and the fact that being the son of Patwari, appellant No.2-
+               Shyamlal received gratification of Rs.4,000/- from the complainant
+               and he was caught red handed by the trap party on the spot, therefore,
+               he is also involved in the alleged offence.                        Resultantly, IA No.
+               7404/2018 is hereby dismissed. If the appeal is not decided in near
+               future, then the appellant No.2 is at liberty to move fresh application
+               for suspension of his remaining custodial sentence.
+
+                                    List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
+
+                                                                                       (S.K.Awasthi)
+               skt                                                                        Judge
+Digitally signed by Santosh Kumar
+Tiwari
+Date: 2018.11.02 10:52:56 +05'30'
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C.No.34282/2018x
+Indore dated :01/11/2018
+     Shri Manoj Munshi, learned counsel for the applicants .
+      Shri R.R. Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6885/2018, an application
+for interim relief.
+      It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that their
+company is manufacturer of cotton yarn in Sulur, Coimbatore and for the
+purpose of business they purchsed raw cotton from the respondent. During
+business transactions the applicants have issued some cheques in favour of the
+respondent towards security of payment for the supplies to be made, however,
+later on respondent deposited these cheques and the same have been
+dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, respondent has filed 13
+complaint cases against the applicants under Section 138 of the Negotiable
+Instruments Act, 1881 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
+Khargone.
+      During pendency of these complaint cases, the applicants offered to settle
+the dispute by transfer of admeasuring 3.78 hectare of punjai land by a
+registered sale deed in discharge of entire liablities under 13 criminal cases and
+one civil suit pending before the Court of Khargone. Thereafter, both the parties
+have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 24/07/2017. In
+MOU, the details of the present case were also mentioned, howevere, due to
+error, instead of mentioned the cheque numbers, the details of case numbers
+were mentioned, therefore, the respondent after entering into a cormpromise,
+has taken a somersault and without clarifying that as to how the present case is
+not covered by the said MOU, has taken a stand that the said compromise has
+nothing to do with the MOU entered into between the parties.
+      Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application by
+contending that MOU was executed only with regard to the 7 cases, which also
+found support with the compromise dated 05/12/2017, in which it is clearly
+mentioned that the compromise has taken place regarding the amount of 7
+ cheques and remaining 6 cases were pending before the Court of Judicial
+Magistrate First Class, Khargone. Under these circumstances, no case for grant
+of interim relief is made out against the applicants.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parites and perused the documents available
+on record.
+      From the perusal of the MOU, it reveals that number of all the 13 cases
+are mentioned in it and      the compromise dated 05/12/2017, indicates that
+compromise has taken place between the parties regarding all pending 13 cases.
+      Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties
+and looking to the facts and cirucmstances of the case, IA No. 6885/2018 is
+allowed and it is directed that further proceedings in case No. 2494/2015
+pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khargone is stayed
+till next date of hearing.
+      List 18/12/2018.
+      Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                        (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                         Judge
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C.No.34264/2018
+Indore dated :01/11/2018
+     Shri Manoj Munshi, learned counsel for the applicants .
+      Shri R.R. Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6884/2018, an application
+for interim relief.
+      It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that their
+company is manufacturer of cotton yarn in Sulur, Coimbatore and for the
+purpose of business they purchsed raw cotton from the respondent. During
+business transactions the applicants have issued some cheques in favour of the
+respondent towards security of payment for the supplies to be made, however,
+later on respondent deposited these cheques and the same have been
+dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, respondent has filed 13
+complaint cases against the applicants under Section 138 of the Negotiable
+Instruments Act, 1881 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
+Khargone.
+      During pendency of these complaint cases, the applicants offered to settle
+the dispute by transfer of admeasuring 3.78 hectare of punjai land by a
+registered sale deed in discharge of entire liablities under 13 criminal cases and
+one civil suit pending before the Court of Khargone. Thereafter, both the parties
+have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 24/07/2017. In
+MOU, the details of the present case were also mentioned, howevere, due to
+error, instead of mentioned the cheque numbers, the details of case numbers
+were mentioned, therefore, the respondent after entering into a cormpromise,
+has taken a somersault and without clarifying that as to how the present case is
+not covered by the said MOU, has taken a stand that the said compromise has
+nothing to do with the MOU entered into between the parties.
+      Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application by
+contending that MOU was executed only with regard to the 7 cases, which also
+found support with the compromise dated 05/12/2017, in which it is clearly
+mentioned that the compromise has taken place regarding the amount of 7
+ cheques and remaining 6 cases were pending before the Court of Judicial
+Magistrate First Class, Khargone. Under these circumstances, no case for grant
+of interim relief is made out against the applicants.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parites and perused the documents available
+on record.
+      From the perusal of the MOU, it reveals that number of all the 13 cases
+are mentioned in it and      the compromise dated 05/12/2017, indicates that
+compromise has taken place between the parties regarding all pending 13 cases.
+      Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties
+and looking to the facts and cirucmstances of the case, IA No. 6884/2018 is
+allowed and it is directed that further proceedings in case No. 2492/2015
+pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khargone is stayed
+till next date of hearing.
+      List 18/12/2018.
+      Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                    (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    M.C.C. No.966/2015
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri Shashank Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
+      Shri M.L. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Ravi Shukla,
+learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and 3.
+      Shri Aviral Vikas Khare, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant submits that today the arguing
+counsel is not available to argue the matter, therefore, he prays for time
+to argue the matter.
+      Praye is allowed.
+      Matter be listed in the week commencing 19/11/2018.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.43406/2018
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     None for the applicant.
+      In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List after four weeks.
+                                                  (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                     Judge
+
+skt
+                    THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No.17983/2018
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri V.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri   Swapnil     Sharma,   learned   Govt. Advocate     for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a week's
+time to move appropriate application for impleading the complainant as
+respondent No.2.
+      List thereafter.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.37173/2018
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri V.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri   Swapnil     Sharma,   learned   Govt. Advocate     for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a week's
+time to move appropriate application for impleading the complainant as
+respondent No.2.
+      List thereafter.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.37666/2018
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri   Swapnil   Sharma,    learned   Govt. Advocate      for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
+weeks' time to file the copy of entire charge-sheet alongwith statements
+of the prosecution witnesses recorded before the trial Court.
+      List after two weeks.
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.38965/2018
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri Harshvardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri   Swapnil    Sharma,      learned   Govt. Advocate       for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State is directed to
+make available the case-diary by next date of hearing positively.
+      List after two weeks.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.38450/2018
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri   Swapnil   Sharma,   learned   Govt. Advocate      for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for alalogous hearing with
+M.Cr.C. Nos. 38454/2018.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Office is directed to list the matter alongwith M.Cr.C. No.
+38454/2018 after two weeks.
+
+
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.38452/2018
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri   Swapnil   Sharma,   learned   Govt. Advocate      for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for alalogous hearing with
+M.Cr.C. Nos. 38454/2018.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Office is directed to list the matter alongwith M.Cr.C. No.
+38454/2018 after two weeks.
+
+
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.38447/2018
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri   Swapnil   Sharma,   learned   Govt. Advocate      for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for alalogous hearing with
+M.Cr.C. Nos. 38454/2018.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Office is directed to list the matter alongwith M.Cr.C. No.
+38454/2018 after two weeks.
+
+
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.34067/2018
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri   Swapnil     Sharma,   learned   Govt. Advocate   for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
+weeks' time to argue the matter.
+      List thereafter.
+
+
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.R. No.4966/2018
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri Vishal Pawar, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
+weeks' time to file the copy of the charge-sheet.
+      List thereafter.
+
+
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+               THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.R. No.182/2004
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     None for the appellant.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Non-bailable warrant issued against appellant-Welsingh received
+unserved with the report that appellant-Welsingh is detained in District
+Jail, Jhabua for offence punishable under Sections 34 and 36 of the M.P.
+Excise Act.
+      Let production warrant be issued against appellant-Welsingh for
+securing his presence before this Court on 19/11/2018.
+      List on 19/11/2018.
+
+
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.A. No.409/2006
+Indore dated :01/10/2018
+     None for the appellants.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Service report of perpetual warrant issued against appellant No.-2
+Pyari is still awaited.
+      Office is directed to call report from S.H.O., Police-Station-
+Kalipeeth, District-Rajgarh regarding the efforts made by him for
+executing the perpetual warrant issued against appellant No.2-Pyari.
+      List the matter on 17/12/2018.
+
+
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    Cr.R. No.408/2012
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     None for the appellant.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Service report of non-bailable warrant issued against appellant-
+Shravan @ Janu is still awaited.
+      Office is directed to list the matter alongwith service report in the
+week commencing 26/11/2018.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.A. No. 707/2013
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     None for the appellant.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Non-bailable bailable issued against appellant-Salim has received
+unserved with the report that he is not found on given address.
+      Let fresh non-bailable warrant be issued against appellant -Salim
+to secure his presence before this Court on 12/12/2018.
+      Let notice be issued against surety of appellant -Salim, why his
+surety amount may not be forefeited.
+      List on 12/12/2018.
+                                             (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                 Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.A. No.1853/2014
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     None for the appellant.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List after two weeks for consideration of IA No. 2797/2018, an
+application for bail cancellation.
+                                            (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.A. No.596/2015
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri Amitabh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellants.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the appellants further prays for time to keep
+present appellant No.1-Yogesh before this Court.
+      By way of indulgence, prayer is allowed.
+      List on 15/11/2018.
+                                            (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.A. No.634/2015
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri Pankaj R. Sohani, learned counsel for the appellants.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he has filed the
+death certificate of appellant No.3-Kaushal Singh.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to verify the factum of death
+of appellant NO.3-Kaushal Singh and submits its report by next date of
+hearing positively.
+      List on 17/12/2018.
+                                              (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                  Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.A. No.783/2015
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     None for the appellants.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      As per the report received from the Station House Officer, Police-
+Station-Kalipeeth, District-Rajgarh (Biaora), appellant No.2-Sadaji S/o
+Madhuji has died on 02/10/2017.
+      Considering the aforesaid report and copy of death certificate of
+appellant No.2-Sadaji, this appeal stands dismissed as abated regarding
+appellant No.2-Sadaji.
+      Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to delete the name of
+appellant No.2 from the array of the appellants within 7 working days.
+      List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
+                                                     (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                          Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.A. No.808/2015
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     None for the appellant.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      As per the report received from Superintendent of Central Jail,
+Indore, appellant-Umashanker @ Daddu S/o Fakirchandra Parihar has
+died on 06/08/2016.
+      Considering the aforesaid report, this appeal stands dismissed as
+abated.
+      Let record of the trial Court be sent back to the concerned trial
+Court.
+
+
+                                            (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                Judge
+
+skt
+                 There is a report regarding non-bailable
+warrant issued against the sole appellant Prabhulal stating
+that the appellant has died. There is a copy of the death
+certificate duly verified by the Thana Prabhari, police station
+Pachore, District Rajgarh.
+      Considering the report and the death certificate, I find
+that the present appeal shall stand abated and is, therefore,
+dismissed as such.
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.A. No.12/2016
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the appellant further prays for time to keep
+present appellant-Deva @ Devisingh before this Court.
+      By way of indulgence, prayer is allowed.
+      List on 27/11/2018.
+                                             (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                 Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.A. No.1520/2016
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      None for the respondent.
+      Non-bailable bailable issued against respondent-Mansoor Bhai
+has received unserved with the report that he is not found on given
+address.
+      Let fresh perpetual warrant be issued against respondent-Mansoor
+Bhai to secure his presence before this Court on 18/12/2018.
+      List on 18/12/2018.
+                                              (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                  Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.A. No. 708/2017
+Indore, Dated:31/10/2018
+     None for the appellant.
+      Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Heard on IA No. 6801/2018, an application for listing the case on
+any working Saturday or for final hearing in weekly list.
+      Office is directed to examine the matter and if it comes under
+caption "High Court Expedited Cases" or any other suitable caption of
+priority cases, whichever is earlier, then same shall be listed for final
+hearing on any working Saturday.
+      With the aforesaid direction IA No. 6801/2018 stands disposed of.
+
+
+
+                                                (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                    Judge
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         Cr.A. No. 718/2017
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the appellants.
+      Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Non-bailable bailable issued against appellant No.1-Vikram has
+received unserved with the report that he is not found on given
+address.
+      Let fresh perpetual warrant    be issued against appellant No.1-
+Vikram to secure his presence before this Court on 18/12/2018.
+      Let notice be issued against surety of appellant No.1-Vikram, why
+his surety amount may not be forefeited.
+      List on 18/12/2018.
+                                             (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                 Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    Cr.A. No.719/2017
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Shri Vaibhav Jain, learned counsel for the State/EOW.
+      Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted two
+weeks time to file the reply of IA No. 7609/2018, an application for stay
+on the conviction passed by the trial Court.
+      List in the week commencing 19/11/2018.
+                                                    (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                         Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.A. No.808/2017
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri H.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has
+entered into compromise with the complainant and they have filed IA No.
+19176/2017, an application under Section 320 read with Section 482 of the
+Cr.P.C. for compounding the offence.
+      Aforesaid application shall be considered at the time of final hearing
+of the appeal.
+      List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
+                                                         (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                              Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.A. No. 311/2018
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 671/2018, an
+application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of
+delay of 12 days in filing this appeal.
+      Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after the
+conviction the appellant was sent to the jail, therefore, he could not
+contact to his counsel, hence, this appeal could not be filed within
+stipulated time period.
+      Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is
+supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the
+delay of 12 days in preferring this appeal.
+      Accordingly, IA No.671/2018 is allowed and delay of 12 days in
+filing this appeal is hereby condoned.
+      Also heard on the question of admission.
+      Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
+      Let record of the court below be called for.
+      List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
+
+
+                                                         (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                            Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.A. No.519/2014
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri R.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the appellants.
+      Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 7573/2018,
+repeat(third) application under Section 389(1)            of the Cr.P.C. for
+suspension of jail sentence on behalf of appellant No.1-Rajendra Thakur
+@ Raees Khan.
+      After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the appellants seeks
+permission to withdraw IA No. 7573/2018.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, IA No.7573/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.
+      List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
+
+
+                                                         (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                              Judge
+
+skt
+       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.A. No.703/2015
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri R.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the appellants.
+      Ms.   Nidhi    Bohra,    learned    Govt.   Advocate     for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Cr.A. Nos.
+607/2015 and 762/2015 are wrongly connected with the present appeal.
+      Office is directed to verify the same and delink the present appeal
+from Cr.A. Nos. 607/2015 and 762/2015.
+                                                      (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                         Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        Cr.A. No.762/2015
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     None for the appellant.
+      Ms.    Nidhi   Bohra,    learned   Govt.   Advocate    for   the
+respondent/State.
+      In absence of the learned cousnel for the appellant, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List after two months.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        Cr.A. No.607/2015
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     None for the appellant.
+      Ms.    Nidhi   Bohra,    learned   Govt.   Advocate    for   the
+respondent/State.
+      In absence of the learned cousnel for the appellant, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List after two months.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No.41857/2018
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri   R.K.   Sharma,    learned   Govt. Advocate      for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to produce the case-diary
+alongwith the statement of witnesses recorded during the enquiry of
+Merg No. 05/2018 registered at Police-Station-Nalkheda, District-Agar
+(Malwa) by next date of hearing positively.
+      List in the week commencing 19/11/2018.
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.41621/2018
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri N.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Ms.    Nidhi       Bohra,   learned   Govt.   Advocate    for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is grant 7 days
+time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office, failing which this
+petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court.
+      List thereafter.
+                                                       (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                          Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     M.Cr.C. No.40839/2018
+                    (Yogesh Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Ms.      Nidhi   Bohra,   learned   Govt.   Advocate    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.166/2018, Police Station-Biaora
+Dehat, District-Rajgarh (Biaora), concerning offence under Sections
+307 and 302/34 of the IPC.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+application.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     M.Cr.C. No.39638/2018
+                    (Manish Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri A.K. Saxena on behalf of Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel
+for the applicant.
+      Ms.      Nidhi   Bohra,   learned   Govt.   Advocate    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.231/2018, Police Station-Javad,
+District-Neemuch, concerning offence under Sections 363, 366 and
+374 of the IPC alongwith Section ¾ of the Protection of Children from
+Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+application.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.37692/2018
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri Durgesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Ms.    Nidhi       Bohra,   learned   Govt.   Advocate   for   the
+respondents/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant is granted a week's time to cure
+the defects pointed out by the Office.
+      List thereafter.
+                                                       (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                          Judge
+
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.43777/2018
+                    (Rohit Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :31/10/2018
+     Shri Kaushal Sisodia, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Ms.    Nidhi    Bohra,    learned   Govt.   Advocate      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.518/2018, Police Station-Rajendra
+Nagar, District-Indore, concerning offence under Section 49(A) of the
+M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+application with liberty to revive his prayer after filing of the charge-
+sheet.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
+aforesaid liberty.
+      Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+                 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         M.Cr.C. No.40730/2018x
+Indore dated :30/10/2018
+     Shri Ritesh Inani, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri    Suraj   Sharma,    learned    Govt.   Advocate     for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the arguing
+counsel is not available today to argue the matter, therefore, he prays for
+adjourment.
+      By way of indulgence prayer is allowed.
+      List in the week commencing 19/11/2018.
+                                                        (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                           Judge
+
+skt
+           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.38456/2018x
+Indore dated :30/10/2018
+     Shri Anshul Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri    Suraj   Sharma,    learned    Govt.   Advocate     for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the arguing
+counsel is not available today to argue the matter, therefore, he prays for
+adjourment.
+      By way of indulgence prayer is allowed.
+      List in the week commencing 19/11/2018.
+                                                        (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                           Judge
+
+skt
+           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.38482/2018x
+Indore dated :30/10/2018
+     Shri Anshul Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri    Suraj   Sharma,    learned    Govt.   Advocate     for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the arguing
+counsel is not available today to argue the matter, therefore, he prays for
+adjourment.
+      By way of indulgence prayer is allowed.
+      List in the week commencing 19/11/2018.
+                                                        (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                           Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     M.Cr.C. No.36613/2018x
+                    (Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :30/10/2018
+     Shri M.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri      Suraj   Sharma,   learned   Govt.   Advocate   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.320/2018, Police Station-Aerodrum,
+District-Indore, concerning offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468,
+471 and 12(B)/34 of the IPC.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+application .
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                                Cr.A. No.5741/2017x
+                         (Dinesh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore, Dated:30/10/2018
+     Shri Nilesh Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants.
+      Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Heard on the question of admission.
+      Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
+      Also heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 3333/2018-this is
+repeat (second) application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
+suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
+appellant No.1-Dinesh. First application for suspension of custodial sentence
+of appellant No.1-Dinesh is dismissed as withdrawn by this Court, vide order
+dated 27/02/2018.
+      Appellant No.1-Dinesh has been convicted for the offence punishabe
+under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
+1 year and 7 years, respectively with fine of Rs.500/- each with usual default
+stipulation.
+      Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No.1-Dinesh
+is the husband of deceased-Sunita and he was on bail during the trial and he
+did not misuse the liberty granted to him. Sunita has committed suicide on
+30/09/2015 by consuming some poisonous substance. Father of the appellant
+No.1 informed the police and parents of the deceased regarding her death. The
+funeral ceremony was performed in the presence of the family members of the
+deceased, but at that time they did not make any complaint against the
+appellant No.1 regarding ill treatment of Sunita. It is further submitted that
+Relji (PW 1), Rahlibai (PW 2), Jaggan (PW 3) and Ravindra (PW 5) have
+made only general and omnibus allegations against the appellant No.1
+regarding harassment of Sunita. As per the autopsy report no injury was found
+on the body of the deceased. It is alleged that the appellant No.1 has
+performed the second marriage, due to which Sunita has committed suicide.
+ There is nothing on record to demonstrates that at any point of time, deceased
+was instigated or provoked by the appellant No.1 to commit suicide. The
+appellant No.1 is in jail for last more than 1 year and there is no likelihood of
+early hearing of the present appeal in near future. The appellant No.1 cannot
+be kept in custody unnecessarily, otherwise, the appeal filed by him may turn
+infructuous and he is ready to deposit the fine amount. Under these
+circumstances, he pays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of
+bail to the appellant No.1.
+      On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application
+and prayed for its rejection.
+
+      Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
+and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail
+sentence of the appellant.
+
+      Accordingly, I.A. No.3333/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
+subject to depositing fine amount and     on furnishing personal bond by the
+appellant No.1-Dinesh in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand
+only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
+learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the execution
+of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the appellant
+No.1 shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
+      The appellant No.1-Dinesh, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark
+their presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/03/2019 and on all such
+subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
+
+      List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
+
+                                                           (S.K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                          Judge
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.A. No.4569/2018x
+Indore dated :30/10/2018
+      Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Shri    Swapnil   Sharma,   learned   Govt.   Advocate   for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellant is still
+absconding.
+      Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to surrender the
+appellant before the trial Court, thereafter, IA No. 4791/2018 will be
+considered.
+
+
+                                                (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                     Judge
+skt
+                     THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                             Cr.A. No.8092/2018x
+                       (Pushkar & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore, Dated:30/10/2018
+     Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellants.
+      Shri    Swapnil    Sharma,    learned    Govt. Advocate       for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Heard on the question of admission.
+      Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
+      Record of the court below be called for.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 7618/2018-an
+application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
+suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
+appellants.
+      Appellants have been found guilty for offence under Section 420
+and 120(B) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years for
+and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each respectively with default stipulation.
+      It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the
+appellants were on bail during trial and they have not misused the
+liberty so granted to them. It is also submitted that the trial court has
+recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on
+record and that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the
+prosecution evidence have been overlooked. It is further submitted that
+the jail sentence of the appellants have already been suspended by the
+trial Court till 12/11/2018. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely
+to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial sentence is
+not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
+      Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
+and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail
+ sentence of the appellants.
+
+      Accordingly, I.A. No.7618/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
+subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
+the appellants in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand
+only)each with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
+the learned trial Court, for their regular appearance before this Court,
+the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed
+against the appellants shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of
+this appeal.
+      The appellants, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their
+presence before the Registry of this Court on 08/02/2019 and on all such
+subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
+
+      List the appeal in due course.
+
+
+                                                       (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                           Judge
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.A. No.8194/2018x
+Indore dated :30/10/2018
+      Shri Dharmendra Keharwar, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Shri   Swapnil   Sharma,     learned    Govt.      Advocate   for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Heard on the question of admission.
+      Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
+      Let record of the court below be called for.
+      List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
+
+
+                                                     (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                          Judge
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.R.No.3416/2018x
+Indore dated :30/10/2018
+     Ms. Seema Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Akshat Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 5484/2018, an application
+for staying the operation of order dated 26/06/2018 passed by the Principal
+Judge, Family Court, Dhar in Criminal MJC No. 2000113/2016 .
+      Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and findings given by
+the trial Court in para Nos. 10, 11, 15, 25 and 26 of the impunged order, IA No.
+5484/2018 is hereby allowed. Accordingly, it is directed that the operation of the
+impugned order dated 26/06/2018 passed in Criminal MJC No. 2000113/2016
+shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
+      List in the week commencing 26/11/2018 on the question of admission.
+      Certified copy as per rules.
+
+
+                                                     (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                         Judge
+skt
+               THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C.No.43798/2018x
+Indore dated :30/10/2018
+      Shri Satanand Choubey, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of
+Criminal Procedure, 1973 for extension of time to deposit the amout of Rs.4.00
+Lacs as directed by this Court, vide order dated 21/08/2018 passed in M.Cr.C.
+No. 31043/2018.
+      After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
+applicant and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, last opportunity
+of 7 working days is granted to the learned counsel for the applicant to deposit
+Rs.4:00 Lacs before the trial Court.
+      This order shall be read cojointly with order dated 14/02/2018 and
+21/08/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos. 1072/2018 and 31043/2018 respectively. A
+copy of this order be placed in the record of M.Cr.C. Nos. 1072/2018 and
+31043/2018.
+      With the aforesaid directions this petition stands disposed of.
+      Certified copy as per rules.
+
+
+                                                   (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    M.Cr.C. No.38704/2018x
+                   (Mukesh Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :30/10/2018
+     Shri A.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Ms.       Nidhi   Bohra,   learned   Govt.   Advocate   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.306/2018, Police Station-Ranapur,
+District-Jhabua, concerning offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)
+(n) and 506 of the IPC alongwith Section 5(L)/6 of the Protection of
+Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+application .
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No.39015/2018x
+Indore dated :30/10/2018
+     Shri Ravi Sagre, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
+weeks' time to argue the matter.
+      List in the week commencing 19/11/2018.
+                                                     (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.41057/2018x
+Indore dated :30/10/2018
+     Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for and is granted a
+week's time to verify the documents filed by the applicant in support of
+his bail application.
+      List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
+                                                      (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                         Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.41571/2018x
+Indore dated :30/10/2018
+     Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the complainant/objector prays for and is
+granted time to file written objection.
+      List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
+                                                     (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.41593/2018x
+Indore dated :30/10/2018
+     Shri A.K. Sarawat, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
+diary by next date of hearing positively.
+      List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
+                                                     (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+                    THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No.41731/2018x
+                    (Vishal @ Rajiv Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :30/10/2018
+     Shri R.R. Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Ms.       Nidhi   Bohra,   learned   Govt.   Advocate   for    the
+respondent/State.
+      Heard. Case diary perused.
+      This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
+grant of bail in connection with Crime No.15/2018, Police Station-
+Rampura, District-Neemuch, concerning offence under Sections 363
+and 376 of the IPC alongwith Section ¾ of the Protection of Children
+from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+application .
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+                    THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No.41793/2018x
+                    (Sheikh Alim Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :30/10/2018
+     Smt. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Ms.       Nidhi   Bohra,   learned   Govt.   Advocate   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.239/2018, Police Station-Azad
+Nagar, District-Indore, concerning offence under Section 302/34 of the
+IPC alongwith Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+application .
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No.40075/2018x
+Indore dated :30/10/2018
+     None for the applicant.
+      Ms.    Nidhi       Bohra,   learned   Govt.   Advocate   for   the
+respondents/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant is granted a week's time to cure
+the defects pointed out by the Office.
+      List thereafter.
+                                                       (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                          Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.R. No.5047/2018x
+Indore dated :30/10/2018
+     Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Ms.    Nidhi    Bohra,    learned    Govt.      Advocate   for   the
+respondents/State.
+      Let record of the Courts' below be requisitioned.
+      List immediately after receipt of the record.
+                                                          (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                             Judge
+
+skt
+                 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        Cr.R. No.5151/2018x
+Indore dated :30/10/2018
+     Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Ms.    Nidhi    Bohra,    learned    Govt.      Advocate   for   the
+respondents/State.
+      Let record of the Courts' below be requisitioned.
+      List immediately after receipt of the record.
+                                                          (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                             Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.R. No.5123/2018x
+Indore dated :30/10/2018
+      Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Shri
+Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Ms.       Nidhi   Bohra,   learned    Govt.   Advocate     for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Heard on the question of admission.
+      Revision is admitted for final hearing.
+       This Criminal Revision is preferred under Sections 397 and 401
+ of Cr.P.C. against judgment dated 10/10/2018 passed by Additional
+ Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No.89/2015 confirming the
+ judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29/01/2015 passed by
+ Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No.
+ 2483/2010, whereby the applicants have been convicted for offence
+ punishable under Sections 498(A) of the IPC and sentenced to
+ undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-each with default
+ stipulation.
+       Heard on I.A. No.7532/2018, an application under Section 397
+ (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf
+ of the applicants.
+      Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has submitted that the
+courts's below have committed error in convicting the applicants and
+therefore, the correctness of the findings have been challenged. It is also
+submitted that the applicants were on bail during the trial and the liberty
+so granted was not misused by them. There are fair chances of success
+of this revision and the applicants cannot be kept in custody
+unnecessarily, otherewise this revision filed by them may turn
+infructuous. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of
+remaining jail sentence and grant of bail to the applicants.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the
+application and prayed for its rejection.
+       This Court, after carefully going through the record and after
+hearing the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that
+I.A.No.7532/2018 deserves to be and is allowed and it is directed that the
+execution of the remaining sentence awarded to the applicants shall
+remain suspended during the pendency of this revision petition and they
+shall be released on bail subject to depositing compensation amount and
+on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
+Thousand only)each with one separate solvent surety in the like amount
+to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before this Court
+on 08/02/2019 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this
+regard by the Registry.
+      List the revision for final hearing in due course.
+      Certified copy, as per rules.
+
+
+                                                    (S. K. AWASTHI)
+                                                           Judge
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        Cr.R. No. 711/2016
+Indore dated : 30/10/2018
+     None for the applicant.
+      Shri   Suraj    Sharma,     learned   Govt.    Advocate   for   the
+respondent/State.
+      This Court, vide order dated 18/09/2018 has directed the Office for
+issuance of non-bailable warrant against the applicant- Lal Singh @
+Lakhan . In pursuance of the aforesaid order the applicant was arrested
+by the Police on 22/10/2018 and produced before the Chief Judicial
+Magistrate, from where he was sent to District Jail Shajapur.
+      Applicant-Lal Singh @ Lakhan S/o Laxminarayan @ Lacchu is
+produced before this Court from District Jail-Shajapur by Head
+Constable No. 416-Prem Narayan Malviya. His presence is marked. He
+be sent back to the concerned jail under the same escort for suffering
+remaining jail sentence under the appropriate warrant.
+      List the revision for final hearing in due course.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                     Judge
+                     THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                             Cr.A. No.1323/2008
+                        (Gaja & Ors Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore, Dated:29/10/2018
+      Shri C.L. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Akhilesh Sharma,
+learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Shri   Swapnil   Sharma,       learned   Govt. Advocate   for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.7530/2018-an
+application under Section 389(1) read with Section 482 of the Code of
+Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of conviction of appellant
+No.2-Santosh S/o Makrani.
+      Appellant No.2-Santosh has been convicted under Section 326 of
+the IPC and sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. and to pay fine of
+Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation, vide judgment dated 17/11/2008
+passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar in S.T. No. 126/2006.
+      Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
+filed the present Criminal Appeal on 21/11/2008 alongwith application for
+suspension of custodial sentnece, which was admitted for final hearing and
+his application for suspension of custodial sentence was allowed by this
+Court, vide order dated 25/11/2008 and he was directed to be released on
+bail upon furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.25,000/- with a surety
+bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
+appearance before the Registry of this Court 05/01/2009 and thereafter as
+may be directed.
+      Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that after released
+on bail since approximately last 10 years, the appellant has regularly
+marked his presence before the Registry of this Court. It is also submits
+that the appellant No.2-Santosh belongs to the Scheduled Tribes
+community and he is highly qualified person. He is eligible for various
+ employments and is having bright future. Father of the appellant-Markani
+S/o Chogalal, who was working as Teacher in Govt. school and during the
+pendency of this appeal, he died on 06/09/2011. After that he became
+eligible to seek compassionate appointment and the benefit of
+compassionate appointment can be obtained by him within 7 years from
+the death of his father, however, due to conviction in the criminal case, he
+could not avail the opportunity of compassionate appointment and very
+soon he will become over age. His carrier is suffering due to continuously
+losing opportunities and thus forced to darken his bright future in waiting
+for disposal of present appeal. The appellant also wants to contest the
+election, which is going to be held in November, 2018.
+      It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
+that as per the findings given by the trial Court, there was no pre-
+meditation and it is a case of free fight. It is further submitted that both the
+parties have settled their dispute and entered into the compromise. They
+have moved an application under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. for
+compounding the offence, which has been kept pending by this Court
+contending that this application shall be considered at the time of final
+hearing of this appeal. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension
+of conviction of the appellant.
+      On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application
+and prayed for its rejection.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
+      It is settled position of law that the appellate Court has the power
+to suspended the conviction under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C.,
+however, in the case of Navjot Singh Siddhu Vs. State of Punjab,
+AIR 2007 SC 1003 and Ravikant S. Patil Vs. Sarvabhoma S. Bagli,
+(2007) 1 SCC 673, the Hon'ble apex Court has held that stay of the
+ order of conviction by an appellate court is an exception. It is accepted
+from the person seeking stay that he should specifically draw the
+attention of the appellate Court to the consequences that may arise if
+the conviction is not stayed. However, grant of stay can be resorted to
+in rare cases depending upon the special facts of the case.
+      In the light of the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble apex Court
+after examining the contention made on behalf of the learned senior
+counsel for the appellant, it reveals that the appellant has been
+convicted for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC and as per the
+findings given by the trial Court, there is specific allegation against
+the appellant that he has caused grievous injury to injured Mukut by
+Dhariya, which is also found prove by the trial Court. It is submitted
+that the present appeal is pending since 2008 and during the pendency
+of this appeal father of the appellant has died in the year 2011,
+however, the appellant has not filed any document to demonstrate that he
+is the only eligible person in his family, who can apply for the
+compassionate appointment and the same has been rjected on the ground
+that he is the convicted person in criminal case. The appellant has not filed
+any application for early hearing till September, 2018 and first time on
+05/09/2018, he has filed an application for early hearing before this Court,
+which was disposed of with following directions to the Registry:-
+     1.    To process the main admitted matter, if ready in all
+     respects, as per its turn, under caption "High Court Expedited
+     Cases" or any other suitable caption of priority cases,
+     whichever is earlier.
+     2.    Parties is at liberty to apprise the Registrar (Judicial)
+     about any other suitable priority category in which the main
+     admitted matter can proceed in addition to "High Court
+     Expedited Cases" or the caption already assigned by the
+     Registry. The Registrar (Judicial) after due scrutiny shall issue
+     instructions to the concerned Dealing Assistant to update the
+       main matter in such other appropriate category, so that the same
+      can proceed for final hearing in the category, wherever it is
+      earlier, as per the CMIS software.
+      3.     Further liberty is granted to the parties mention the main
+      matter, in cases of exceptional urgency, for appropriate
+      directions before DB-I, by way of mentioning slip without
+      filing any formal application for urgent hearing.
+
+      Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
+parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is
+of the view that after lapse of 10 years of filing of this appeal, the prayer
+made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant for suspension of
+conviction is not deemed to be acceptable. Accordingly, IA No. 7530/2018
+is hereby dismissed.
+      List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
+
+                                                         (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                             Judge
+skt
+           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.43003/2018x
+Indore dated :29/10/2018
+     Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri   R.K.    Sharma,     learned    Govt.   Advocate   for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
+diary by next date of hearing positively.
+      List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
+                                                       (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                          Judge
+
+skt
+           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No.41248/2018x
+Indore dated :29/10/2018
+     Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.
+      Learned counsel for the complainant/objector prays for and is
+granted time to file written objection.
+      List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
+                                                      (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                         Judge
+
+skt
+           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.41270/2018x
+Indore dated :29/10/2018
+     Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
+diary by next date of hearing positively.
+      List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
+                                                     (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.39997/2018x
+                  (Vikram Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :29/10/2018
+     Smt. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri      Suraj   Sharma,   learned   Govt.   Advocate   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.125/1997, Police Station-Nanpur,
+District-Alirajpur, concerning offence under Section 34(1) of the M.P.
+Excise Act, 1915.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+application .
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     M.Cr.C. No.40740/2018x
+                    (Vinit Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :29/10/2018
+     Shri Tarun Pagare, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri      Sjuraj   Sharma,   learned   Govt.   Advocate   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.320/2018, Police Station-Aerodrum,
+District-Indore, concerning offence under Sections 471, 467, 468, 419,
+420 and 120(B)/34 of the IPC.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+application .
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         M.Cr.C. No.41804/2018x
+Indore dated :29/10/2018
+     Shri R.S. Bais, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri   Suraj   Sharma,     learned   Govt.   Advocate   for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks'
+time to produce case-diary.
+      List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
+                                                      (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                         Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    M.Cr.C. No.42948/2018x
+                  (Ashish Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :29/10/2018
+     Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate 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.1262/2018, Police Station-Excise
+Department, Barwaha, District-Barwaha, concerning offence under
+Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+application .
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                                  (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                     Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.42960/2018x
+Indore dated :29/10/2018
+     Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri   R.K.    Sharma,     learned   Govt.   Advocate    for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to produce case-diary of the
+present case along with case-diary of Crime No.245/2018 registered at
+Police-Station-Mahakal, Ujjain by next date of hearing positively.
+      List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
+                                                       (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                          Judge
+
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         M.Cr.C. No.42974/2018x
+Indore dated :29/10/2018
+     Shri Vishal Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri   R.K.    Sharma,     learned   Govt.   Advocate   for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks'
+time to produce case-diary.
+      List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
+                                                      (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                         Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         M.Cr.C. No.42990/2018x
+Indore dated :29/10/2018
+     Shri K.C. Paliwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri   R.K.    Sharma,     learned   Govt.   Advocate   for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks'
+time to produce case-diary.
+      List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
+                                                      (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                         Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    M.Cr.C. No.43011/2018x
+                  (Sheetal Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :29/10/2018
+     Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Heard. Case diary perused.
+      This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
+grant of bail in connection with Crime No.430/2018, Police Station-
+M.I.G., District-Indore, concerning offences under Sections 380, 420,
+467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+application with liberty to renew his prayer after recording the
+statement of complainant before the trial Court .
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
+aforesaid liberty.
+      Cetified copy as per rules.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    M.Cr.C. No.42442/2018x
+                  (Balchand Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :26/10/2018
+     Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Yogesh
+Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate 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.138/2018, Police Station-
+Chhapiheda District-Rajgarh, concerning offences under Sections 342,
+376 and 506/34 of the IPC.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned Senior
+Counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw
+this application .
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                                  (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                     Judge
+
+skt
+           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.A. No.7448/2018x
+Indore dated :26/10/2018
+     Shri N.K. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants.
+      Shri   Suraj   Sharma,   learned   Govt.    Advocate    for   the
+respondent/State.
+      At the request of learned counsel for the appellants, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List on 29/10/2018.
+                                                     (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.42432/2018x
+                   (Chainsingh Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :26/10/2018
+     Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri     R.K.   Sharma,   learned   Govt.   Advocate    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.323/2018, Police-Station-Nahargarh,
+District-Mandsaur, concerning offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P.
+Excise Act, 1915.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+application.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                                  (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                     Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No.42437/2018x
+Indore dated :26/10/2018
+     Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri   Suraj   Sharma,     learned    Govt.   Advocate   for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
+diary by next date of hearing positively.
+      List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
+                                                       (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                          Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     M.Cr.C. No.42438/2018x
+                    (Shyam Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :26/10/2018
+     Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri    R.K.   Sharma,    learned   Govt.    Advocate      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.285/2018, Police-Station-Anjad,
+District-Barwani, concerning offence under Sections 302 and 294 of
+the IPC.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+application with liberty to renew his prayer after recording the
+statement of the eye witness before the trial Court.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with
+the aforesaid liberty.
+      Certified copy as per rules.
+
+
+                                                       (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                          Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No. 42443/2018x
+Indore dated :26/10/2018
+     Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri   R.K.    Sharma,     learned   Govt.   Advocate    for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is available.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
+argue the matter.
+      List in the next week.
+                                                      (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                         Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No. 42446/2018x
+Indore dated :26/10/2018
+     Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri   R.K.    Sharma,     learned   Govt.   Advocate    for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is available.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
+argue the matter.
+      List in the next week.
+                                                      (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                         Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.42451/2018x
+                 (Mayank Vishwakarma Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :26/10/2018
+     Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri      R.K.   Sharma,   learned   Govt.   Advocate   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.438/2018, Police-Station-Shujalpur,
+District-Shajapur, concerning offence under Sections 25 and 27 of the
+Arms Act.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+application .
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+                    THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No.42455/2018x
+                    (Phulsingh @ Phulchand Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :26/10/2018
+     Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri      K.K.   Tiwari,   learned   Govt.   Advocate   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.169/2018, Police-Station-Sitamhow,
+District-Mandsaur, concerning offence under Sections 363, 366(A),
+376(D), 376(2)(A), 506, 109 and 370 of the IPC alongwith Sections
+5(G)/6 and 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
+Act, 2012.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+application .
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         M.Cr.C. No. 42461/2018x
+Indore dated :26/10/2018
+     Shri N.S. Bhati, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is available.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
+argue the matter.
+      List in the next week.
+                                                      (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                         Judge
+
+skt
+           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.A. No.1323/2008x
+Indore dated :26/10/2018
+     Shri C.L. Yadav, learned Senior counsel alongwith Shri Iqbal
+Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Shri   Suraj   Sharma,     learned    Govt.   Advocate     for   the
+respondent/State.
+      At the request of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the case
+is adjourned.
+      List on 29/10/2018.
+                                                       (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                          Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                          Cr.A. No.7792/2018x
+Indore dated :26/10/2018
+     Shri R.K. Shastri, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Shri   Suraj    Sharma,     learned   Govt.      Advocate   for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
+file the copy of the proceedings of the trial Court.
+      List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
+                                                          (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                             Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No.41138/2018x
+Indore dated :26/10/2018
+     Shri Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri   Suraj   Sharma,     learned   Govt.   Advocate    for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is available.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
+argue the matter.
+      List after two weeks.
+                                                      (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                         Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         M.Cr.C. No.41174/2018x
+Indore dated :26/10/2018
+     Shri O.P. Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri   Suraj   Sharma,     learned    Govt.   Advocate   for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
+diary by next date of hearing positively.
+      List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
+                                                       (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                          Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         M.Cr.C. No.41304/2018x
+Indore dated :26/10/2018
+     Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri   Suraj   Sharma,     learned    Govt.   Advocate   for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
+diary by next date of hearing positively.
+      List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
+                                                       (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                          Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                          M.Cr.C. No.41710/2018x
+Indore dated :26/10/2018
+     Shri A.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri   Suraj   Sharma,     learned   Govt.   Advocate    for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is available.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
+argue the matter.
+      List in the next week.
+                                                      (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                         Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.41862/2018x
+Indore dated :26/10/2018
+     Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Shri   Suraj   Sharma,     learned    Govt.   Advocate   for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to keep available the case-
+diary by next date of hearing positively.
+      List in the next week.
+                                                       (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                          Judge
+
+skt
+                    THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No.41908/2018x
+                    (Radheshyam Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :26/10/2018
+     Shri Nilesh Manore, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri      Suraj   Sharma,   learned   Govt.   Advocate   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.699/2018, Police-Station-Excise
+Department, Mandleshwar, District-Rajgarh, concerning offence under
+Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+application .
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No.23262/2017x
+Indore dated :26/10/2018
+     Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is grated three
+weeks' time to argue the matter.
+      List thereafter.
+                                                    (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+                 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         M.Cr.C. No.29242/2018x
+Indore dated :26/10/2018
+     Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri K.K.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant further prays for time to argue
+the matter.
+      This bail application is pending since July, 2018, therefore, by way
+of last indulgence time is granted.
+      List in the week commecning 12/11/2018.
+                                                       (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                          Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.36618/2018x
+Indore dated :26/10/2018
+     Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri K.K.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
+file the copy of statement of prosecution witnesses recorded before the
+trial Court.
+      List in the week commecning 12/11/2018.
+
+
+                                                      (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                         Judge
+
+skt
+           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.43565/2018x
+Indore dated :26/10/2018
+     Ms. Archna Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Learned counsel for the applicants is directed to file the certified
+copy of the complete proceedings of the trial Court.
+      List after two weeks.
+
+
+                                                       (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                          Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.41874/2018x
+Indore dated :26/10/2018
+     Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri     K.K.   Tiwari,    learned   Govt.   Advocate    for   the
+respondents/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has already cure
+the defects.
+      Case-diary is available.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
+argue the matter.
+      List in the week commencing 19/11/2018.
+
+
+                                                      (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                         Judge
+
+skt
+                       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                               Cr.A. No.4350/2017x
+                        (Rajesh @ Kaliya Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore, Dated:24/10/2018
+      Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Ms.     Nidhi     Bohra,    learned   Govt.   Advocate         for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.5430/2018-an
+application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
+suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
+appellant - Rajesh @ Kaliya, who has been found guilty for offence
+under Section 307 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 7
+years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-with default stipulation.
+      Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the complainant did
+not supported the prosecution case in his cross-examination, therefore,
+alleged offence is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. During the
+pendency of this appeal, both the parties have moved an application under
+Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. for compromise. The appellant is in custody
+since 28/01/2017 and he has already completed approximately 1 years and
+9 months of his jail sentence. There are fair chances of success of this
+appeal      and the appellant cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily
+otherwise the appeal filed by the appellant may turn infructuous. Under
+these circumstances, he prays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and
+for grant of bail to the appellant.
+      On the other hand,          learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
+application by contending that complainant-Manoj Chandel deposed
+against the appellant in his examination-in-chief and on the request of the
+counsel for the defence his cross-examination was reserved and after that
+he turned hostile, which indicates the complainant was win over by the
+ appellant. As per the MLC report of complainant-Manoj, 6 incised wounds
+were found on his body. Under these circumstances, he prays for rejection
+of the application.
+
+      Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and
+looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage no case
+is made out for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail
+to the appellant. Accordingly, IA No. 5430/2018 is hereby rejected.
+However, the appellant-Rajesh @ Kaliya is granted liberty to renew his
+prayer after completion of 3 years of his jail sentence.
+
+      List in due course.
+
+
+                                                       (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                           Judge
+skt
+                        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                                 Cr.A. No.6304/2018x
+                        (Bablu Sheikh Pathan Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore, Dated:24/10/2018
+      Shri Ashutosh Surana, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Shri     Suraj    Sharma,   learned   Govt.    Advocate    for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.6269/2018-an
+application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
+suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
+appellant - Bablu, who has been found guilty for offence under Section
+392 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years
+and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-with default stipulation.
+      Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant that
+there was no named FIR against the appellant. It is alleged that
+complainant-Durga Bai (PW 1) has identified the appellant in Test
+Identification Parade and she also identified the gold and silver ornaments,
+which were recovered from the appellant, however, Durga Bai (PW 1)
+accepted in her cross-examination that before test identification parade, she
+was called to the Police-Station, where she had already seen the
+photograph of the appellant and thereafter, T.I.P. was arranged. Hence,
+when the complainant was having an opportunity to view the photograph
+of appellant, then the evidence of T.I.P. goes away. Similarly, the
+independent witnesses have not supported the memorandum and the
+seizure memo, from which gold and silver ornaments were alleged to have
+been recovered from the appellant. Looking to the aforesaid evidence, the
+appellant cannot be convicted for the aforesaid offence. There are fair
+chances of success of this appeal and the appellant cannot be kept in
+custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by the appellant may turn
+infructuous.    Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of
+ remaining jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant.
+      On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
+application by contending that the robbed property has been recovered
+from the possession of the applicant, which is duly proved by the
+prosecution from the statement of A.S.I. -N.B.S. Kushwaha (PW 7) and
+an auto rickshaw was also seized from the appellant, in which the
+complainant was taken away by the appellant. The robbed articles were
+also duly identified by the complainant during identification parade
+conducted by Tehsildar-Smt. Pallavi Puranik (PW 8), therefore, there is
+sufficient evidence is available on record, on the basis of which the
+appellant was convicted for the alleged offence by the trial Court. Under
+these circumstances, he prays for rejection of the application.
+
+      Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and
+looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage no case
+is made out for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail
+to the appellant. Accordingly, IA No. 6269/2018 is hereby rejected.
+
+      List in due course.
+
+
+                                                        (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                            Judge
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    Cr.A. No.3413/2018x
+Indore dated :24/10/2018
+     Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 4012/2018, an
+application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail
+sentence on behalf of appellant-Dungar Singh.
+      After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks
+permission to withdraw IA No. 4012/2018.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, IA No.4012/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.
+
+
+                                                    (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                         Judge
+
+skt
+                 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     M.Cr.C. No.40332/2018
+                   (Narendra Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :24/10/2018
+     Shri Anurag Baijal, learned counsel for the applicant.
+     Shri   Suraj   Sharma,    learned   Govt.    Advocate    for   the
+respondent/State.
+     Shri Satish Tomar, learned counsel for the complainant-
+Balvinder Singh.
+     Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the objector-Sarvesh
+Jhavar.
+     Heard. Case diary perused.
+     This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
+grant of bail in connection with Crime No.256/2017, Police Station-
+Nanakheda, District-Ujjain, concerning offences under Sections 420,
+467, 468 and 471/34 of the IPC. First application of the applicant came
+to be dismissed for want of prosecution by this Court vide, order dated
+13/04/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 9373/2018.
+     As per prosecution case, applicant-Narendra Patel and his
+brother Laxmikant Patel proposed before complainant-Balvinder
+Singh to purchase land bearing Survey No. 30, admeasuring 0.470
+hectares situated at village Goyalkhurd. In this regard an
+agreement/MOU was executed by Narendra Patel in favour of
+complainant-Balvinder Singh and from time to time he received
+Rs.35.00 Lacs from complainant-Balvinder Singh by way of part
+consideration including Rs.4.0 Lacs through a cheque. However, later
+on it was revealed that the land, which was proposed to be sold by the
+applicant to complainant is of a Govt. land and the applicant is not
+having any right or title over the aforesaid land and by this act the
+ applicant and his brother-Laxmikant have cheated the complainant.
+     Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the land in
+question was belongs to Mangilal and 4 others and they sold this land
+to one Jitendra Singh residents of Ujjain on 09/04/2012 by a registered
+sale-deed. Thereafter, Jitendra Singh had entered into an agreement
+with the present applicant-Narendra Patel on 11/04/2014. On the
+execution of the said agreement, the applicant gave Rs. 6.0 Lacs to
+Jitendra Singh as token amount and after that the present applicant had
+entered into agreement with the complainant on 21/12/2014. It is
+further submitted that Khasra Panch-Sala of the land in question
+demonstrates that the aforesaid land was in the name of Mangilal and
+4 others till the year 2013-2014 and thereafter, the land was in the
+name of M.P. Housing Board, Ujjain for the year 2014-2015. Hence,
+when the applicant had entered into an agreement with the
+complainant on 21/12/2014 at that time the aforesaid land was not
+registered in the name of M.P. Housing Board, Ujjain, therefore, the
+applicant has not committed any offence with the complainant. It is
+also contended that the applicant is in custody since 14/11/2017.
+Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Conclusion of
+trial will take sufficient long time. Under these circumstances, learned
+counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
+     On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant/objector
+and learned Public Prosecutor have opposed the bail application by
+contending that the applicant is a habitual offender and he has
+committed same nature of offence at Indore. The applicant was
+declared absconder in the year 2016 and thereafter, he was arrested by
+the Police. It is further submitted that the applicant fradulently
+ received Rs. 35.0 Lacs from the complainant-Balvinder Singh and
+entered into an agreement regarding the sale of land, which was not
+belongs to him. Under these circumstances, they prayed for rejection
+of bail application.
+      After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
+for the parties and looking to the facts and cirucmtances of the case,
+this Court is of the view that no case for grant of bail to the applicant
+is made out. Accordingly, this application filed under Section 439 of
+the Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
+
+
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.A. No.4950/2018x
+Indore dated :24/10/2018
+
+     Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.
+     Ms.     Nidhi    Bohra,     learned    Govt.    Advocate     for   the
+respondents/State.
+     Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 7313/2018, an
+application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for correction in the order
+dated 20/08/2018 passed in IA No. 5864/2018, by which the appellant
+No.4-NIrmala Bai was directed to mark her presence before A.C.J.M.,
+Mhow.
+     Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the custodial
+sentence of appellant No.4-Nirmala Bai was suspended by this Court,
+vide order dated 30/07/2018 and she was ordered to be released on bail
+on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with a
+solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
+her appearance before the C.J.M., Indore on 03/10/2018. Later on,
+appellants moved an application i.e. IA No. 5864/2018 for correction in
+the aforesaid order, which was allowed by this Court, vide order dated
+20/08/2018 and appellant No.4-Nirmala Bai was directed to mark her
+presence before the A.C.J.M, Mhow instead of C.J.M., Indore. On
+03/10/2018, when appellant No.4-Nirmala Bai went to the aforesaid
+Court for marking her presence, then she was informed that there is no
+Court of A.C.J.M, Mhow, therefore, her presence was not marked.
+Looking to the aforesaid difficulty, learned counsel for the appellants
+prayed that appellant No.4-Nirmala Bai may be directed to mark her
+presence before the Registry of this Court instead the Court of A.C.J.M,
+Mhow.
+       Learned Public Prosecutor has no objection in allowing the prayer.
+      After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the
+facts and circumstances of the case, IA No. 7313/2018 is hereby
+allowed.
+      Appellant No.4-Nirmala Bai is directed to mark her presence
+before the Registry of this Court on 18/12/2018 and on all other
+subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.
+      List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
+                                                         (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                            Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.A. No.722/2018x
+Indore dated :24/10/2018
+     Shri Gulab Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Ms.    Nidhi   Bohra,   learned   Govt.    Advocate    for   the
+respondents/State.
+      At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
+                                                     (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.R. No.5007/2018
+Indore dated :24/10/2018
+     Shri Harshwardhan Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri   Swapnil    Sharma,    learned   Govt. Advocate      for   the
+respondents/State.
+      Let record of the Courts' below be requisitioned.
+      List immediately after receipt of the record.
+                                                          (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                             Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.R. No.4272/2018x
+Indore dated :24/10/2018
+     Shri R.S. Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted a
+weeks time to argue the matter.
+      List after a week.
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         Cr.R. No.4271/2018x
+Indore dated :24/10/2018
+     Shri R.S. Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted a
+weeks time to argue the matter.
+      List after a week.
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.38618/2018x
+Indore dated :24/10/2018
+     Shri Ajay Baswan, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent
+No.1/State.
+      Shri Swapnil Sharma, accepts the notice on behalf of the
+applicant No.1/State, therefore, no separate notice is required.
+      On payment of process fee within three working days, let notice
+be issued to the respondent No.2 by ordianry as well as by registered-
+AD mode. Notice be made returnable within three weeks.
+      List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No.39195/2018x
+Indore dated :24/10/2018
+     None for the applicant.
+      Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent
+No.3/State.
+      In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List after two weeks.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No.42222/2018x
+Indore dated :24/10/2018
+     None for the applicant.
+      In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List after two weeks.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     M.Cr.C. No.8653/2017x
+Indore dated :24/10/2018
+     None for the applicant.
+      Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent /State.
+      In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List after two weeks.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No.17464/2017x
+Indore dated :24/10/2018
+     Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent No.1/State.
+      Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
+      At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List in the next week.
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No.28556/2017xx
+Indore dated :24/10/2018
+     Ms. Manjula Mukati, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      At the request of learned counsel for the applicants, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.R. No.966/2018xx
+Indore dated :24/10/2018
+     Shri Sachin Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list after two
+weeks.
+                                                      (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                         Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No.1220/2018xx
+Indore dated :24/10/2018
+     None for the applicant.
+      Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent /State.
+      In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List after two weeks.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         Cr.R. No.2184/2018x
+Indore dated :24/10/2018
+     Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent /State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted time
+to argue the matter.
+      List after two weeks.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     M.Cr.C. No.37598/2018xx
+Indore dated :24/10/2018
+     Ms. Neha Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Shri Shakti Singh Dhakray, learned counsel for the respondent
+No.1.
+      Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent
+No.2/State.
+      At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List on 29/11/2018.
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+               THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                            Cr.R. No.3852/2018x
+              (Zakir Lala @ Mohammad Zakir Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore, Dated:23/10/2018
+      Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Ms.    Nidhi    Bohra,    learned    Govt.    Advocate    for   the
+respondent/State.
+      The applicant has filed IA No.6022/2018, an application under
+Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining custodial
+sentence of the applicant-Zakir Lala @ Mohammad Zakir.
+      The applicant has preferred this revision petition against the
+judgment dated 02/08/2018 passed by XIVth Additional Sessions Judge,
+Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 435/2017, whereby the appeal preferred
+by the applicant has been dismissed by affirming the conviction and
+sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal
+Case No. 13445/2008 for the offence under Sections 10(a) and 13(1) of
+the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 .
+      In the revision petition application under Section 389(1) of the
+Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.
+      Looking to the aforesaid legal position, learned counsel for the
+applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to file an application
+for amendment in the cause-title of this application.
+      List after two weeks.
+
+
+                                                        (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                            Judge
+skt
+               THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                           Cr.A. No.5320/2018x
+                (Gabbar Singh @ Rambabu Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore, Dated:23/10/2018
+      Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Heard on the question of admission.
+      Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
+      Also heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.5512/2018-an
+application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
+suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
+appellant - Gabbar Singh @ Rambabu, who has been found guilty for
+offence under Sections 363,366 and 376 of the IPC alongwith Section
+¾ of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and
+has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years, 05 years, 10 years
+and 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- , Rs.2,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and
+Rs.1,000/- respectively with default stipulation.
+      Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was
+on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him.
+As per ossification test report the age of the prosecutrix is found to be
+above 18 years. Prosecutrix stated in her statement that at the instance of
+her maternal aunt, she has gone with the applicant and remained with
+him for a considerable period in Bhopal and Indore. During this period
+she neither made any complaint against the appellant regarding
+abduction or commission of rape nor tried to run away from his
+company. The prosecutrix also executed an affidavit regarding contract
+of marriage with the applicant, in which she mentioned her date of birth
+as 21/10/1995, which clearly shows that she was major and consenting
+party. Lastly, it is submitted that the there are fair chances of success of
+ this appeal and the appellant cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily
+otherwise the appeal filed by the appellant may turn infructuous.
+      On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of
+the application and prayed for its rejection.
+
+      Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and
+facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend
+the jail sentence of the appellant-Gabbar Singh @ Rambabu.
+
+      Accordingly, I.A. No.5512/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
+subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
+the appellant-Santosh in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy
+Five Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the
+satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before
+this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence
+imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final
+disposal of this appeal.
+      The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
+presence before the Registry of this Court on 13/02/2019 and on all such
+subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
+
+      List in due course.
+
+
+                                                       (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                           Judge
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                           Cr.A. No.2590/2018x
+                        (Santosh Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore, Dated:23/10/2018
+      Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Ms.     Nidhi     Bohra,   learned    Govt.    Advocate     for    the
+respondent/State.
+      Shri    Harshwardhan       Pathak,   learned     counsel    for    the
+complainant/objector.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 4638/2018-an
+application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
+suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
+appellant - Santosh, who has been found guilty for offence under
+Sections 366, 366(A) and 376(2)(N) of the IPC             and    has    been
+sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years, 05 years and 10 years and to
+pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- , Rs.2,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively with
+default stipulation.
+      Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was
+on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him.
+The prosecutrix is a major lady and she had left her house with her own
+will. During the pendency of the trial both the parties have entered into
+marriage and they are living together. They have also moved an
+application for compromise before the trial Court, however, aforesaid
+offences registered against the appellant are non-compoundable,
+therefore, the same was not considered. The prosecutrix executed an
+affidavit in favour of the appellant, in which she categorically stated that
+under the pressure of her parents she has made the statement against the
+appellant and now she wanted to live and reside with the appellant,
+therefore, she has no objection in allowing the application for
+suspension of his jail sentence and aforesaid facts have been supported
+ by the learned counsel for the complainant/objector.         It is further
+submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper
+manner. Lastly, it is submitted that the there are fair chances of success
+of this appeal and the appellant cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily
+otherwise the appeal filed by the appellant may turn infructuous.
+      On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of
+the application and prayed for its rejection.
+
+      Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and
+facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend
+the jail sentence of the appellant-Santosh.
+
+      Accordingly, I.A. No.4638/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
+subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
+the appellant-Santosh in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac
+only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
+learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the
+execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against
+the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this
+appeal.
+      The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
+presence before the Registry of this Court on 13/02/2019 and on all such
+subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
+
+      List in due course.
+
+
+                                                       (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                           Judge
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                   M.Cr.C. No. 40214/2018x
+                  (Kamlesh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated : 23/10/2018
+     Shri V.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Abhishay Jain,
+learned counsel for the applicants.
+     Shri    Suraj   Sharma,      learned   Govt.   Advocate   for   the
+respondent/State.
+     Heard. Case diary perused.
+     This is first application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. applicants are
+apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.219/2018
+registered at Police-Station-Bilpank, District-Ratlam, for the offence
+punishable under Sections 353, 506 and 451/34 of the IPC.
+     As per the prosecution case, on 01/05/2018 at about 5:00 p.m.,
+the complainant, who is a government employee and was working in
+his MPEB office at that time the applicants forcefully entered into the
+premises and started hurling obscenities directed towards the
+complainant. They also tried to drag the complainant outside the office
+and obstructed him from discharging his duty.
+     Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants submits that the
+applicants are active members of the civil society. Complaint was
+made by the residents of village-Bilpank against the present
+complainant in the month of January 2018, therefore, the complaint
+was angry with the applicants and other residents of village-Bilpank,
+hence, he lodged the false complaint against the present applicants. No
+incident as alleged has taken place. Even if all the allegations made in
+the complaint are believed, the offences registered against the
+applicants are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class.           The
+applicants undertakes that they will completely cooperate with the
+ investigation and will abide by all the terms and conditions imposed
+by this Court. Under these circumstances, learned Senior counsel for
+the applicants prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.
+      On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
+application by contending that the applicants entered into the office of
+the complainant and they assaulted him and tried to obstruct him from
+discharging his duties. Therefore, looking to the facts and
+circumstances of the case, applicants are not entitled for grant of
+anticipatory bail.
+      After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
+for the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage this
+Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.
+Accordingly, this application is hereby rejcted. However, the
+applicants are at liberty to surrender before the trial Court and moved
+an appropriate application for regular bail.
+
+
+                                                 (S.K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                  Judge
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         M.Cr.C. No.41686/2018x
+Indore dated :23/10/2018
+     Shri R.K. Gondale, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Shri Sooraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent.
+      Case-Diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
+diary by next date of hearing.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         M.Cr.C. No.41731/2018x
+Indore dated :23/10/2018
+     Shri R.R. Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Sooraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to verify the factum of
+marriage of applicant's sister and submit its report by next date of
+hearing positively.
+      List on 26/10/2018.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         M.Cr.C. No.41749/2018x
+Indore dated :23/10/2018
+     Shri Dharmendra Gurjar, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Sooraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent.
+      Case-Diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
+diary by next date of hearing.
+      Be listed in the next week.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    M.Cr.C. No.41767/2018x
+                  (Bhupendra Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :23/10/2018
+     Shri D.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate 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.573/2018, Police Station-
+Narsinghgarh, District-Rajgarh, concerning offences under Section 25
+of the Arms Act.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+application with a liberty to renew his prayer after one and half
+months.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
+aforesaid liberty.
+      Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                  (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                     Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.41793/2018x
+Indore dated :23/10/2018
+     Ms. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to verify the medical
+papers of the applicant's wife and submit its report by next date of
+hearing positively.
+      List in the next week.
+
+
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    M.Cr.C. No.39056/2018x
+                  (Amit & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :23/10/2018
+     Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate 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.425/2018, Police Station-
+Hatpipaliya, District-Dewas, concerning offences under Sections
+354(A)(D), 341 and 506/34 of the IPC .
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicants seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+application with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the
+statement of the victim before the trial Court.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
+aforesaid liberty.
+      Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                  (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                     Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.39894/2018x
+Indore dated :23/10/2018
+     Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Ravi Sagre, learned counsel for the respondent/N.C.B.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the bail
+application of co-accused-Kanhaiyalal has been decided by the Co-
+ordinate Bench of this Court.
+      Office is directed to verify the same and list accordingly.
+
+
+                                                       (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                          Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        Cr.A. No. 7449/2018x
+Indore dated :22/10/2018
+     Shri S.A. Warsi, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent.
+      Shri    Valmik     Sakargayen,       learned   counsel   for   the
+complainant/Objector.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 7335/2018, an
+application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of
+delay of 59 days in filing this appeal.
+      Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is
+supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the
+delay of 59 days in preferring this appeal.
+      Accordingly, IA No.7335/20185/2018 is allowed and delay of 59
+days in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.
+      Case-diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
+diary and also comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act,
+1989 by next date of hearing positively.
+      Be listed in the next week.
+
+
+                                                       (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                          Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     M.Cr.C. No.40713/2018x
+               ( Chand Mohd. & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :22/10/2018
+     Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Heard. Case diary perused.
+      This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
+temporary bail in connection with Crime No. 114/2018, Police Station-
+Niwali, District-Barwani, concerning offence under Sections 4,6 and 9
+of Madhya Pradesh Gou Vansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 and
+Section 11(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and
+Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984
+alongwith Sections 3/181 and 5/180 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
+      After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicants seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this
+application.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn.
+
+
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.33104/2018x
+Indore dated :22/10/2018
+     Shri Rohan Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent.
+      From the perusal of the case-diary, it appears that the statement of
+the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and her MLC
+report are not available with the case-diary.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to produce the aforesaid
+documents alongwith the case-diary by next date of hearing positively.
+      List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
+
+
+                                                       (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                          Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.39015/2018x
+Indore dated :22/10/2018
+     Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted
+seven days time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office.
+      List thereafter.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.38704/2018x
+Indore dated :22/10/2018
+     Shri A.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
+days time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office.
+      List thereafter.
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    M.Cr.C. No.39438/2018x
+                   ( Faeem Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :22/10/2018
+     Shri Anil Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Heard. Case diary perused.
+      This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
+grant of temporary bail in connection with Crime No. 428/2011, Police
+Station-Nagda Mandi, District-Ujjain, concerning offence under
+Sections 302, 506, 294 and 120(B)/34 of the IPC alongwith Sections
+25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
+      As per the medical papers of the applicant filed alongwith bail
+application, no case for temporary bail, as prayed is made out.
+Accrodingly, M.Cr.C. No. 39438/2018 is hereby dismissed.
+
+
+                                                  (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                     Judge
+
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.37657/2018x
+                     ( Prabhulal Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :22/10/2018
+     Shri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Heard. Case diary perused.
+      This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
+grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 03/2018, Police Station-
+Bhojpur, District-Rajgarh, concerning offence under Sections 147,
+148, 149, 294, 307, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 506 of the IPC.
+      After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+application .
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.40195/2018x
+                     ( Santosh Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :22/10/2018
+     Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate 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. 823/2018, Police Station-Lasudiya,
+District-Indore, concerning offence under Sections 376(2)(N), 366
+and 506 of the IPC.
+      After arguing at length on the merits of the case,          learned
+counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw
+this application .
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                                  (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                     Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    M.Cr.C. No.40299/2018x
+                   ( Sunil Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :22/10/2018
+     Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate 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. 137/2011, Police Station-Badwah,
+District-Khargone, concerning offence under Sections 399 and 402 of
+the IPC alongwith Section 25 of the Arms Act.
+      After arguing at length on the merits of the case,          learned
+counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw
+this application .
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                                  (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                     Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  M.Cr.C. No.40828/2018x
+                 (Rahul Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :22/10/2018
+     Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate 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.408/2018, Police Station-Tukoganj,
+District-Indore, concerning offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 323
+and 506 of the IPC .
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+application with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the
+statement of the prosecutrix before the trial Court.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
+aforesaid liberty.
+      Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                       (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                          Judge
+
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         M.Cr.C. No.41242/2018x
+Indore dated :22/10/2018
+     Shri D.K. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent.
+      Case-Diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
+diary by next date of hearing.
+      Be listed in the next week.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No. 41244/2018x
+Indore dated :22/10/2018
+     Shri Mukesh Sinjonia, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent.
+      Case-Diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
+diary by next date of hearing.
+      Be listed in the next week.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No. 41248/2018x
+Indore dated :22/10/2018
+     Shri Praveer Porwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent.
+      Case-Diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
+diary by next date of hearing.
+      Be listed in the next week.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                           Cr.A. No.620/2017x
+                     (Sattu & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore, Dated:12/10/2018
+     Shri Vikas Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants.
+      Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.7123/2018-an
+application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
+suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
+appellant No.4-Babulal.
+      Appellant has been found guilty for offence under Sections 147 ,
+450 and 302/149 of the IPC and sentenced to 1 years R.I., 5 years R.I.
+and life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, Rs.200/- and Rs.
+200/- respectively for each offence with default stipulations.
+      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant
+No.4-Babulal was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the
+liberty so granted to him. It is also submitted that the eye witnessess of
+the incident, namely, Kamlabai (PW 1), Ratan Kevat (PW 2) and
+Rukmabai (PW 3) had not supported the prosecution case and have
+turned hostile. The appellant No.4-Babulal has been convicted on the
+basis of dehati nalisi (Ex.P/38) lodged by the deceased-Nanda, which is
+treated as dying declaration, however, in the aforesaid report the
+allegation against the appellant is that he hurled filthy language upon
+deceased and he has caused injuries to the deceased by kicks and fists,
+due to which he sustained injuries on his stomach and died during the
+treatment. The appellant-Babulal was not having any weapon at the time
+of occurrence and incident has taken place all of a sudden, therefore, he
+cannot be held guilty for causing death of deceased-Nanda. Application
+for suspension of custodial sentence of other appellants have already
+ been allowed by this Court and the case of the appellant-Babulal is
+similar to them. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of
+remaining jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant No.4-
+Babulal.
+      On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer
+submitting that the present applicant is prime accused and in the dehati
+nalisi (Ex.P/38) lodged by the deceased-Nanda, which is treated as
+dying declaration, there are specific allegation against the appellant
+No.4-Babulal that he hurled filthy languages upon the deceased and
+caused him injuries by kicks and fists on his vital part i.e. stomach and
+because of this, the deceased was died, therefore, the appellant cannot
+claim parity with other co-acccused person, who were granted bail by
+this Court. Hence, he prayed for rejection of the application.
+      On due consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned
+counsel for the parties and the evidence available on record, at this
+stage, no case for grant of     suspension of remaining custodial jail
+sentence of appellant-Babulal is made out. Accordingly, IA No.
+7123/2018 is dismissed. However, the appellant-Babulal is granted
+liberty to renew his prayer after completion of 3 years of his jail
+sentence.
+      List in due course.
+
+
+
+      (S. C. Sharma)                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+           Judge                                           Judge
+skt
+                     THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                             Cr.A. No.3857/2018x
+                         (Dara Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore, Dated:12/10/2018
+     Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Heard on the question of admission.
+      Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.6107/2018-an
+application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
+suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
+appellant-Dara Singh.
+      Appellant has been found guilty for offence under Sections
+120(B) and 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment
+with fine of Rs.10,000/- respectively for each offence with default
+stipulations.
+      Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not
+named in the FIR nor he participated in the alleged incident. He has also
+drawn our attention to the finding recorded by the trial Court in para 87
+of the impugned order and submitted that there is no cogent material
+available on record regarding conviction of the appellant with the aid of
+Section 120(B) of the IPC . It is further submitted that the case of the
+applicant is similar to co-accused Shivam @ Shiv Om, whose
+application for suspension of custodial sentence       has already been
+allowed by this Court, vide order dated 03/08/2018 passed in Cr.A. No.
+3774/2018, therefore, on the ground of parity, he prays for suspension of
+remaining jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-Dara Singh.
+      On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer
+and prayed for its rejection.
+       On due consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned
+counsel for the parties, it reveals that except the fact that the appellant
+brought his motorcycle in the workshop of Hemant Chawda (PW 1) for
+repairing, which is used in the offence and there is no other evidence
+available on record to connect the appellant with the alleged crime , thus
+without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, IA No.6107/2018 is
+allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on
+furnishing personal bond by the appellant-Darasingh in the sum of
+Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the
+like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular
+appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the
+remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain
+suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
+      The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their
+presence before the Registry of this Court on 08/02/2019 and on all such
+subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
+
+      List in due course.
+
+
+
+
+      (S. C. Sharma)                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+           Judge                                            Judge
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                           Cr.A. No.5827/2018x
+                  (Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore, Dated:12/10/2018
+     Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.
+      Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6627/2018-an
+application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
+suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
+appellant No. 2-Sildar, appellant No.3- Soudan and appellant No.4-
+Mahesh.
+      Appellant Nos. 2 to 4 have been found guilty for offence under
+Sections 148 and 302/149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo three
+years R.I. and life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and Rs.3000/-
+respectively with default stipulations.
+      Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per the
+statement of sole eyewitness Indrapal (PW 10), the allegation against
+the present appellants that they were member of unlawful assembly but
+no overt act has been attributed to them. The main allegation of causing
+head injury is against co-accused-Darbar, who was armed with axe and
+inflicted, head injury to the deceased. The suspension of custodial
+sentence of appellant No.1-Bharat has already been suspended by this
+Court, vide order dated 31/08/2018 and the role of the appellant Nos. 2
+to 4 is similar to him. Under these circumstances he prays for
+suspension of custodial sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.
+      On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application
+and prayed for rejection of the application.
+
+      Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
+and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the
+ merits of the case, IA No. 6627/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
+subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
+the appellant No. 2-Sildar, appellant No.3- Soudan and appellant No.4-
+Mahesh in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only)each
+with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned
+trial Court, for their regular appearance before this Court, the execution
+of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against the
+appellants shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
+
+      The appellants, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their
+presence before the Registry of this Court on 08/02/2019 and on all such
+subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
+
+      List in due course.
+
+
+      (S. C. Sharma)                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+           Judge                                            Judge
+skt
+           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        Cr.R. No.4603/2018x
+Indore dated :12/10/2018
+     Shri Umesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.
+     Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents/State.
+     Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6910/2018, an
+application under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of
+execution of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicants-
+Omprakash and Sagarmal.
+
+     The applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable
+under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 of the IPC and sentenced to
+undergo 3 years R.I. and 6 months R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-
+each respectively with usual default stipulation.
+
+     Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are
+not named in the FIR. Although in the test identification parade they
+were identified by the prosecution witness- Gopal Das (PW 4),
+however, the test identification proceedings has not been conducted
+according to the prescribed procedure, therefore, this identification has
+no value. It is also submitted that there are only general and omnibus
+allegations are levelled against the applicants. It further submitted that
+there are fair chances of success of this revision and that the applicant
+cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily, where short sentence has
+been awarded by the Courts' below, otherwise the present revision
+petition filed by them may turn infructuous.                 Under these
+circumstances, learned counsel for the applicants prays for suspension
+of custodial sentence and grant of bail to the applicants.
+
+     On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the
+ application by contending that the trial Court and the appellate Court
+after due appreciation of the material available on record found the
+charges proved against the applicants for the aforesaid offence. It is
+also submitted that the scope of the revisional court regarding re-
+appreciation of evidence is very limited. Injured-Girdharilal sustained
+grievous injuries on his eye and he has lost his eyesight. Injured and
+other witnesses did not know the applicants at the time of incident
+and there statements have been recorded after lapse of 13 years of the
+incident, therefore, it cannot be accepted that they are in position to
+narrate the incident as it was happened. The applicants are convicted
+for the 3 years, however, they are in custody for last one month,
+therefore, it cannot be said that if the jail sentence of the applicants is
+not suspended, then their revision may turn infructuous. Under these
+circumstances he prays for rejection of the application.
+
+      Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and
+considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
+parties, no   ground is made out for suspension of remaining jail
+sentence awarded to the applicants by the courts below. Accordingly,
+IA No. 6910/2018 is dismissed.
+
+      Certified copy as per rules.
+
+
+                                                    (S. K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                     Judge
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.A. No.7447/2018
+Indore dated :12/10/2018
+     Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted three
+weeks time to argue the matter.
+      List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
+
+
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.40841/2018x
+Indore dated :12/10/2018
+     None for the applicant.
+      Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Applicant is directed to cure the defects pointed out by the
+Office within 7 working days.
+      List thereafter.
+                                                 (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                    Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.40819/2018x
+Indore dated :12/10/2018
+     None for the applicant.
+      Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Applicant is directed to cure the defects pointed out by the
+Office within 7 working days.
+      List thereafter.
+                                                 (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                    Judge
+
+skt
+                     THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                              Cr.A. No.7420/2018x
+                      (Ajay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore, Dated:12/10/2018
+     Shri Zishan Ali, learned counsel for the appellants.
+      Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Heard on the question of admission.
+      Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
+      Record of the court below be called for.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 7157/2018-an
+application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for
+suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
+appellants.
+      Appellants have been found guilty for offence under Section
+435/34 of the IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2
+years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation.
+      It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the
+appellants were on bail during trial and they have not misused the
+liberty so granted to them. It is also submitted that the trial court has
+recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on
+record and that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the
+prosecution evidence have been overlooked. It is further submitted that
+the jail sentence of the appellants have already been suspended by the
+trial Court till 15/10/2018. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely
+to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial sentence is
+not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
+      Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
+and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail
+ sentence of the appellants.
+
+      Accordingly, I.A. No.7157/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
+subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
+the appellants in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand
+only)each with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
+the learned trial Court, for their regular appearance before this Court,
+the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed
+against the appellants shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of
+this appeal.
+      The appellants, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their
+presence before the Registry of this Court on 11/01/2019 and on all such
+subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
+
+      List in due course.
+
+
+                                                       (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                           Judge
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         M.Cr.C. No. 37818/2018x
+Indore dated :12/10/2018
+     Parties through their counsel.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
+weeks' time to argue the matter.
+      List thereafter.
+
+
+                                                   (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.R. No.3209/2018
+Indore dated :12/10/2018
+     Ms. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Vishal     Sanothiya,   learned   Govt. Advocate      for   the
+respondents/State.
+      Let record of the Courts' below be requisitioned.
+      List immediately after receipt of the record.
+                                                          (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                             Judge
+
+skt
+                   THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.R. No.4954/2018
+Indore dated :12/10/2018
+     Shri Vishal Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
+No./State.
+      Shri Vishal Sanothiya, accepts the notice on behalf of the
+applicant No.1/State, therefore, no separate notice is required.
+      On payment of process fee within three working days, let notice
+be issued to the respondent No.2 by ordianry as well as by registered-
+AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
+      List thereafter.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    M.Cr.C. No.40214/2018
+Indore dated :12/10/2018
+     Shri V.K. Jain, learned Senior counsel with Shri Abhishay Jain,
+learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Heard. Case diary perused.
+      Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that he has filed
+some documents in support of the bail application.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to verify the documents by
+next date of hearing positively.
+      List in the week commencing 22/10/2018.
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+                   THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No.36981/2018x
+                 ( Raychandra @ RamchandraVs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :12/10/2018
+     Shri K.P. Pande, learned counsel for the applicant.
+       Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate 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. 231/2018, Police Station-Neemuch
+City, District-Neemuch, concerning offence under Sections 307, 294,
+506 and 427/34 of the IPC alongwith Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms
+Act.
+       After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
+seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application .
+       Prayer is allowed.
+       Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     M.Cr.C. No.39426/2018x
+                  (Ramesh Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :12/10/2018
+     Shri Vishal Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate 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. 490/2017, Police Station-Bilpank,
+District-Ratlam, concerning offence under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the
+NDPS Act.
+      After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
+seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this          application with
+liberty to renew his prayer after filing of the charge-sheet .
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
+aforesaid liberty.
+      Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     M.Cr.C. No.39582/2018x
+                  ( Dinesh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :12/10/2018
+     Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Heard. Case diary perused.
+      This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
+grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 328/2018, Police Station-
+Bhatpachlana, District-Ujjain, concerning offence under Section 34(2)
+of the M.P. Excise Act.
+      After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicants
+seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this          application with
+liberty to renew his prayer after filing of the charge-sheet .
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
+aforesaid liberty.
+      Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.41446/2018x
+                  ( Tejpal Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :12/10/2018
+     Shri B.S. Gandhi, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Heard. Case diary perused.
+      This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
+grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 328/2018, Police Station-
+Bhatpachlana, District-Ujjain, concerning offence under Section 34(2)
+of the M.P. Excise Act.
+      After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
+seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this          application with
+liberty to renew his prayer after filing of the charge-sheet .
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the
+aforesaid liberty.
+      Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                 M.Cr.C. No.39894/2018x
+Indore dated : 12/10/2018
+     Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate fore the
+respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
+diary by next date of hearing positively.
+      List in the week commencing 22/10/2018.
+
+
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                     Judge
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                   M.Cr.C. No.41238/2018x
+Indore dated :12/10/2018
+     Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent.
+      From the perusal of the case-diary it appears that although the
+statement of the prosecutrix has already been recorded under Section
+164 of the Cr.P.C., however, same is not placed alongwith the case-
+diary.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to call the statement of
+the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. by next
+date of hearing.
+      List in the week commencing 22/10/2018.
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                   M.Cr.C. No.27258/2018x
+Indore dated :12/10/2018
+     Shri Anil OJha, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is three weeks'
+granted time to argue the matter.
+      List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                   M.Cr.C. No.25181/2018x
+Indore dated :12/10/2018
+     Shri Anil OJha, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is three weeks'
+granted time to argue the matter.
+      List in the week commencing 12/11/2018.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                            Cr.R. No.1320/2018x
+                    (Kamal Singh & Ors.Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated : 09/10/2018
+     Shri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Shri   Hemant     Sharma,     learned   Govt.    Advocate     for   the
+respondent/State.
+                               ORDER
+

This revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by +the applicants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14/07/2017 passed by +Additional Sessions Judge, Susner, District-Agar in Cri.Appeal No.123/2015, +confirming the judgment dated 28/02/2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate First +Class, Nalkheda, District-Agar in Criminal Case No.393/2010, by which the +applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections +323/34, 324/34 and 325/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months +R.I., 1 years R.I., 1 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.400/- for each offence +respectively. The applicant No.1 Kamal is also convicted for the offence +punishalbe under Section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act and he has been +sentenced to undergo 1 years RI with fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation. +

2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 25/11/2010 at about 7:45 p.m., +the complainant Tejkaran was going alongwith his bhabhi-Antabai to his +house, when he reached near the house of Unkar, the applicants came there +and applicant No.1 started abusing him and gave a sword blow on the head of +the complainant, thereafter, applicant No.3-Omprakash entered into the house +armed with sword and stick and assaulted him. When his wife came there to +rescue him then Kamal gave a sword blow on her head. After hearing hue and +cry when Ramesh and Pappu came there to rescue them then applicant No.2- +Gokul gave a pharsi blow on the neck of Pappu. Gokul and co-accused +Dinesh also assaulted the Ramesh and his Bhabhi with pharsi and stick +respectively, due to which they sustained injuries. After the incident, +complainant-Tejkaran lodged an FIR at Police Station-Nalkheda and on that + basis case was registered against the applicants for the offences punishable +under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 325/34 of the IPC alongwith Section +25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act at Crime No. 198/2010. On completion of +investigation, the police filed charge sheet before JMFC -Nalkheda, District- +Agar. +

3. After framing the charges and recording the evidence, the offences +under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 325/34 IPC alongwith Section 25(1B)(b) +were found proved and the applicants were convicted and sentenced as stated +herein above. Against the judgment of the trial court, the appeal was preferred +which was dismissed. Hence, this revision petition. +

4. Learned counsel for the applicants argued at length and submitted that +the applicant has been convicted illegally by the courts below. Both the courts +below have committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence +resulted into incorrect finding, which is liable to be set aside in this revision. +Learned counsel for the applicants has alternatively submitted that the +applicants are in custody since 07/03/2018 and they have no criminal past +nor they are involved in any unlawful activities subsequent to the incident +involved in the present matter. He prays that these factors be considered for +reducing the period of imprisonment imposed by the courts below to the +period of imprisonment already undergone. +

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that after due appreciation of the +evidence learned Courts below have found the applicant guilty of the +aforesaid offence. It is submitted that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court +is limited and no interference is called for in the concurrent findings recorded +by the Courts below. +

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the +record, it is noticed that the commission of the alleged offence by the +applicants is established on the basis of the statements of Sheikh Naushad +(PW 1), complainant-Tejkaran (PW 2), Sushil (PW 3), Ramesh (PW 4), Pappu +(PW 5), Smt. Annu (PW6), Guddi Bai (PW 7), Kailash (PW 8), Narendra + Singh (PW 9), Manguji (PW 10), Babulal ( PW 11), Dr. R.K. Tiwari (PW 12) + and Babulal Malviya (PW 13). Hence, considering the material available on + record, the Courts below have not committed any error in convicting the + applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and + 325/34 of IPC and the applicant No.1-Kamal for the offence under Section + 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act, also. +

7. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, as minimum sentence of + one year is presribed for the offence under Section 25(1B)(b) of Arms Act , + therefore, the conviction and jail sentence awarded by the courts' below with + respect to applicant No.1-Kamal is hereby affirmed, however, looking to the + nature of allegation and circumstances of the case and the fact that the + applicants have already remained approximately 7 months in jail, I am of the + considered opinion that the sentence awarded to the applicant Nos.2 and 3 + namely, Gokul and Omprakash for the offence punishable under Sections + 323/34, 324/34 and 325/34 of the IPC is reduced to the sentence already + undergone by them subject to deposit of additional fine amount of Rs.600/- + for each offence, within a period of thirty days. Out of the total amount of + fine, a sum of Rs.4000/- shall be paid to the complainant-Tejkaran as + compensation under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In + default of payment of enhanced fine amount, the applicant Nos. 2 & 3, + namely, Gokul and Omprakash shall suffer 20-20 days RI respectively under + Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 325/34 of IPC. +

With the aforesaid modification in the judgment of conviction and + sentence, the revision petition is disposed of. +

Record of the courts' below alongwith a copy of this order be sent back + to the concerned trial Court for information and compliance. +

Certified copy as per rules.

+ + +

(S.K.Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.4622/2018x +Indore dated :09/10/2018 + Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents/State. + Shri S.S. Ali, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. + Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6932/2018, an +application under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of +execution of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicant-Anis +Ali. +

+

The applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under +Sections 354(D) and 341 of the IPC and he has been sentenced to +undergo 6 months R.I. and 1 month R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- +and Rs.100/- respectively with default stipulation. +

+

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was +on bail during the trial and pendency of the appeal and he did not +misuse the liberty so granted to him. It also submitted that there are +fair chances of success of this revision and that the applicant cannot be +kept in custody unnecessarily, where short sentence has been awarded +by the Courts' below, otherwise the present revision petition filed by +him may turn infructuous. It is further submitted that the marriage of +the applicant's son is going to be solemnized on 21/10/2018 and his +presence on the aforesaid ceremony is necessary. Under these +circumstances he prays for suspension of remaining part of the jail +sentence and for grant of bail to the applicant. +

+

On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel +for the complainant/objector have opposed the application . It is also + pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the trial Court and +the appellate Court after due appreciation of the material available on +record found the charges proved against the applicant for the aforesaid +offence. They further submitted that the scope of the revisional court +regarding re-appreciation of evidence is very limited. Under these +circumstances they prays for rejection of the application. +

+

Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and +considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the +parties, no ground is made out for suspension of remaining jail +sentence awarded to the applicant by the courts below. However, +looking to the fact that marriage of the applicant's son is going to be +held on 21/10/2018 and his presence on the aforesaid ceremony is +necessary. Accordingly, IA No. 6932/2018 is allowed for limited +period. The applicant-Anis Ali be released on temporary bail for a +period of 15 days from the date of his release on his furnishing +personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lacs Only) +with two solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the +trial Court subject to an undertaking that he will surrender himself +after completion of 15 days period from the date of his release and +remanded back to the custody. The trial Court is also directed to +intimate this Court whether the applicant shall surrender or not? +

+

Certified copy as per rules.

+ + +

(S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.40699/2018x + ( Lav Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated : 10/10/2018 + Shri M.L. Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate fore the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case-diary is perused. +

This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for +grant of bail in connection with Crime No.298/2018, Police Station- +P.N.B., District-Dewas, concerning offences under Sections 376(2) +

(n),342 and 506 of the IPC. First application has been dismissed as +withdrawn by this Court, vide order dated 20/08/2018 passed in +M.Cr.C. No. 32362/2018. +

As per prosecution story, on 09/05/2018 at about 11:30 a.m., +complainant went to village Avaliya, Pipaliya Phate for her treatment, +where she met with applicant and he took her to Dewas on his +motorcycle on the pretext of treatment he committed rape upon her. +

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the statement of +the prosecutrix and other witnesses have been recorded before the trial +Court and there are material inconsistencies in their statements, which +clearly shows that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the +prosecutrix in the present case. Applicant is in custody since +21/05/2018. Conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time. Under +these circumstnces, he prayed for grant of bail to the applicant. +

On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the +application by contending that the prosecutrix is deposed against the +applicant and there are sufficient material available on record against +the applicant, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. +

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the +parties and the fact that 6 witnesses have already been examined +before the trial Court and the trial is now at advance stage, at this stage +appreciation of the evidence is not required. Looking to the statement +of the prosecutrix recorded before the trial Court, this Court is of the +view that no case for grant of bail is made out. Accordingly, this +application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

+ + +

(S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.40717/2018 + ( Jitendra Pal Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated : 10/10/2018 + Shri Shankar Lalwani, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate fore the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case-diary is perused. +

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of +bail in connection with Crime No.364/2018, Police Station-Kotwali, +District-Shajapur, concerning offences under Sections420, 467, 468 +and 471/34 of the IPC. +

As per prosecution story, on 22/08/2018 complainant-Anoop +Singh lodged the FIR against the applicant alleging that he constituted +a fake company in the name of Ideal Finance Service Incorporated +Company without taking any prior sanction and on the pretext of +sanction of loan amount, he took Rs.7750/- each from 40 to 50 persons +and issued them forged receipt. +

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is +innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present crime. The +FIR has been lodged after 4 months of the alleged incident. Matter +relates to civil dispute and FIR has been lodged with intent to convert +it into criminal case. The applicant is in custody since 23/08/2018. +Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Conclusion of +trial will take considerable long time. It is also submitted that mother +of the applicant is suffering from cancer and there is no one in his +family to look after her. Under these circumstances, he prayed for +grant of bail to the applicant. In this regard he placed reliance on the +judgments of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Anwar Ali Vs. State +of Chattisgarh, Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of + Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, Vikram Narayan Ghiya Vs. State +of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281, State of U.P. Through C.B.I. V. +Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, Akhtari Bi (Smt.) V. State of +M.P. (2001) 4 SCC 355 & order passed by High Court of M.P., in +the case of Khuman Singh Rajput Vs. Superintendent of Police, +Datia & Another, 2017 (II) MANISA 83(M.P.) & Aditya Singh +Sengar Vs. State of M.P., 2015 (1) M.P.H.T. 48. +

On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor opposed the +application contending that the applicant constituted a fake company +in the name of Ideal Finance Service Incorporated Company without +taking any prior sanction and on the pretext of sanction of loan amount +he took Rs.7750/- each from 40 to 50 persons and issued them forged +receipt and he collected Rs. 70 to 75 Lacs from the beneficiaries and +fled away, therefore, looking to the conduct of the applicant, no +sufficient ground for grant of bail to the applicant is made out. +

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the +parties, this court is of the view that there are sufficient material +available on record to connect the applicant with alleged crime, the +judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicant are not +applicable in the present case because they are passed on merits after +recording the evidence. Under these circumstances, no case for grant +of bail is made out. Accordingly, this application filed under Section +439 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

+ + +

(S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.33032/2018x + ( Anil Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated : 10/10/2018 + Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned Govt. Advocate fore the +respondent/State. +

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of +bail in connection with Crime No.453/2016, Police Station- +Bhairavgarh, District-Ujjain, concerning offences under Sections 302, +307, 147,148, 149, 506, 452 and 427 of the IPC. +

After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn .

+ + +

(S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.36618/2018x +Indore dated :10/10/2018 + Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is two weeks' +granted time to file relevant documents. +

List after two weeks. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.37441/2018x + ( Shubham Joshi Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated : 10/10/2018 + Shri Pramod Choubey, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned Govt. Advocate fore the +respondent/State. +

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of +bail in connection with Crime No.517/2018, Police Station-Mahakal, +District-Ujjain, concerning offences under Sections 324, 327, 294 and +506 of the IPC. +

After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn .

+ + +

(S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.37906/2018x + ( Devi Singh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated : 10/10/2018 + Shri Deepesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned Govt. Advocate fore the +respondent/State. +

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of +bail in connection with Crime No.226/2018, Police Station- +Pipalrawan, District-Dewas, concerning offences under Sections 354, +354(A)(1) and 506 of the IPC alongwith Section 7/8 of the Protection +of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. +

After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn .

+ + +

(S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.38024/2018x + ( Shankar Mehar Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated : 10/10/2018 + Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned Govt. Advocate fore the +respondent/State. +

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of +bail in connection with Crime No.89/2018, Police Station-Badawda, +District-Ratlam, concerning offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(2) +

(n) & 376(2)(D) of the IPC alongwith Section 5/6 of the Protection of +Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. +

After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn .

+ + +

(S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.40628/2018x +Indore dated :10/10/2018 + Shri Satish Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a +weeks time to argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 22/10/2018. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.39465/2018x +Indore dated :10/10/2018 + Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time +to file certain documents. +

List on 12/10/2018. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.39174/2018x +Indore dated :10/10/2018 + Shri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent. +

At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List in the week commencing 22/10/2018. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 34427/2018x +Indore dated :10/10/2018 + Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to verify the factum of +affidavit filed by Anil son of the applicant and submit its report by +the next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 22/10/2018. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.6736/2018x + (Rupsingh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:10/10/2018 + Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Record of the court below be called for. + Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6661/2018-an +application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for +suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the +appellant - Rupsingh, who has been found guilty for offence under +Section 307/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for +5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that only allegation +against the appellant is that he assaulted injured-Sardar Singh by lathi, +due to which he sustained injuries on his head, which are found to be +simple in nature. It is alleged that co-accused Dule Singh fired on +injured-Bharat Singh (PW 1) by country made pistol, due to which he +sustained injuries on his chest, however, as per the statement of Doctor +S.K. Semil (PW 10) and X-ray report (Ex. P/14 and P/15), no gun shot +injuries were found on the chest of injured-Bharat Singh (PW 1). No +medical opinion is available on record to show that the injuries +sustained by injured-Bharat Singh was fatal or sufficient to cause his +death in natural course of life. Under these circumstances no offence +under Section 307 of the IPC is made out against the appellant, +however, the learned trial Court has committed error in appreciating the +evidence available on record in proper prospects and convicted the + appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. +Lastly, it is submitted that the there are fair chances of success of this +appeal and if the custodial sentence is not suspended, then the appeal +shall be rendered infructuous. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. + Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts +and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail +sentence of the appellant-Rupsingh. +

+

Accordingly, I.A. No.6661/2018 is allowed and it is directed that +subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by +the appellant-Rupsingh in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty +thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the +satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before +this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence +imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final +disposal of this appeal. +

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his +presence before the Registry of this Court on 13/02/2019 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.6280/2018x + (Dule Singh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:10/10/2018 + Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Record of the court below be called for. + Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6257/2018-an +application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for +suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the +appellant - Dule Singh, who has been found guilty for offence under +Section 307 of the IPC alongwith Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and +has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and 3 years and to pay +fine of Rs. 1,000/- and 500/- respectively with default stipulation. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although in the FIR +and in the statement of complainant-Bharat Singh (PW 1), it has come +that the appellant fired on him by country made pistol, due to which he +sustained injuries on his chest and this evidence is also corroborated by +prosecution witnesses Bapu Singh (PW 3) and Lakhandas (PW 9), +however, as per the statement of Doctor S.K. Semil (PW 10) and X-ray +report (Ex. P/14 and P/15), no gun shot injuries were found on the chest +of injured-Bharat Singh (PW 1). No medical opinion is available on +record to show that the injuries sustained by injured-Bharat Singh was +fatal or sufficient to cause his death in natural course of life. Under these +circumstances, the charge for offence under Section 307 of the IPC is +not found proved against the appellant, however, the learned trial Court +has committed error in appreciating the evidence available on record in + proper prospects and convicted the appellant for the offence punishable +under Section 307 of the IPC. It is further submitted that the appellant is +in custody since 06/06/2015 and he has already completed more than 3 +years and 4 months of custodial sentence. Lastly, it is submitted that the +there are fair chances of success of this appeal and if the custodial +sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. + Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts +and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail +sentence of the appellant-Dule Singh. +

+

Accordingly, I.A. No.6257/2018 is allowed and it is directed that +subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by +the appellant-Dule Singh in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty +thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the +satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before +this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence +imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final +disposal of this appeal. +

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his +presence before the Registry of this Court on 13/02/2019 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 6673/2018x +Indore dated :10/10/2018 + Shri Ajay Bagadiya with Shri Gajendra Singh, learned counsel +for the appellant. +

Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6825/2018, an +application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of +delay of 14 days in filing this appeal. +

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is +supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the +delay of 14 days in preferring this appeal. +

Accordingly, IA No.6825/2018 is allowed and delay of 14 days in +filing this appeal is hereby condoned. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary and also comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, +1989 by next date of hearing positively. +

Be listed in the week commencing 22/10/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.4494/2018x +Indore dated :10/10/2018 + Shri R.R. Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharm, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Let record of the Courts' below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 39638/2018x +Indore dated :10/10/2018 + Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two +weeks' time to file the copy of statement of the prosecutrix recorded +before the trial Court. +

List after two weeks. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 40590/2018x +Indore dated :10/10/2018 + Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent. +

Case-Diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case +diary by next date of hearing. +

Be listed in the week commencing 22/10/2018. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 1778/2013 + (Aditya Sharma & Ors. Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad & Ors.) +Indore dated :04/10/2018 + Shri M.A. Bohra, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & +

3. + Heard. +

The applicants have preferred this petition for invoking the +jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal +Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") calling in question order dated +28/01/2013, passed by the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, +District Shajapur in Criminal Revision No. 182/2011 affirming the +order dated 06/10/2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, +Shajapur in Criminal Case No. 921/2006, whereby the charges for +offence under Sections 353 and 506 (II) of the IPC have been framed +against the applicants. +

2. The facts of the case which are relevant for deciding this petition +are that on 19/07/2005, Bhupendra Gaur an employee of respondent +No.1-Nagar Palika Parishad, Shajapur came to the applicants' house +for demarcation and assessment of property tax, during this some +dispute arose between them. Allegedly as per complainant-Bhupendra +Gaur, he was abused and deterred from performing public duties. +Complainant-Bhupendra Gaur made a written complaint against the +applicants at police-station Shajapur, however, the police did not take +any action on that report, then he filed a private complaint before the +Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shajapur. Thereafter, +statement of the complainant and his witnesses were recorded under +Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C.and after that vide order dated + 12/04/2006, learned Magistrate has issued process against the +applicants upon finding prima-facie case against them for the offence +under Sections 353 and 506(II) of the IPC. +

3. Feeling aggrieved by order of taking cognizance, a revision +petition has been preferred by the applicants before the Sessions +Court, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 182/2011 and +final order was passed on 28/01/2013, whereby the revision petition +has been dismissed on the ground that the contentions raised by the +applicants are in nature of defence, which is offered by the present +applicants and it cannot be considered at this stage and it will be +available to the applicants during the course of the trial. +

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that a report was +also made by the applicants regarding the aforesaid incident against +Bhupendra Gaur, R.K. Gupta, Bannesingh Ghourasiya, Naushad +Ahmed and Duttaji Rao, all the employee of Nagar Palika Parishad, +Shajapur for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 323/149, 452, +292, 506(II) and 507 of the IPC at Police-Station-Shajapur. When +police declined to registered the FIR then private complaint was filed +before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur, which was got +registered vide order dated 12/04/2006. On 30/07/2009 both the +parties have filed an application under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. for +compromise, which was partly allowed by the trial Court by +discharging the applicants for the offence punishable under Section +323 of the Cr.P.C., however, the trial Court framed the charge for +offence under Sections 353 and 506(II) of the IPC against the +applicants. It is further submitted that the trial Court has failed to +consider that there is no resolution passed by the Nagar Palika to + authorize Bhupendra Gaur to make demarcation of the applicants +house, which gave rise to present bone of contention, therefore, the +prosecution of the applicants are abuse of process of law. The trial +court has also committed error of law by taking cognizance on the +private complaint filed by CMO- Sanjesh Kumar Gupta, who was not +authorize to make the aforesaid private complaint. Under these +circumstances, looking to the fact that compromise was taken place +between the parties, impugned order deserves to be quashed and the +applicants be discharged from the aforesaid offences. +

5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submits +that both the parties have entered into compromise, therefore, he is not +having any objection, if the prayer made by the applicants be +accepted. +

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the +record. +

7. The contents of the statement made by the complainant before +the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shajapur reflects that specific +allegations have been made against the applicants for commission of +offence punishable under Sections 353 and 506(II) of the IPC and +there is sufficient material available on record for framing of charges +against the applicants. The contentions raised by the applicants are in +nature of defence, which is offered by the present applicants and it +cannot be considered at this stage and it will be available to the +applicants during the course of the trial. +

8. In the case of K. Ashoka Vs. N.L. Chandrashekhar and Ors, +2009(5) SCC 199, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the opinion of +the High Court that the averments made in the complaint are + imaginary is not based on any material. Even assuming that the +complainant had a score to settle against the accused, the same by +itself may not be a ground to quash the entire criminal proceedings, +particularly in view of the fact that at least a prima-facie case has been +establish in view of the evidence on record. +

9. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. +K. Narayana Rao, 2012 AIR SCW 5139, the Apex Court considered +the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. and held that for framing +of charge, a roving enquiry in pros and cons of matter and weighing of +evidence as is done in trial is not permissible at this stage. The charge +has to be framed if Court feels that there is strong suspicion that +accused has committed offence. Thus, even if there is a strong +suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for +presuming that the accused has committed an offence, a charge can be +framed. +

10. This Court in the case of Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. vs. +Satish Rohra, 2005 (4) MPLJ 380, has held in the following +manner:- +

"6. I have heard the learned Counsel of both the parties + and carefully perused the evidence and the material on + record. Before considering the evidence and the material + on record for the limited purpose of finding out whether a + prima facie case for issuance of process has been made + out or not, it may be mentioned at the very outset that the + various documents and the reports filed by the + petitioners/Company along with the petition can not be + looked into at the stage of taking cognizance or at the + stage of framing of the charge. The question whether + prima facie case is made out or not has to be decided + purely from the point of view of the complainant without + at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. + No provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure grants to + the accused any right to file any material or document at + the stage of taking cognizance or even at the stage of + framing of the charge in order to thwart it. That right is + granted only at the stage of trial. At this preliminary + stage the material produced by the complainant alone is + to be considered." +

11. In the context of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the +view that the trial Court has not committed any error in framing +the charge for the offence under Sections 353 and 506 (II) of the +IPC. +

12. It is not disputed that the parties have entered into +compromise and they have filed an application under Section 320 +of the Cr.P.C. permitting them to compound the offence, however, +the aforesaid application was dismissed by the trial Court, looking +to the facts that the offence under Section 353 of the IPC is non- +compoundable offence. +

13. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although the +offence under Section 353 of the IPC is non-compoundable, however, +it can be compounded if this Court permits such compounding of +offence excersing extra ordinary jurisdiction granted to this Court +under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In this regard he placed reliance on +the judgment of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Dimpey Gujral V. +Union of Territory, Chandigarh, 2013 AIR SC 518, in which relying +the judgment passed by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Gian +Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (reported in 2012 AIR SCW +5333), it has been held that the High Court can quash the criminal +proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercising the power under +Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., where the offender and victim have settled +their dispute considering the nature of gravity of crime. Henious and +serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, +dacoity, etc. Cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or +victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such +offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. +But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly +civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, +particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, +mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences +arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc., or the family disputes +where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the + parties have resolved their entire dispute. +

14. While dealing with the same issue, the Hon'ble apex Court in +Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in +(2014) 6 SCC 466, has observed as under:- +

"In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down + the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in + giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and + exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting + the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept + the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal + proceedings: +
(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be + distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound + the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section + 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the + criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not + compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between + themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and + with caution. +

(II) When the parties have reached the settlement and on that + basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the + guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: +

(i) ends of justice, or +
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While + exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either + of the aforesaid two objectives. +
(III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions + which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or + offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private + in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for + offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like + the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by + Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed + merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the + offender. +
(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly + and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of + commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship + or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved + their entire disputes among themselves. +
(V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine + as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and + continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great + oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to + him by not quashing the criminal cases. +
(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the +category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be +generally treated as crime against the society and not against the +individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its +decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the +FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to +the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section +307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected +sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the +charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to +the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such +injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of +weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by +the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this +prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether +there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of +conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to +accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in +the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept +the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement +between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by +the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in +harmony between them which may improve their +future relationship. +

(VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under +Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial +role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately +after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under +investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the +settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is +because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on +and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases +where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the +evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show +benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima +facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On +the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete +or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of +argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising +its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial +court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and +to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 +IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the +conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at +the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between +the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in + acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial + court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction + is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no + question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime." +

15. Taking into consideration the law laid down by Hon'ble apex +Court in the case of Dimpey Gujral and Narinder Singh (supra), the +offence registered against the applicants are relating to use of criminal +force against the person, who is being a public servant working in +order to execution of his duty and as such public servant with intent to +deterred from discharging his duty as public servant, therefore, the +offence registered against the applicants is of serious nature and +generally treated as crime against the society not against the individual +alone, therefore, this Court is of the view that the case pending against +the applicants cannot be quashed by exercising power under Section +482 of the Cr.P.C. +

16. Accordingly, prayer for quashment of charges for offence under +Sections 353 and 506 (II) of the IPC framed against the applicants is +hereby rejected and the trial Court is directed to proceed the trial in +accordance with law. +

Let records of the courts' below alongwith a copy of this order +be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance. +

Certified copy as per rules.

+

(S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.34955/2018x +Indore dated :09/10/2018 + Shri Manikant Sharma with Manu Maheshwari, learned counsel for +the applicant. +

Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. + Learned counsel for the complainant/objector submitted that third +application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.PC. has been +disposed of by the coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated +05/04/2018 by granting liberty to the applicant to mention after completion +of the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, therefore, the matter should be +listed before the same Bench. +

Vide order dated 29/08/2018, the Office was directed to verify the +matter and list the same before appropriate Bench. After examining the +case, the Office has again listed the matter before this Court on the ground +that 4th application of the applicant is dismissed by this Court for want of +prosecution. +

The complainant/objector is at liberty to raise this objection before +the Office. +

It is also submitted that the case is listed today for cross-examination +of the prosecutrix before the trial Court. +

Looking to the aforesaid reasons, the case is adjourned. + List on 12/10/2018. +

+

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.622/2017x + (Kuldeep Saxena Vs. Pradeep Saxena) +Indore dated : 09/10/2018 + Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Senior Counsel with Shri A.K. Gokhale, +learned counsel for the applicant. +

Shri S.S. Nahar, learned counsel for the respondent. + After arguing for some time, learned Senior counsel for the +applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition filed +under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to file fresh complaint +against respondent. +

Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection in allowing +the prayer. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules.

+

(S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.4472/2018x +Indore dated :09/10/2018 + Shri Vijay Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6763/2018, an +application under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail +sentence on behalf of applicant-Madanlal. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks +permission to withdraw IA No. 6763/2018. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, IA No.6763/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 38027/2018x +Indore dated : 09/10/2018 + Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Shri Abhishek Bhargava, learned counsel for the +complainant/objector. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a week's time to +verify the factum of affidavit filed by complainant-Jyoti D/o Bhagwan +Tamre. +

List in the week commencing 22/10/2018.

+

(S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 38957/2018x + (Jamnabai Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated : 09/10/2018 + Shri R.R. Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is first application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. applicant is +apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 338/2018 +registered at Police-Station-Bhanpura, District-Mandsaur, for the +offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the IPC. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under +Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to surrender before the trial +Court and moved an appropriate application for regular bail. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn with +the aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules.

+

(S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.2947/2017x +Indore dated :06/10/2018 + Shri Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Heard on the question of admission. + Revision seems to be arguable, hence, admitted for final hearing. + Suspension has already been granted to the applicant, therefore, no +further order is required. +

List the revision for final hearing in due course. +

+

(J. K. Maheshwari) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.3181/2017x +Indore dated :06/10/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.2/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. List after one month. +

Meanwhile record of the courts' below be requisitioned. +

+ + +

(J. K. Maheshwari) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.3543/2017x +Indore dated :06/10/2018 + Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted a weeks time to call +for the case-diary. +

List after a week. +

(J. K. Maheshwari) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.4509/2017x +Indore dated :06/10/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

+

(J. K. Maheshwari) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.5772/2018x +Indore dated :06/10/2018 + Parties through their counsel. +

List alongwith M.Cr.C. No. 6918/2017. +

+

(J. K. Maheshwari) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8447/2017x +Indore dated :06/10/2018 + Parties through their counsel. +

List alongwith M.Cr.C. No. 6918/2017. +

+

(J. K. Maheshwari) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6918/2017x +Indore dated :06/10/2018 + Shri Amber Pare, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Shri Nitin Mandhaniya, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. + Learned counsel for the applicants appearing on behalf of the parties +submits that the matter is going on to be settled within one month. +

As prayed by learned counsel for the parties, the case is adjourned. + List after a week. +

+

(J. K. Maheshwari) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7626/2017x +Indore dated :06/10/2018 + Shri Mitesh, Patidar, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted a weeks +time to argue the matter. +

List after a week. +

+

(J. K. Maheshwari) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9865/2017x + (State of M.P. vs. Dilip) +Indore dated :06/10/2018 + Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the +applicant/State. +

Heard. +

ORDER + + The applicant/State has filed this petition under Section 378(3) Code + +of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') seeking grant leave to + +appeal against judgment dated 15/05/2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate + +First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 24070/2010, whereby the + +respondent has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section + +325 of the IPC. +

+

From the perusal of the impugned order it appears that the incident + +took place on 19/09/2010 and the FIR has been lodged on 06/10/2010 i.e. + +after delay of 15 days and no explanation for delayed FIR is on record. +

+

Further considered the statement of Ganga Singh (PW 2) and the material + +available on record therein, in my concerned opinion the findings recorded + +by the learned trial Court do not warrant any interference. Accordingly, this + +application for grant of leave to appeal is hereby dismissed . +

+ + +

(J. K. Maheshwari) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.7053/2018x + (Surresh Bairagi Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :05/10/2018 + Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +appeal filed under Section 14(2)A of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.4097/2018x +Indore dated :05/10/2018 + Ms. Neha Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Got. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

None for the respondent No.2. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, the +case is adjourned. +

List in the next week. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.39786/2018x + (Mamta Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :05/10/2018 + Shri A.L. Kharol, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate 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.848/2017, Police Station-Lasudiya, +District-Indore, concerning offences under Sections 363, 366, 368, +376, 376(2)(n), 376(2)(D), 344 and 346 of the IPC alongwith Section +5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first +application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.39888/2018x + (Nathulal Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :05/10/2018 + Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate 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.169/2018, Police Station-Singoli, +District-Neemuch, concerning offences under Sections 366, 376(2)(n), +342 and 506 of the IPC of the IPC alongwith Sections 5/6 of the +Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first +application with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the +statement of the prosecutrix before the trial Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.34407/2018x +Indore dated :05/10/2018 + Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission to withdraw this bail application filed under Section +439 of the Cr.P.C.. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.27258/2018x +Indore dated :05/10/2018 + Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list in the next +week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.25181/2018x +Indore dated :05/10/2018 + Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list in the next +week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.34812/2018x +Indore dated :05/10/2018 + Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list in the next +week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 69/2011x +Indore dated :05/10/2018 + Shri Vishal Panwar, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against appellant-Bhushan +Singh has return unserved with the report that he was not found on his +given address. +

Let perpetual warrant be issued against appellant-Bhushan Singh +to secure his presence before this Court. +

Superintendent of Police, Ujjain is directed to furnish the quarterly +report on completion of each quarters relating to efforts made by the +serving officer for the arrest of the appellant-Bhushan Singh. +

Service report of the notice issued against the surety of the +appellant-Bhushan Singh is not received. +

Let a fresh notice be issued against the surety of appellant- +Bhushan Singh. +

List on 07/01/2019. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1309/2012x +Indore dated :05/10/2018 + Shri Vishal Panwar, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Applicant No.1- Kaluram @ Kalu is not present today. + Learned counsel for the applicants prays for fixed date to keep +present applicant No.1 - Kaluram @ Kalu before this Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

List on 26/10/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.432/2013x +Indore dated :05/10/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Got. Advocate for the respondent +No.15/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 584/2013x +Indore dated :05/10/2018 + Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Perpetual warrant issued against appellant-Kamal Singh has +return unserved with the report that he has absconded from the village +since last five years. +

Let fresh perpetual warrant be issued against appellant-Kamal +Singh to secure his presence before this Court. +

Superintendent of Police, Mandsaur is directed to furnish the +quarterly report on completion of each quarters relating to efforts made +by the serving officer for the arrest of the appellant-Kamal Singh. +

Service report of the notice issued against the surety of the +appellant-Kamal Singh is not received. +

Let a fresh notice be issued against the surety of appellant-Kamal +Singh. +

List on 08/01/2019. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1132/2014x +Indore dated :05/10/2018 + Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the report regarding +death of appellant-Jagdish is not received. +

Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of Rs.10,000/- against +the appellant-Jagdish for securing his presence before this Court on +13/11/2018. +

List on 13/11/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.803/2012x +Indore dated :05/10/2018 + None for the applicants. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + It is pointed out by the Office that applicant No.3-Omprakash was +present before the Registry of this Court on 15/11/2017 and he has +signed the order sheet and Registry gave him next date of appearance on +16/04/2018, however, on the aforesaid date applicant No.3-Omprakash +was not present before the Registry of this Court. From the perusal of +the order sheets this report is found correct. +

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against applicant +No.3-Omprakash before this Court on 10/12/2018. +

List on 10/12/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1102/2015x +Indore dated :05/10/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Bailable warrant issued against applicant-Ramesh received +unserved with the report that he has been convicted by the Sessions +Court, Ratlam for the offence punishable under Sections 452 and 354 of +the IPC for a period of 1 year and he is serving the jail sentence in +District Jail, Ratlam. +

Let production warrant be issued against the applicant-Ramesh for +securing his presence before this Court on 25/10/2018. +

List on 25/10/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1629/2015x +Indore dated :05/10/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Today the case is listed for consideration of IA No. 1002/2018, an +application for condonation of the applicant-Gopal, however, neither the +applicant nor his counsel is present today before this Court, therefore, +IA No. 1002/2018 is hereby dismissed. +

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against applicant- +Gopal for securing his presence before this Court on 20/11/2018. +

List on 20/11/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1635/2015x +Indore dated :05/10/2018 + None for the appellants. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Bailable warrant issued against appellant No.1-Himmat Singh is +not received. +

Let fresh bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/- be issued +against appellant No.1-Himmat Singh for securing his presence before +this Court on 16/11/2018. +

List on 16/11/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.813/2016x +Indore dated :05/10/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Got. Advocate for the +appellant/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after six weeks. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.883/2016x +Indore dated :05/10/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. + Non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against applicant-Chhaganlal +received unserved with the report that he was not found on the given +address. +

Let fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against +applicant-Chhaganlal for securing his presence before this Court on +20/11/2018. +

List on 20/11/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1494/2016x +Indore dated :05/10/2018 + Shri Ramesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is grant 7 days +time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office, failing which this +petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court. +

List thereafter. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.564/2017x +Indore dated :05/10/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Got. Advocate for the +appellant/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 22293/2018 + (Nishchal Poundrik Vs. Smt. Suchitra & Ors.) +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri N.L. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.3/State. +

Heard. +

The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the +Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") for quashment of +proceedings in Complaint Case No. 242/2017, pending before the Judicial +Magistrate, Dewas for the offence under Sections 12 and 23 of Protection +of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act'). +

4. The facts of the case which are releant for deciding this petition are +that applicant and respondent No.1 are legally wedded husband and wife +and their marriage was solemnized on 03/12/2015 at Bhopal as per Hindu +rituals and customs. The respondent No.1 filed a complaint case on +03/05/2017 against the applicant and his parents alleging cruel treatment +towards her. The trial Court, vide order dated 03/05/2017 called the report +of Project Officer and directed to registered the case against the applicant, +which is subject matter of challenge before this Court. +

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the trial Court has +failed to appreciate that as per para 9 of the complaint filed by the +respondent No.1, it has been alleged that she was thrown out of the house +in March, 2016. Hence the cause of action arose to the complainant in +March, 2016, however, she has filed the complaint on 03/05/2017 i.e. After +13 months from the cause of action arose to her to file the complaint. As +per Provision 28 of the Act provides the procedure for the proceedings +under Sections 12, 18,19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 31 of the Act and clearly state +that this proceedings shall be governed by the Provision of Code of + Criminal Procedure, 1973. Sub-section 2 of Section 28 of the Act further +prohibits the court from laying down its on procedure for disposal of an +application under Section 12 or sub-section 2 of Section 23 of the Act. +Maximum punishment for violation of any of the order passed in Domestic +Violence Act, 2005 has been provided under Section 31 of the Act, wherein +the maximum punishment for the breach of any of the order passed under +this Act has been provided for maximum period of one year or within fine, +which may extend to Rs.20,000/- or with both. Chapter 36 of the Cr.P.C., +1973 provides for limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences. It is +further submitted that in the sub-section 2 of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., +1973, it is clearly mentioned that the limitation period shall be one year for +offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. +Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prayed for +quashment of proceedings in Complaint Case No. 242/2017, pending +before the Judicial Magistrate, Dewas for the offence under Sections 12 +and 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on the +ground of limitation. +

4. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent +No.3/State has opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection. +

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. +

6. Rebutting the above arguments, learned counsel for the respondent +No.3 submitted that any aggrieved person can file a complaint before the +Protection Officer or the Magistrate. The present petition is filed under +the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 2005 and not under Section 31 of +the Domestic Violence Act, so the provision of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. +neither applicable nor the petition is barred under this provision. +

7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that marriagae +of the applicant with the respondent No.1 solemnized on 03/12/2015 at +Bhopal as per Hindu rituals and customs. As per the allegation the + respondent No.1 was ousted from her matrimonial house by the applicant +No.1 in the month of March, 2016 and she has filed the complaint against +the applicant before the trial Court on 03/05/2017 for the offence +punishable under Sections 23 and 12 of the Act. The Hon'ble apex Court in +the case of V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot (2012) 3 SCC 183, has observed +as under:- +

"12. We agree with the view expressed by the High Court that in + looking into a complaint under Section 12 of the PWD Act, + 2005, the conduct of the parties even prior to the coming into + force of the PWD Act, could be taken into consideration while + passing an order under Section 18, 19 and 20 thereof. In our + view, the Delhi High Court has also rightly held that even if a + wife, who had shared a household in the past, but was no longer + doing so when the Act came into force, would still be entitled to + the protection of the PWD Act, 2005," +
+

8. In Yogesh Anantrai Bhatt and others Vs. State of Gujrat and +another, 2017 Cri.L.J.615, Gujrat High Court has held as under :- +

"In view of above discussion, if we scrutinize the different provisions of + different sections under which some reliefs can be claimed, it becomes + clear that as per section 12 of the Act, an aggrieved person is permitted to + present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under + this Act and the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic + incident reported and received by him from the Protection officer also. + Further provision of Section 12 deals with jurisdiction of the Court in + passing appropriate orders for compensation, etc. whereas sub-section + (3) makes it clear that every application under sub-section (1) is to be + filed in a prescribed form. So practically section 12 is enabling provision + to file an application, whereas sections 18 to 22 are providing for rights + of the aggrieved person to seek different reliefs like protection,residence, + monetary relief, custody of minor and compensation. For all such reliefs, + when provisions of the Code are to be followed, then practically there is + no limitation prescribed under the Code for any of such reliefs viz. +

protection, residence, monetary relief, custody of minor and + compensation. However, when section 28 says that procedure is to be + followed as per the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, then it + amounts to dealing with an application under section 12 as an + application for all such orders and nothing more than that, more + particularly when section 468 of the Code is not providing limitation for + any such proceedings either under the Code itself where provision for + maintenance is there under section 125, if we peruse the provision of + section 468 of the Code,which specifically talks about bar to take + cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. Therefore, it is quite + clear and certain that cognizance of offence is to be taken and thereby + when there is no incident of commission of any offence while applying + under section 12 for any of the orders under sections 18 to 22 which are + referred hereinabove, since there are no offences, there is no reason for + taking cognizance and, therefore, there is no reason to rely upon the + provisions of section 468 of the Code in case of an application under + section 12 of the DV Act. To be more precise, if we peruse the provisions + of section 468, then also it becomes clear that the period of limitation is + referred with the period of punishment i.e. limitation would be six months, + if the offence punishable with fine only; one year for the offence + punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and + three years for the offence punishable with imprisonment for a term + exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. Therefore, when penal + provision is only under section 31 of the DV Act, the provisions of section + 468 of the Code would be applicable only when there is an application + under section 31 of the DV Act and not otherwise. It is clear position that + section 31 of the DV Act provides for imprisonment of either description + for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to + Rs.20,000/- or with both for breach of protection order or of an interim + protection order by the respondent and, therefore, limitation would be + applicable only after breach of an order in an application under section + 12 and, therefore, such limitation cannot be applicable at the stage of an + application under section 12 for reliefs under sections 18 to 22. Thereby, + it is certain that if there is a breach of an order in an application under + section 12 or any of the reliefs under sections 18 to 22 then and then only + the application under section 31 is to be filed within one year from the + date of such breach and not thereafter, and thereby it cannot be said that + an applications under section 12 for reliefs under sections 18 to 22 are + also required to be filed within a period of 12 months because in that + case, when there is no penal provision,there is no reason to consider + limitation at all." +

+ +

9. Keeping all the facts and circumstances as stated above, the legal +proposition as above mentioned, there is no merit in the arguments raised +by the learned counsel for the applicant. The impugned orders do not +suffer from any infirmity or perversity, hence, do not required any +interference. +

10. Resultantly, the revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. +

Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information +and compliance. +

Certified copy as per rules.

+ + +

(S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 8775/2018x + (Piyush Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) + Applicant is present in person. +

Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent No.1/State. +

Shri Satish Tomar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. +

ORDER + ( 05 /10/2018) + The applicant has challenged the order dated 27/01/2018, passed +by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. +27461/2015, whereby the application filed by the applicant under +Sections 319 and 310 of the Cr.P.C. for taking the cognizance against +respondent No.2 has been rejected. +

2. The facts are lying in narrow compass are that on 14/04/2015, +FIR was lodged by the respondent No.2 registered at Police-Station +Sarafa, Indore against Vijay Singh Chandel agitating that on +14/04/2015, at about 2:00 p.m. applicant came to the Ms. Roopali +Jwellery shop of the respondents and he handed over one antique gold +necklace (23 caret) weighted 66 gms., for repairing to his son Vikram +Verma after retaining the same gave him an acknowledgment of the +aforesaid necklace. On the next day when the applicant went to the +jwellery shop of the respondents for taking his necklace then +respondent No.2 informed him that he has given the aforesaid +necklace to Vijay Singh Chandel for repairing, however, he has lost +the same. Then respondent No.2 lodged the FIR against Vijay Singh +Chandel and on that basis an offence under Section 406 of the IPC +was registered against aforesaid Vijay Singh Chandel. After + completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was filed before the +Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore. +

+

3. Applicant is submitted that he has filed an application under +Sections 319 and 310 of the Cr.P.C. for taking the cognizance against +respondent No. 2, who is the Proprietor of Ms. Roopal Jwellery shop +and he was also present at the shop when the applicant/complainant +handed over the necklace to Vikram Verma. He further submitted that +respondent No.2-Satish Chandra Verma lodged the FIR only against +Vijay Singh Chandel to Police-Station-Sarafa, whereas the necklace +was received by Vikram Verma and respondent No.2-Satish Chandra +Sharma, however, no report was lodged against them. Respondent +No.2 Satish Chandra Verma is also involved in the misappropriation of +the necklace belongs to the applicant . There are CCTV cameras' +installed in the shop of the respondent No.2 but no CCTV footage was +provided by him to the police so that it cannot be discovered that who +has taken the aforesaid necklace. Therefore, respondent No.2-Satish +Chandra Verma is the person, who is also involved in the +misappropriation of the necklace belongs to the applicant. Inspite of +that Police has not made him accused, hence, he also be impleaded as +accused in the case. But the aforesaid application was dismissed +without considering the material available on record, which was +brought by the applicant. It is also submitted that the trial Court has +committed an error of law in rejecting his application filed under +Sections 319 and 310 of the Cr.P.C., therefore, impugned order +deserves to be set-aside and the trial Court be directed to take +cognizance for the offence under Section 406 of the IPC against +respondent No.2-Satish Chandra Verma. +

4. On the other hand respondents contended that the +impugned order is not suffered from any perversity, therefore, it +may not be interfered. +

+

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused +the record. +

+

6. Provision of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. is read as under" +

+
" 319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be + guilty of offence.- (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial + of , an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being + the accused as committed any offence for which such person could be + tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such + person for the offence which he appears to have committed. +
(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be + arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may required, + for the purpose aforesaid. +
(3) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or + upon summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the + inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have + committed. +
(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub- + section (1) then- +
(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be + commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard; +
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may + proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court + took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was + commenced." +

7. It is clear that power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. can be +exercised by the trial Court at any stage during the trial before +conclusion of the trial. The trial Court can summon any person as +accused and face the trial on going on case. Once the trial Court +finds that there is evidence against such person, on the basis of +which evidence, it can be gathered that he appears to be guilty +for the offence. "The Evidence" herein means material provided +before the Court during trial. +

8. In the present case, the applicant has filed private complaint +against Vikram Verma and present respondent-Satish Chandra +Verma for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the IPC +before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore. +Considering the material placed on record the Court of the view +that prima-facie no case is made out against respondent No.2- +Satish Chandra Verma and on that basis the learned Judicial +Magistrate First Class has refused to take cognizance for the + +offence under Section 406 of the IPC against him. Feeling + +aggrieved by the aforesaid order , a revision petition has been filed by +the applicant before the Sessions Court, which was registered as Cr.R. +No. 151/2017 and the final order was passed on 15/12/2017, whereby +the revisional Court has upheld the order passed by the trial Court and +dismissed the revision petition preferred by the applicant on the +ground that neither the respondent No.2-Satish Chandra Verma is +made party in the revision petition nor applicant could point out how +and in what manner view taken by the trial court is plausible. Being +aggrieved by the aforesaid order the applicant has preferred a +petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. bearing M.Cr.C. No. +13327/2018 before this Court, which is also dismissed by this Court +today by affirming the order of the Courts' below. +

+

9. In the case of S.S. Khanna Vs. Chief Secretary Patna, AIR +1983 (SC) 598, held that though a person against whom a complaint is +filed alongwith some other person and who after an enquiry under +Section 202 is not proceeded against by the Court, he can be +summoned at a later stage under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to stand +trial for the very same or connected offence or offences alongwith the +other person against who process had been issued earlier by the Court. + Even when an order of the Magistrate declining to issue process under +Section 202 is confirmed by a higher court, the jurisdiction of the +Magistrate under Section 319 remains unaffected if other conditions +are satisfied. +

+

10. In the case of S.C. Jain Vs. State of M.P., JLJ 76 this Court has +held that the cognizance of the offence against any person under +Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. could be taken only after recording some +evidence. +

+

11. In the present case the applicant has not filed any statement of +the witnesses recorded before the Judicial Magistrate First,Class, +therefore, there is nothing on record on that basis the court can take +cognizance against the respondent No.2- Satish Chandra Verma under +the provision of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. and implead him as an +accused in the aforesaid crime. Hence, the Courts' below have not +committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the applicant +under Sections 319 and 310 of the Cr.P.C. +

+

12. Taking this view of the matter this Court is of the view that +interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not warranted. +Consequently, this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has +failed and is hereby dismissed. +

+

Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information +and compliance. +

+

Certified copy as per rules.

+
+                                                 (S. K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                  Judge
+

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE + M.Cr.C. No. 13327/2018x + (Piyush Vs. Vikram & Ors.) + Applicant is present in person. +

Heard. +

ORDER + ( 05 /10/2018 ) + This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been +filed the applicant/complainant for assailing the order dated +15/12/2017 passed by the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in +Cr.R. No. 151/2017, whereby Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, +Indore, vide order dated 15/12/2016 passed in Criminal Case No. +9838178/2016 refused to take cognizance against the respondent +No.2-Satishchandra Verma for the offence under Sections 120, 409 +and 420 of the IPC on the private complaint filed by the applicant has +been affirmed. +

2. The facts of the case, which are relevant to decide the present +petition are that the applicant filed the private complaint against the +respondents for commission of offence under Section 406 of the IPC +before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore agitating that on +14/04/2015, at about 2:00 p.m. applicant came to the Ms. Roopali +Jwellery shop of the respondents and he handed over one antique gold +necklace (23 caret) weighted 66 gms., for repairing and the +respondent No.1 after retaining the same gave him an +acknowledgment of the aforesaid necklace. On the next day when +applicant went to the jwellery shop of the respondents for taking his +necklace then respondent No.1 informed informed him that he has +given the aforesaid necklace to Vijay Singh Chandel for repairing, + however, he has lost the same and he assured him that after making +the same weighted gold necklace, he will provide him, however, he +has not return the aforesaid necklace and by doing this respondents +have committed criminal breach of trust. The applicant/complainant +went to the police for lodging the FIR against the respondents but as +they are influential persons that is why the police refused to take any +action against the respondents, therefore, he was forced to file private +complaint against the respondents before the Court. +

+

3. The complainant was presented on 04/01/2016 before the +Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore and thereafter statement of the +complainant and his witnesses were recorded under Section 200 and +202 of the Cr.P.C. to enable the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore +for taking cognizance against the respondents. After recording the +statement of the complainant, learned Magistrate has issued process +against the respondent No.1 only upon finding the prima-facie case +against him for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the IPC. +Feeling aggrieved by the order of refusing to take cognizance against +the respondent No.2, a revision petition has been filed by the +respondent before the Sessions Court, which was registered as Cr.R. +No. 151/2017 and the final order was passed on 15/12/2017, whereby +the revisional Court has upheld the order passed by the trial Court +and dismissed the revision petition preferred by the applicant on the +ground that neither the respondent No.2-Satish Chandra Verma is +made party in the revision petition nor applicant could point out how +and in what manner view taken by the trial court is not plausible. No +perversity could be pointed out in the impugned order. The aforesaid +order is a subject matter of challenge in the instant petition. +

4. Applicant contended that there is prima-facie material available +on record to made out offence under Sections 406 of the IPC against +respondent No.2-Satishchandra Verma and Additional Chief Judicial +Magistrate has committed error in refusing to take cognizance against +respondent No.2. The trial Court has ignored the fact that the +respondent No.2-Satish Chandra Verma is the proprietor of Ms. +Roopali Jwellery shop and he was also present at the shop when the +applicant/complainant handed over the necklace to the respondent +No.1. He further submitted that although respondent No.2- +Satishchandra Verma lodged the FIR against Vijay Singh Chandel at +Police-Station-Sarafa for misappropriation of the necklace, however, +he has collusion with Vijay Singh Chandel received Rs.50,000/- from +Geeta Chandel-sister of the Vijay Singh Chandel as a value of the +necklace, which has been intruested to him, which clearly indicates +that respondent No.2-S.C. Verma is also involved in the alleged +offence. Inspite of that the Courts' below have committed error in +refusing to take cognizance against the respondent No.2. Therefore, he +prayed for the quashment of the orders passed by the Courts' below. +

+

5. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and +persused the record. +

+

6. The statement of the complaint and his wife recorded +under Section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. reflect that there are +specific allegations have been levelled against the respondent +No.2 that he was also intrusted with necklace, however, no such +averments have been made in the complaint filed by the +applicant. In the aforesaid complaint the only allegation is made +against respondent No.1-Vikram Verma that he has received the +necklace for repairing work. From the statement of the applicant + recorded under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. reflect that the +applicant has exaggerated his statement with intend to implicate +respondent No.2 in the afaoresaid offence. It is also pertinent to +note here that respondent No.2-S.C. Verma is the person, who +has lodged the FIR against Vijay Singh Chandel for +misappropriation of the necklace of the applicant and on that +basis the police registered an FIR for the offence under Section +406 of the IPC against him. The applicant has not filed any +document before the trial Court that respondent No.2 received +any amount from Vijay Singh Chandel, in lieu of the necklace, +which has been lost by him. Taking this view of the matter this +Court is of the view that the Courts' below have not committed +any error in refusing to take cognizance against respondent +No.2. The applicant has challenged by order passed by the +learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore before the +revisional Court, however, aforesaid revision petition has been +dismissed. The revisional Court has rightly held that respondent +No.2 is not made a party in the revision petition, therefore, +without giving any opportunity of hearing to him, the Court +cannot take any adverse action against him. +

+

7. Having carefully considered the material brought on record, it is +clear that interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not +warranted. Consequently, this petition filed under Section 482 of the +Cr.P.C. has failed and is hereby dismissed. +

+

Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information +and compliance. +

+

Certified copy as per rules.

+
+                                                 (S. K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                  Judge
+

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH INDORE + M.Cr.C. No. 6201/2018x + (Vikram Verma Vs. Piyush) + + Shri Satish Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Respondent present in person. +

Heard. +

ORDER + (05 /10/2018) + This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been +filed the applicant for assailing the order dated 15/12/2017 passed by +the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr.R. No. 346/2017, +whereby order dated 15/12/2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate +First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 9838178/2016 for taking the +cognizance on the complaint filed by the respondent has been +affirmed. +

2. The facts of the case, which are relevant to decide the present +petition are that the respondent filed the private complaint against the +applicant for commission of offence under Section 406 of the IPC +before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore agitating that on +14/04/2015, at about 2:00 p.m. complainant/respondent came to the +Ms. Roopali Jwellery shop of the applicant and he handed over one +antique gold necklace (23 caret) weighted 66 gms., for repairing and +the applicant retaining the same gave him an acknowledgment of the +aforesaid necklace. On the next day when the complainant went to the +jwellery shop of the applicant for taking his necklace then applicant +informed him that he has given the aforesaid necklace to Vijay Singh +Chandel for repairing, however, he has lost the same and he assured + him that after making the same weighted gold necklace, he will +provide him. Later on he has not return the aforesaid necklace and by +doing this he has committed criminal breach of trust. The complainant +went to the police for lodging the FIR against the applicant but as +applicant is influential person that is why the police refused to take +any action against the applicant, therefore, he was forced to file +private complaint against the applicant before the Court. +

+

3. The complainant was presented on 04/01/2016 before the +Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore and thereafter statement of the +complainant and his witnesses were recorded under Section 200 and +202 of the Cr.P.C. to enable the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore +for taking cognizance against the applicant. After recording the +statement of the complainant, learned Magistrate has issued process +against the applicant upon finding the prima-facie case against him for +the offence punishable under Section 406 of the IPC. Feeling +aggrieved by the order of taking cognizance, a revision petition has +been filed by the applicant before the Sessions Court, which was +registered as Cr.R. No. 346/2017 and the final order was passed on +15/12/2017, whereby the revisional Court has upheld the order passed +by the trial Court and dismissed the revision petition preferred by the +applicant on the ground that looking to the material available on +record the trial Court has not committed any mistake in taking +cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the IPC. +The aforesaid order is a subject matter of challenge in the instant +petition. +

+

4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that there is no + prima-facie case is made out against the applicant and the learned +Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore has committed an error in +taking cognizance against the applicant for the offence punishable +under Section 406 of the IPC. The courts' below have ignored the fact +that regarding the same incident FIR was registered at Police-Station +Sarafa bearing Crime No. 77/2015 under Section 406 of the IPC +against Vijay Singh Chandel, the person who was intrusted with +necklace and he misappropriated it. In the aforesaid criminal case the +applicant is the witness and police has also recorded his statement +under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., therefore, for the same incident, he +cannot be prosecuted. From the averment of the complaint and +statement of the complainant and his witnesses recroded under +Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C., does not indicate regarding +involvement of the applicant in the present crime. The entire +proceedings are misuse of process of law, therefore, it deserves +to be quashed. +

+

5. On the other hand respondent contended that the Judicial +Magistrate First Class, Indore has not committed any error of +law in taking cognizance against the applicant as there exist +prima-facie case against him. The impugned orders does not +suffer from any perversity, therefore, no interference is called for. +

+

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and persused +the record. +

+

7. The averments of the complaint and the statement of the +complainant and his wife recorded under Sections 200 and 202 +of the Cr.P.C. reflect that there are specific allegations have been +levelled against the applicant for commission of offence under +Section 406 of the IPC. There is sufficient material available on + record for taking the cognizance against applicant. The +complainant handed over one gold necklace weighted 66 gms. to +the applicant for the purpose of repairing and the same was +retained by him by issuing acknowledgment. When the +complainant came to take his necklace then applicant informed +him that the aforesaid necklace was sent to Vijay Singh Chandel +for repairing work but he has lost it. Father of the applicant- +Satish Verma lodged the report against Vijay Singh Chandel, +however, aforesaid necklace has not been recovered. The +applicant is the person, who actually received the necklace and it +is alleged that he has handed over it to Vijay Singh Chandel, but +the applicant is not made accused in the case registered at +Police-Station-Sarafa, therefore, he cannot take plea that he +cannot be prosecuted for the same offence, which has already +been registered by the police. +

+

8. In the case of K. Ashoka Vs. N.L. Chandrashekhar and +Ors, 2009(5) SCC 199, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that +the opinion of the High Court that the averments made in the +complaint are imaginary is not based on any material. Even +assuming that the complainant had a score to settle against the +accused, the same by itself may not be a ground to quash the +entire criminal proceedings, particularly in view of the fact that +at least a prima-facie case has been establish in view of the +evidence on record. The entire proceedings are misuse of +process of law, therefore, the present proceedings deserve to be +quashed. +

+

9. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar +vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330, has cautioned the +High Court while exercising the power under Section 482 of +CrPC in the following manner :- +

"22. The issue being examined in the instant case is + the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 + of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of + the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of + issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even + at the stage of framing of charges. These are all + stages before the commencement of the actual trial. + The same parameters would naturally be available for + later stages as well. The power vested in the High + Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages + referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching + consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the + prosecution's/ complainant's case without allowing + the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a + determination must always be rendered with caution, + care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent + jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High + Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material + produced by the accused is such, that would lead to + the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on + sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material + produced is such, as would rule out and displace the + assertions contained in the charges levelled against + the accused; and the material produced is such, as + would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the + allegations contained in the accusations levelled by + the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to + rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by + the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of + recording any evidence. For this the material relied + upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or + alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being + material of sterling and impeccable quality. The + material relied upon by the accused should be such, + as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and + condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. + In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High + Court would persuade it to exercise its power under + Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal + proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process + of the court, andsecure the ends of justice." +

10. Having carefully considered the law laid down by the apex +Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar (supra) and material brought on +record, it is clear that interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is +not warranted, however, the detail discussion on the material + furnished by the applicant will prejudice his defence before the trial +Court. Consequently, this petition filed under Section 482 of the +Cr.P.C. has failed and is hereby dismissed. +

+

Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information +and compliance. +

+

Certified copy as per rules.

+
+
+
+                                                (S. K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                 Judge
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        MCC No. 727/2018x
+Indore dated :01/10/2018
+

Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondent. + Heard. +

The applicant has filed this petition under Section 24 of the CPC +for transferring the MJC No. 290/2013 (Deepak Vs. Jyoti) from the +Family Court, Indore to Family Court, Bhopal. +

2. In the present case the respondent has moved an application under +Section 13(1)(1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act for seeking divorce from +the applicant, which is pending for the consideration of the application +filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Learned counsel for +the applicant submitted that the case is pending since 2013 and the +applicant has attending the Court regularly but due to physical problem +it is rather difficult for her to come to Indore on every date of hearing, +therefore, he prayed for transfer of MJC No. 290/2013 from Family +Court, Indore to Family Court, Bhopal. +

3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application and +prayed for its rejection. +

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the +record. +

5. From the perusal of record it appears that applicant is working as +Assistant Professor and there is nothing on record to show that she is +suffering from any severe disease so that she cannot move from Bhopal +to Indore. The applicant is not required to attend every date of hearing +and she can very well represented by her counsel. Under these +circumstances, at this stage no sufficient ground is made out to transfer +the MJC No. 290/2013 from Family Court, Indore to Family Court, + Bhopal. +

6. In view whereof, this petition is dismissed, however, Family +Court, Indore is requested to dipose of the MJC No. 290/2013 as early +as possible. +

7. Copy of this order be sent to the Family Court, Indore for +information and compliance. +

Certified copy as per rules.

+

(S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C.No. 37403/2018x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of +Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking modification in order dated 05/09/2018 +passed in Cr.R. No. 4274/2018. +

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he had preferred a +Criminal Revision No.4274/2018 before this Court challenging the order of +framing of charges for the offence under Section 306/34 of the IPC alongwith +Section 3/4 of the Protection of Debotrs Act, which was allowed by this Court, +vide order dated05/09/2018. But due to typographical error in the order passed +by this Court Section 3/4 of Protection of Debtors Act could not be mentioned, +therefore, he prayed for modification in the impugned order. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is opposed the petition. + Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments +advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this petition is allowed. +Accordingly, the concluding para of order dated 05/09/2018 passed in Cr.R. No. +4274/2018 is modified as under: +

"12. Accordingly, the revision petition deserves to be and is hereby +allowed. Impugned order is set-aside and charge with regard to the offence +under Section 306/34 of the IPC and 3/4 of the Protection of Debtors Act against +the applicant-Santosh is hereby quashed. " +

This order shall be read cojointly with order dated 05/09/2018 passed +in Cr.R. No. 4274/2018. A copy of this order be placed in the record of Cr.R. +No.4274/2018. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 18348/2017 +Indore dated :09/10/2018 + Shri A.M. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Abhinav +Dhanodkar, learned counsel for the applicant. +

Shri R.K.Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Arguments heard. +

Reserved for orders. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +Indore dated : /10/2018 + + Order passed, signed and dated separately. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 9365/2018x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondent. + Heard. +

The applicant has filed this petition under Section 407 of the +Cr.P.C. for transferring the MJC No. 200/2014 (Jyoti Vs. Deepak) from +the Family Court, Indore to Family Court, Bhopal. +

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the case is +pending since 2014 and the applicant has attending the Court regularly +but in pursuance of some medical complications and medical advise, it +is difficult for the applicant to mark her presence in each and every date +before the Family Court, Indore, therefore, he prayed for transfer of +MJC No. 200/2014 from Family Court, Indore to Family Court, Bhopal. +

5. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application +contending that the case is pending since 2014 and now it has reached at +the stage of evidence, however, the applicant is dragging the +proceedings, therefore, he prayed that no sufficient ground is available +to transfer the MJC No. 200/2014 from Family Court, Indore to Family +Court, Bhopal. +

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the +record. +

5. From the perusal of record it appears that applicant is working as +Assistant Professor and there is nothing on record to show that she is +suffering from any severe disease so that she cannot move from Bhopal +to Indore. The case is listed for taking evidence of the parties and the +applicant herself is not adducing any evidence and the applicant is not +required to attend every date of hearing and she can very well + represented by her counsel. Under these circumstances, at this stage no +sufficient ground is made out to transfer the MJC No. 200/2014 from +Family Court, Indore to Family Court, Bhopal. +

6. In view whereof, this petition is dismissed, however, Family +Court, Indore is requested to dipose of the MJC No. 200/2014 as early +as possible. +

7. Copy of this order be sent to the Family Court, Indore for +information and compliance. +

Certified copy as per rules.

+

(S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.12945/2018x + (Ravindra & Ors. Vs. Hemlata & Ors.) +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Ajay Mimrot, learned counsel for the respondents. + Heard. +

The applicants have preferred this petitioner under Section 482 +of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') for +quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 230/2017, pending +before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhar for the +offence punishable under Sections 12, 17 and 23(2) of the Protection +of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short 'the PWDV +Act'). +

During the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicants +accepted that appeal is provided under Section 29 of the PWDV Act, +hence she seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to +file an appeal before the appropriate forum. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty. If the applicants are preferred an appeal before the +trial Court within a period of 30 days from today alongwith +application for condonation of delay, then same shall be considered +liberally. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8284/2017x + (State of M.P. vs. Ali Hussain) +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State. +

+

Heard. +

+

ORDER + + The applicant/State has filed this petition under Section 378(3) Code + +of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') for the grant leave to + +appeal against judgment dated 28/02/2017 passed by Ist Additional + +Sessions Judge, Ujjain, in S.T. No. 17/2016, whereby the respondent has + +been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 452, 354(a)(i) + +

(ii)(iv) alongwith Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Secual + +Offences Act, 2012. +

+

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 23/10/2015 at about 4:00 p.m., the + +victim was alone in her house, the respondent came to her house and asked + +for water when she refused to give him water then respondent entered into + +her house and caught hold her hand with intend to outrage her modesty, + +when she shouted then respondent fled away from the spot. The matter has + +been reported to Police-Station-Mahakal, Ujjain, on which basis police + +registered FIR bearing Crime No. 635/2015 for the offence punishable + +under Sections 452, 354(a)(i)(ii)(iv) alongwith Section 7/8 of the + +Protection of Children from Secual Offences Act, 2012. During + investigation statement of the witnesses have been record and respondent + +has been arrested and after completion of the investigation charge-sheet has + +been filed. +

+

3. Learned trial Court after due appreciation of evidence available on + +record by impugned judgment held that there are material discrepancies in + +the statement of the victim and it has also come that in the morning of the + +date of alleged incident a quarrel has taken place between the family + +members of the victim and the respondent, therefore, the story of the + +prosecution appears to be suspicious. Thus, prosecution has failed to + +establish charges against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, + +the trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the charges levelled against + +him. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the applicant/State has + +preferred this petition under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. for grant of leave + +to against impugned judgment. +

+

4. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the victim is + +found to be a minor girl and the respondent after entered into her house + +caught hold her hand with intent to molest her. Under these circumstances + +the trial Court has wrongly acquitted the respondent from the aforesaid + +charges. Hence, he prayed for grant of leave to appeal against impugned + +judgment. +

+

5. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the + +record. +

6. From the perusal of the impugned judgment, I am of the view that the + +learned trial Court after considering the material discrepancies in the + +statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the + +Cr.P.C. has come to the conclusion that her statement are not reliable. +

+

Independent witnesses have also not supported the prosecution story and it + +has also come on record that in the morning of the date of incident there + +was a quarrel taken place between the respondent and family members of + +the victim, under these circumstances an opportunity of false implication of + +the respondent cannot be rulled out, therefore, the prosecution has failed to + +establish the charges against the applicant. Hence, the finding recorded by + +the learned trial Court is just and proper and it does not appear to be + +perversed. +

+

7. In view of the above, I do not find any ground for warranting + +admission. Accordingly, this application for grant of leave to appeal is + +hereby dismissed summarily. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.4415/2018x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri I.U. Quazi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Bharati Lakkad, learned counsel for the respondent/State. + Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6681/2018, an +application under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of +execution of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicants. +

+

The applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable +under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short +'the Act') and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months +S.I. and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation by the +Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dewas, vide order dated 23/02/2016 passed +in Criminal Case No. 4143/2018. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid +judgment, they have challenged the aforesaid conviction and sentence +before the Court of Sessions by filing Cr.A.No. 100124/2016, which +was dismissed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas by order +dated 16/08/2018 by affirming the judgment passed by the Chief +Judicial Magistrate, Dewas. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid +judgments applicants have preferred this Revision Petition before this +Court. +

+

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants +were on bail during the trial and pendency of the appeal and they did +not misuse the liberty so granted to them. It is further submitted that +provision of Section 13(2) of the Act is not complied with. The report +of the Public Analyst does not clarified that what were the contents +under lay in the sample, due to which it was found to be adulterated. + As per CFSL report only misbranding was detected and no defect was +found in the quality of the sample, however the applicants are not the +manufacturer of the product. The trial Court as well as the appellate +Court has committed an error in not giving the benefit of protection +under Section 19(2) of the Act to the applicants. It is further submitted +that there are fair chances of success of this revision petition and the +applicants cannot be kept in custody in the cases, where the short +sentence has been awarded by the Courts below, otherwise the present +revision petition filed by them may turn infructuous. Under these +circumstances he prays for suspension of remaining part of the jail +sentence and for grant of bail to the applicants. +

+

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application by contending +that the sample which has been taken by the Food Inspector found to +be adulterated. Notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was given to the +applicants and thereafter, the applicants apply for sending the +aforesaid sample to CFSL . As per the CFSL report the product was +found to be mis-branded, therefore, the trial Court convicted the +applicants for the aforesaid offence and their conviction has been +affirmed by the appellate Court. It is also pointed out by the learned +Public Prosecutor that the trial Court and the appellate Court after due +appreciation of the material available on record found the charges +proved against the applicants for the aforesaid offence. He further +submitted that the scope of the revisional court regarding +reappreciation of evidence is very limited. Under these circumstances +he prays for rejection of the application. +

+

Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and + considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the +parties, no ground is made out for suspension of remaining jail +sentence awarded to the applicants by the courts below. Accordingly, +IA No. 6681/2018 is hereby dismissed.

+ + +

(S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.17038/2018 + (Jamila Bi vs. Lakhan & Ors.) +Indore dated :04/10/2018 + + Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant. +

+

Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. +

+

Heard. +

+

ORDER + + ( 04 /10/2018) + + The applicant has filed this petition under Section 378(3) Code of Criminal + +Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') for the grant leave to appeal against + +judgment dated 16/03/2018 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar, in + +Cr.A. Nos. 120/2017, 125/2017 and 126/2017, whereby learned appellate Court set + +aside the judgment dated 19/07/2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, + +Dhar passed in Criminal Case No. 403762/2011 and acquitted the respondent + +Nos. 1 to 6 from the charge for offence punishable under Sections 325/149 and + +147 of the IPC. +

+

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 08/10/2011, the applicant/complainant + +lodged a FIR against the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 alleging that they have hurled filthy + +languages and assaulted her with stick and fists, due to which she sustained + +injuries. On the basis of aforesaid report offence punishable under Sections 147, + +294, 323/149 and 506 of the IPC was registered against respondent Nos. 1 to 6. The + +applicant/complainant was sent to the medical examination and in the X-ray report + +a fracture was detected, hence police added for offence under Section 325 of the + +IPC against the respondents. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has + been filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhar. +

+

3. The trial Court after due appreciation of the entire evidence available on + +record convicted the respondents for the offence under Sections 325/149 and 147 of + +the IPC and sentenced them to undergo 6 months R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- +

+

for each offence. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction + +respondents have preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, which was allowed + +by the impugned judgment and the respondents were acquitted from the aforesaid + +charges, which is a subject matter of challenge before this Court. +

+

4. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. +

+

5. From the perusal of the finding recorded by the learned appellate Court in + +para Nos. 13,14,15, 16 and 18 of its judgment, this Court is of the view that no case + +for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment is made out. Learned + +counsel for the applicant could not point out that how and in what manner the view + +taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not possible or plausible. No + +perversity could be set fourth in the impugned judgment. +

+

6. In view of the above, I do not find any ground for warranting admission. +

+

Accordingly, this application for grant of leave to appeal is hereby dismissed + +summarily. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.770/2017x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +appellant/State. +

As per the communication dated 09/12/2017, received from +Second Additional Sessions Judge, Indore he has not directed the +police-station-Banganga, Indore for recalling of the bailable warrant +issued by this Court against appellant-Sonu S/o Moolchandra +Chouhan.] + Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Indore has also +clarified that the jail sentence of the appellant-Sonu was suspended +by him till 02/05/2017, however, no order of suspension of his jail +sentence was received upto 02/05/2017. The appellant Raju was also +not appeared on the aforesaid dates, therefore, a non-bailable warrant +of arrest was issued against appellant-Sonu so that he may be sent to +the custody for serving the jail sentence but the aforesaid warrant +could not be executed. On 01/08/2017, appellant-Sonu appeared +before the Court alongwith his counsel and he has produced the copy +of the order dated 02/05/2017 passed by this Court in Criminal +Appeal No. 770/2017, by which his jail sentence was suspended. His +counsel informed that the High Court fixed the date 12/09/2017 for +appearance of the appellant-Sonu, hence, in compliance of the +aforesaid order, he accepted the bail bonds executed by the appellant +and thereafter, he has directed the Police Station Banganga, Indore +for recalling non-bailable warrant issued against the appellant by +him. He has not directed the police-station Banganga for recalling + the bailable warrant issued by this Court against appellant-Sonu. +

Looking to the aforesaid explanation given by the Second +Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, no further action is required. +

Meanwhile, non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against +appellant-Sonu for securing his presence before this Court on +29/10/2018. +

List on 29/10/2018. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.839/2017x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +appellant/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is grant 7 days +time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office, failing which this +petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court. +

List thereafter. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. 1770/2017x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri Manohar S.Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 19376/2017, an +application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of +delay of 25 days in filing this appeal. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is an +indigent person and on the date of pronouncement of judgment, he was +sent to jail for serving out remaining part of his jail sentence, therefore, +he could not file this appeal within the prescribed time period. Under +these circumstances, he prayed for condonation of delay. +

Though prayer for condonation of delay is opposed by the learned +Public Prosecutor. +

On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application, +which is supported with affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to +condone the delay. +

Accordingly, IA No.19376/2017 is allowed and delay of 25 days in +filing this appeal is hereby condoned. +

Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Record of the trial Court be called for. + List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

+ + +

(S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.4881/2017x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +applicant/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is grant 7 days +time to cure the defects pointed out by the Office. +

List thereafter. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.5896/2017x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent No.1/State. +

On payment of process fee within 7 working days, let notice be +issued to respondent No.2 on admission as well as on IA No. +5146/2017, an application for stay. Notice be made returnable within +six weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6420/2017x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +applicant/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is grant 7 days +time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office, failing which this +petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court. +

List thereafter. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7788/2017x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri Koustubh Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that during pendency of +this petition final order has already been passed by the Family Court, +Indore, therefore, this petition has become rendered infructuous. +

In view of the aforesaid, this petition is dismissed as having been +rendered infructuous. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8573/2017x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +applicant/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is grant 7 days +time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office, failing which this +petition shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court. +

List thereafter. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 10263/2017x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +applicant/State. +

On payment of process fee within 7 working days, let notice be +issued to respondent on admission as well as on IA No. 8665/2017, an +application for condonation of delay by ordinary and registered-AD +mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 17605/2017x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +applicant/State. +

On payment of process fee within 7 working days, let notice be +issued to respondents on admission as well as on IA No. 19327/2017, +an application for condonation of delay by ordinary and registered-AD +mode. Notice be made returnable within six weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.21076/2017x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +applicant/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is grant 15 days +time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office. +

List thereafter. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.22693/2017x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Ms. Kashu Mahant, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent No.1/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to cure the defect +pointed out by the Office within two weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.23211/2017x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +applicant/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two +weeks time to cure the defects pointed out by the Office. +

List thereafter. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1811/2018x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Appellant is directed to cure the defects pointed out by the +Office within 7 working days. +

List thereafter. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1938/2018x +Indore dated : 01/10/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the + respondent/State. +

Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the + Cr.P.C. against judgment dated 07/10/2017 passed by the Special Judge + in Special S.t. No. 68/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted for + the offence punishable under Section 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children + from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. + and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, for the offence punishable under Section + 363 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years RI and to pay fine of + Rs.1,000/- and for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the IPC + and sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with + usual default stipulation respectively. +

The present appeal has been barred by 86 days and the appellant + has filed an application under Section 5 of the limitation Act for + condonation of the aforesaid delay in filing the present appeal, however, + he has not file affidavit in support of this application. Appellant has + granted sufficient opportunities to file the same but he has not complied + with the orders passed by this Court. +

Today none appeared on behalf of the appellant and on earlier + occasions i.e. 24/07/2018, 27/04/2018, 10/04/2018 and 19/03/2018 also + none appeared on behalf of the appellant, which indicates that the + appellant is no longer interested in prosecuting this appeal. +

Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed for want of + prosecution.

+

(S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 4487/2018x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. + On payment of fresh process fee within 3 working days, let notice +be issued to respondent on admission as well as on IA No. 7011/2018, +an application for condonation of delay by ordinary and registered-AD +mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 4551/2018x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. + On payment of process fee within 3 working days, let notice be +issued to respondents on admission as well as on IA No. 7010/2018, an +application for condonation of delay by ordinary and registered-AD +mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.4571/2018x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri Darshan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted 7 +days time to cure the defects pointed out by the Office . +

List thereafter. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 4583/2018x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri Tushar Bhedasgaonkar, learned counsel for the applicants. + On payment of fresh process fee within 3 working days, let notice +be issued to respondent on admission as well as on IA No. 6892/2018, +an application for condonation of delay by ordinary and registered-AD +mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.5177/2018x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to cure the defects +pointed out by the Office within 7 working days. +

List thereafter. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 5659/2018x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to cure the defect +pointed out by the Office within 7 working days. +

List thereafter. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 587/2018x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + List in due course. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 6251/2018x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 6319/2018x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri Gagan Parashar, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted 7 +days time to cure the dfects pointed out by the Office. +

List thereafter. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 6381/2018x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 31126/2018x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.2/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to cure the defect +pointed out by the Office within 7 working days. +

List thereafter. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 35743/2018x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to cure the defects +pointed out by the Office within 7 working days. +

List thereafter. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 36617/2018x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the +applicant/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted 7 +days time to cure the defects pointed out by the Office. +

List thereafter. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 36795/2018x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted three +weeks time to file the copy of entire charge-sheet. +

List thereafter. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 37321/2018x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Applicant is directed to cure the defects pointed out by the +Office within 7 working days. +

List thereafter. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1485/2012x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + None for the appellants. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Today the case is listed for default of appearance of appellant- +Amar Singh. The applicant could not appear before this Court on +13/03/2018. +

At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the case is +listed for today for non-appearance of appellant-Amar Singh inspite of +that appellant is not present today, therefore, IA No. 1805/2018, an +application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant- +Amar Singh is hereby dismissed. +

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant +

-Amar Singh for securing his presence before this Court. +

List on 29/10/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.536/2013 +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + None for the appellants. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Bailable warrant of arrest be issued against the appellant No.1- +Ransingh for securing his presence before this Court on 28/08/2018, +however, even after the service of the said warrant he has not appeared +before this Court on 28/08/2018. It is a matter of bail jump. +

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against the appellant +No.1-Ransingh for securing his presence before this Court. +

List on 29/10/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.596/2015x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri Amitabh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Applicant No.1-Yogesh is not present today. + Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep +present appellant No.1 - Yogesh before this Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

List on 22/10/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.64/2016x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + None for the respondents. +

As per Office report service report of bailable warrant issued +against respondent No.2-Rakesh is still awaited. +

Office is directed to list the matter alongwith service report in the +week commencing 29/10/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.287/2016x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + As per Office report service report of non-bailable warrant issued +against appellant-Vikas is still awaited. +

Office is directed to list the matter alongwith service report in the +week commencing 12/11/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.473/2016x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + As per Office report appellant-Ravi has failed to mark his presence +before this Court on 05/07/2018. It is a matter of bail jump. +

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant-Ravi +for securing his presence before this Court on 19/11/2018. +

List on 19/11/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.520/2016x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. + Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted a +weeks time to pay the process fee. +

On payment of process fee within 7 working days, let notice be +issued to the respondent by ordinary as well as by registered-AD +mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks. +

In default of payment of process fee within 7 working days, this +appeal shall stands dismissed without further reference to this Court. +

List thereafter. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 1008/2016x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Perpetual warrant issued against appellant-Monu @ Mohan has +return unserved with the report that he was not found at his given +address and he has gone to Ajmer in search of employment. +

Let perpetual warrant be issued against appellant-Monu @ Mohan +to secure his presence before this Court. +

Superintendent of Police, Ratlam is directed to furnish the +quarterly report on completion of each quarters relating to efforts made +by the serving officer for the arrest of the appellant-Monu @ Mohan. +

Service report of the notice issued against the surety of the +appellant-Monu @ Mohan is not received. +

Let a fresh notice be issued against the surety of appellant-Monu +@ Mohan. +

List on 01/02/2019. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.302/2014x + (Jahid Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:01/10/2018 + Shri Kushal Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 5231/2018, which +is repeat (second) application under Section 389(1) of the Code of +Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on +behalf of the appellant - Jahid. +

Appellant - Jahid has been found guilty for offence under Section +8/15(C) of the NDPS Act and and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. +for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment +of the fine to undergo additional one year of R.I. + After hearing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel +for the parties this Court is of the view that earlier application of the +appellant was dismissed on merits, vide order dated 02/04/2018 and +thereafter, no change of circumstance is pointed out by the learned +counsel for the appellant. +

Accordingly, IA No. 5231/2018 is hereby dismissed. + List in due course. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.38320/2018x + (Navbheet Kumar Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is repeat (fourth) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for +grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 11/2016, Police Station- +Crime Branch, Indore District-Indore, concerning offences under +Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471/120-B of the IPC. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +application. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 39236/2018x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent. +

Case-Diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case +diary by next date of hearing. +

Be listed in the next week. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 39287/2018x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Ms. Anuradha Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent. +

Case-Diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case +diary by next date of hearing. +

Be listed in the next week. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 39296/2018x +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri Nilesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent. +

Case-Diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case +diary by next date of hearing. +

Be listed in the next week. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.39300/2018x + (Jitendra Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :01/10/2018 + Shri Akash Rathi. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for +grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 297/2018, Police Station- +Boda, District-Rajgarh, concerning offences under Section 376 of the +IPC. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +application. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.7325/2018x + (Manish Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:29/09/2018 + Shri Y.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Record of the court below be called for. + Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 7067/2018-an +application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for +suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the +appellant - Manish. +

Appellant - Manish has been found guilty for offence under +Section 354 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 +years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and under Section 7/8 of the +Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, he has been +sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with +default stipulation. +

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the +appellant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty so +granted to him. It is also submitted that the trial court has recorded the +conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and +that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the prosecution +evidence have been overlooked. It is further submitted that the jail +sentence of the appellant has already been suspended by the trial Court +since 10/10/2018. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely to take +sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial sentence is not +suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. + Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts +and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail +sentence of the appellant-Manish. +

+

Accordingly, I.A. No.7067/2018 is allowed and it is directed that +subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by +the appellant-Manish in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty +thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the +satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before +this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence +imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final +disposal of this appeal. +

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his +presence before the Registry of this Court on 11/01/2019 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.4622/2018x +Indore dated :28/09/2018 + Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Let record of the Courts' below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 939/2001x +Indore dated :29/09/2018 + Shri Praveer Porwal, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted two +weeks time to argue on IA No. 5673/2018, an application under +Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for issuance of passport. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1384/2015x +Indore dated :29/09/2018 + Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicants. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time +to file appropriate application to substitute the service of notice on +respondent No.2. +

List in the week commencing 08/10/2018. + IR to continue till next date of hearing. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 118/2016x +Indore dated :29/09/2018 + Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two +weeks time to argue the matter. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 1584/2016x +Indore dated :29/09/2018 + None for the applicants. +

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

None for the respondent No.2. +

Today none appeared on behalf of the applicants and o n earlier +occasions on 11/12/2017 and 29/08/2017 also none appeared on +behalf of the applicants, which clearly indicates that the applicant is +no longer interested in prosecuting this petition. +

Accordingly, this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. +is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C.12257/2016x +Indore dated :29/09/2018 + Shri Praveer Porwal, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent +No.1/State. +

None for the respondent No.2. +

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he has already +supplied the copy petition alongwith annexures to the respondent No.2. +

List after four weeks.

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R.661/2017x +Indore dated :29/09/2018 + None for the parties. +

Adjourned. +

List after six weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R.709/2017x +Indore dated :29/09/2018 + None for the parties. +

Adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 9563/2017x +Indore dated :29/09/2018 + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +applicant/State. +

None for the respondents, though served. + Heard on IA No. 8213/2017, an application under Section 5 of the +Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 44 days in filing this petition +filed under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal. +

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is +supported with affidavit of K.K. Sharma, DSP Head Quarter Dewas, +sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay. +

Accordingly, IA No. 8213/2017 is allowed and delay of 44 days in +filing this petition is hereby condoned. +

List after two weeks.

+
+
+                                               (S. K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                Judge
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    M.Cr.C. No.25613/2017x
+Indore dated :29/09/2018
+     Shri Hemant Sharma,          learned   Govt. Advocate      for      the
+applicant/State.
+

Respondent has been acquitted by the Ist Additional Sessions +Judge, Shajapur, vide order dated 31/08/2017 passed in ST No. 23/2017 +from the charges for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, +366(A) and 376 of the IPC alongwith Section 3(A)/4 of the Protection of +Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Offence under Section 4 of +the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is punishable +with life imprisonment, therefore, it should be heard by the Division +Bench. +

Office is directed to examine and list before appropriate Bench. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.194/2018x +Indore dated :29/09/2018 + Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the respondent. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time to argue the +matteer on the ground that Senior counsel is not available today to argue +the matter. +

Prayer is allowed. +

List in the week commencing 09/10/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.3540/2018x +Indore dated :29/09/2018 + Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard on the question of appeal. +

Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + List in due course. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.4146/2018x +Indore dated :29/09/2018 + None for the parties. +

Adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.35734/2018x +Indore dated :29/09/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.35067/2018x +Indore dated :29/09/2018 + Shri Sunil Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted four +weeks time to argue the matter regarding question of mainability. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.34215/2018x +Indore dated :29/09/2018 + Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicants. + Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted a +weeks time to comply with order dated 07/09/2018. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.3269/2018x +Indore dated :29/09/2018 + Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Sooraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two +weeks time to file the entire copy of the charge-sheet. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.3426/2018x +Indore dated :29/09/2018 + Shri Tousif Warsi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Sooraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant further prays for and is granted +two weeks time to file copy of the proceedings of the trial Court. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.3433/2018x +Indore dated :29/09/2018 + Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Sooraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted two +weeks time to file the entire copy of the charge-sheet. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.788/2016X +Indore dated :28/09/2018 + Shri V.R. Purohit, learned counsel for the applicant. + None for the respondent. +

Heard. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission to withdraw this revision petition. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, the revision is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.19067/2018X +Indore dated :28/09/2018 + Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Applicants have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. +for relexation of the condition imposed by this Court, vide order datd +14/11/2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 20777/2017, by which they have been +released on bail. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to call a report from the +concerned police-station that the applicants complied with the direction +made by this Court, vide order dated 14/11/2017 in M.Cr.C. No. +20777/2017, by which they were directed to mark their presence in the +concerned police-station on every first sunday of every month between +10:00 a.m. To 12:00 noon. +

List after one week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.22569/2018x +Indore dated :28/09/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.23172/2018x +Indore dated :28/09/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.24411/2018x +Indore dated :28/09/2018 + Shri Praveer Porwal, learned counsel for the applicant. + Let record of the trial Court be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.24414/2018x +Indore dated :28/09/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.24474/2018x +Indore dated :28/09/2018 + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +applicant/State. +

Let record of the trial Court be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.26164/2018x +Indore dated :28/09/2018 + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +applicant/State. +

Let record of the trial Court be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.26287/2018x +Indore dated :28/09/2018 + Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted one +weeks time to file the entire copy of the charge-sheet. +

List after one week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 6635/2015x +Indore dated :28/09/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Today none appeared on behalf of the applicant and o n earlier +occasions on 17/08/2017,01/05/2017, 24/03/2017 and 13/01/2017 +also none appeared on behalf of the applicant, which clearly indicates +that the applicant is no longer interested in prosecuting this petition. +

Accordingly, this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. +is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C.6693/2016x +Indore dated :28/09/2018 + Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two +weeks time to argue the matter. +

List thereafter.

+
+                                          (S. K. Awasthi)
+skt                                           Judge
+           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    M.Cr.C.6817/2016x
+Indore dated :28/09/2018
+

Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned counsel for the applicant/State. + Shri L.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the respondents. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two +weeks time to argue the matter. +

List thereafter.

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. 8417/2016x +Indore dated :28/09/2018 + None for the applicants. +

Shri Rizwan Khan, learned counsel for the respondents. + In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is +adjourned. +

List after eight weeks.

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. 639/2017 +Indore dated :28/09/2018 + Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. + None for the respondent, even after the service of notice. + Let record of the Family Court be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record.

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. 4119/2017x +Indore dated :28/09/2018 + Parties through their counsel. +

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties are +involving in compromise discussion, hence, he prays for time to argue +the matter. +

By way of last indulgence time is granted. + List after four weeks.

+                                           (S. K. Awasthi)
+skt                                            Judge
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.R. 3157/2018x
+Indore dated :28/09/2018
+

Shri Ashish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Public Prosecutor for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two +weeks time to argue the matter. +

List thereafter.

+                                          (S. K. Awasthi)
+skt                                           Judge
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     M.Cr.C. 6326/2018x
+Indore dated :28/09/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Adjoured.
+      List after four weeks.
+                                 (S. K. Awasthi)
+skt                                  Judge
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.A. 6772/2018x
+Indore dated :28/09/2018
+

Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6888/2018, an +application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of +delay of 34 days in filing this appeal. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is +illetrate and person and he is not having any knowledge regarding +limitation, therefore, he could not file this appeal within the prescribed +time period. Under these circumstances, he prayed for condonation of +delay. +

Though prayer for condonation of delay is opposed by the learned +Public Prosecutor. +

On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application, +which is supported with affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to +condone the delay. +

Accordingly, IA No. 6888/2018 is allowed and delay of 34 days in +filing this appeal is hereby condoned. +

Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Record of the trial Court be called for. + List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

+ + +

(S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.880/2010x +Indore dated :28/09/2018 + None for the appellant . +

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

As per Office report appellant-Ranu has failed to mark his +presence before this Court on 18/06/2018. It is a matter of bail jump. +

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant-Ranu +for securing his presence before this Court on 19/11/2018. +

List on 19/11/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.814/2011x +Indore dated :28/09/2018 + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the appellant/State. + Shri Navendu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents. + From the perusal of the record it appears that IA No. 5092/2018 has +already been decided by this Court, vide order dated 27/07/2018. +

Office is directed to verify the same and list accordingly. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1111/2011x +Indore dated :28/09/2018 + Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No.2- +Nagu Singh @ Nagendra Singh is detained in Central Jail-Bherugarh, +Ujjain in another case. +

Let a non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant No.2- +Nagu Singh @ Nagendra Singh for securing his presence before this Court +on 23/10/2018. +

List 23/10/2018. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.38206/2018x + (Shyam Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :28/09/2018 + Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate 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.3/2018, Police Station-Badwah, +District-Khargone, concerning offences under Sections 363, 366(A), +344,376, 376(2)(n) and 328 of the IPC alongwith Sections 3 /4 and +5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first +application with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the +statement of the prosecutrix before the trial Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.38204/2018x + (Bhure Singh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :28/09/2018 + Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate 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.259/2018, Police Station- +Gandhwani, District-Dhar, concerning offence under Sections 376 and +506 of the IPC. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first +application with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the +statement of the prosecutrix before the trial Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.38180/2018x + ( Chinu @ Vijendra Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :28/09/2018 + Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate 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.608/2017, Police Station- +Madhavnagar, District-Ujjain, concerning offences under Sections +307, 302, 148 and 149 of the IPC alongwith Sections 25 and 27 of the +Arms Act. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with +liberty to renew his prayer after receiving the balastic expert report. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.3303/2018x +Indore dated :18/07/2018 + Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. + Learned counsel for the respondenty prays for and is granted a weeks +time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent. +

List after a week. +

(Ashok Kumar Joshi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 36827/2018x + (Kishore Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) +Indore dated :26/09/2018 + Shri Pankaj C. Bagadiya, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. +

The instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the +Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") for quashing of the +order dated 18/05/2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Jhabua in Criminal +Revision No. 10/2018, whereby order dated 15/12/2017 passed by the +Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thandla, District-Jhabua in Criminal Case +No. 1160/2014 rejecting the application filed by the applicants under +Section 77 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 ( in short "the +Act") has been upheld. +

5. It is not disputed that on 10/07/2012 the Food Safety Officer visited +the premises of respondent No.2 and had taken sample of product +"PANVILAS" pan masala (packed). Thereafter, the same was sent to the +Food Safety Analyst and by report of Food Safety Analyst dated +26/07/2012 the sample was declared to be sub-standard. On 07/12/2013, +the Designated Officer/Deputy Director of Food and Drug Administration, +Jhabua after verifying the entire documents granted sanction of +prosecution against the applicant and lastly on 25/11/2014 a complaint was +filed against the applicant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First +Class, Thandla, District-Jhabua, whereby Judicial Magistrate First Class, +Thandla took cognizance of the offence. Thereafter the applicants appeared +before the Court concerned and submitted an application under Section 77 +of the Act. The complaint is filed after delay of more than 1 year and +therefore, it was barred by limitation and complaint should have been + dismissed and no cognizance could have been taken on the same, looking +to the provisions of Section 77 of the Act the aforesaid application was +dismissed by the learned trial Court presuming that the order of sanction +was granted exercising powers under Section 30(2)(e) of the Act is an +order for granting extention of limitation under Section 77 of the Act. +Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order the applicants have filed a +revision petition before the Sessions Court, Jhabua, which was also +dismissed on the ground that contention of the applicants regarding bar of +Section 77 of the Act can be taken up in defence by them. Feeling +dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders the applicants have preferred this +petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. +

4. I have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the +record. +

5. Provisions of Section 77 of the Act provides as under:- +

" Section 77. Time limit for prosecutions:- +
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no court + shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act after the + expiry of the period of one year from the date of comission + of an offence: +
Provived that the Commissioner of Food Safety may, + for reasons to be recorded in writing approve prosecution + within an extended period up to three years." +
+

6. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that time limit for + prosecution under the Act is only one year from the date of + commission of the offence and not from the date of sanction of + prosecution. All the requisite formalities are required to be completed + within 1 years from the date of comission of the offence so that the + accused may not be adversely affected. Admittedly in the present + case complaint has filed on 25/11/2014, which is near by 2 years and + 4 months from the date of the commission of the offence. Section 77 + of the Act, 2006 clearly provides that the extention of the limitation + can only be granted by a separate and specific order by assigning the + reasons in writing for the extention of limitation. The powers vested + in the Commissioner under Section 30(3) and Section 77 are entirely + different. Section 30 of the Act provides as under:- +

"30. Commissioner of Food Safety of the State:- +
(1) The State Government shall appoint the Commissioner of + Food Safety for the State for efficient implementation of food + safety and standards and other requirements laid down under + this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder. + (2) The Commissioner of Food Safety shall perform all or + any of the following functions, namely:- +
(a) Prohibit in the interest of public health, the manufacture, + storage, distribution or sale of any article of food, either in + the whole of the State or any area or part thereof for such + period, not exceeding one year, as may be specified in the + order notified in this behalf in the Official Gazzete; +
(b) Carry out survey of the industrial units engaged in the + manufacture or processing of food in the State to find out + compliance by such units of the standards notified by the + Food Authority for various articles of food; +
(c) Conduct or organise training programmes for the + personnel of the office of the Commissioner of Food Safety + and, on a wider scale, for different segments of food chain for + generating awareness on food safety; +
(d) Ensure an efficient and uniform implementation of the + standards and other requirements as specified and also ensure + a high standard of objectivity, accountability, practicability, + transparency and credibility; +
(e) Sanction prosecution for offences punishable with + imprisonment under this Act; +
(f) Such other functions as the State Government may, in + consultation with the Food Authority , prescribe. + (3) The Commissioner of Food Safety may, by order, delegate, + subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified + in the order, such of his powers and functions under this Act + (except the power to appoint designated officer, Food Safety + officer and food analyst) as he may deem necessary or + expedient to any officer subordinate to him." +

Thus an order of sanction for prosecution without a whisper of Section 77 +or limitation cannot be presumed to be an order under Section 77 of the + Act. The trial Court as well as the Sessions Court has wrongly construed +the powers delegated under Section 30(3) for grant of Sanction under +Section 30(2)(e) of the Act as delegation of power vested in Commisioner +by virtue of Section 77 of the Act because the sanction under Section 30(2) +

(e) is with regard to prosecution for offences punishable with imprisonment +under the Act, whereas under Section 77 of the Act, the Commissioner +alone is entitled to grant extension of limitation for reasons to be recorded +in writing under Section 77 of the Act, therefore, learned Magistrate +cannot take cognizance on the complaint because the Commissioner of +Food Safety has not exercised the powers conferred upon him under the +provisions of Section 77 of the Act. +

8. Resultantly, in view whereof I find merit in this petition and +accordingly, the same is hereby allowed. Consequently the order dated +18/05/2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhabua in Criminal Revision No. +10/2018 and order dated 15/12/2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First +Class, Thandla, District-Jhabua in Criminal Case No. 1160/2014 are hereby +set aside, by which the application filed by the applicants under Section 77 +of the Act has been rejected and all the consequential proceedings +pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thandla, District-Jhabua +against the applicants in Criminal Case No. 1160/2014 are hereby quashed. +

9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for +information and necessary compliance. +

Certified copy as per rules.

+ + +

(S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1226/2013x + (Karan Singh & Ors.Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :26/09/2018 + Shri Gaurav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

ORDER + This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 +of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved by the +judgment dated 14/11/2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, +Shajapur in Cri.Appeal No.505/2011, confirming the judgment dated +24/11/2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Agar, District- +Shajapur in Criminal Case No. 757/2010, by which the applicant +No.1- Karan Singh has been convicted and sentenced to undergo 6 +months RI with fine of Rs.250/- under Section 324 of the IPC; +whereas applicant No.2-Lakhan Singh has been convicted and +sentenced to undergo 6 months RI with fine of Rs.250/- under +Section 324/34 of the IPC with default stipulation. +

2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 16/10/2010, at about +11:00 p.m., when the complainant was returning after taking the +darshan of Chamdada Mata temple towards his home alongwith Dilip +Singh and Rajendra Singh, while they were passing infront of the +house of Lakhan Singh then Lakhan Singh caught hold him and +started abusing him, thereafter, Karansingh gave a blow from the +back side of farsi on the head of the complainant, due to which blood +was oozing from his head. Dilip and Rajendra saved him. After the +incident, complainant-Bane Singh lodged an FIR at Police Station- +Agar and on that basis case was registered against the applicant +No.1-Karan Singh for the offences punishable under Section 324 of +the IPC and applicant No.2-Lakhan Singh for the offence +punishable under Section 324/34 of the IPC . On completion of +investigation, the police filed charge sheet before JMFC -Agar, + District-Shajapur.After framing the charge and recording the +evidence, the offences under Sections 324 and 324/34 of the IPC +were found proved and the applicants were convicted and sentenced +as stated herein above. Against the judgment of the trial court, the +appeal was preferred which was dismissed. Hence, this revision +petition. +

3. Learned counsel for the applicants argued at length and +submitted that the applicant has been convicted illegally by the +courts below. Both the courts below have committed error in not +properly appreciating the evidence resulted into incorrect finding, +which is liable to be set aside in this revision. It is further submitted +that both the parties have settled their disputes and they have +entered into compromise. In this regard IA No. 8048/2017, an +application under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. for compromise has +been filed by them, which is duly verified by the Principal Registrar +of this Court. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that +the applicants have remained in jail for a period of approximately 1 +& 1/2 months and they have no criminal past nor they are involved +in any unlawful activities subsequent to the incident involved in the +present matter. He prays that these factors be considered for +reducing the period of imprisonment imposed by the courts below to +the period of imprisonment already undergone. +

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that after due +appreciation of the evidence learned Courts below have found the +applicants guilty of the aforesaid offences. It is submitted that the +revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and no interference is +called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. +

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of +the record, it is noticed that the commission of the alleged offence +by the applicants is established on the basis of the statements of +complainant-Bane Singh (PW 1), Rajendra Singh (PW 2) and Dr. +Shashank Saxena (PW 3). Hence, considering the material available + on record, the Courts below have not committed any error in + convicting the applicants under Sections 324 and 324/34 of IPC + respectively. +

6. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, I am of the + considered opinion that looking to the nature of allegation coupled + with the fact that the parties have entered into compromise and + the applicants have already remained approximately 1 & 1/2 months + in jail, therefore, the sentence awarded to the applicants is reduced + to the sentence already undergone by them subject to deposit of + additional fine amount of Rs.2000/-for the offence under Section 324 + and 324/34 of the IPC respectively, within a period of thirty days. + Out of the total amount of fine, a sum of Rs.4000/- shall be paid to + the complainant-Gangabai as compensation under Section 357(1) of + the Code of Criminal Procedure. In default of payment of enhanced + fine amount, the applicants shall suffer one months and fifteen days + RI respectively under Sections 324 and 324/34 of IPC. +

With the aforesaid modification in the judgment of conviction + and sentence, the revision petition is disposed of.

+ + +

(S.K.Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1440/2016x +Indore dated :27/09/2018 + Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

As per office report the applicant-Kalu @ Vishal is not +appeared before the Registry of this Court on 09/04/2018. It is a +matter of bail jump. +

Let a non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against +applicant-Kalu @ Vishal for securing his presence before this Court +on 14/11/2018. +

List on 14/11/2018. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 705/2014x +Indore dated :27/09/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 35443/2018x +Indore dated :26/09/2018 + Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. +

This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been +filed the applicant for extension of time to deposit the fine amount as +directed in Criminal Revision No. 569/2012 vide order dated +06/11/2012. +

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has +filed a Criminal Revision before this Court against the judgment dated +08/05/2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Alirajpur passed in +Criminal Appeal No. 14/2012, whereby the applicant was convicted +and sentenced for a period of 6 months R.I. and to pay fine of +Rs.600/- for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC. +

+

3. Aforesaid revision petition was finally decided by this Court, +vide order dated 06/11/2012 in National Lok Adalat and by that order +the conviction of the applicant was maintained, however, the jail +sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing +the fine amount to Rs.3500/-. It was further directed that, enhanced +amount be deposited within a period of two months else applicant has +to undergo remaining period of sentence. However, the applicant was +not aware about the aforesaid order, therefore, he could not deposit the +enhanced fine amount within stipulated period and the period of two +months from 06/11/2012 has expired long back and if the applicant +will go and try to deposit the enhanced amount of fine, then same + should not be accepted by the trial Court. Now the applicant is ready +to comply the direction issued by this Court vide order dated +06/11/2012. Hence, the order dated 06/11/2012 passed by this Court in +Criminal Revision No. 569/2012 should be modified and the applicant +is further granted 2 months time to deposit the enhanced amount of +fine. +

+

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has no objection in allowing the +prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant. +

+

5. Looking to the reasons mentioned in the application, this +petition is hereby allowed and the applicant is further granted 20 days +time to deposit the enhanced amount of fine before the concerned trial +Court. +

+

Certified copy as per rules.

+                                               (S. K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                Judge
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.A. No.783/2015x
+Indore dated :26/09/2018
+

Ms. V. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellants. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard on IA No. 2518/2018, an application for deleting the name +of appellant No.2-Sadaji from the cause title of the memo of appeal. +

From the perusal of record it appears that learned counsel for the +appellants has filed the photocopy of death certificate of appellate No.2- +Sadaji and according to this appellant No.2-Sadaji has died on +2/10/2017. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to verified the factum of +death of appellant No.2-Sadaji and submit its report, thereafter IA No. +2518/2018 will be considered. +

List on 26/10/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.958/2015x +Indore dated :26/09/2018 + Shri G.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Applicant No.3-Gyan Singh is not present today. + Learned counsel for the applicants prays for fixed date to keep +present appellant No.3 - Gyan Singh before this Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

List on 26/10/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 1057/2015x +Indore dated :26/09/2018 + Shri O.P. Solanki, learned counsel for the appellants. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep +present appellant No2. - Salman before this Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

List on 23/10/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1285/2015x +Indore dated :26/09/2018 + Shri Gopal Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Applicant- Bunty S/o Ambaram Chauhan is present in person and he +has been duly identified by his counsel. His presence is marked. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.22744/2017, an +application for condonation of non-appearance of applicant on 06/11/2017 +before the registry of this Court . +

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to death in his +family, the applicant could not mark his presence before the Registry of +this Court on 06/11/2017. +

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is +supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the +non-appearance of applicant-Bunty on 06/11/2017 before this Court. +

Accordingly, IA No.22744/2017 is allowed and non-appearance of +applicant- Bunty before this Court on 06/11/2017 is hereby condoned. +

Applicant- Bunty is directed to appear before the Office of this Court +on 17/04/2019 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the +Office. +

List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

+

(S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1497/2015x +Indore dated :26/09/2018 + Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Today the matter is listed for default of appellant-Santosh @ +Ariyabeli. It is a matter of bail jump. +

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant- +Santosh @ Ariyabeli for securing his presence before this Court on +12/11/2018. +

List on 12/11/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1544/2015x +Indore dated :26/09/2018 + Shri M.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Bailable warrant issued against applicant-Annu @ Anna received +unserved with the report that he is detained in District-Jail, Indore from +25/05/2017. +

Let production warrant be issued against applicant-Annu @ Anna +for securing his presence before this Court on 30/10/2018. +

List on 30/10/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1146/2018x +Indore dated :26/09/2018 + Shri Sameer Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Heard on IA No. 7033/2018, an application for condonation of +delay in payment of process fee. +

On due consideration, IA No. 7033/2018 is allowed. + On payment of fresh process-fee within seven working days, let +notice be issued to respondents by ordinary as well as by registered +AD mode. Notice be made returnable within 3 weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 32077/2018x +Indore dated :26/09/2018 + Shri I. Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a +weeks time to file the certified copy of the order passed by the Chief +Judicial Magistrate, Alirajpur in Criminal Case No. 493/2018. +

List in the next week. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 3700/2017x +Indore dated :26/09/2018 + Shri C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants. + Learned counsel for the appellants submits that during the +pendency of the present revision, the parties have entered into a +compromise and they have settled all their disputes amicably and no +point of difference exists between them, therefore, the appellants does +not wish to press this revision petition, hence he prayed for withdrawal +of the revision petition. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this revision is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 14583/2018x +Indore dated :26/09/2018 + None for the applicant, even in second round. + Case is adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 634/2015x +Indore dated :26/09/2018 + Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has filed the +death certificate of appellant No.3-Kaushal Singh on 24/10/2017, +however, it is not on record. +

Office is directed to trace the same and placed it on record. + Be listed in the next week. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 22313/2017x +Indore dated :26/09/2018 + Shri Amit Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri G.S. +Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent No.1/State. +

Shri Imran Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. + Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that learned +counsel for the applicant has not supplied the copy of IA No. +6419/2018 to him. +

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant gives undertaking +that he has supplied the copy of IA No. 6419/2018 to the learned +counsel for the respondent No.2 during the course of the day. +

Be listed in the next week. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 3843/2018x + (Pappu SinghVs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated : 26/09/2018 + Shri Navendu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This appeal under Section 14(A)(2) has been filed by the +appellant for apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. +8/2017 registered at Police-Station- Industrial Area, District-Ratlam, +for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(k), 366 and 344/34 +of the IPC alongwith Sections 3(1)(w)(1) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST +(PA) Act, 1989. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the appellant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this appeal with liberty to +surrender before the trial Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules.

+ + +

(S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 37228/2018x +Indore dated :26/09/2018 + Shri R.K. Shastri, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent. +

Case-Diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case +diary by next date of hearing. +

Be listed in the next week. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 36309/2018x + (Pinky @ Pratibha Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated : 26/09/2018 + Shri R.R. Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is first application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. by which +applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No. +198/2018 registered at Police-Station-Udainagar District-Dewas, for +the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 342, 323 and 120-B +of the IPC. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under +Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to surrender before the trial +Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn with +the aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules.

+ + +

(S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.7094/2018x + (Narayan Singh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :26/09/2018 + Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act has been +filed for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 126/2012, Police +Station-Tal, District-Ratlam, concerning offence under Sections 406, +294 and 506 of the IPC along with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PA) +Act, 1989. +

After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned +counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw +this appeal. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 36981/2018x +Indore dated :26/09/2018 + Shri K.P. Pande, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent /State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two +weeks time to file necessary documents. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 37266/2018x +Indore dated :26/09/2018 + Shri Vikas Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent /State. +

Shri Rahul Rathore, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. + Learned counsel for the complainant prays for and is granted one +weeks time to file appropriate application. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 24466/2018x +Indore dated :26/09/2018 + Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Shri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. + On payment of fresh process fee within 3 working days, let notice +be issued to respondent No.2 . Notice be made returnable within two +weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.34626/2018x + ( Balu Singh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :26/09/2018 + Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for +grant of bail in connection with Crime No.11/2018, Police Station- +Suwasra, District-Mandsaur, concerning offence under Sections 34(2) +of the M.P. Excise Act. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with +liberty to renew his prayer after completion of 1 year of jail sentence +of the applicant. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.37760/2018x + ( Mohammad Vakil Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :25/09/2018 + Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Shri Raju Pandagre, learned counsel for the +complainant/objector. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of +bail in connection with Crime No.184/2018, Police Station-Jaora, +District-Ratlam, concerning offence under Sections 302, 147, 148,149 +and 294 of the IPC alongwith Section 25 of the Arms Act. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.37753/2018x + ( Manoj Parihar Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :25/09/2018 + Ms. Archna Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate 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.293/2018, Police Station-Bherugarh, +District-Ujjain, concerning offence under Sections 307, 323 and 294 +of the IPC. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with +liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statements of the +injured-Reena Parihar before the trial Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.6987/2018x + (Shambhu Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:25/09/2018 + Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Record of the court below be called for. + Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 6839/2018-an +application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for +suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the +appellant - Shambhu. +

Appellant - Shambhu has been found guilty for offence under +Section 354(A) of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for +3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and under Section 7/8 of the +Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and has been +sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with +default stipulation. +

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the +appellant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty so +granted to him. It is also submitted that the trial court has recorded the +conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and +that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the prosecution +evidence have been overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is +likely to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial +sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. + Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts + and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail +sentence of the appellant-Shambhu. +

+

Accordingly, I.A. No.6839/2018 is allowed and it is directed that +subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by +the appellant-Shambhu in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty +thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the +satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before +this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence +imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final +disposal of this appeal. +

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his +presence before the Registry of this Court on 11/01/2019 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.36345/2018x + ( Jatin Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :25/09/2018 + Shri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate 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. 78/2018, Police Station-Palasia, +District-Indore, concerning offence under Sections 323, 294, 506 and +302/34 of the IPC alongwith Section 25 of the Arms Act. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with +liberty to renew his prayer after recording the statements of the +substantial prosecution witnesses before the trial Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.33032/2018x +Indore dated :25/09/2018 + Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks +time to file the certified copy of the statements of the prosecution +witnesses recorded before the trial Court. +

List in the next week. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.6910/2018x + (Sagar Choudhary Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :25/09/2018 + Shri Jagdish Dangi, learned counsel for the appellant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act has been +filed for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 442/2018, Police +Station-Banganga, District-Indore, concerning offence under Sections +363, 366(A), 368, 376(2)(i)(n) and 109 of the IPC alongwith Section +¾ of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and +Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989. +

After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned +counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw +this application with liberty to renew his prayer after recording the +statements of the prosecutrix before the trial Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty . +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.36416/2018x + ( Ramesh Nath @ Rajesh Guru Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :25/09/2018 + Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is repeat (fourth) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for +grant of bail in connection with Crime No.26/2018, Police Station- +Station Road, Ratlam District-Ratlam, concerning offence under +Section 420 of the IPC. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.4236/2018x +Indore dated :25/09/2018 + Shri Nilesh Manore, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Let record of the courts' below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 37838/2018x + (Nafisha Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated : 25/09/2018 + Shri Harish Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is repeat (second) application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. +applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No. +284/2018 registered at Police-Station-Mandleshwar District-Khargone, +for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under +Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to surrender before the trial +Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn.

+ + +

(S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 37853/2018x + (Narendra & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated : 25/09/2018 + Shri T.C. Jain, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is first application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. applicant is +apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 293/2017 +registered at Police-Station-Nowgaon District-Dhar, for the offence +punishable under Sections 307, 294 and 506/34 of the IPC. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under +Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to surrender before the trial +Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn.

+ + +

(S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 38027/2018x +Indore dated :25/09/2018 + Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent. +

Case-Diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case +diary by next date of hearing. +

Be listed after a week. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.38099/2018x +Indore dated :25/09/2018 + Shri Anil OJha, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a +weeks time to file some relevant documents. +

Be listed after a week. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 34324/2018x +Indore dated :25/09/2018 + Shri Anil OJha, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent. +

Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for and is granted a +weeks time to comply with direction given by this Court, vide order +dated 17/09/2018. +

Be listed in the next week. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 7192/2018x +Indore dated :25/09/2018 + Shri Shyam Patidar, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary and also comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, +1989 by next date of hearing positively. +

Be listed in the next week. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 7207/2018x +Indore dated :25/09/2018 + Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary and also comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, +1989 by next date of hearing positively. +

Be listed in the next week. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 7212/2018x +Indore dated :25/09/2018 + Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary and also comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, +1989 by next date of hearing positively. +

Be listed in the next week. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.6522/2018x +Indore dated :25/09/2018 + Shri Dharmendra Gurjar, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary on next date of hearing alongwith compliance report under Section +15(A)(3) of SC/ST(Act), failing which the concerned SHO shall remain +present before this Court to explain the reasons which prevented him to +produce case-diary and report. +

List in the next week. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + +Indore dated :18/09/2018 + None for the parties. +

Due to call made by the M.P. State Bar Council, the Advocates +are abstainging from Court work. +

In absnece of the parteis, the case is adjourned. + List after four weeks. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge +Praveen + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.3225/2018x + (Deepak Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:31/05/2018 + Shri S.I. Ansari, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Record of the court below be called for. + Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3674/2018 and +3673/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing +during summer vacation respectively. +

On due consideration IA Nos. 3674/2018 and 3673/2018 are +allowed. +

Further heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. +2835/2018-an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of +Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on +behalf of the appellant - Deepak. +

Appellant - Deepak has been found guilty for offence under +Section 354(A) of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for +3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation. +

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the +appellant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty so +granted to him. It is also submitted that the trial court has recorded the +conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and +that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the prosecution +evidence have been overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is +likely to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial +sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. + Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts +and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail +sentence of the appellant-Deepak. +

+

Accordingly, I.A. No. 2835/2018 is allowed and it is directed that +subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by +the appellant-Deepak in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty +thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the +satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before +this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence +imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final +disposal of this appeal. +

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his +presence before the Registry of this Court on 07/08/2018 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.3222/2018x + (Abdul Rasid @ Lula Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:31/05/2018 + Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State . +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 4145/2018 and +4146/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing +during summer vacation respectively. +

On due consideration IA Nos. 4145/2018 and 4146/2018 are +allowed. +

Further heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. +2934/2018-an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of +Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on +behalf of the appellant - Abdul Rasid @ Lula. +

Appellant - Abdul Rasid @ Lula has been found guilty for offence +under Section 384 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. +for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default stipulation. +

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the +appellant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty so +granted to him. It is also submitted that the trial court has recorded the +conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and +that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the prosecution +evidence have been overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is +likely to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial +sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. + Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts +and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail + sentence of the appellant-Abdul Rasid @ Lula. +

+

Accordingly, I.A. No. 2934/2018 is allowed and it is directed that +subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by +the appellant-Abdul Rasid @ Lula in the sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees +Sixty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the +satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before +this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence +imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final +disposal of this appeal. +

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his +presence before the Registry of this Court on 07/08/2018 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.607/2018x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list after +summer vacation. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.2012/2018x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri R.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted three weeks time +to file the reply of IA No. 3760/2018, an application under Section 389(1) +of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of appellant- +Shyaam. +

List after three weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.2032/2018x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Let record of the courts' below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.2050/2018x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri G.S. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list in the week +commencing 02/07/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.2058/2018x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks +time to argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 02/07/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.2122/2018x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks +time to argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 02/07/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.2312/2018x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List in the week commencing 02/07/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.2845/2018x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted four weeks +time to argue on IA No. 3784/2018, an application under Section 389(1) of +the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant-Mohd. Shakir +@ Bhuru. +

List after four weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.18473/2018x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List in the week commencing 02/07/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.20536/2018x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the appellant. + Heard learned counsel for the appellant on I.A. Nos. 3847/2018 & +3846/2018 which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing +during summer vacation respectively. +

On due consideration IA Nos. 3847/2018 and 3846/2018 are +allowed. +

On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be +issued to the respondent on merit as well as on IA No. 3913/2018, an +application for grant of stay by ordinary as well as by registered-AD +mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.174/2016x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3692/2018 & +3693/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing +during summer vacation respectively. +

On due consideration IA Nos. 3692/2018 and 3693/2018 are +allowed. +

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted a weeks +ttime to argue the matter. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.4147/2017x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3688/2018 & +3689/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing +during summer vacation respectively. +

On due consideration IA Nos. 3688/2018 and 3689/2018 are +allowed. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks +time to file the reply of IA No. 3687/2018, an application under Section +389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of +appellant-Pankesh @ Pankaj. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.4920/2017x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri Z.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Vaibhav Dube, +learned counsel for the appellant. +

Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3719/2018 & +3720/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing +during summer vacation respectively. +

On due consideration IA Nos. 3719/2018 and 3720/2018 are +allowed. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks +time to file the reply of IA No. 3721/2018, an application under Section +389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of +appellant-Ayyub. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.439/2018x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3646/2018 & +3647/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing +during summer vacation respectively. +

On due consideration IA Nos. 3646/2018 and 3647/2018 are +allowed. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks +time to file the reply of IA No. 3324/2018, an application under Section +389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of +appellant-Gopal. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1272/2015x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 5781/2017, an +application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail +sentence on behalf of appellant-Anwar. +

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to +withdraw IA No. 5781/2017. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, IA No. 5781/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.3965/2018x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri Z.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Vaibhav Dubey, +learned counsel for the applicants. +

Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3701/2018 & +3702/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing +during summer vacation respectively. +

On due consideration IA Nos. 3701/2018 and 3702/2018 are +allowed. +

Let record of the courts' below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.3848/2018x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri Tushar Bhedsagar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3897/2018 & +3898/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing +during summer vacation respectively. +

On due consideration IA Nos. 3897/2018 and 3898/2018 are +allowed. +

Let record of the courts' below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.2383/2018x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Let record of the courts' below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.2367/2018x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3655/2018 & +3656/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing +during summer vacation respectively. +

On due consideration IA Nos. 3655/2018 and 3656/2018 are +allowed. +

Let record of the courts' below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.2163/2018x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3743/2018 & +3744/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing +during summer vacation respectively. +

On due consideration IA Nos. 3743/2018 and 3744/2018 are +allowed. +

Let record of the courts' below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1969/2018x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3667/2018 & +3666/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing +during summer vacation respectively. +

On due consideration IA Nos. 3667/2018 and 3666/2018 are +allowed. +

As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list in the week +commencing 02/07/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1193/2018x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3602/2018 & +3603/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing +during summer vacation respectively. +

On due consideration IA Nos. 3602/2018 and 3603/2018 are +allowed. +

Report of the Probation Officer is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the report +of the Probation Officer by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 18/06/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1458/2018x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3598/2018 & +3597/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing +during summer vacation respectively. +

On due consideration IA Nos. 3598/2018 and 3597/2018 are +allowed. +

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw +this revision petition. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly this revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1981/2018x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri K.S. Sisodia, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3567/2018 & +3568/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing +during summer vacation respectively. +

On due consideration IA Nos. 3567/2018 and 3568/2018 are +allowed. +

Report of the Probation Officer is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the report +of the Probation Officer by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 18/06/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.2401/2018x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri P.K. Newalkar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3765/2018 & +3764/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing +during summer vacation respectively. +

On due consideration IA Nos. 3765/2018 and 3764/2018 are +allowed. +

Let record of the courts' below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 2432/2018x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri M.I. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3672/2018 & +3671/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing +during summer vacation respectively. +

On due consideration IA Nos. 3672/2018 and 3671/2018 are +allowed. +

Let record of the courts' below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 2439/2018x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3733/2018 & +3732/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing +during summer vacation respectively. +

On due consideration IA Nos. 3733/2018 and 3732/2018 are +allowed. +

Let record of the courts' below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1803/2018x +Indore dated :31/05/2018 + Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Archana Kher, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3578/2018 & +3579/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing +during summer vacation respectively. +

On due consideration IA Nos. 3578/2018 and 3579/2018 are +allowed. +

As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list in the week +commending 02/07/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 28080/2017 +Indore dated :16/05/2018 + Shri S.C. Bagadiya, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Pankaj +Bagadiya, learned counsel for the applicant. +

Shri H.Y. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent/Union of +India. +

Arguments heard. +

Reserved for orders.

+
+
+                                                  (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+Indore dated :    /05/2018
+
+

Order passed, signed and dated separately. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 2211/2016 +Indore dated :15/03/2018 + Shri Vivek Singh and Shri Neeraj Jain, learned counsel for the +applicants. +

Shri Anurag Chandra Goel, learned counsel for the respondent. + Arguments heard. +

Reserved for orders.

+
+
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+Indore dated :    /05/2018
+
+

Order passed, signed and dated separately. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.4013/2018x + (Monu Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:28/05/2018 + Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State . +

Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Record of the court below be called for. + Also heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3894/2018 +& 3895/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing +during summer vacation respectively. +

On due consideration IA Nos. 3894/2018 and 3895/2018 are +allowed. +

Further heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. +3893/2018-an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of +Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on +behalf of the appellant - Monu. +

Appellant -Monu has been found guilty for offence under Section +394 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and +to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation. +

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the jail +sentence of the appellant has already been suspended by the trial Court +till 26/05/2018. It is also submitted that the trial court has recorded the +conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and +that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the prosecution +evidence have been overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is +likely to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial +sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. + Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts +and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail +sentence of the appellant-Gopal Singh. +

+

Accordingly, I.A. No. 3893/2018 is allowed and it is directed that +subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by +the appellant-Monu in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty +thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the +satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before +this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence +imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final +disposal of this appeal. +

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his +presence before the Registry of this Court on 30/07/2018 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.4002/2018x + (Ritesh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:28/05/2018 + Shri Pankaj Gadwanshi, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State . +

Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Record of the court below be called for. + Also heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3833/2018 +& 3834/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing +during summer vacation respectively. +

On due consideration IA Nos. 3833/2018 and 3834/2018 are +allowed. +

Further heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. +3832/2018-an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of +Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on +behalf of the appellant - Ritesh. +

Appellant -Ritesh has been found guilty for offence under Section +394/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years +and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation. +

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the jail +sentence of the appellant has already been suspended by the trial Court +till 24/05/2018. It is also submitted that the trial court has recorded the +conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and +that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the prosecution +evidence have been overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is +likely to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial +sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. + Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts +and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail +sentence of the appellant-Gopal Singh. +

+

Accordingly, I.A. No. 3832/2018 is allowed and it is directed that +subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by +the appellant-Ritesh in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty +thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the +satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before +this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence +imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final +disposal of this appeal. +

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his +presence before the Registry of this Court on 30/07/2018 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.3821/2018x + (Gokul & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:28/05/2018 + Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State . +

Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Record of the court below be called for. + Also heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3679/2018 +& 3680/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing +during summer vacation respectively. +

On due consideration IA Nos. 3679/2018 and 3680/2018 are +allowed. +

Further heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. +3385/2018-an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of +Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on +behalf of the appellants -Gokul and Rajendra. +

Appellants -Gokul and Rajendra have been found guilty for +offence under Sections 325/34, 323/34, 325, 326 and 326/34 of the IPC +and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 months, 2 months, 2 +years, 3 years and 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, Rs. 1,000/-, +Rs.3,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively with default +stipulation. +

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the +jail sentence of the appellants have already been suspended by the trial +Court since 11/06/2018. It is also submitted that the trial court has +recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on +record and that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the + prosecution evidence have been overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that +the appeal is likely to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the +custodial sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered +infructuous. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. + Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts +and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail +sentence of the appellants-Gokul and Rajendra. +

+

Accordingly, I.A. No. 3385/2018 is allowed and it is directed that +subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by +the appellants-Gokul and Rajendra in the sum of Rs.60,000/- +(Rupees Sixty thousand only)each with a solvent surety in the like +amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for their regular +appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the +remaining sentence imposed against the appellants shall remain +suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal. +

The appellants, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their +presence before the Registry of this Court on 30/07/2018 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.3906/2018x + (Gopal Singh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:28/05/2018 + Shri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State . +

Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Record of the court below be called for. + Also heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3695/2018 +& 3694/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing +during summer vacation respectively. +

On due consideration IA Nos. 3695/2018 and 3694/2018 are +allowed. +

Further heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. +3473/2018-an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of +Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on +behalf of the appellant - Gopal Singh. +

Appellant -Gopal Singh has been found guilty for offence under +Section 354 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 +years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation. +

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the jail +sentence of the appellant has already been suspended by the trial Court. +It is also submitted that the trial court has recorded the conviction +without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material +omissions and contradistinctions present in the prosecution evidence +have been overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely to +take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the custodial sentence is +not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered infructuous. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. + Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts +and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail +sentence of the appellant-Gopal Singh. +

+

Accordingly, I.A. No. 3473/2018 is allowed and it is directed that +subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by +the appellant-Gopal Singh in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty +thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the +satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before +this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence +imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final +disposal of this appeal. +

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his +presence before the Registry of this Court on 30/07/2018 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.3950/2018x + (Govardhan Kushwah & Ors Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:28/05/2018 + Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State . +

Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Record of the court below be called for. + Also heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos. 3564/2018 +3562/2018, which are the applications for urgent hearing and hearing +during summer vacation respectively. +

On due consideration IA Nos. 3564/2018 and 3562/2018 are +allowed. +

Further heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. +3559/2018-an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of +Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on +behalf of the appellants - Govardhan and Balli @ Bablu. +

Appellants -Govardhan and Balli @ Babli have been found guilty +for offence under Section 325/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced +to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each with +default stipulation. +

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the +jail sentence of the appellants have already been suspended by the trial +Court since 11/06/2018. It is also submitted that the trial court has +recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on +record and that material omissions and contradistinctions present in the +prosecution evidence have been overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that +the appeal is likely to take sufficient time in its final disposal and if the + custodial sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall be rendered +infructuous. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. + Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts +and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail +sentence of the appellants-Govardhan and Balli @ Bablu. +

+

Accordingly, I.A. No. 3559/2018 is allowed and it is directed that +subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by +the appellants-Govardhan and Balli @ Bablu in the sum of +Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only)each with a solvent surety in +the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for their +regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of +the remaining sentence imposed against the appellants shall remain +suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal. +

The appellants, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their +presence before the Registry of this Court on 30/07/2018 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.19709/2018x + ( Darshana Kour & Ors Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :28/05/2018 + Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate 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. 25/2018, Police Station-Singoli, +District-Neemuch, concerning offence under Section 8/15 of the +NDPS Act. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicants +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.19337/2018x +Indore dated :28/05/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent /State. +

Case-diary is available. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List in the week commencing 18/06/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vcacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.18990/2018x +Indore dated :28/05/2018 + Shri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent /State. +

Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted one +weeks time to file the hindi translation of the relevant documents filed +alongwith the challan. +

List after a week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vcacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.18887/2018x +Indore dated :28/05/2018 + Shri Imran Qureshi, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri R.R. Maheshwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent /State. +

Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted 3 days +time to file relevant document. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vcacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.18860/2018x +Indore dated :28/05/2018 + Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case +by next date of hearing positively . +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.20489/2018x +Indore dated :28/05/2018 + Shri Syed Z.A. Warsi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case +by next date of hearing positively alongwith relevant papers regarding +the present applicant. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.20506/2018x +Indore dated :28/05/2018 + Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.20514/2018x +Indore dated :28/05/2018 + Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.20524/2018x + ( Umrao Singh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :28/05/2018 + Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate 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. 184/2018, Police Station- +Bhairavgarh, District-Ujjain, concerning offence under Sections 354, +452 and 506 of the IPC. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with +liberty to renew his prayer after filing of the charge-sheet . +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.20527/2018x +Indore dated :28/05/2018 + Shri Devdeep Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 19359/2018x +Indore dated :28/05/2018 + Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after a week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 20530/2018x +Indore dated :28/05/2018 + Shri O.P. Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after a week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.20531/2018x +Indore dated :28/05/2018 + Shri R.R. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case +by next date of hearing positively. +

List after a week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 20552/2018x +Indore dated :28/05/2018 + Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after a week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 9445/2018x +Indore dated :28/05/2018 + Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after a week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 7026/2018x +Indore dated :28/05/2018 + Shri N.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after a week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Vacation Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 1179/2007 +Indore dated :05/05/2018 + Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Arguments heard. +

Reserved for judgment. +

+ +
     (Rohit Arya)                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+       Judge                                           Judge
+
+
+Indore dated :   /05/2018
+
+

Judgment passed, signed and dated separately. +

+ + +

(Rohit Arya) (S.K. Awasthi) + Judge Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 584/2017 +Indore dated :06/04/2018 + Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Arguments heard. +

Reserved for orders.

+
+
+                                                  (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+Indore dated :    /05/2018
+
+

Order passed, signed and dated separately. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 3865/2017 +Indore dated :04/05/2018 + Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Rohit +Saboo, learned counsel for the applicant. +

Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Arguments heard. +

Reserved for orders. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +Indore dated : /05/2018 + + Order passed, signed and dated separately. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 17771/2018 +Indore dated :10/05/2018 + Shri S.C. Bagadiya, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Rohit +Saboo, learned counsel for the applicant. +

Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Arguments heard. +

Reserved for orders. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +Indore dated : /05/2018 + + Order passed, signed and dated separately. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + WP No.11128/2018 (PIL)x + (Balram vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) +Indore dated :18/05/2018 + + Shri Pramod Mitha, learned counsel for the petitioner. + Heard. +

The petitioner has filed this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) +under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for praying the follwing +reliefs:- +

1. The process of organ donation should be done in accordance +with the rules and regulations. +
2. Instructors and NGOs working for the organ donation should be +instructed to work with doctor's report. +
3. All provisions should be followed to prvent other patients from +such negligence in future. +
4. The proper justice should be given for welfare of public and no +one should face this kind of problem in the future. +
+

The petitioner is a citizen of India and resident of Indore (M.P.). +He claims to be Social Worker and has no personal interest in the +subject matter of the petition. +

+

The petitioner has submitted that on 10/4/2018, Sachin S/o +Prakashbad Gujar was admitted in Bombay Hospital, Indore due to +brain injury sustained in a road accident. In the Bombay Hospital +Doctors have not given him proper treatment and illegally contacted +Sandeepan Arya and Jeetu Bagani of Muskan Group, Indore for organ +donation, when the family members of the Sachin refused to donate +the organs and claims that injured person is alive and they are not +interested in donating the organs of their son, then Docotrs of Bombay + Hospital got irritated and shifted the patient to M.Y. Hospital, Indore +without giving any discharge papers and proper transportation +treatment. It is further submitted that Sandeepan Arya and Jeetu +Bagani of Muskan Group, Indore again came to the M.Y. Hospital and +insisted the family members of the injured Sachin to donate the +organs saying that Sachin is brain dead; wheras according to the +Doctors, Sachin is not brain dead and he is recovering. Then the +family members of the Sachin had made a written complaint against +the Sandeepan Arya and Jeetu Bagani of Muskan Group, alleging that +they are unnecessarily presurasing them for organ donation. As per +the Doctors and Experts, the desire of the family members is the final +decision, a committee has been created in all the Hospitals for +counseling of organ donation. But in the present case without +counselling for the organ donation, agents of Muskan Group created +pressure on the family members of the Sachin to donate his organs, +which shows that there is collussion between the organ donation +society and Bombay Hospital, therefore, the act of the respondents are +illegal and unconstitutional. Hence, he filed this Public Interest +Litigation (PIL). +

+

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. +

+

Petitioner has filed this Public Interest Litigation on the basis of +the photocopy of the complaint made by the family members of the +injured-Sachin against the Sandeepan Arya and Jeetu Bagani,who are +the members of the Muskan Group, Indore and on the basis of news +item published in Hindi Daily "Dainik Bhaskar", alleging that they +are saying that their son Sachin is brain dead, therefore, they are + insisted for organ donation. He also invited our attention in view of +the aforesaid publication. +

+

It becomes necessary to consider that the news item published in +the newspaper itself is admissible in evidence ? It is well settled +proposition of law that a report in a newspaper is only heresay +evidence and no judicial notice can be taken of the facts stated in a +news item in the nature of heresay secondonary evidence, unless +proved by evidence aliunde. In this regard we are referring the the +deceision of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Laxmi Raj Shetty V. +State of Tamil nadu, AIR 1988 SC 1274, where the Hon'ble apex +Court has held as under:- +

+
" We cannot take itself judicial notice of the fact stated in + a news item being in the nature of heresay evidence unless + proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspaper is only + heresay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents + referred to in Section 78(2)of the Evidence Act by which an + allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of + genuineneness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act + to a newspaper report can not be treated as proved of the facts + reported therein.A statement of fact contained in a newspaper + is merely heresay and therefore inadmissible in evidence in the + absence of the maker of the statement appearing in Court and + deposing to have perceived the fact reported." +
+

In the present matter, although, the petitioner has filed the +photocopy of the complaint made by the family members of the +injured-Sachin, however, from the perusal of the aforesaid complaint, +we find that there is no allegation in the complaint that they donated + the organ of the Sachin. As per the complaint there is only allegation +against the Sandeepan Arya and Jeetu Bagani is that they are alleging +that their son appears to be brain dead and they may be ready for +donate his organ. No legal evidence has been produced by the +petitioner to prove this allegation made against the respondents and +the views expressed by the experts published in the Hindi Daily +'Dainik Bhaskar', is only heresay evidence and no judicial notice can +be taken of the facts stated in a news item in the nature of heresay +secondonary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. +

+

In view of the aforesaid, We can not take any judicial notice of +the facts stated in the petition. Accordingly, this Public Litigation +Interest Peition is hereby dismissed in limine. +

+

No order as to costs. +

+ + +

(P.K. Jaiswal) (S. K. Awasthi) + Judge Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.13882/2018 + (Kumar Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :18/05/2018 + Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for +grant of bail in connection with Crime No.276/2016, Police Station- +Sendhwa Gramin, District-Barwani, concerning offence under +Sections 458, 397 and 395 of the IPC. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under +Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.435/2013x +Indore dated :18/05/2018 + Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

List alongwith Cr.A. No. 424/2013. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.424/2013x +Indore dated :18/05/2018 + Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks +time to file reply of IA No. 1348/2018, repeat (second) application under +Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for +grant of bail to the appellant -Gokul. +

List after ensuing summer vacation. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.882/2017x +Indore dated :18/05/2018 + None for the applicants. +

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is +adjourned. +

List after 6 weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.3326/2017x +Indore dated :18/05/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after 8 weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.3393/2017x +Indore dated :18/05/2018 + Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after ensuing summer vacation. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.3404/2017x +Indore dated :18/05/2018 + None for the parties. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is +adjourned. +

List after 10 weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.646/2017x +Indore dated :18/05/2018 + Shri Alkesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the respondent. + Learned counsel for the respondent undertakes that he will not +claim the interim maintenance in pursuant to Court order dated +14/02/2018 till the next date of hearing. +

Looking to the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the +respondent the case is listed for hearing on 27/06/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.3543/2017x +Indore dated :18/05/2018 + Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +file appropriate application to implead complainant as respondent No.2 +in the matter. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.182/2018x +Indore dated :18/05/2018 + Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri R.K. Sharma, leabrned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted four +weeks time to file appropriate application for converting this Criminal +Revision into M.Cr.C. under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.572/2018x +Indore dated :18/05/2018 + Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted four +weeks time to file appropriate application for converting this Criminal +Revision into M.Cr.C. under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.880/2018x +Indore dated :18/05/2018 + Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the applicant. + On payment of process-fee +9within 3 working days, let notice be +issued to the respondent on merit as well as on IA No. 1281/2018, an +application for stay by ordinary and registered AD mode. Notice be +made returnable within four weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1001/2018x +Indore dated :18/05/2018 + Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1493/2018, an +application under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of +sentence and for grant of bail to applicant-Veera @ Veru. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks leave of this Court to withdraw IA No. 1493/2018. +

Pryaer is allowed. +

Accordingly, IA No. 1493/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn. + List on the question of admission after ensuing summer vacation. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 912/2015 +Indore dated :15/05/2018 + Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni,learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Applicant-Narayan is present in person. + The applicant is suffering from paralysis and he is brought before +this Court by his family members in sick condition. He is dully identified +by his counsel and his presence is marked. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.3077/2018, an +application for condonation of previous non-appearance of applicant +Narayan on 02/11/2017 before the registry of this Court and for recalling +of non-bailable warrant issued by this Court on 09/04/2018. +

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant could +not appear before the Registry of this Court on 02/11/2017 due to paralytic +attack on the left side of his body. +

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application and the condition +of the applicant-Naray, IA No.3077/20188 is allowed and previous non- +appearance of applicant-Narayan before the Registry this Court on +02/11/2017 is hereby condoned and non-bailable warrant issued against +him by this Court, vide order dated 09/04/2018 is hereby recalled. +

Also heard on IA NO. 21309/2017, an application under Section 205 +of the Cr.P.C. for permanent exemption of applicant from marking his +appearance before the Registry of this Court, in which it is contended that +the applicant is suffering from paralytic attack on the left side of his body +and he is unable to walk and he is completely bed ridden, therefore, he is +not in a position to mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on +every date. Hence, the applicant seeks permanent exemption from marking +his presence before the Registry of this Court. The application is also +supported with CT-scan report and other medical papers. +

Looking to the health condition of the applicant, IA No. 21309/2017 +is allowed and the applicant is permanently exempted to mark his presence +before the Registry of this Court with the condition that he shall mark his +presence through his counsel on every date fixed by the Registry in that +behalf. If his counsel has failed to mark his apperance before the Registry +on the date fixed for his appearance then it shall be treated the applicant's +absent on that date and the Court will issue warrant against the applicant +for securing his presence before this Court. When the Court will direct +then the applicant shall remain present in person before this Court. +

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to mark his presence +before the Registry of this Court first on 31/10/2018 and on all other +subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf. +

List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

+
+
+                                                         (S.K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                         Judge
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.19616/2018x
+Indore dated :17/05/2018
+     Parties through their counsel.
+      At the request of learned counsel for the parties list    on
+18/05/2018.
+                                              (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                 Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     M.Cr.C. No.19782/2018x
+Indore dated :17/05/2018
+     Parties through their counsel.
+      At the request of learned counsel for the parties list    on
+18/05/2018.
+                                              (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                 Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.R. No.1458/2018x
+Indore dated :17/05/2018
+     Parties through their counsel.
+      At the request of learned counsel for the parties list    on
+18/05/2018.
+                                              (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                 Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.R. No.1457/2018x
+Indore dated :17/05/2018
+     Parties through their counsel.
+      At the request of learned counsel for the parties list    on
+18/05/2018.
+                                              (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                 Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     M.Cr.C. No.19635/2018x
+Indore dated :17/05/2018
+     Parties through their counsel.
+      At the request of learned counsel for the parties list    on
+18/05/2018.
+                                              (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                 Judge
+
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.A. No.3219/2018x
+

( Mohanlal & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :17/05/2018 + Shri Mukesh Sinjonia, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

Appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the +SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, feeling aggrieved with order +dated 19/04/2018 rendered by Special Judge (SC/ST), Indore in bail +application No. 1124/2018, whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail has +been declined. +

Appellants have been apprehended their arrest in connection with +Crime No. 153/2018, registered at Police-Station- Betma, District-Indore in +relation to offence punishable under Sections 325, 294, 323 and 506/34 of +the IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 . +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the appellants +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this appeal. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.17794/2018x + ( Rajkumar Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :17/05/2018 + Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate 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. 99/2018, Police Station-Leema +Chouhan, District-Rajgarh, concerning offence under Section 34(2) of +the M.P. Excise Act. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application with +liberty to renew his prayer after filing of the charge-sheet . +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.12803/2018x +Indore dated :17/05/2018 + Shri S.D. Lalwani, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +file some relevant documents. +

List on 18/05/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.16287/2018x + ( Azhar Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :17/05/2018 + Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for +grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 536/2016, Police Station- +Kotwali, District-Shajapur, concerning offence under Sections 394 and +120(B) of the IPC. +

After arguing for some time on the merits of the case, learned +counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw +this application . +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn . + Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.18888/2018x +Indore dated :17/05/2018 + Shri M. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case +by next date of hearing positively. +

List after a week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.577/2017 x + (Mayur Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:07/05/2018 + Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State . +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.6980/2017- +an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal +Procedure for suspension of jail sentence dated 20/03/2013 passed +by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Indore in Special S.T. No. +18/2010 and sentencing him to undergo RI for 10 years alongwith +fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default stipulation. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant +has not committed any offence and he is falsely implicated in the +present crime. The appellant is in custody since 12/04/2010. He has +already been completed more than 8 years of his jail sentence and +there is no likelihood of the final hearing of the appeal in near +future. It is also submitted that the prosecution has not complied +with Section 42 of the NDPS Act and from the statement of the +Manglesh (PW 4), it appears that Additional SP was present on the +office of Narcotics Cell but no search warrant was obtained from +him. As per the prosecution story 3.102 Kgs. of opium has been +recovered from the possession of the appellant. Investigation +Officer Prateek Rai (PW 12) accepted in para 53 of his cross- +examination that the aforesaid opium was in liquid form, then how +it can be kept in the carry bag, which clearly indicates that the +appellant has fasely been implicated in the present case. Under + these circumstances he prays for suspension of the remaining jail +sentence of the appellant. +

Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer by +contending that from the statement of the Investigating Officer- +Prateek Rai (PW 12), it is transpired that he has received the secret +information from the informer at about 15:30 p.m. on 12/04/2010 and +thereafter he proceeded to the spot. Although Manglesh Patil (PW 4) +has deposed that when he went to the office of Additional S.P. +Narcotic Wings Office, Indore at about 16:00 p.m. for handing over a +letter (Ex.P/9) regarding information received from the informer then +at that time the Additional S.P., Narcotics Wing Indore Shri Arun +Kumar Jain was present in the Office. However, there is no evidence +available on record to show that when the secret information recived +by the Investigating Officer, then Additional S.P. Narcotics Wing, +Indore was present in his office, therefore, it cannot be said that +despite having enough time for receving the search warrant from the +Gazetted Officer the Investigating Officer does not comply with the +provision 42 of the NDPS Act. +

+

Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that liquid +item can be kept very well in polythene carry bag also. Therefore, +there is no infirmity is present in the prosecution evidence regarding +the seized article. The applicant has filed this appeal after delay of +1387 days, therefore, he cannot take a plea that he is in custody for +more than 8 years and there is no possibility of early conclusion of the +present appeal. Under these circumstances he prayed for rejection of +the application. +

After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel +for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, +in the considered opinion of this Court no case for suspension of +remaining jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant is made +out. Accordingly, IA No.6980/2017 is hereby dismissed. +

+

List after ensuing summer vacation on the question of admission.

+ + + +

(S.K. Awasthi) + skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1623/2018 +Indore dated :16/05/2018 + Shri D.K. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 2502/2018, an +application under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of +execution of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicants. +

+

The applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable +under Section 379 of the IPC and they have been sentenced to +undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each with +default stipulation by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur, vide +order dated 30/05/2017 passed in Criminal Case No. 370/2015. Being +aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, they have challenged the +aforesaid conviction and sentence before the Court of Sessions by +filing Cr.A.No. 25/2017, which was dismissed by the 3 rd Additional +Sessions Judge by order dated 06/04/2018 by affirming the judgment +passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur. Being aggrieved +with the aforesaid judgments applicants have preferred this Revision +Petition before this Court. +

+

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants +were on bail during the trial and pendency of the appeal and they did +not misuse the liberty so granted to them. The trial Court as well as the +appellate Court has committed an error in not properly appreciating +the evidence. FIR was lodged by the complainant after 12 hours of the +alleged incident against unknown persons and no description of + accused persons was given. During the investigation police did not +conduct any identification parade. Under these circumstances the +DOC identification has no value. The complainant did not produce any +source and documentary evidence that he was carrying Rs.20 Lacs +cash in the bag. The independent witness of memorandum and seizure +memo did not support the prosecution story. The couts below have +also not considered the contradictions and ommissions present in the +statement of the complainant-Ashok Sahu. It is further submitted that +there are fair chances of success of this revision petition and the +applicants cannot be kept in custody in the cases, where the short +sentence has been awarded by the Courts below, otherwise the present +revision petition filed by them may turn infructuous. Under these +circumstances he prays for suspension of remaining part of the jail +sentence and for grant of bail to the applicants. +

+

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application by submitting +that cash of Rs. 3.0 lacs and one steel box has been seized from the +possession of applicant No. 1-Akram and cash of Rs. 2.0 lacs has +been seized from the possession of the applicant No.2-Sadik Khan, +which were kept in the red bag and the bag and steel box have been +identified by the complainant as stolen property. The applicants have +failed to explain that from where they possessed the aforesaid +amount, which clearly indicates that they have theft the aforesaid +amount from the complainant-Ashok Sahu. It is also pointed out by +the learned Public Prosecutor that the trial Court and the appellate +Court after due appreciation of the material available on record found +the charges proved against the applicants for the aforesaid offence. He +further submitted that the scope of the revisional court regarding + appreciation of evidence is very limited. Under these circumstances he +prays for rejection of the application. +

+

Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and +considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the +parties, no ground is made out for suspension of remaining jail +sentence awarded to the applicants by the courts below. Accordingly, +IA 2502/2018 is hereby dismissed. +

+

List the revision on the question of admission after ensuing +summer vacation.

+ + +

(S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.18555/2018x + (Mukesh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :16/05/2018 + Shri Dharmendra Gurjar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for +grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 50/2018, Police Station- +Rau, District-Indore, concerning offence under Sections 420, 463, 467 +and 471 of the IPC read with Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, +1915. +

After arguing for some time on the merits of the case, learned +counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw +this application . +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn . + Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 18654/2018x +Indore dated :16/05/2018 + Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary of the present case is available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary of Crime No. 252/2016 registered at Police Station-Ratangarh, +District-Neemuch by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 18/06/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 18702/2018x +Indore dated :16/05/2018 + Shri Mayank Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +file the relevant documents. +

List in the week commencing 25/06/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.17558/2018x + (Onkar Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :16/05/2018 + Shri Anurag Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate 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. 74/2017, Police Station-Bag, +District-Dhar, concerning offence under Sections 392 and 120 (B) of +the IPC. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application . +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn . + Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.11096/2018x + (Prakash Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :16/05/2018 + Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is repeat (fourth) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for +grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 157/2017, Police Station- +Petlawad, District-Jhabua, concerning offence under Sections 326, +323, 294 and 506/34 of the IPC. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application . +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn . + Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.13218/2018x + (Kabu Bai Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :16/05/2018 + Shri Avinash Kumar Khare, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for +grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 354/2017, Police Station- +Machalpur, District-Rajgarh (Biaora), concerning offence under +Sections 294, 323, 336 and 302/34 of the IPC. First application of the +applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court, vide order dated +23/02/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. 1911/2018. +

After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned +counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw +this application with liberty to renew his prayer after recording the +statements of the remaining eye witnesses. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty . +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.584/2018x + (Amjad Shah Vs. Smt. Nilobee & Ors) +Indore dated : 15/05/2018 + Shri Sandeep Shukla, learnedcounsel for the applicant. + Shri N.L. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents. +

+

Heard. +

+

The applicant has filed the instant petition under Section 19(4) of +the Family Court Act against order dated 08/11/2017 passed by the Ist +Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.Cr.C. No. +503/2016, by which the application filed by the respondents under +Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the applicant is +directed to pay interim maintenance @ 4,500/- per month to the +respondents. +

+

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents +filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. For grant of +interim maintenance, which was allowed by the trial Court, vide order +dated 18/05/2017 and directed the applicant to pay interim +maintenance @ Rs. 3,500/- per month to the respondents. He has paid +Rs. 3,500/- on 02/08/2017 and thereafter he could not pay the interim +maintenance. When the case was fixed for recording the evidence of +the applicant, on 09/10/2017, the respondent No.1/wife prays that the +applicant has not deposited the interim maintenance, therefore, +applicant's right of defence may be closed. On the prayer of the +applicant, he was granted an opportunity to deposited the interim +maintenance with the condition that if he has failed to deposit the +same, his right of defence presume to be closed. On 01/10/2017, he + could not comply the order dated 09/10/2017,therefore, his right of +defence has been closed and the case was fixed for final arguments on +03/11/2017. On this date the applicant has deposited Rs.5,000/-and +prays for restoration of his right of defence but the same was declined +by the trial Court and the final order was passed on 08/11/2017. +Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant +is ready to deposit the arrearsof the entire interim maintenance, which +is due till today, therefore, he prayed that the matter may be remanded +back to the trial Courtd and he be permited to cross examine the +respondents witnesses and produce his evidence. +

+

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/ wife +submitted that despite an order directing the applicant to deposit the +interim maintenance, he deliberately and contumaciously flouts the +said order, therefore, the trial Court has rightly stricking the defence +of the applicant. Under these circumstances he prays for rejection of +the application. +

+

4. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused +the record. +

+

5. From the perusal of the record, it appears that applicant had not +obeyed the order and had not deposited the arrears of the interim +maintenance. However, after stricking out his defence, he had +deposited Rs.5,000/- and prayed for an opportunity to pay the arrears +of the interim maintenance. In this situation, the proper course would +have been to direct the applicant/husband to pay the remaining portion +of the interim maintenance and on payment of such amount, he could +have been permitted to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the + respondent No.1/wife and the husband should have further been +directed that only in case he deposits the total arrears of maintenance +pendente lite he would be permitted to lead his own evidence. Striking +off evidence is a very serious matter. It renders the party defenceless. +This action is to be taken only as last resort when all other means fail. +It cannot be used as short cut divest any party of its valuable right to +cross-examine the witnesses of the opposite side and to lead evidence +in support of its case. In case where the offfending party has willfully +disobeyed the orders of the Court, the Court can strike off the defence. +

+

6. In the present case on the date of final argument the +applicant/husband has deposited Rs.5,000/- and he prayed for time to +deposit the remaing amount of interim maintenance. There may be +cases where even though the interim maintenance has been awarded, +the husband for various reasons, beyond his control, is unable to pay +any amount to the wife. In such cases the defence cannot be struck off +merely because he has not paid the arrears of maintenance pendente +lite. But this action should only be taken after affording reasonable +opportunity to the offending party to pay all the arrears. The Court +must come to the conclusion that the offending party is willfully +disobeying the orders before taking such action. +

+

7. Since the husband has deposited sum of Rs.8,500/-as arrears +towards maintenance pendente lite and he is ready to deposit the +arrears of the interim maintenance @ Rs.3,500/- per month, which is +due till today, therefore, he shall be permitted to cross-examine the +witnesses produced by the respondent No.1/wife and produce his +evidence. +

8. Under these circumstnaces, the present revision petition is +allowed on the aforesaid terms. The matter is remanded back to the +Court of Ist Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore to +proceed for the stage of recording the respondent evidence. The +parties are directed to appear before the Ist Additional Principal Judge, +Family Court, Indore on 27/06/2018. The Registry is directed to sent +the record of the case back to the concerned Family Court so as to +reach there well before the date fixed. It is made clear if the applicant +did not comply the undertaking given by his counsel before this Court, +then he will not be permitted to cross-examine the respondents +witnesses and to produce his evidence. +

+

9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for +information and compliance. +

+

Certified copy as per rules. +

+

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.248/2018 + (Ali Husain Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, dated :15/05/2018 + Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

The applicant is preferred this Criminal Revision under Section +397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') +against the order dated 07/07/2017 passed by Special Judge +(Prevention of Atricities), Shajapur, whereby charges for offence under +Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v)(a) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 have been +framed against the applicant. +

This revision petition has been filed against order dated +07/07/2017 is barred by 95 days, therefore, the applicant has filed IA +No. 378/2018, an application for condonation of delay in preesentation +of the revision petition. +

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from the FIR and +the statement of the complainant did not disclose that the applicant +abused the complainant by calling in the name of her caste. The +present incident has taken place in the house, which is not come within +the public view, therefore, the provision of SC/ST Act does not attract +in the present case. Inspite of that learned trial Court committed error +in framing the charge for the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2) +

(v)(a) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 against the applicant. +

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition and +prayed for its rejection. +

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the +impugned order. +

From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the +applicant has demanded Rs.50,000/- from the complainant, who +belongs to Scheduled Castes and abused her. The applicant also +threatened that he will kill her. In the statement of the complainant +and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., it has +come that the applicant insulted the complainant by calling in the +name of her caste. +

Looking to the amendements inserted in the Atrocities Act in the +year 2016, there are sufficient grounds are available for framing the +charge for the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v)(a) of the +SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 against the applicant. Applicant has also failed +to assign the sufficient reasons for condonation of delay in filing the +present revision petition, therefore, I do not find any merit in the +present petition. Accordingly, IA No. 378/2018 and present revision +petition both are dismissed. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.47/2018 + (Sourabh Maru Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, dated :15/05/2018 + Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

The applicant is preferred this Criminal Revision under Section +397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') +against the order dated 09/11/2017 passed by Sessions Judge, +Shajapur in Criminal Appeal No. 159/2015, whereby the order dated +09/04/2015 passed by Additional District Magistrate, Agar (Malwa) in +Case No. 11/B-121/2013-14 for convicting the applicant for the +offence punishable under Sections 3(z)(f)(a)(i) read with Section 27(3) +(C)/52 of the Prevention from Food Adulteration Act, 2011 has been +affirmed and the applicant is directed to deposit penalty amount of +Rs.60,000/-. +

According to the prosecugtion story, on 11/03/2014, at about +4:00 p.m., complainant-K.L. Kumbhakar reached to the shop of +applicant for inspection and he purchased the Mawa Katli as a sample +(which was covered by silver verk) in his shop. The sample was sent +for analysis to State Public Analysis Laboratory Food and Medicine +Administration, Bhopal and as per the analysis report received from +Bhopal, silver verk used by the applicant in preparing Mawa Katli was +found adulterated with aluminium (0.1%/500 gm). +

After getting permission, the complainant filed the complaint +against the applicant before the Additional District Magistrate, Agar +(Malwa), whereby the applicant was convicted for the offence +punishable under Sections 3(z)(f)(a)(i) read with Section 27(3)(C)/52 + of the Prevention from Food Adulteration Act, 2011, vide order dated +09/04/2015. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid, the applicant has +preferred Criminal Appeal No. 159/2015 before the Sessions Judge, +Shajapur and the same was dismissed by the impugned judgment by +affirming the order of conviction, however, the penalty amount has +been reduced from Rs.1.0 Lacs to Rs.60,000/-. +

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution +has failed to prove that the seized silver verk was harmful and unfit for +human consumption. The trial Court also not considered the fact that +applicant has not made the silver verk in his own factory. The +appellate Court has committed error in imposing capital penalty +amount of Rs.60,000/- ignoring the facts that the applicant is a small +shopkeeper and he is first offender and facing the trial since 2014. +Inspite of that the courts' below have not extended the benefit of +probation to the applicant. Under these circumstances, learned counsel +for the applicant prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment. +

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition and +prayed for its rejection. +

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the +record. +

From the perusal of the judgments passed by the courts' below, it +appears that the applicant was selling Mawa Katli in his sweet mart +and one sample of the same was taken and sent to the State Public +Analysis Laboratory Food and Medicine Administration, Bhopal and +as per the analysis report it was found that the silver verk over Mawa +Katl was adulterated with aluminium (0.1%/500 gm). This fact is +proved by the prosecution that the silver verk was used by the + applicant in preparation of Mawa Katli is found adulterated, hence, the +applicant must be ensured that the silver verk used in the sweet should +be according to the food safety rules. Therefore, he cannot take a plea +that he is not maker of the silver verk, thus he should not be blamed +for adulterating the silver verk. +

The silver verk used for prepration of Mawa Katli by the +applicant was found adulterated and it certainly harmful for human +being, therefore, the courts below have not committed any error in +convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 3(z) +

(f)(a)(i) read with Section 27(3)(C)/52 of the Prevention from Food +Adulteration Act, 2011 and imposing penalty upon him, which has +already been reduced by the appellate Court from Rs.1.0 Lac to +Rs.60,000/-. +

In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the considered opinion of +this Court no interference is warranted. Accordingly, this revision +petition is dismissed summarily. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 27256/2017 +Indore dated :06/04/2018 + Shri C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Arguments heard. +

Reserved for orders. +

+ +
(S.C. Sharma)                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+    Judge                                            Judge
+
+Indore dated :   /05/2018
+
+

Order passed, signed and dated separately. +

+ +

(S.C. Sharma) (S.K. Awasthi) + Judge Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 10784/2017 +Indore dated :06/04/2018 + Ms. Monica Billore, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Arguments heard. +

Reserved for orders. +

+ +
(S.C. Sharma)                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+    Judge                                            Judge
+
+Indore dated :   /05/2018
+
+

Order passed, signed and dated separately. +

+ +
(S.C. Sharma)                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+  Judge                                               Judge
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      WP No.9337/2018
+

(Dr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) +Indore dated :15/05/2018 + Ms. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents /State. +

Heard finally with consent. +

This writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging the order +dated 13/04/2018, whereby exercising the power under Rule 20(3) of +Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex +Selection) Act, 1994 ( for short the Act), the registration of petitioner +has been suspended. +

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in terms of sub-section +(1) of Section 20 of the Act, a show cause notice is required to be given +and under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, the appropriate +authority after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing was required to +pass the order. She submits that for invoking the provisions of sub- +section (3) of Section 20, the appropriate authority was required to +disclose the urgency and also record the reason for the same, however, +this provision has not been complied with in the present case by +respondent No.2 and looking to the fact that default on the part of the +petitioner was only minor, rules of natural justice ought to have been +followed in the matter. She further submits that there was no urgency to +invoke sub-section (3) of Section 20 of Act. +

Counsel for respondent/State has fairly stated before this Court +that there is no objection in giving an opportunity of hearing and +passing a fresh order in accordance with Act. +

Keeping in view the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the writ + petition at this stage is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order +dated 13/04/2018 with liberty to respondents to pass appropriate order +after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance +with the Act. +

Certified copy wtihin 3 days. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.18539/2018x +Indore dated :15/05/2018 + Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case +by next date of hearing positively. +

List on 17/05/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.15313/2018x + (Guman Singh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :15/05/2018 + Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhisehk Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for +grant of bail in connection with Crime No.296/20176, Police Station- +Suasara, District-Mandsaur, concerning offence under Section 379 of +the IPC. +

After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned +counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw +this application with liberty to renew his prayer after recording the +statements of the substantial prosecution witnesses. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty . +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.14413/2018x + (Hoshiyar Singh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :15/05/2018 + Smt. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhisehk Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for +grant of bail in connection with Crime No.543/2016, Police Station- +Madhavnagar, District-Ujjain, concerning offence under Sections 420, +467, 468, 471, 474, 120(B) and 201/34 of the IPC. +

After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned +counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw +this application . +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 16287/2018x +Indore dated :15/05/2018 + Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

At the request of learned counsel for the applicant the case is +adjourned. +

List on 17/05/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 16692/2018x +Indore dated :15/05/2018 + Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

At the request of learned counsel for the applicant the case is +adjourned. +

List on 17/05/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 332/2014x +Indore dated :15/05/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the reply of IA No. +23418/2017 is ready and he filed the same during the course of the day. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant the case is +adjourned. +

List after ensuing summer vacation. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.205/2015x +Indore dated :15/05/2018 + Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for and is granted four +week's time to file the reply of IA No. 2307/2018, an application under +Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaing jail sentnece and +for grant of bail to the appellant-Devendra Singh. +

List after ensuing summer vacation. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 606/2015x +Indore dated :15/05/2018 + Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for the respondentd/UOI. + At the request of learned counsel for the appellant the case if +adjourned. +

List after four weeks for consideration of IA No. 7299/2017, +repeat (second) application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for +suspension of remaining jail sentence and for grant of bail to the +appellant-Kojaram. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 364/2016x +Indore dated :15/05/2018 + Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he has already filed the +reply of IA No. 7934/2017, first application under Section 389(1) of the +Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence and for grant of bail to +the appellant-Prashant @ Nannu. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Govt. +Advocate has not supplied the copy of reply to him. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to supply the copy of reply +of IA No. 7934/2017 to the learned counsel for the appellant during the +course of the day. +

List after ensuing summer vacation. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 426/2016x +Indore dated :15/05/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after three weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.440/2016x +Indore dated :15/05/2018 + Shri Abhishek Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the appellants on IA No. 2214/2018, 1 st +application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of +jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-Shankar @ Raju. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the appellant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw IA No. 2214/2018. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, IA No. 2214/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn. + List the appeal for final hearing in due course. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.672/2016x +Indore dated :15/05/2018 + Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted four +weeks' time to argue on IA No. 1576/2018, second application under +Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence +and for grant of baial to the appellant-Shahrukh. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 709/2012x +Indore dated :11/05/2018 + Shri Harish Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned counsel for the respondent/State. + Heard on IA No. 2604/2018, repeat (second) application under +Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail +sentence awarded to the applicant and for grant of bail. +

+

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was +convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First class, Ratlam in Criminal +Case No.1672/2010, vide order dated 06/03/2012 for the offence +under Section 304(A)of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 years RI +and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-with default stipulation. He has +challenged the aforesaid conviction and sentence before the Court of +Sessions by filing Cr.A.No. 119/2012, which was partly allowed by +the Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 26/06/2012. The +conviction for the offence under Section 304(A) of the IPC was +affirmed, however, the sentence was reduced from 1 years RI to 6 +months R.I. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment applicant +has preferred this Revision Petition before this Court. +

+

From the perusal of the record it appears that the applicant has +moved an application under Section397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for +suspension of sentence awarded by the appellate Court and the same +was allowed by this Court, vide order dated 10/07/2012, and the +applicant was released on bail subject to condition that he shall mark +his presence before this registry of this Court on every date fixed by +the Office in this regard. However, on 06/01/2016, applicant failed to + appear before this Court. Thereafter, on the request of his counsel the +case was fixed to keep him present before this Court on 12/03/2018 +but he did not mark his presence on the said date, therefore, vide order +dated 12/03/2018, warrant of arrest was issued against him and in +pursuant to that the applicant was arrested by the Police and produced +before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam on 12/04/2018 +and since then he is in custody. +

+

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after granting +bail by this Court, vide order dated 10/07/2012, the applicant +applicant did not misuse the liberty so granted to him. Due to illness +and lost of date slip, he could not appear before this Court on +06/01/2016. He also assured that in future the applicant will be +regularly mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on each +and every date fixed by the Office in this behalf. Under these +circumstances, he prays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and +for grant of bail to the applicant. +

+

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application by +contending that after suspension of jail Sentence by this Court, vide +order dated 12/07/2012, the applicant was remained absent on +29/09/2014 and he was appeared on 22/07/2015 and moved an +application for condonation of absence, which was allowed by this +Court and thereafter, on 06/01/2016 the applicant made default in +apperance before this Court, therefore, it is clear that the applicant is +habitual defaulter and he has misused the liberty earlier granted to +him. Under these circumstances he prayed for rejection of the +application. +

After considering the the arguments advance by the learned +counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that the applicant is +habitual defaulter in marking his presence before this Court. He +failed to mark his presence on the date fixed by this Court without +assigning any sufficient reason, therefore, in the considered +opinion of this Court no case for grant of suspension of remaining +jail sentence and for grant of bail is made out to the applicant. +Accordingly, IA No. 2604/2018 is hereby dismissed. +

List the revision for final hearing in due course.

+ + + +

(S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1320/2018 +Indore dated :10/05/2018 + Shri A.S. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned counsel for the respondent/State. + Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1998/2018, an +application under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of +execution of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicants. +

+

The applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable +under Sections 323,324, 325/34 of the IPC read with Section 25 of the +Arms Act and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 +months,1 years,1 years and 1 years and to pay fine of Rs.400/- for +each offence respectively with default stipulation. +

+

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants +were on bail during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty so +granted to them. It is further submitted that there are fair chances of +success of this revision petition and the applicants cannot be kept in +custody in the cases, where the short sentence has been awarded by +the Courts below, otherwise the present revision petition filed by them +may turn infructuous. Applicants have already deposited the fine +amount before the trial Court. Under these circumstances he prays for +suspension of remaining part of the jail sentence and for grant of bail +to the applicants. +

+

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and prayed for +its rejection. It is also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor +that the trial Court and the appellate Court after due appreciation of +the material evidence available on record found the charges proved + against the applicants for the aforesaid offences. +

+

From the perusal of the record it appears that the applicants were +not present before the trial Court on the date of pronouncement of +judgment and the judgment was passed in their absence. After passing +the judgment by the trial Court, they did not surrendered before the +trial Court so that the jail sentence awarded to them to be executed. +They have surrendered before the trial Court after lapse of eight and +half months of the impugned judgment passed by the appellate Court, +which clearly indicates that they have misused the liberty so granted to +them. +

+

Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case no +sufficient ground is made out for suspension of remaining jail sentence +awarded to the applicants by the courts below. Accordingly, IA +1998/2018 is hereby dismissed. +

+

List the revision on the question of admission after ensuing +summer vacation.

+ + +

(S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 9525/2017 +Indore dated :10/05/2018 + Smt. Sangita Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri S.K. Gangwal, learned counsel for the respondent. + Heard. +

This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been +filed the applicant for assailing the order dated 12/4/2017 passed by +the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr.R. No. +798/2016,whereby order dated 12/08/2016 passed by the Judicial +Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 25706/2014 for +allowing the application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the +respondent has been affirmed. +

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant has filed a +private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore +regarding commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the +NI Act. During pendency of the case respondent has filed an +application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C alleging that the applicant +is a money lender and he is doing money lending business without +having any license. Earlier also he has filed 10 cases under +Section138 of the NI Act against another persons, therefore, the +applicant be directed to furnish the certified copy of the complaint +cases mentioned in Serial Nos. 4 to 10 in the application. Said +application was allowed by the trial Court. +

+

3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order a revision petition has +been filed before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Indore and +the same was dismissed, vide order dated 12/04/2017 by the +Additional Seesions Judge on the ground that the revision petition + has been filed against the interlocutory application, therefore, in the +light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of +Setu Raman Vs. Rajamanikkam, 2009(5) SCC 153, this revision is +not tenable. This order is a subject matter of challenge before this +court in present application. +

+

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the provision of +M.P. Money Lenders Act is not applicable in the cases filed under +Section 138 of the NI Act, therefore, the question that applicant is +having valid license or not for doing money lending business in no +relevant in the present matter . Therefore, the trial Court has +committed error in directing him to filed certified copies of the +previous complaints filed by him against another persons under NI +Act. +

+

5. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the trial +Court has not committed any error in allowing the application filed +under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. and the impugned order does not +suffer from any perversity, therefore, it may not be interfered. It is +also alleged that the applicant will regularly advance loan amount to +the needy persons without holding any license. From the definition of +the Section 11(H)of the Money Lenders Act,1934 it is evident that the +present case is not maintainable because the applicant is carrying a +money lending business without having valid license and as a security +of loan amount, he obtains the cheques of the advanced amount from +the borrowers. +

+

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties to the case, it +appropriate to first deal with the contentions of the learned counsel + for the applicant. First attack of the learned counsel for the applicant +is on the applicability of the M.P. Money Lenders Act, 1934 in the +cases filed under Section 138 of the NI Act. It may be appropriate to +refer the provisions of M.P. Money Lenders Act, 1934. +

+
" Section 11-H of the said act lays down that no money lending +suit for the recovery of loan advanced by the money lender was +proceeded in the civil court, until the court is satisfied that he holds +the valid registration certificate or he is not required to have +registration certified by reasons of the fact that he does not carry out a +business of money lending ( in any area of M.P.)" +
+

7. In the present case it is alleged by the respondent that the +applicant is a money lender, who is doing the aforesaid business +without having any license. Although the complainant denied the +aforesaid allegation but he has not claimed that he is owned any +license for doing money lending business. From the provision 11(H) +of the M.P. Money Lenders Act, 1934 , it is clear that no suit for the +recovery of loan advanced by money lender will proceed in a civil +Court if the money lender had a valid registration certificate meaning +thereby any person, who is involved in money lending business +cannot recovered the loan amount through Court. 8. As per the +explanation of the Negotiable Instruments Act " Debt or other liability +means a legal enforceable debt or other liability". So a loan advanced +by a money lender, who is doing a business of money lending without +license is not a debt or other liability and provision of 138 of the NI +Act will not apply to such transactions in the light of provision under +Section 11(H) of the M.P. Money Lenders Act, 1934. +

8. In the light of the above discussion this court come to the +conclusion that the trial Court has committed any legal error in +directing the applicant to file certified copies of the complaint as +mentioned at serial Nos. 4 to10 in the application filed under Section +91 of the Cr.P.C. so that the respondent can able to prove that the +applicant is doing money lending business and hence the cheques +issued by respondent in favour of the applicant is not for the debt or +liability or legal enforcible liability. +

+

9.

+

+ + + (S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 9994/2017x +Indore dated :10/05/2018 + Ms. Seema Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant. + Heard. +

The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the +Cr.P.C.,1973 ( for brevity 'the Code') for assailing the order dated +07/04/2017 passed by 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in +Criminal Revision No. 872/2016, whereby order dated 29/08/2016 +passed in Criminal Case No. 0/2015 by Additional Chief Judicial +Magistrate, Indore for rejection of the private complaint has been +affirmed. +

2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the applicant +has filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. before +the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore alleging that on +14/12/2014, at about 8 p.m., respondents teased and abused his wife. +When he prevented them, then they broke his foot. He reported the +incident to the Police, due to this enmity on 05/07/2015 and +afterwards, the respondents sent a message through whats-app with +intend to insult him, in which they threatened that they will kill him +and kidnapped his wife. They also used filthy languages in the +message, which was defamatory to him. +

+

3. The complainant was presented on 29/01/2015 before the +Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore and thereafter the +statement of the complainant as well as other witnesses called by the +complainant were recorded to enable the concerned Magistrate to +taking the cognizance on the complaint. After recording the statement +the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore vide order dated + 29/08/2016 rejected the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. by +contending that prima-facie no offence under Sections 294, 500 and +506 are made out against the respondents. +

+

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of rejection passed by the +Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore revision application was +filed before the 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore which was +registered as Cr.R. No. 872/2016 and final order was passed +on07/04/2017, whereby the revision petition has been dismissed on +the ground that the applicant has failed to establish prima facie case +against the respondents. This order is subject matter of challenge +before this Court. +

+

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the +statement of the complainant and his witnesses, prima facie sufficient +grounds are made out against the respondents for prosecuting them, +however, the trial Court fails to consider the material available on +record and committed error of law and fact in rejecting the private +complaint filed by the applicant. +

+

6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer by +contending that impugned judgments are not suffered from any +illegality and perversity, therefore, impugned judgments may not be +interfered. +

+

7. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties to the case and +perused the record. +

+

8. From perusal of the record, it appears that applicant- Abbas Ali +deposed in his statement recorded under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. + that the respondent No.6- Burhani Saifi sent a message on whats- app +through his mobile phone alleging that he is drunker and he teased +the girls and he also collected extortion money, due to this message +his image is damaged in society. But neither he mentioned his mobile +number nor the mobile number from which he received this message. +It is also pertinent to note that that aforesaid allegations were not +mentioned in the complaint filed by the complainant, therefore, +aforesaid statements of the applicant falls in the category of +omissions, hence, it cannot be accepted. +

+

9. Although Mohan Lal (CW2) and Bano Bai (CW 3) have also +supported the version of the complainant, however, Mohan Lal (CW +

3) accepted that he has not received any message on his whats-app +and he knew about the aforesaid message on the information given by +the applicant. Inspite of that in his view the complainant is a good +person. The statement of the Mohan Lal (CW 3) clearly indicates that +neither he had seen nor received any message,which is alleged to send +by the respondent No.6 on whats-app of the complainant and no +adverse facts come to his mind regarding the conduct of the +complainant. +

+

10. Bano Bai (CW 3), although deposed in her statement that she +received whats-app message on her mobile in which it was alleged +that the applicant consumed the liquor and teased the girls. But she +did not say in her statement that the aforesaid whats-app message was +sent by any of the respondents. +

+

11. After going through the record and material available on record, +I do not find any illegality or impropriety committed by the Courts + below. The Courts' below have come to the conclusion after due +appreciation of the material and evidence available on record and +dismissed the private complaint filed by the applicant. The appellate +Court also after due appreciation of the material available on record +held that there is nothing on record to invoke the revisional +jurisdiction for interference in the impugned order. In the considered +opinion of this Court, judgments passed by the both the courts' below +is proper and as per the material available on record. +

+

12. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere in the judgments +passed by the courts' below. Accordingly, this application filed under +Section of the Code is hereby dismissed.

+ + +

(S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.3671/2017x + (Mohanlal Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated : 11/05/2018 + Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Present revision has been preferred by the applicant being +aggrieved by the judgment dated 09/10/2017 passed by 3rd Addtional +Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr.A. No. 973/2016, whereby confirmed +the judgment dated 02/11/2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate First +Class, Depalpur, whereby convicted the applicant under Section 324 +of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one years with fine of +Rs.500/- with default stipulation. +

Learned counsel for the respondent/State raised an objection +about maintainability of this revision stating that after his conviction, +the applicant has not surrendered to custody as also not filed any +declaration to the effect that he has surrendered before the trial Court +and he is in custody and prays for dismissal of this reviosion as not +maintainable. +

From the perusal of the records, it reveals that at the time of +conviction and sentence, the applicant was not present before the +Appellate Court and the judgment was pronounced in his absence. +After his conviction, he has not surrendered to custody and instead of +that, he filed the present revision without incorporating declaration to +the effect that he has surrendered before the trial Court and he is in +custody. Thus, the present revision filed by the applicant without his +surrender before the court below is not maintainable. +

In the case of Dilip Sahu and others Vs. State of M.P., +reported in 2012 (3) MPLJ 534, this Court while dealing with the + maintainability of the revision petition, has held that a Criminal +Revision against conviction is tenable only when it contains a +declaration to the effect that the convicted person is in custody or has +surrendered after the conviction except in cases where the sentence +has been suspended by the Court below. +

In viw of the aforesaid decision of this Court, the objection +raised by learned counsel for the respondent on the point of +maintainability is accepted and the present revision petition is hereby +dismissed as not maintainable. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9126/2018x + (State of M.P. vs. Babu Singh & Ors.) +Indore dated :11/05/2018 + + Shri Bhuwan Gautam, Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State. +

+

Heard. +

+

ORDER + + The applicant/State has filed this petition under Section 378(3) Code of + +Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') for the grant leave to appeal + +against judgment dated 30/11/2017 passed by 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, + +Ratlam, in S.T. No. 2206/2010, whereby the respondents-Babusingh, Veer Singh + +and Nagu Singh have been acquitted from the charge under Sections 467, 468, 471 + +and 474 of the IPC. +

+

2. No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the disposal + +of this matter, suffice it to say that the respondents were tried for the offence + +punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 474 of the IPC. +

+

3. From the perusal of the impugned judgment it appears although some Bhu + +Adhikar and Rin Pustika were recovered from the possession of the respondents, + +however, they were found to be correct and true. No report was lodged by anybody + +regarding stolen of these Bhu Adhikar and Rin Pustika. Investigation Officer-S.S. + +Chouhan (PW 14) in para 34 of his cross-examination admitted that he has not + +found that any accused persons furnish bail papers on the basis of these Bhu Rin + +Pustika, which were recovered from their possession. During the investigation + +police has not made any attempt to verify the signatures of the persons, who have + +signed those bail papers, who were suspected to be forged. There are material + contradictions were also found in the statement of the witnesses. According to us, + +the trial Court did not erred in acquitting the respondents. +

+

4. Learned Public Prosecutor could not point out that how and in what manner + +the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not possible or + +plausible. No perversity could be set fourth in the impugned judgement. +

+

5. In view of the above, we do not find any ground for warranting admission. +

+

Accordingly, this application for grant of leave to appeal is hereby dismissed + +summarily. +

+ + +
      (P.K. Jaiswal)                                       (S. K. Awasthi)
+        Judge                                                  Judge
+skt
+                   THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                          M.Cr.C. No.7696/2018x
+

(State of M.P. vs. Vijay @ Akhatya) +Indore dated :11/05/2018 + + Shri Sudarshan Joshi, Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State. +

+

Heard. +

+

ORDER + + The applicant/State has filed this petition under Section 378(3) Code of + +Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') for the grant leave to appeal + +against judgment dated 30/10/2017 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, + +Khargone (East Nimar) in S.T. No. 800536/2016, whereby the respondent-Vijay @ + +Akhatya has been acquitted from the charge under Sections 366, 376 and 506(II) + +of the IPC. +

+

2. No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the disposal + +of this matter, suffice it to say that the respondent was tried for the offence + +punishable under Sections 366, 376 and 506(II) of the IPC. +

+

3. Prosecutrix is a major girl. On going through her testimony, we find that + +the sexual act done by the respondent with her consent and she travelled with the + +respondent by bus and train for so many places. They lived together for a period + +of 1 month and during this period she has not raised any alarm against the conduct + +of the respondent, therefore, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that if at all + +act of rape has been committed from the prosecutrix then it might be consent with + +the applicant as she is a major girl of 19 years. Similarly the trial Court has also + +come to the conclusion that there is no sign of injury has been found on the body + +of the prosecturix. As per the statement of the Dr. Sarika Patel (PW 3), who + examined the prosecutrix and on which basis this cannot be inferred that any + +forcible intercourse has been committed on the prosecutrix. +

+

4. Looking to the circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion findings + +recorded by the trial Court does not appears to be perverse or illegal, which can be + +interfered by this Court. It is well settled proposition of law that if the trial Court + +after due appreciation of the material available on record came to the conclusion of + +acquittal and the findings is not perverse then normally it should not be interfered + +by the appellate Court. +

+

5. Resultantly, no grounds are available to grant leave to appeal against + +impugned judgment of acquittal, hence, the petition is hereby dismissed. +

+ + +

(P.K. Jaiswal) (S. K. Awasthi) + Judge Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9035/2018 x + ( Ajay & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :08/05/2018 + Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

ORDER + This application under Section 482/437(6) of the +Cr.P.C. is directed against order dated 24/01/2018 passed by +2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Alirajpur in Criminal Revison +No. 9/2018, wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge +has dismissed the Criminal Revision of the applicant and +confirmed the order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, +Alirajpur in Criminal Case No. 516/2017 dated 22/12/2017. +

The facts giving rise to this application are that the applicants +were facing trial before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, +Alirajpur for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the M.P. +Excise Act in Criminal Case No. 516/2017. After reading over the +particulars of the offfence to the applicant, the matter was first placed +for recording of prosecution evidence on 17/05/2017, however, after +lapse of 60 days no evidence could be recorded, therefore, the +application was filed by the applicants under Section 437(6) of the +Cr.P.C. for grant of bail on the ground that after lapse of period, as +prescribed under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. the present case which +is triable by the Magistrate could not be concluded. +

+

Leaned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application on + the ground that 8 prosecution witnesses has already been examined +and the trial is in progress, therefore, it is not proper to release the +applicants on bail. Being aggrieved by this order the applicants have +filed criminal revision, which was also dismissed by the 2 nd Addtional +Sessions Judge, Alirajpur,vider order dated 24/01/2018 passed in +Cr.R. No. 9/2018 by contending that the reasons recorded by the Chief +Judicial Magistrate were just and proper. Thus, no interference is +called for. +

+

Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the applicants have +preferred this application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on the +ground that both the Courts below did not consider the facts and law +properly and they wrongly interpreted the provision 437(6) of the +Cr.P.C. +

+

Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the +judgement passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case +of Ram Kumar @ Raj Kumar Vs. State of M.P. reported in +2001(1) JLJ 404, in which it has been held that the provision of +437(6) of the Cr.P.C. are mandatory and the reasons given by the +Courts below that it is doubtful that they would be attending the Court +on each and every date fixed by the Magistrate were not judicious. +The co-ordinate Bench observed as below:- +

+
"3.......................... These reasoning indicating the + apprehension of the learned Courts below, by no strech of + imagination, could be termed as judicious, and therefore, + they are not of such a nature as to thwart and wash off the + manadatory character of the provisions of Section 437(6) + of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am of the considered + view that the statutory right given to the accused by the + above provisions cannot be taken away. Since the + applicant had all through remained in custody during the + said period of more than sixty days from the first date + fixed for recording the evidence, he would be deemed to + have been clothed with the right to be released on bail. + The rejection of his application under Section 437(6) of + the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned trial + Magistrate and later the dismissal of his revision by the + learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, was + nothing but the abuse of the process of Court and given + rise to the miscarriage of justice.". +

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the +record. +

From the perusal of the proceedings of the trial Court, it appears +that on 17/5/2017, the particulars of the offence were read over to the +applicantd and the case was fixed for recording of the evidence for +the first time on 17/05/2017. Till 15/02/2018,only 12 witnesses have +been examined and meanwhile absconded accused Ugrasen has been +arrested by the Police and now the case is fixed for filing of +supplementary charge-sheet against him. Therefore, it is clear that +there is no possibility of the early conclusion of the trial. The +applicant is in custody for more than 1 years. Although the provision +of Section 437(6) are not mandatory but directory, however, it is +evident from the record that the prosecution could not be concluded +his witnesses within 60 days from the first date of recording of +evidence and there is no likelihood of final disposal of the case in near +future,therefore, in the considered view of this Court that statutory +right given to the accused by provision 437 (6) of the Cr.P.C. cannot +be taken away. Consequently, this application is allowed and the +orders passed by the Courts' below are hereby set aside. The + applicants are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing a +personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand +Only)each with one solvent surety of the like amount to the +satisfaction of the trial Court for their regular appearance before the +trial Court during trial 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) 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 + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.17167/2018 + (Raju @ Shahjad Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :11/05/2018 + Shri L.S. Chandel, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhisehk Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for +grant of bail in connection with Crime No.260/2017, Police Station- +Rau, District-Indore, concerning offence under Sections 307, 323, 294 +and 506/34 of the IPC. +

After arguing some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks +permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under +Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 10771/2018 +Indore dated :10/05/2018 + Shri S.C. Bagadiya, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Rohit +Saboo, learned counsel for the applicants. +

Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. +

The applicants have preferred this petition under Section 482 of +the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 24/03/2018 passed in +Criminal Revision No. 64/2017 by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, +Neemuch, whereby order dated 26/08/2017 passed by the Judicial +Magistrate First Class, Neemuch in Criminal Complaint Case No. +495/2015 has been affirmed, by which the application filed by the +applicants under Section 259 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected. +

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant No.1 is an +occupier of the factory Adani Willmar Limited and engaged inter alia +in the operation relation to the manufacture of oil, De-oiled cake etc. +In its factory situated at village Bhatkheda, District-Neemuch; +whereas the applicant No.2 is a Factory Manager of the aforesaid +factory. On 09/4/2015, 10/04/2015 and 11/04/2015 Factory +Manager inspected the factory premises and informed that the 5 +workers were died due to the violation of Section 7-A and 36 of the +Act read with Rule 73 and Article 4 and 19 of Schedule XI part XI of +Rule 107 of the M.P. Factories Rules punishable under Section 92 of +the said Act. On 11/05/2015 the respondent filed the complaint before +the Judicial Magistrate First Class against the applicants therein +alleging violation of Section 7-A and 36 of the Act read with Rule 73 + and Article 4 and 19 of Schedule XI part XI of Rule 107 of the M.P. +Factories Rules punishable under Section 92 of the said Act. On that +basis the Magistrate has taken the cognizance against the applicant +and issued summons against them on 11/05/2015. On 20/06/2017, the +applicants filed an application under Section 259 of the Cr.P.C. for +conversion of the case from summons trial into warrant trial on the +premises that the applicant/accused has to prove volumonious record +and witnesses, and this is not possible in summon's case. The said +application was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, +Neemuch on the ground that delay may occur due to conversion of +summons trial case into warrant trial case. Being aggrieved by the +aforesaid order the revision petition was filed before the Sessions +Court and this was also dismissed on the ground that prayer made by +the applicants can be considered after the trial is commenced and the +case is not reached to the stage of commencement of trial, therefore, +the application filed by the applicants is premature. +

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has draw the attention of this +Court in the case of Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of +India, 1996 (6) SCC 775, wherein the Hon'ble apex Court while dealing +with the issued has held that in cases of trials of summons cases by +magistrates the trial would be considered to have commenced when the +accused to appear or brought before the magistrate are asked under +Section 251 whether they plead guilty or have any defence to make. He +also placed reliance in the case of Raj Kishosre Prasad v. State of +Bihar (1996) 4 SCC 495; wherein it was held that since the person is +present before the Court and Court hears the parties on framing of +charges, at this stage trial is said to have commenced. +

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the approach +adopted by the revisional Court is hypothetical and he has failed to +consider that the trial of summon case is commenced when the accused +appear or brought before the Magistrate and he asked that whether he +plead guilty or have any defence to make. The trial Court has wrongly +concluded that the trial is not yet commenced. Therefore, he prays that +the case be remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration of their +application filed under Section 259 of the Cr.P.C. for conversion of +summons trial into warrant trial. +

+ +

5. I have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the +record. +

6. Section 259 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under: +

" 259. Power of Court to convert summons-cases + into warrant cases. When in the course of the trial of a + summons-case relating to an offence punishable with + imprisonment for a term exceeding six months, it appears + to the Magistrate that in the interests of justice, the offence + should be tried in accordance with the procedure for the + trial of warrant-cases, such Magistrate may proceed to re- + hear the case in the manner provided by this Code for the + trial of warrant-cases and the may recall any witnesses + who may have been examined." +

7. On reading of Section 259 of the Cr.P.C., I am of the view that this +exercise of jurisdiction under Section of the 259 Cr.P.C. is nopt available +to the Magistrate at the stage earlier to the commencement of trial. The +very opening words of the section " when in the course of the trial of a +summons case relating to an offence punishable with imprisonment for a +term exceeding six months, it appears to the magistrate that in the +interest of justice, the offence should be tried in accordance with the +procedure for the trial of warrant cases, such magistrate may proceed to + rehear the case in the manner provided by this code for the trial of +warrant cases and may recally any witness who may have been +examined." +

8. In the present case the words " rehear and rehear the case" +

indicates that the Magistrate should commenced the proceedings from +the start or de novo meaning thereby that after the trial has begun the +Magistrate feels that in the interest of justice the offence is tried in +accordance with procedure for trial of warrant cases then he may be +converted summon trial into trial of warrant cases. The stage of trial has +not come to the stage, where the Magistrate can resort the provision of +this Section. Although, the trial of summon cases is commenced when +the accused or brought before the Magistrate and he asked under Section +251 of the Cr.P.C. that whether he plead guilty or have any defence to +make. But in the present case the Magistrate has not read over the +particular of offence. +

9. Having carefully examined the aforesaid provision and +consideration of material brought on record, in the considered opinion of +this Court that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not +committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the applicants +under Section 259 of the Cr.P.C. and the intereference under Section 482 +of the Cr.P.C. is not warranted. Consequently, this petition is hereby +dismissed.

+ + +

(S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 10775/2017 +Indore dated :10/05/2018 + Shri Sandeep Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

None for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. + The applicant has filed this petition under Section 407 red with +Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for transferring the Criminal Case No. +2104/2011 (State of M.P. Through police-station-Ujjain Vs. Sandeep and +others) pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, +Ujjain to Competent court of C.J.M. or J.M.F.C. Court, Gwalior. +

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of +complaint made by the applicant at Police-Station Kotwali, District- +Ujjain, an FIR bearing Crime No. 29/2011 under Section 498(A) of the +IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been +registered against the respondent Nos. 2 to 5, which is pending before +the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain. The respondent No.3 +is a practioning lawyer at Ujjain and the family members of respondent +No.2 threatened her when she went to Ujjain for evidence, therefore, the +applicant is having apprehension in her mind that in case she appeared +at Ujjain some unpleasant incident can be happened with her. +

3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that +The applicant is presently residing at Gwalior, which is about 500 Kms. +away from Ujjain. She is young lady having a female child and there is +no male member to escort her from Gwalior to Ujjain on the date of +hearing. So on account of convenience of the parties, the matter, which +is pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain be +transferred to competent court of C.J.M. Or J.M.F.C. Gwalior. +

4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the +record. +

5. From the perusal of record it is apparent that the applicant is +residing at Gwalior and on the basis of complaint made by her, a +criminal case is registered against the respondent Nos. 2 to 5, which is +pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain. It is +alleged that respondent No.3 is a practising lawyer at Ujjain and the +applicant is having apprehension in her mind that when she will appear +in Ujjain some unpleasant incident can be happened with her by +respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Under these circumstances the prayer made by +the applicant looking bonafide. Although the applicant is prayed for +transfer of case from Ujjain to Gwalior but it does not find just and +proper because respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are old persons and the distance +from Ujjain to Gwalior is 500 Kms and if the case is transferred from +Ujjain to Gwalior, it will create difficulty for them to attend the Court at +Gwalior. +

6. In view of the aforesaid, the interest of justice would be served in +transferring the case from Ujjain to Dewas. Accordingly, this petition is +allowed and the Criminal Case No. 2104/2011 be transferred from the +Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain to the Court of C.J.M. +Dewas. +

7. With the aforesaid M.Cr.C. No. 10775/2017 stands disposed of. +

8. Copy of this order be sent to the concrned Judicial Magistrate First +Class, Ujjain and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dewas for information and +compliance. +

Certified copy as per rules.

+

(S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 18205/2018 +Indore dated :10/05/2018 + Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the +Cr.P.C. for relexation of the condition as imposed by this Court, vide +order dated 10/07/2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 5235/2017. +

2. Following condition was imposed by this Court while granting the +bail to the applicant:- +

"It is directed that on being so released on bail he + would mark his presence before the concerning police- + station on first Sunday of each month at 11:00 a.m." +

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the investigation +is over and charge-sheet has been filed. The trial is pending before the +Sessions court and the charges have been framed. Now the case is fixed +for recording of evidence. Applicant is regularly marking his presence +before the trial Court, therefore, there is no need for marking his +presence before the concerning police-station. Applicant has already +complied with all directions imposed by this Court. Under these +circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prayed for relaxation +with the aforesaid condition imposed by this Court, vide order dated +10/07/2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 5235/2017. +

4. Considering the aforesaid, the application is allowed. The +conditions as stated above in para 2 stands deleted. +

5. Copy of this order be kept in the record of M.Cr.C. No. +5235/2017.

+

(S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1174/2017x +Indore dated :10/05/2018 + Shri O.P. Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard on the question of admission. + Revision is admitted for final hearing. + List for final hearing in due course. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1178/2017x +Indore dated :10/05/2018 + Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two +weeks time to argue the matter on the point of admission. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1180/2017x +Indore dated :10/05/2018 + Shri Harshwardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted four +weeks time to argue the matter on the point of admission. +

List after ensuing summer vacation. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1181/2017x +Indore dated :10/05/2018 + Parties through their counsel. +

List alongwith Cr.R. 3574/2017. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 3574/2017x +Indore dated :10/05/2018 + Shri Mohan Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. + On payment of fresh process fee within a week, let notice be +issued to respondent on admission and IA No. 23736/2017, an +application for condonation of delay by registered AD and ordinary +mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1188/2017x +Indore dated :10/05/2018 + Shri Mahesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Let record of the courts below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record on the question of +admission. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1195/2017x +Indore dated :10/05/2018 + Shri Praveer Porwal, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ravi Sagre, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI. + Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the copy of +entire charge-sheet by next date of hearing positively. +

List after six weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1196/2017x +Indore dated :10/05/2018 + Shri Praveer Porwal, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ravi Sagre, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI. + Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the copy of +entire charge-sheet by next date of hearing positively. +

List after six weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1197/2017x +Indore dated :10/05/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to submit +a report as to whether the confiscation proceedings with regard to +vehicle Mini Truck bearing registration No. PB-29-K-9430 has been +completed or not ? +

List after ensuing summer vacation. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1205/2017x +Indore dated :10/05/2018 + Shri Dharmendra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter on the question of admission. +

List after ensuing summer vacation. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1206/2017x +Indore dated :10/05/2018 + Parties through their counsel. +

List alongwith Cr.R. No. 2946/2017. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 2946/2017x +Indore dated :10/05/2018 + Shri Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Let record of the courts below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record on the question of +admission. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1209/2017x +Indore dated :10/05/2018 + Shri Ravindra Bhawsar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for listing the matter +alongwith Cr.R. No. 3010/2017. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Office is directed to list the matter alongwith Cr.R. No. 3010/2017 +for analogous hearing in the week commencing 18/06/2018. +

I.R. to continue till next date of hearing. + Certified copy as per rules. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1218/2017x +Indore dated :10/05/2018 + Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant. + Let record of the courts below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record on the question of +admission. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1227/2017x +Indore dated :10/05/2018 + Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has +already been acquitted by the trial Court, therefore, this revision petition +has become rendered infructuous. +

In view of the aforesaid, this petition is dismissed as having been +rendered infructuous. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1244/2017x +Indore dated :10/05/2018 + Shri Prakash Pancholi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Let record of the courts below be requisitioned. + On payment of process fee within a week, let notice be issued to +respondent by registered AD as well as by ordinary mode. Notice be +made returnable within four weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.4146/2018x + (Basanti Verma Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated : 09/05/2018 + Shri Vivek Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. +

The applicant has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of +the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to direct the trial Court to +decide the S.T. No. 1308/2009 within a period of 60 days. +

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of +FIR lodged by the applicant Basanti Verma regarding murder of her +son Vikas @ Gultu an offence was registered against the accused +persons namely Raju Malviya, Rajendra Singh Solanki, Mahendra +Solanki, Shankar Yadav, Raju Yadav & other persons under Section +302 /149 of the IPC bearing Crime No.745/2009 at Police-Station- +Chandan Nagar, District-Indore. After completion of investigation +charge-sheet was filed and the matter was pending before the Court of +12th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore as S.T. No. 1308/2009. +

3. The grievance of the learned counsel for the applicant is that +trial is pending since 2009 and applicant has filed an application under +Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before this Court to direct the trial Court to +expedite the trial and this Court vide orders dated 11/02/2011 and +13/07/2012, directed the trial Court to expedite the trial as early as +possible. Inspite of aforesaid directions the trial is still pending. The +case is listed for recording the statement of defence witnesses since +2016 and sufficient opportunities have been given to the accused +persons for adducing their defence evidence. But neither the defence + witnesses has been produced nor summons or warrant has been served +on the witnesses. Hence, the trial Court be directed to decide the +matter as early as possible preferably within a period of 60 days. +

2. After consideing the statement made by the learned counsel for +the applicant and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case +this petition is allowed. As the trial is pending for more than 5 years, +therefore, the trial Court is expected to decide this case on priority +basis. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as +early as possible preferably within 4 months from the receipt of +certified copy of this record. If the trial is not concluded within the +aforesaid period, then the trial Court shall seek extension of time by +stating the reasons for delay in conclusion of trial. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 17538/2018x +Indore dated :09/05/2018 + Shri Manish Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +file the certified copy of proceedings of the trial Court to demonstrate +the current status of the trial. +

List in the next week + (S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.17580/2018x + (Dashrath @ Bapu Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :09/05/2018 + Shri Vinod Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhisehk Soni, learned Govt. Advocate 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.473/2017, Police Station-Sardarpur, +District-Dhar, concerning offence under Section 304(B)/34 of the IPC. +

After arguing some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks +permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under +Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1863/2018 x + (Ajay Kumar Vs. Poonamchand) +Indore dated : 08/05/2018 + Shri Sunil Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Service report of notice issued against the respondent is +awaited. +

The applicant has been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate +First Class, Mandsaur for the offence under Section 138 of the +Negotiable Instruments Act and he was sentenced to undergo 6 +months R.I. and to pay compensation of Rs.2,38,204/- under Section +357(3) of the Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of +conviction the applicant has preferred appeal before the Sessions +Court, Mandsaur, in which the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur +affirmed the conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, +however, sentence has been reduced from 6 months R.I. to 1 months +R.I. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid applicant has preferred this +revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. +

Heard learned counsel for the applicant on IA No.2827/2018, +an application under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of +sentence and for grant of bail to applicant-Ajay Kumar. +

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the +complainant has failed to prove that the cheque was issued by the +applicant in furtherance to any liability and inspite of that the courts +below have convicted the applicant. Under these circumstnaces he +prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the +applicant-Ajay Kumar. +

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the +record. +

The question arises for consideration before this Court is whether + this revision is tenable despite the fact that the applicant has not +surrendered before the Appellate Court at the time of judgment. In +other words if the convicted is not in custody whether revision would +be tenable. +

It is true that there is no requirement under the Cr.P.C. which +makes it necessary for the accused to surrender after conviction before +filing Criminal Revision, however, as per Chapter X of Rules 48 of the +M.P. High Court Rules, 2008 makes it is obligatory to the applicants to +surrender and only then revision would be tenable. According to Rules +48, a declaration is obligatory for the accused to the effect that he is in +custody or has surrendered after the conviction except that whether the +sentence suspended by the Courts below. In the case of Dilip Sahu +Vs. State of M.P. 2012 (3) MPLJ 354 this Court while dealing with +the maintainability of the revision has held that Criminal Revision +against conviction is tenable only when applicant has given +declaration to the effect that the appliant is in custody or has +surrendered after the conviction. +

In view whereof in the considered opinion of this Court this IA +No.2827/2018 and criminal revision are dismissed as not maintainable +. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 10086/2018 +Indore dated :18/04/2018 + Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Neha Yadav, +learned counsel for the applicant. +

Shri Anand Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/SPE. +

Arguments heard. +

Reserved for orders. +

+ +
(P.K. Jaiswal)                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+    Judge                                          Judge
+
+Indore dated :   /05/2018
+
+

Order passed, signed and dated separately. +

+ +
(P.K. Jaiswal)                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+    Judge                                          Judge
+      THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.R. No.627/2018x
+Indore, dated :08/05/2018
+

Shri Abhishek Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

This is Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Code of +Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') is filed against the +order dated 04/12/2015 passed by Special Judge under NDPS Act, +Manasa District-Neemuch in Special S.T. No. 6/20102, whereby +charges for offence under Sections 8/15(C) read with Section 8/29 of +the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 has been framed against applicant-Jakir. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 893/2018, an +application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of +delay of 701 days in preferring this revision petition. +

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in +jail and no male member of his family met the applicant in jail, who +take intiative on behalf of the applicant, hence the applicant could not +file this revision filed in prescribed time period. +

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that till now 6 +prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial Court and +the trial is in advance stage. There is no sufficient grounds are +mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, hence, he +prayed for rejection of the application. +

Considering the fact that the trial is in advance stage and 6 +prosecution witnesses have already been examined, therefore, at this +stage no interference is called for by this Court in the impugned order +coupled with the fact that the applicant has failed to make out + sufficient ground for condoning the huge delay of 701 days in +preferring this revision petition. Hence, IA No. 893/2018 is dismissed. +Consequently, this revision petition is also hereby dismissed as time +barred. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 525/2011x +Indore dated :08/05/2018 + Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard on IA No. 1786/2018, an application issuance of production +warrant against appellant No.2-Amarjeet. +

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the +appellant No.2-Amarjeet is detained in another case in District-Jail, +Indore, hence, production warrant be issued against him for securing his +presence befor this Court. +

On due consideration IA No. 1786/2018 is allowed. + Let production warrant be issued against appellant No.2-Amarjeet +for securing his presence before this Court on 22/06/2018. +

List on 22/06/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 350/2012x +Indore dated : 08/05/2018 + Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Appellant No.1-Jagdish @ Jaggu is present in person and he has +been duly identified by his counsel. His presence is marked. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.3153/2018, an +application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant No.1 +on 08/01/2018 before the registry of this Court. +

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is +supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the +previous non-appearance of appellant No.1-Jagdish @ Jaggu on +08/01/2018 before this Court. +

Accordingly, IA No.3153/2018 is allowed and non-appearance of +appellant No.1-Jagdish @ Jaggu before the Registry this Court on +08/01/2018 is hereby condoned. +

Appellant No.1-Jagdish @ Jaggu is directed to appear before the +Office of this Court on 26/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as +may be fixed by the Office in this behalf. +

List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

+
+
+                                                         (S.K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                         Judge
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.A. No. 567/2012x
+Indore dated :08/05/2018
+

Shri Anurag Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Appellant-Munnalal @ Amar Singh is not present today. + Let non-bailable warrant be issuged againt appellant-Munnalal @ +Amarsingh for securing his presence before this Court on 02/07/2018. +

List on 02/07/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 195/2013x +Indore dated :08/05/2018 + Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

As per the report recieved from Sessions Judge, Shajapur, the +appellant-Bhagwan Singh has been convicted for the offence under +Section 392 of the IPC and he was sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. and +to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. The appellant has already been suffered the jail +sentence awarded by the trial Court and he was also deposited the fine +amount and he is released from the Jail on 01/11/2017 after completion +of the sentence. +

In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant seeks +permission of this Court to withdraw this appeal. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Acccordingly this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 331/2013x +Indore dated :08/05/2018 + Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 20958/2017, an +application for correction in the name as per Adhar Card. +

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to +withdraw IA No. 20958/2017. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, IA No. 20958/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 1647/2013x +Indore dated :08/05/2018 + Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Appellant-Harish Pushpad is not present today. + Let non-bailable warrant be issuged againt appellant-Harish +Pushpad for securing his presence before this Court on 09/07/2018. +

List on 09/07/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 8979/2013x +Indore dated :08/05/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Today the case is listed for in default of payment of P.F. + On earlier occassion also the Court has already been granted time +to the appellant to pay the process fee. But inspite of that the applicant +has not complied with the order. Today also none appeared on behalf of +the applicant, which indicates that the applicant is no longer interested +in prosecuting this petition. +

Accordingly, this petition filed under Section 378(4) of the +Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed for non-compliance of Court order and +for want of prosecution. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 591/2014x +Indore dated :08/05/2018 + Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep +present appellant No1. - Asharam before this Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

List on 02/07/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 1994/2014x +Indore dated :08/05/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard on IA No. 2133/2017, an application for presence of the +appellant by production warrant. +

It is stated in the application that the appellant -Keshuram could +not appear before the Registry of this Court on 14/12/2016 because he +has been arrested by the Police in connection with Crime No. 87/2011 +registered at Police-Station-Badwah, District-Khargone and now he is in +Central Jail, Indore since 27/09/2016. +

On due consideration IA No. 2133/2017 is allowed. + Let production warrant be issued against appellant-Keshuram for +securing his presence before this Court on 27/06/2018. +

List on 27/06/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 849/2015x +Indore dated :08/05/2018 + Ms. Rukmani Dhangar, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

As per Office report appellant-Ganesh has failed to mark his +presence before the Registry of this Court on 20/12/2017. +

Let non-bailable warrant be issued against appellant-Ganesh for +securing his presence before this Court on 25/06/2018. +

List on 25/06/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1161/2015x +Indore dated :08/05/2018 + Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Bailable warrant issued against the appellant No.2-Dayaram +received unserved with the report that he is detained in District-Jail, +Rajgarh in another case. +

Let production warrant be issued against appellant No.2-Dayaram +for securing his presence before this Court on 28/06/2018. +

List on 28/06/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.05/2016x +Indore dated :08/05/2018 + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +appellant/State. +

Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the respondent. + Appellant/State has filed this appeal under Section 377 of the +Cr.P.C. for enhancement of sentence awarded to the respondent for the +offence punishable under Section 8/18(B) of the NDPS Act, vide order +dated 04/09/2015 passed by Additional Special Judge (NDPS), Garoth, +District-Mandsaur in Special S.T. No. 8/2013. +

Heard. +

Looking to the findings given by the trial Court in para 26 of the +impugned judgment, the appeal seems to be arguable, therefore, +admitted for final hearing. +

Let bailable warrant of Rs. 10,000/- be issued against the +respondent for securing his presence before this Court. +

List the appeal for final hearing in due course. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1302/2016x +Indore dated :08/05/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. + Bailawable warrant issued against applicant-Kailashchandra +received unserved with the report that he was not found in given +address. +

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the applicant +has neither deposited the cheque amount of Rs.3.75 Lacs nor he has +surrendered before the trial Court. +

Let non-bailable warrant be issued against the applicant for +securing his presence before this Court on 04/07/2018. +

List on 04/07/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 16438/2018x +Indore dated :08/05/2018 + Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 17353/2018x +Indore dated :08/05/2018 + Ms. Sofia Khan, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.17422/2018x + (Chamariya Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :08/05/2018 + Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhisehk Soni, learned Govt. Advocate 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. 98/2017, Police Station- +Chandanpur, District-Alirajpur, concerning offence under Section 379 +of the IPC r/w Sections 25(A)/30 of the Arms Act. +

After arguing some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks +permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under +Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to renew his prayer after filing +of the charge-sheet. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 9039/2018x +Indore dated :08/05/2018 + Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the matter is +listed before the trial Court on 16/05/2018 for recording the statement of +the witneses, therefore, he prays for time to argue the matter. +

Prayer is allowed. +

List on 17/05/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10041/2018x + (Gopal @ Lala Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :08/05/2018 + Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhisehk Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for +grant of bail in connection with Crime No.152/2017, Police Station- +Bhanwarkua, District-Indore, concerning offence under Sections +363,364, 370 and 370(A)/34 of the IPC. +

After arguing some time on the merits of the case, learned +counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw +this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C.No.14407/2018x +Indore dated :08/05/2018 + Ms. Bhagyashree Sugandhi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent /State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 3154/2014, an +application for amendment in the array of bail application filed under +Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.. +

On due consideration IA No. 3154/2018 is allowed. + Applicant is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the +bail application during the course of the day. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.421/2012x + (Gangadhar @ Gangaram Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:07/05/2018 + Shri Pramod Nair, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State . +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.2751/2018-repeat +(7th) application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal +Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the the +appellant -Gangadhar @ Gangaram. +

Appellant-Gangadhar @ Gangaram has been found guilty for +offence under Section 8 (C) /20(b) (ii)(c) of the NDPS Act and +sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- +with default stipulation. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is +innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is +also submitted that the house, from which the alleged contraband has +been recovered belongs to co-accused-Gokul, who has already been +acquitted from the offence. There is nothing on record to substantiate +that the aforesaid house was actually possessed by the appellant at the +time of alleged incident. The trial Court has convicted the appellant on +the basis of certificate issued by Gram Panchayat and Electoral List, in +which it was mentioned that the house owned by the appellant. The trial +Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and wrongly +concluded that the 48.20 Kgs. of Ganja has been recovered from the +house of the appellant. Applicant is in custody since 11/08/2009 and he +has already suffered more than 8 years and 6 months of his jail sentence. +There are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellant cannot be +kept in custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him may render + infructuous. The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount before the Trial +Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence +and for grant of bail to the appellant. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. +

+

I have gone through the impugned judgment and perused the record. +From the findings given by the trial Court, it is clearly evident that the house +from which alleged contraband has been recovered is belonging to the +present appellant. Tolaram (PW 11) has also admitted that the aforesaid house +is belonging to the present appellant and the agreement of sale was a fake +document, which prepared later. On this ground earlier applications of the +appellant have been dismissed on merits by this Court, vide order dated +05/11/2012 and 01/10/2015 respectively. +

+

Keeping in view of the aforesaid, no case for grant of suspension +of jail sentence is made out. Accordingly, IA No. 2751/2018 is +dismissed. +

+

Considering the fact that the appellant has completed his 8 years +and 6 months jail sentence. Office is directed to examine and thereafter, +list the matter on any working saturday as per circular issued by the +Hon'ble Chief Justice. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 18449/2017x +Indore dated :07/05/2018 + Shri C.L. Yadav, learned Senior counsel with Shri Vikas Jain, +learned counsel for the applicant. +

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Let present status report of Special S.T. No. 08/2016 be called +from the Court of Special Judge (NDPS), Mandsaur. +

List immediately after receipt of status report. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.11618/2018x + (Amit Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :07/05/2018 + Shri Akshay Mantri, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhisehk Soni, learned Govt. Advocate 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.526/2017, Police Station- +Heeranagar, District-Indore, concerning offence under Sections 302 +and 506 of the IPC. +

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court +to withdraw this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 10676/2018x +Indore dated :07/05/2018 + Shri Rajnish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Case-diary is available. +

Learned cousnel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks +time to argue the matter. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 8606/2018x +Indore dated :07/05/2018 + Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Case-diary is available. +

Learned cousnel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks +time to argue the matter. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 17225/2018x +Indore dated :07/05/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.193/2011 +Indore dated :05/05/2018 + Shri Prakash Pancholi, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Mukesh Porwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Arguments heard. +

Reserved for judgment. +

+ +
(Rohit Arya)                                 (S.K. Awasthi)
+  Judge                                         Judge
+
+Indore dated : /05/2018
+
+

Judgment passed, signed and dated separately. +

+ + +

(Rohit Arya) (S.K. Awasthi) + Judge Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1179/2007 +Indore dated :05/05/2018 + Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Arguments heard.

+

Reserved for judgment + + +(Rohit Arya) (S.K. Awasthi) + Judge Judge + +Indore dated : /05/2018 + + Judgment passed, signed and dated separately. +

+ + +

(Rohit Arya) (S.K. Awasthi) + Judge Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.16781/2018x + (Mahendra Singh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :04/05/2018 + Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhisehk Soni, learned Govt. Advocate 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.11/2018, Police Station-Suwasara, +District-Mandsaur, concerning offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P. +Excise Act, 1915. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under +Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 2694/2018x +Indore dated :04/05/2018 + Shri P.C. Nair, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted time to +file some documents. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 16603/2018x +Indore dated :04/05/2018 + Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to verify +the factum of illness of the applicant's wife and submit its report by the +next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.16691/2018x + (Madhukar Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :04/05/2018 + Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is repeat (2nd) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for +grant of bail in connection with Crime No.582/2017, Police Station- +Sendhwa, District-Barwani, concerning offence under Section 8/20 of +the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under +Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to renew his prayer after some +time. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty . +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 16694/2018x +Indore dated :04/05/2018 + Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 16729/2018x +Indore dated :04/05/2018 + Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a weeks time +to produce FSL report. +

List in the next week. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 12077/2018x +Indore dated :04/05/2018 + Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a +week's time to cure the defects pointed out by the Office, failing which +this bail application shall stands dismissed without further reference to +this Court. +

List in the next week. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 16122/2018x +Indore dated :04/05/2018 + Shri Gopal Hardia, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 12801/2018x +Indore dated :04/05/2018 + Shri B.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 14/05/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.16689/2018x + (Ajay Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :04/05/2018 + Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate 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.109/2017, Police Station-Neemuch +Cantt., District-Neemuch, concerning offence under Sections 419 & +420 of the IPC. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under +Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.13914/2018x + (Dileep Singh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :04/05/2018 + Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for +grant of bail in connection with Crime No.51/2016, Police Station- +Badod, District-Agar, concerning offence under Sections 147, 148, +149, 307 and 302 of the IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under +Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn, +however, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as +possible. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7263/2018x + (Wasim Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :04/05/2018 + Ms. Sonam Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate 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.594/2017, Police Station- +Bhanwarkua, District-Indore, concerning offence under Section 420 of +the IPC. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under +Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6836/2018x + (Mujahid Khan Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :04/05/2018 + Ms. Sonam Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate 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.594/2017, Police Station- +Bhanwarkua, District-Indore, concerning offence under Section 420 of +the IPC. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under +Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.12465/2018x + (Jitendra Singh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :04/05/2018 + Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate 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.317/2017, Police Station-Maingaon, +District-Khargone, concerning offence under Sections 294, 323, 307 +and 302/34 of the IPC. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under +Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C.No. 13983/2018x +Indore dated :04/05/2018 + Shri Vikram Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 3029/2018, an +application for ignoring the defect pointed out by the Office. +

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is second +application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and Office has pointed +out defect that the Crime Number mentioned in the second bail +application does not tally with the crime number mentioned in the first +application filed before this Court. It is further submitted that earlier bail +application registered at M.Cr.C. No. 4096/2018, in which inadvertantly +Crime Number has been mentioned as 164/2017; whereas the actual +Crime Number is 851/2017 pertaining to Police-Station-Jhabua, +therefore, he prayed that defect pointed out by the Office may be +ignored. +

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, sufficient +ground is made out to ignored the defect pointed out by the Office. +Accordingly, IA No. 3029/2018 is allowed and defect pointed out by the +Office is hereby ignored. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to produce the case-diary by +next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.354/1999 +Indore dated :15/02/2018 + Shri Anand Soni, learned counsel for the appellants. + Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Arguments heard. +

Reserved for judgment + + + (S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +Indore dated : /05/2018 + + Judgment passed, signed and dated separately. +

+ + +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1443/2018 + (Lalitabai & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:03/05/2018 + Shri Shankar Lalwani, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State . +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.2227/2018-an +application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for +suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the +applicants. +

The applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable +under Section 9 read with Section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 +and sentenced to 6 months RI and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each with +default stipulation by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Neemuch. The +appeal filed against the conviction and sentence before 3 rd Additional +Sessions Judge, Neemuch was also dismissed, vide judgment dated +21/03/2018. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments this revision +petition has been filed. +

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants +were on bail during trial as well as during pendency of the appeal and +they have not misused the liberty so granted to them. It is also submitted +that both the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on +record and committed error in convicting the applicants. It is further +submitted that there is no possibility of the revision coming for final +hearing in the near future and fine amount has already been deposited. +Hence, the applicants may be benefitted by the suspension of jail +sentence. +

Per contra learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application +and prayed for its rejection. +

After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel +for the parties and looking to the fact that 6 wild life pheasants were +recovered from the possession of the applicants and the recovery is +proved from the statements of Gopal Bandhu-Deputy Ranger (PW 1), +Nathu Singh Chandrawat-Retd. Ranger Officer (PW 2), Lalita Yaadav- +Forest Guard (PW 3) and Chhaganlal-Chowkidar (PW 6). Thus the +Courts' below have rightly held that the prosecution is succeeded to +prove offence under Section 9 read with Section 51 of Wild Life +Protection Act, 1972 against the applicants. Learned counsel for the +applicants has failed to point out that how and in what manner the view +taken by the Courts' below is not plausible. Under these circumstances, +no case for suspension of jail sentence of the applicants is made out. +Hence, IA No. I.A. No.2227/2018 is hereby dismissed. +

List the revision for admission on 17/05/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + Unique No. Dhruv Prasad Sen 171015481 & Kaki 171015497 + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 14348/2018x + (Vinay @ Varun Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :01/05/2018 + Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C. in connection +with Crime No. 327/2016 registered at Police-Station-Malharganj, District- +Indore, for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and +120(B) of the IPC. +

According to the prosecution story, the present applicant alongwith co- +accused Pankaj Sharma and Aadit Bafna executed three different sale deeds to +three persons of plot bearing survey No. 2/4, situated at North Raj Mohalla, +Indore. Some other persons were presented as owners of the plot. +

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant at length. + First application of the applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court, +vide order dated 16/03/2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 2240/2017; whereas second +application of the applicant was also dismissed, vide order dated 30/06/2017 +passed in M.Cr.C. No. 4658/2017. +

After dismissal of the earlier two applications, there appears to be no +change in circumstances. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the +applicant regarding his innocency has already been considered by this Court on +16/03/2017 and after that there is no change in circustances is found, therefore, +in the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out for grant of bail to +the applicant. Accordingly, this repeat bail application is dismissed.

+
+
+
+
+                                                                  (S.K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                                  Judge
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    Cr.R. No. 572/2018x
+Indore dated :01/05/2018
+

Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list after a +week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 182/2018x +Indore dated :01/05/2018 + Shri O.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list after a +week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 15654/2018x +Indore dated :01/05/2018 + Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for time to call criminal +antecedents of the applicant. +

By way of last opportunity time is granted. + List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + High Court of Madhya Pradesh: Bench at Indore + Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice P.K. Jaiswal & Hon'ble + Shri Justice S.K. Awasthi, JJ + WP No. 9064/2018 + Sushila Devi Garg + vs. + State of M.P. & Ors. +

------------------------------------------------------------------- +

Smt. Meena Chapekar, learned counsel for the petitioner. + Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Govt. Advocate for the + respondent No.1/State. +

Shri Kushal Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent + Nos. 2 and 3. +

+

ORDER + (Passed on 23/04/2018) + Per Justice S.K. Awasthi:- +

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the +petitioner is praying for issuance of directions to the respondents- +Municipal Corporation, Dewas not to demolish the shops situated at +Kaila Mata Mandir Road in Mishrilal Nagar, Dewas and to +reconsidere the application submitted by the petitioner for +compounding strictly in accordance with law. +
2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition challenging the +action of the respondent No.3- Building Officer of Dewas, Municipal +Corporation by way of notices dated 07/04/2018 and 17/04/2018, +deeming the repaired rooms, as construction without permission even +after passing of the order of the considering the case for +compounding, dated 03/04/2018 passed in WP No. 7705/2018, +rejected the application for compounding and giving notice on +17/04/2018 to remove the alleged construction within 24 hours, + otherwise, it will be demolished. The petitioner while challenging the +aforesaid notices, however, on 19/04/2018, at about 7:00 p.m. the +respondent demolished the shop, therefore, petitioner filed IA No. +1835/2018, an application for amendment in the petition, by which +the petitioner claimed that respondents be directed either be restored +the shops on its original position or he may be permitted to raise +temporary arrangement to conduct the shops or paid compensation for +the said demolition. +
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in +dispute that on the next date of filing this writ petition, the respondent +No.3-demolished the shops in question contending that these are +constructed without getting permission from the Municipal +Corporation and the land in which the aforesaid shops were +constructed is required for widening of the road. +
4. Due to the demolition of the shops, the relief prayed by the +petitioner is rendered infructuous, therefore, the petitioner seeking +permission to amend the petition, either permitted her to raise +temporary structure on the land or respondents be directed to paid +compensation for the demolition of the shops. From the documents +filed alongwith the petition it appears that the aforesaid shops were +constructed on the land bearing Survey No. 645/2, situated at Kaila +Mata Mandir Road in Mishrilal Nagar, Dewas without obtaining prior +sanction from the Municipal Corporation, Dewas. Thus, the Municipal +Corporation issued a notice to the petitioner for removing the +aforesaid illegal construction work under Section 307 of the Nagar +Palika Act alleging that the petitioner has made this construction work +so that she can claimed compensation from the Govt., because under + the Dewas Development Plan 2015, MR-01 road is porposed in the +land where the petitioner has constructed the shops. The aforesaid +construction has already been demolished by the Muncipal +Corporation, therefore, there is no remedy is availble for the +petitioner. If he has opined that the Municipal Corporation has +removed his construction unauthorisedly, then he can claim the +compensation for the damages from the Munciipal Corporation by +filing civil suit. +
5. The citations filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in +the case of Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, (2017) 10 SCC +658 and in the case of M/s Subhash Projects and Marketing Ltd. Vs. +West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2006 +SCC 116, are based either in criminal case or may to breach of policy +conditions, in which the Hon'ble apex Court directed for compensation +to the petitioner, therefore, these citations are not applicable in the +prsent matter. +
6. The question whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation +from the Muncipal Corporation, it cannot be decided in the writ +petition. Accordingly, IA No. 1835/2018 and this writ petition have no +merits and is hereby dismissed in limine. +
+ + + +
         (P.K. Jaiswal)                            (S.K. Awasthi)
+skt        Judge                                      Judge
+
High Court of Madhya Pradesh: Bench at Indore + Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice P.K. Jaiswal & Hon'ble + Shri Justice S.K. Awasthi, JJ + WP No. 9351/2018 + M/s. Shiv Industries + vs. + Punjab National Bank & Ors. +

------------------------------------------------------------------- +

Shri Anand Singh Bahrawat, learned counsel for the + petitioner. +

+

ORDER + (Passed on 27/04/2018) + Per Justice S.K. Awasthi:- +

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the +petitioner is praying for execution of the impugned recover process by +respondenet No.2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments +Act and all consequential acion under secruritization and +reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of Security Interst +Act, 2002. +
5. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is +that the petitioner has availed the credit facilities of cash credit and +term loan of Rs.2.60 crores to run his industry and mortgaged the +property in the respondent No.2-Bank and he is paying the installment +in time, however, due to some unavoidable circumstances, some +installment were not paid in prescribed time frame, therefore, the +respondents-Bank has issued notice to deposit the overdue amount +and mentioned that if the overdue amount has not deposited early, +then the account will be classified as NPA. Then the petitioner has +submitted that he is not in a condition to regularize loan account and + requested not to utilized the cheque as they were given as security and +requested to take possession of land, building, plant and machinery +with immediate effect and sale and adjust the outstanding amount and +mentioned the value of property as Rs. 3.75 crores, however, without +considering his representation, the respondent-Bank has classified the +loan account as NPA on 31/12/2017 and issued notice under Section +13(2) of Sarfaesi Act. On 26/03/2018, the petitioner has handover the +possession of the mortgaged property, raw material, plant and +machinery to the respondent Bank. The respondent No.2-Bank has +appointed Effective Recoveries Pvt. Ltd. as recovery agent with +malafide intention to delay the recovery process and to charge interest +and unnecessary expenses against the petitioner and respondents are +threatening to petitioner that they will auctioned the property below +the valuation report and they will initiate the action against him by +filing complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrtuments Act +without considering the fact that the cheques were given as security +of loan and not for repayment of loan. The respondents are not +following the guidelines framed by Reserve Bank of India and trying +to publish the auction notice of the mortgaged property without +ascertaining the actual market value of the sale. +
6. The dispute arisen between the parties pertaining to the recovery +of loan amount contemplated under Sarfaesi Act, 2002. In view of the +law laiddown by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of INDIA +SEM ASSET RECONSTRUCTION CO. LTD Versus STATE OF M.P. & +OTHERSINDIA SEM ASSET RECONSTRUCTION CO. LTD Versus +STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS, in WA No. 489/2016 decided on +21/12/2017, the action taken by the petitioner can be subjected to + appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. +
7. Consdering the aforesaid, we find that the petitioner has an +effective alternative remedy to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal +under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to challenge the proceedings +adopted by the respondents-Bank for the recovery of loan amount, the +writ petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and is accordingly, +dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal +under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, in accordance with law. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

+ + +
        (P.K. Jaiswal)                              (S.K. Awasthi)
+skt       Judge                                        Judge
+

High Court of Madhya Pradesh: Bench at Indore + Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice P.K. Jaiswal & Hon'ble + Shri Justice S.K. Awasthi, JJ + M.Cr.C. No. 10086/2018 + Bharat Goyal + vs. + State of M.P. +

------------------------------------------------------------------- +

Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Neha + Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. +

Shri Anand Soni, learned counsel for the + respondent/SPE. +

+

ORDER + (Passed on 18/04/ 2018) + Per Justice S.K. Awasthi:- +

The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the +Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 17/11/2017 passed by Special +Judge (Prevention of Corruption), Indore in Special Case No. 13/2017, +whereby the trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the +applicant regarding non-compliance of provision stipulated under +Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act. +
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05/10/2016, complainant- +

Devdas Makwana made a written complaint to the S.P. Lokayukta, +Indore stating that on 09/08/2016, he applied for sanction of loan +amount of Rs.2.0 Lacs before Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank for +purchasing of auto-rickshaw. On 02/09/2016, he approached the bank +to seek information regarding his loan amount and subsidy amount, +where applicant asked for an amount of Rs.20,000/- as bribe amount to +hand over the cheque of loan amount so approved and to transfer the +subsidy amount in his loan account. Bank Manager-Bharat Goyal also + stated that if the complainant will not give him a bribe of Rs.20,000/- , +then he will not transfer the subsidy amount in his loan account, +thereafter, on his request applicant has reduced the bribe amount from +Rs.20,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. On receiving this report, the Lokayukta +Police gave a voice recorder to the complainant so that conversation +made between the complainant and applicant can be recorded. After +recording the conversation on the tape recorder, the complainant +handed over the same to Lokayukta Police. Police made a trans-script +of conversation held between the complainant and the applicant and +after the applicant was caught red handed by receiving bribe amount +from the complainant and after due investigation, Lokayukta Police +filed the charge-sheet against the applicant and other co-accused +persons before the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption), +Indore. During trial on 11/10/2017, the applicant has moved an +application before the trial Court contending to expunge these +documents, which are electronic record as mandatory provisions given +under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence act are not complied with, +however, on 17/11/2017, this application has been dismissed by the trial +Court stating that at this stage the question of admissibility of the +electronic record cannot be decided, which is a subject matter of +challenge before this Court. +

3. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant submitted that the +impugned order is contrary to law and facts on record. He also submits +that with the charge-sheet the prosecution has filed certain documents, +which are electronic records, however, looking to the Section 65(A) of +the Indian Evidence Act, electronic record would be admissible in +evidence, only if the aforesaid record satisfies the conditions laid down +under Section 65(B)(2) and contents a certificate as contemplated by + Section 65(B)(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. If these documents does +not satisfy the conditions mentioned under Section 65(B)(2) or it does +not having certificate as contemplated under Section 65(B)(4) of the +Indian Evidence Act, then it is not admissible. Thus, a certificate under +Section 65(B)(4) has to be issued at the time computer output +containing the information was produced. The evidence produced by +the prosecution can be taken as evidence if it is fulfill the condition +contemplated under Section 65(B)(4), otherwise it cannot be read as +evidence against accused persons, however, in the present certificate +filed by the prosecution not contains the information as required by +Section 65(B)(4) and it is bare reproducing the Section. The trial Court +rejected the application only on the ground that it will be considered at +the time of stage of framing of charges, therefore, the impugned order +deserves to be set aside. +

4. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor supports the reasons adopted +in the impugned order and submitted that there is no reason to interfere +with the same. +

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the +documents placed on record with the petition. +

6. The controversy has arisen whether the certificate under Section +65(B)(4) must be satisfied the condition described under Section 65(B) +(2) of the Evidence Act. At the stage of taking cognizance or framing of +charge against the accused, the court is required to apply his judicial +mind that prima facie case is made out against the accused persons or +not ? At this stage neither the admissibility of the documents nor +defence version or materials or documents is required to consider. At +the stage of framing of charge the sufficiency of material for the +purpose of conviction is not the requirement and even if there are + material raising strong suspicion against an accused then charges can be +framed. The admissibility of any electronic document cannot be +questioned or considered at the initial stage, therefore, the trial Court +has rightly rejected the application filed by the applicant regarding +non-compliance of provision stipulated under Section 65(B) of the +Indian Evidence Act. +

7. From the aforesaid discussions, it is hereby made clear that in the +present case, the arguments raised above are in the nature of defence, +which cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charge. In this +regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar +Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2009 (16) SCC +605 , wherein following observation +has been made as under : +

"25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the + court is required to evaluate the material and documents on + record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging + therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence + of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or + offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the + evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to + accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this + stage, the court has to consider the material only with a + view to find out if there is ground for "presuming" that the + accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose + of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a + conviction. (See Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. + Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya, (1990) 4 SCC 76)." +
+

8. Thus, on the cumulative above facts and law laid down, the +instant petition is hereby dismissed. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

+ + +

(P.K. Jaiswal) (S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 439/2017 +Indore dated :04/04/2018 + Shri V.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Arguments heard. +

Reserved for orders. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +Indore dated : /05/2018 + + Order passed, signed and dated separately. +

+

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 1379/2007x +Indore dated :27/04/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

As per office report appellant-Bhagirath has failed to mark his +presence on 07/11/2017. It is a matter of bail jump. +

Let non-bailable warrant be issued against appellant-Bhagirath for +securing his presence before this Court on 29/06/2018. +

List on 29/06/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 901/2008x +Indore dated :27/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Appellant has filed an application IA No. 2865/2018, for +withdrawal of this appeal. +

It is stated in the appeal that during the pendency of the present +appeal, the appellant and the respondent, who are the real brothers have +entered into a compromise and both of them have settled all their +disputes amicably and no point of difference exists between them, +therefore, the appellant does not wish to press this appeal anymore. +

Looking to the aforesaid reasons mention in the application, IA +No. 2865/2018 is allowed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as +withdrawn. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 137/2012x +Indore dated :27/04/2018 + Shri Mukesh Sinjonia, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep +present appellant No3. - Ramjilal before this Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

List on 15/05/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 452/2015x +Indore dated :27/04/2018 + Shri A.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted time to +seek instruction in the matter. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 73/2017x +Indore dated :27/04/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

As per office report applicant-Rajunath has failed to mark his +presence on 22/01/2018. It is a matter of bail jump. +

Let non-bailable warrant be issued against applicant-Rajunath for +securing his presence before this Court on 25/06/2018. +

List on 25/06/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 1799/2017x +Indore dated :27/04/2018 + Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent /State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to verify +the factum of death of appellant-Rodsingh and to file reply of IA Nos. +2964/2018 and 2965/2018. +

List after ensuing summer vacation. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.3249/2018x + (Prakash Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:27/04/2018 + Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State . +

Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Record of the court below be called for. + Also heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.2856/2018-an +application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for +suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the +appellant -Prakash. +

Appellant -Prakash has been found guilty for offence under +Section 135(1)(A) of the Electricity Act and has sentenced to undergo +6 moths R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 32, 283/-. +

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the +trial court has recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the +evidence on record and that material omissions and contradistinctions +present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked. Lastly, it is +submitted that the appeal is likely to take sufficient time in its final +disposal and if the custodial sentence is not suspended, then the appeal +shall be rendered infructuous. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. + Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts +and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the jail +sentence of the appellant-Prakash. +

+

Accordingly, I.A. No. 2856/2018 is allowed and it is directed that +subject to depositing fine amount and 30% of the civil liability and on + furnishing personal bond by the appellant-Prakash in the sum of +Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the +like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular +appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the +remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain +suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal. +

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his +presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/06/2018 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 430/2018x +Indore dated :27/04/2018 + Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.3/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +file the arabic translation of the petition. +

List after ensuing summer vacation. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 9365/2018x +Indore dated :27/04/2018 + Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Heard on the question of admission and IA No. 2450/2018, an +application for stay of proceedings of MJC No. 200/2014, pending +before the Family Court, Indore. +

On payment of process fee within 7 working days, let notice be +issued to respondent on admission and IA No. 2450/2018 by Ordinary as +well as by registered AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four +weeks, failing which this petition shall stands dismissed without further +reference to this Court. +

Till the next date of hearing, proceedings of MJC No. 200/2014, +pending before the Family Court, Indore shall remain stayed. +

List thereafter alongwith M.C.C. No. 727/2018. + Certified copy as per rules. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 318/2015x +Indore dated :27/04/2018 + Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 +to 5. +

Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.6/State. +

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 pays for and is +granted 15 days time to produce respondent No.3-Kamlesh and +respondent No..5-Lalitabai before this Court. +

List on 16/05/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 325/2015x +Indore dated :27/04/2018 + Shri M.I. Ansari, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep +present appellant No. -Kapil before this Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

List on 17/05/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 689/2015x +Indore dated :27/04/2018 + Parties through their counsel. +

List alongwith Cr.A. No. 849/2015. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 849/2015x +Indore dated :27/04/2018 + Smt. Rukmani Dhangar, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Mukesh Kumwat, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted a weeks +time to file appropriate application for withdrawal of the present appeal. +

In the meanwhile Office is directed to call the bail papers of the +appellant from the trial Court. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 767/2015x +Indore dated :27/04/2018 + Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the +appellant/State. +

None for the respondents. +

Respondent No.2-Pankaj @ Billi is not present today, therefore, IA +No. 7683/2017, an application for condonation of previous non- +appearance before this Court is dismissed. It is a matter of bail jump. +

Let non-bailable warrant be issued against respondent No.2-Pankaj +@ Billi for securing his presence before this Court on 04/07/2018. +

List on 04/07/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 873/2015x +Indore dated :27/04/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after ensuing summer vacation. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 947/2015 +Indore dated :27/04/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

As per office report appellant-Ramchandra has failed to mark his +presence on 21/09/2017. It is a matter of bail jump. +

Let non-bailable warrant be issued against appellant-Ramchandra +for securing his presence before this Court on 29/06/2018. +

List on 29/06/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 1115/2015x +Indore dated : 27/04/2018 + Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the +appellant/State. +

Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent. + Respondent-Revaram is present in person and he has been duly +identified by his counsel. His presence is marked. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.2956/2018, an +application for condonation of previous non-appearance of respondent on +26/03/2018 before the registry of this Court. +

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is +supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the +previous non-appearance of respondent-Revaram on 26/03/2018 before +this Court. +

Accordingly, IA No.2956/2018 is allowed and non-appearance of +respondent-Revaram before the Registry this Court on 26/03/2018 is +hereby condoned. +

Respondent-Revaram is directed to appear before the Office of this +Court on19/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by +the Office in this behalf. +

List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

+ + +

(S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 1188/2015x +Indore dated :27/04/2018 + Parties through their counsel. +

List alongwith Cr.A. No. 1671/2015. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 1671/2015x +Indore dated :27/04/2018 + Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Mukesh Kuumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 10290/2016, an +application to release the appellant. +

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw IA +No. 10290/2016. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, IA No. 10290/2016 is dismissed as withdrawn. + Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted time to +move an appropriate application for suspension of jail sentence and for +grant of bail to the appellant-Mukesh. +

List after four weeks. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.742/2018 + (Heeralal Vs.Laxminarayan & Ors.) +Indore dated : 18/04/2018 + Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.2/State. +

ORDER + This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of +Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the +judgment dated 09/02/2018 passed by 2nd Addtional Sessions Judge, +Mandsaur in Cri.Appeal No.37/2017, whereby the applicant has been +convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable +Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo 4 months S.I., and to +pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. +

2. The prosecution story, applicant take credit from +complainant/respondent No.1 of Rs.25,000/- & Rs. 3.0 Lacs for his +personal use. Thereafter applicant issued two cheques in favour of the +complainant, cheque No. 568610 of Rs.25,000/- dated 30/04/2008 and +cheque No. 568609 of Rs.3.0 Lacs dated 31/05/2008 of State Bank of +India, branch Sitamau, Distdrict-Mandsaur. These cheques were +presented by the complainant for encashment in his bank account, +however, the same were return unpaid on the ground of "insufficiency +of funds". Threafter, complainant sent a legal notice to the applicant , +which was received by him on 17/10/2018, however, he has not paid +the cheque amount to the complainant. Hence, complainant filed the +private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments +Act, 1881 against the applicant before the Court Judicial Magistrate +First Class, in which the Court after considering the evidence +produced by the parties, convicted the applicant for the aforesaid + offence and sentenced to undergo 6 months S.I., and to pay +compensation of Rs.6.0 Lacs. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid +conviction and sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, +applicant has preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, which +was partly allowed and the sentence awared to the applicant has been +reduced from 6 months S.I. to 4 months S.I., however, he is directed to +pay compensation of Rs. 6.0 Lacs. Hence, the applicant has preferred +this revision petition. +

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued at length and submitted +that the applicant has been convicted illegally by the courts below. +Both the courts below have committed error in not properly +appreciating the evidence which resulted into incorrect finding, which +is liable to be set aside in this revision. Learned counsel for the +applicant has alternatively submitted that the applicant has remained +in jail for a period of more than 2 months and he has no criminal past +nor he is involved in any unlawful activities subsequent to the +incident involved in the present matter. He prays that these factors be +considered for reducing the period of imprisonment imposed by the +courts below to the period of imprisonment already undergone. +

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that after due appreciation +of the evidence learned Courts below have found the applicant guilty +of the aforesaid offence. It is submitted that the revisional jurisdiction +of this Court is limited and no interference is called for in the +concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. +

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of +the record, it is noticed that the commission of the alleged offence by +the applicant is established on the basis of the oral and documentary + evidence produced by the complainant-Laxminarayan (CW 1) and his + witness Sanjay Jain (CW 2). Hence, on the basis of material available + on record, the Courts below have not committed any error in + convicting the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable + Instruments Act, 1881. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, I + am of the considered opinion that looking to the nature of allegation + and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant has + already served approximately 2 months jail sentence, the sentence + awarded is reduced to the sentence already undergone by him subject + to deposit the compensation of Rs.6.0 Lacs for the offence under + Section 138 of the NI Act, within a period of thirty days. In default of + payment compensation amount, the applicant shall suffer one and half + months additional S.I. + With the aforesaid modification in the judgment of conviction + and sentence, the revision petition is disposed of.

+ + +

(S.K.Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 617/2017 +Indore dated :27/02/x2018 + Shri A.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant. + None for the respondents. +

Arguments heard. +

Reserved for orders. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +Indore dated : 26 /04/2018 + + Order passed, signed and dated separately. +

+

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 15105/2018x +Indore dated :25/04/2018 + Shri D.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Mukesh Kuumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted time to +file the documents regarding ownership of the Sanwariya Restaurant & +Guest House, Indore Road, Ujjain. +

List in the next week. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 2483/2018x +Indore dated :25/04/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List after a week. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 11629/2018 + (Mohammad Toeed Khan Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated : 25/04/2018 + Shri D.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is first application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. applicant is +apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 98/2018 registered at +Police-Station-Dhar, District-Dhar, for the offence punishable under Section 381 +of the IPC. +

According to the prosecution story, on 25/01/2018, complainant-Dr. +Rafiqe Sheikh lodged a complaint alleging that his servant Nazma Bi stolen Rs. +3.75 Lacs from his wardrobe. The allegation against the applicant is that he kept +the stolen articles in his house. +

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent +and he has not committed any offence. Neither he is named in the FIR nor he +instigated the co-accused-Nazma Bi for committing theft of Rs.3.75 Lacs. The +applicant is a reputated citizen of Dhar and his arrest would cause great hardship +to him and will badly hampered his reputation. The applicant is ready to +cooperate with the investigation and to abide by all the terms and conditions, +which may be imposed by this Court. In such circumstances, he prays for +anticipatory bail to the applicant. +

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the anticipatory bail on the ground +that the applicant is involved in the alleged offence and he is requisred for +interrogation. +

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments +advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, I am not inclined to grant +anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.

+ + +

(S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 11907/2018x + (Kanhaiyalal Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated : 25/04/2018 + Shri H.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is first application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. applicant is +apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 191/2016 +registered at Police-Station-Pipaliya Mandi District-Mandsaur, for the +offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(2)(i), 344 and 506/34 of +the IPC read with Sections 3/4 & 5/6 of the Protection of Children +from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under +Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to surrender before the trial +Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn. +However, the applicant is directed to surrender himself before the +competent Court and if he is filed any application for regular bail +before the competent Court, then it shall be considered as early as +possible in accordance with law. +

Certified copy as per rules.

+

(S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 1270/2012 +Indore dated : 25/04/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

This Court, vide order dated 18/09/2018 has directed the Office for +issuance of non-bailable warrant against the applicant- Lal Singh @ +Lakhan . In pursuance of the aforesaid order the applicant was arrested +by the Police on 22/10/2018 and he was produced before the Chief +Judicial Magistrate, from where he was sent to District Jail Shajapur. +

Applicant-Lal Singh @ Lakhan S/o Laxminarayan @ Lacchu is +produced before this Court from District Jail-Shajapur by Head +Constable No. 416-Prem Narayan Malviya. His presence is marked. He +be sent back to the concerned jail under the same escort for suffering +remaining jail sentence under the appropriate warrant. +

List the revision for final hearing in due course.

+ + +

(S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C.No. 13983/2018x +Indore dated :24/04/2018 + Shri Vikram Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks +time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office. +

List after a week. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 13657/2018x + (Madhopuri Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated : 24/04/2018 + Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is first application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. applicant is +apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 42/2018 +registered at Police-Station-Malawar District-Rajgarh (Biaora), for the +offence punishable under Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, +1884 read with Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under +Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to surrender before the trial +Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn. +However, the applicant is directed to surrender himself before the +competent Court and if he is filed any application for regular bail +before the competent Court, then it shall be considered as early as +possible in accordance with law. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 14459/2018 + (Biharilal Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated : 24/04/2018 + Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is first application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. applicant is +apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 366/2017 +registered at Police-Station-Machalpur District-Rajgarh, for the +offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under +Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to surrender before the trial +Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn. +However, the applicant is directed to surrender himself before the +competent Court and if he is filed any application for regular bail +before the competent Court, then it shall be considered as early as +possible in accordance with law. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + WP No.7360/2018 (Habeaus Corpus)x +Indore dated :23/04/2018 + Shri Surendra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. + Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. + Respondent No.2-Sudhir Kumar Das, Inspector, Police-Station- +Vijaynagar, Indore is prsent in person alongwith Cropus-Priyanka +Vishwakarma. +

Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No. 3/State. +

Petitioner-Abhishek Rathore has filed this Habeaus Corpus for +issuance of writ, directing the respondents to produce the petitioner's +wife-Priyanka Vishwakarma before this Court. +

According to the petitioner the daughter of the respondent +No.1 was deeply involved in love with the petitioner and they were +major, therefore, they decided to marry each other and for the same +the Corpus-Priyanka left her parental house to marry with the +petitioner. The marriage of the petitioner and corpus-Priyanka was +solemnized at Arya Samaj Mandir, Musakhedi, Indore on +23/10/2017. After that they were living together. On 18/03/2018, the +respondent No.1 alongwith his daughters Kiran, Rekha, Rajni, son- +in-laws Hariom, Ritesh, Rajesh and nephew Vishal called the +petitioner and Priyanka to meet them in Meghdoot Garden, Vijay +Nagar, Indore ensuring that they do not want any dispsute. Believing +the respondent No.1 and his relatives, the petitioner alongwith his +wife Priyanka reached Meghdoot Garden, Vijay Nagar, Indore at +about 3:30-4:00 p.m., where all the aforesaid persons were present. +After talking for some time, the petitioner was asked by respondent + No.1 to bring drinking water bottle and carried away his wife- +Priyanka without his consent. The respondent No.1 is illegally +detained his wife without having any authority, therefore, he prays +that the respondents were directed to produce his wife before this +Court and she be handedover to his custody. +

Vide order dated 05/04/2018, respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were +directed to produce the corpus on the next date of hearing. In +compliance of this direction the corpus is produced by Sudhir Kumar +Das, Inspector, Police-Station-Vijaynagar, Indore from the custody +of her parents. +

From the documents filed alongwith petition, it appears that the +date of birth of the Corpus-Priyanka is 15/08/1997, hence she is +major and this fact is also not disputed by any party. Corpus is +present in person and stated that she wants to stay alongwith the +petitioner. However, she has not made any allegation that her +parents detained her forcefully. The corpus is attained the majority, +therefore, she is free to go anywhere and stayed with either petitioner +or her parents, thus, no direction for her custody by this Court is +required. +

In view of the statement made by the corpus before this Court +during the course of hearing, in this writ petition (Habeaus Corpus) +no further direction is required. +

With the aforesaid this writ petition is stands disposed of. +

+ +

(P.K. Jaiswal) (S.K. Awasthi) + Judge Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + WP No.5467/2016 +Indore dated :23/04/2018 + Parties through their counsel. +

By order dated 22/02/2018, we requested the learned +Chairperson and members of the Inspection Committee to spare +their valuable time for inspection in terms of the order passed in +Review Petition No. 1333/2017 and submit its report. +

Report is awaited. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(P.K. Jaiswal) (S.K. Awasthi) + Judge Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10281/2018x + (Pooja Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :20/04/2018 + Shri Jagdish Dangi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court +to withdraw this petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(Virender Singh) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C.Nos. 10799/2018, 13694/2018 & 13814/2018x +Indore dated :20/04/2018 + Parties through their counsel. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(Virender Singh) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10903/2018x + (Dugaria Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :20/04/2018 + Shri P. Newalkar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court +to withdraw this petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn, however, +the trial Cout is directed to expedite the trial. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

+ +

(Virender Singh) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C.No. 11144/2018x +Indore dated :20/04/2018 + Parties through their counsel. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks +time to argue the matter. +

List after a week. +

(Virender Singh) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.11216/2018x + (Mangilal Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :20/04/2018 + Shri Abhishek Soni, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for the respondent/C.B.N. + Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court +to withdraw this petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(Virender Singh) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.11312/2018x + (Gopal Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :20/04/2018 + Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court +to withdraw this petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(Virender Singh) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 11317/2018x +Indore dated :20/04/2018 + Shri Ganesh Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to call a report regarding +ailment of the applicant. +

List after a week. +

(Virender Singh) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C.No. 11329/2018x +Indore dated :20/04/2018 + Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks +time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office. +

List after a week. +

(Virender Singh) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1764/2018x + (Arvind PandeyVs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :20/04/2018 + Shri Pankaj R.Soni, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court +to withdraw this revision petition filed under Section 397/401 of the +Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(Virender Singh) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C.No. 14171/2018x +Indore dated :20/04/2018 + Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Heard on the question of admission. + The petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the +petitioner seeking correction in the order dated 02/04/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. +No.9250/2018. +

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner had +earlier preferred a M.Cr.C. No. 9250/2018 under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +for grant of bail. It is further submitted that this Court was pleased to allow +the M.Cr.C. No. 9250/2018 vide order dated 02/04/2018, however, due to +typographical error in the Crime Number and District, the petitioner could not +be released. +

On due consideration of the aforesaid, this petition is hereby allowed. + It is directed that now the order dated 02/04/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. +No. 9250/2018 shall be read as under:- +

In first para of the said order, the Crime No.70/2017 shall be read as +Crime No. 701/2017. +
In the second para in 11th line of the said order, "The applicant is a +permanent resident of District-Indore" shall be read as "The applicant is a +permanent resident of District-Sehore." +
This order shall be read conjointly with order dated 02/04/2018 passed +in M.Cr.C. No. 9250/2018. With the aforesaid, the present petition stands +disposed of. +
A copy of this order be maintained in M.Cr.C. No.9250/2018 for +record. +
Cc as per rules.
+
(Virender Singh) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A.No. 1638/2017x +Indore dated :20/04/2018 + Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +
At the resquest of the learned counsel for the appellant, list on +24/04/2018. +
(Virender Singh) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + WP No. 5464/2018 +Indore dated :20/04/2018 + Shri Jitendra Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. + Heard. +
Issue notice. +
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate accepts notice on +behalf of the respondents/State and therefore, no further notice is +required. +
Shri Deshmukh prays for and is granted four weeks time to file the +reply in respect of Interim relief. +
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as +per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12/12/1996 +and 02/03/1997, in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. +Union of India & Ors, the permission of Central Govt. under Section 2 +of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 is nceessary for cutting of trees. But +in the present case, without taking any prior approval of the Central +Govt. Under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the M.P. +State Govt. issued notification dated 24/09/2015 in exercise of powers +conferred by clause (b) of the proviso to rule 3 of the M.P. Transit (Forest +Produce Rules), 2000 and exempted private owners for pruning of some +species of forest produce . +
Considering the aforesaid, we direct the respondent No. 4 and +Principal Secretaty, Forest Department Govt. of M.P. to examine the +matter and grant permission for pruning of trees subject to the +examination report of Principal Secretary and Chief Conservator of +Forest and file their detail affidavit within 3 weeks. +
List thereafter. +
Certified copy as per rules.
+ + +
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh) + Judge Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + RP Nos. 1399/2017 & 1401/2017x +Indore dated :20/04/2018 + Parties through their counsel. +
As the matter has been referred to larger Bench of the Supreme +Court, therefore, we adjourned the case. +
List after summer vacation.
+
+
+       (P.K. Jaiswal)                               (Virender Singh)
+           Judge                                          Judge
+
+skt
+           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+
RP Nos. 595/2018, 597/2018, 599/2018 & 600/2018x +Indore dated :20/04/2018 + Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Senior Counsel with Shri +Abhishek Bajpai for the review petitioners. +
Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in the +case of Commissioner of Income Tax Orrisa Vs. Dhadi Sahu, +1994 Supp (1) SCC 257 & Himachal Pradesh State Electricity +Regulatory Commission & Anrs. Vs. Himachal Pradesh +Electricity Board, (2014) 5 SCC 219, para 24 & 25, we are inclined +to issue notice. +
Shri Patwa accepts the notice on behalf of the respondent/State , +hence, no further notice is required. +
Shri Patwa prays for and is granted one weeks time to seek +instructions in the matter and file reply if necessary. +
List immediately thereafter.
+
+
+       (P.K. Jaiswal)                                     (Virender Singh)
+           Judge                                                Judge
+
+skt
+           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+
ITA Nos. 140/2016, 141/2016, 142/2016, 76/2017, 77/2017 & 78/2017 +x +Indore dated :20/04/2018 + Parties through their counsel. +
As prayed by Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the +appellant list after two weeks.
+
+
+       (P.K. Jaiswal)                             (Virender Singh)
+           Judge                                        Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      WP No. 5365/2017x
+Indore dated :20/04/2018
+
Shri P.C. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner. + Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has +filed IA No. 1812/2018, an application for amendment. +
Office is directed to place it on record. +
List thereafter.
+
+
+       (P.K. Jaiswal)                                 (Virender Singh)
+           Judge                                            Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     WP No. 20169/2017x
+Indore dated :20/04/2018
+
Petitioner-Akash Chouhan is present in person. + Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +
Pleading is completed. +
Office is directed to list the matter on the question of admission +in the first week of July, 2018.
+
+
+       (P.K. Jaiswal)                                  (Virender Singh)
+           Judge                                             Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     WP No. 20593/2017x
+Indore dated :20/04/2018
+     Parties through their counsel.
+
List alongwith WP No. 20605/2017.
+
+
+       (P.K. Jaiswal)                     (Virender Singh)
+           Judge                                Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     WP No. 20605/2017x
+Indore dated :20/04/2018
+     Parties through their counsel.
+
Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Govt. Advocate further prays for and +is granted 10 days time to file the reply of IA No. 17570/2017. +
List thereafater alongwith WP No. 20593/2017.
+
+
+       (P.K. Jaiswal)                                (Virender Singh)
+           Judge                                           Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      ITA No. 89/2018x
+Indore dated :20/04/2018
+     Parties through their counsel.
+
As prayed by Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the +appellant list after a week.
+
+
+       (P.K. Jaiswal)                         (Virender Singh)
+           Judge                                    Judge
+
+skt
+                   THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         WANo. 277/2018x
+Indore dated :20/04/2018
+
Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellants. + Heard on the question of admission as well as on IA No. +1118/2018, an application for stay. +
Shri L.C. Patne accepts the notice on behalf of respondent and +he prays for and is granted 10 days time to argue the matter. +
List thereafter. +
IR to continue till next date of hearing. +
Certified copy as per rules.
+ + +
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh) + Judge Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 2900/2017x +Indore dated :20/04/2018 + Parties through their counsel. +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the respondent/EOW +further four weeks' time is granted to file the reply + List thereafter.
+ + +
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh) + Judge Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 2799/2016x +Indore dated :20/04/2018 + Shri S.D. Bohare, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent No.1/State. +
Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to19. + Office is directed to verify that whether, against judgment dated +04/03/2015 passed in S.T. No. 238/2009, any other leave to appeal is +filed or not ? +
Detailed report be filed within a period of 10 days from today. + List thereafter alongwith Cr.A. No. 436/2015.
+
+
+       (P.K. Jaiswal)                                 (Virender Singh)
+           Judge                                            Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       WP No. 174/2017x
+Indore dated :20/04/2018
+
Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. + Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has +filed the rejoinder. +
Office is directed to place it on record. +
List after three weeks. +
In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.
+
+
+       (P.K. Jaiswal)                                  (Virender Singh)
+           Judge                                             Judge
+
+skt
+       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    WP No. 176/2017x
+Indore dated :20/04/2018
+
Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. + Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has +filed the rejoinder. +
Office is directed to place it on record. +
List after three weeks. +
In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.
+
+
+       (P.K. Jaiswal)                                  (Virender Singh)
+           Judge                                             Judge
+
+skt
+                   THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         WP No. 231/2017x
+Indore dated :20/04/2018
+
Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. + Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has +filed the rejoinder. +
Office is directed to place it on record. +
List after three weeks. +
In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.
+
+
+       (P.K. Jaiswal)                                  (Virender Singh)
+           Judge                                             Judge
+
+skt
+                   THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         WP No. 229/2017x
+Indore dated :20/04/2018
+
Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. + Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has +filed the rejoinder. +
Office is directed to place it on record. +
List after three weeks. +
In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.
+
+
+       (P.K. Jaiswal)                                  (Virender Singh)
+           Judge                                             Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       WP No. 225/2017x
+Indore dated :20/04/2018
+
Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. + Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has +filed the rejoinder. +
Office is directed to place it on record. +
List after three weeks. +
In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.
+
+
+       (P.K. Jaiswal)                                  (Virender Singh)
+           Judge                                             Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       WP No. 224/2017x
+Indore dated :20/04/2018
+
Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. + Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has +filed the rejoinder. +
Office is directed to place it on record. +
List after three weeks. +
In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.
+
+
+       (P.K. Jaiswal)                                  (Virender Singh)
+           Judge                                             Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       WP No. 183/2017x
+Indore dated :20/04/2018
+
Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. + Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has +filed the rejoinder. +
Office is directed to place it on record. +
List after three weeks. +
In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.
+
+
+       (P.K. Jaiswal)                                  (Virender Singh)
+           Judge                                             Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       WP No. 180/2017x
+Indore dated :20/04/2018
+
Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. + Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has +filed the rejoinder. +
Office is directed to place it on record. +
List after three weeks. +
In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.
+
+
+       (P.K. Jaiswal)                                  (Virender Singh)
+           Judge                                             Judge
+
+skt
+                   THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         WP No. 178/2017x
+Indore dated :20/04/2018
+
Shri Gangan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. + Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he has +filed the rejoinder. +
Office is directed to place it on record. +
List after three weeks. +
In the meanwhile additional return, if any be filed.
+
+
+       (P.K. Jaiswal)                                  (Virender Singh)
+           Judge                                             Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      CONC. No. 195/2017x
+Indore dated :20/04/2018
+     Parties through their counsel.
+
As prayed by Smt. Ritu Bhargava, learned counsel for the +petitioner list on 08/05/2018. +
In the meanwhile counter, if any be filed.
+
+
+       (P.K. Jaiswal)                              (Virender Singh)
+           Judge                                         Judge
+
+skt
+           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                 Cr.A. No. 509/2000
+Indore dated :19/04/2018
+
Shri Mohan Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +
Arguments heard.
+
Reserved for judgment + + + (P.K. Jaiswal) (S.K. Awasthi) + Judge Judge + +Indore dated : /04/2018 + + Judgment passed, signed and dated separately. +
+ + +
(P.K. Jaiswal) (S.K. Awasthi) + Judge Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 589/2005 +Indore dated :19/04/2018 + Shri Amit Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +
Arguments heard.
+
Reserved for judgment + + + (P.K. Jaiswal) (S.K. Awasthi) + Judge Judge + +Indore dated : /04/2018 + + Judgment passed, signed and dated separately. +
+ + +
(P.K. Jaiswal) (S.K. Awasthi) + Judge Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R.No. 876/2018x + (Yogendra Singh Vs. Ravindra ) +Indore dated :18/04/2018 + Ms. Sangita Parsai, learned counsel for the applicant. + None for the respondent. +
Heard. +
This petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal +Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') is directed against judgment +and order dated 25/03/2010 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions +Judge, Ratlam in Criminal Appeal No.245/2009, whereby, judgment +dated 28/10/2009 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First +Class, District Ratlam in Criminal Case No.13/2009, convicting the +appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 +(for short 'the Act') has been maintained. +
02. The applicant on the basis of criminal complaint preferred by +the respondent, were tried for an offence under Section 138 of 'the +Act' with regard to dishonour of a cheque for a sum of Rs.40,000/-. +

The learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced before it, +found the applicant guilty and sentenced to undergo 6 months S.I.. +Apart from this the applicant was directed to pay Rs.48,000/- as +compensation to the respondent under Section 357 of 'the Code'. The +appeal preferred against the conviction and sentence was dismissed, +vide the impugned judgment, as stated above. +

03. During the pendency of this revision, the applicnat entered into +a compromise with respondent/complainant. In this regard, I.A. Nos. +1863/2018 & 1864/2018 was filed by the parties on 14/03/2018. The +Principal Registrar, Bench on verification has found that the parties +have entered into compromise without any fear or coercion as they + have amicably resolved all their disputes and differences and want to +live in peace and harmony and applicant has also deposited the 15% +of the cheque amount as compound fees before the M.P. High Court, +Legal Services Committee, Bench at Indore on 06/04/2018. +

04. Since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and pray +for compounding of the offence which is permissible under Section +147 of 'the Act', it would be in the interest of justice to accept the +prayer made in this regard. +

05. Accordingly, this Court allow the parties to compound the +offence and resultantly, set aside the judgments of the Courts below +and acquit the applicant with regard to offence under Section 138 of +'the Act'. If the applicant is in custody, he be released forthwith if not +required in any other case. +

06. A copy of this Order be sent to the concerned Court for +information and compliance. +

CC as per rules. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 1337/2018 +Indore dated :03/04/2018 + Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri V.K. Bhavsar, learned counsel for the respondent. + Arguments heard. +

Reserved for orders. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +Indore dated : /04/2018 + + Order passed, signed and dated separately. +

+

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C.No. 14415/2018x +Indore dated :18/04/2018 + Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code +of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking modification in order dated +14/02/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 1072/2018. +

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant +was granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 14/02/2018 passed in +M. Cr. C. No. 1072/2018 subject to deposition of Rs. 2.83 Lacs with +interest to the bank within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of +certified copy of this order. However, as per the statement of the bank +the total amount due towards applicant is Rs.9,54,543/-. It is also +submitted the applicant is a labour and he is not in a position to deposit +the aforesaid amount. Under these circumstances, he prayed for +modification in the impugned order. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is opposed the petition. + Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments +advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this petition is allowed. +Accordingly, the concluding para of order dated 14/02/2018 passed in +M.Cr.C. No. 1072/2018 is modified as under: +

"The application filed by the applicant is allowed, subject to +deposition of amount Rs. 4.0 Lacs to the Bank within a period of 1 +month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and +upon submission of the receipt of the same before the trial Court, he +shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum +of Rs.60,000/- with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of trial + Court, for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial +with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court +concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions +enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C." +

This order shall be read cojointly with order dated 14/02/2018 +passed in M.Cr.C. No. 1072/2018. A copy of this order be placed in +the record of M.Cr.C No.1072/2018. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A.No. 321/2015x +Indore dated :18/04/2018 + Shri L.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1650/2017, an +application for permanent exemption from personal appearance of +appellants before this Registry. +

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are +poor agriculturists and illiterate persons. They resides in interior village +of District-Dhar, which is around 125 Kms., away from Indore. Now the +crops are standing in their fields and there is no other male members in +their family to look after the cattle and fields. Under these +circumstances, learned counsel for the appellants prayed for permanent +exemption from personal appearance of the appellants before the +Registry of this Court. +

Learne Public Prosecutor opposed the application. + On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, +IA No. 1650/2017 is allowed and the appellants are permanently +exempted from marking their presence before the Registry of this Court. +The appellants are directed to mark their presence before the Court of +Additional Sessions Judge, Sardarpur District-Dhar on 25/04/2018 and +on all subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf. +

List the appeal for final hearing in due course. + Certified copy as per rules. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A.No. 15/2015x +Indore dated :18/04/2018 + Shri I. Ansari, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant No.1- +Wahid is detained in Bherugarh Jail, Ujjain in another case. +

Let production warrant be issued against appellant No.1-Wahid for +securing his presence before this Court on 07/05/2018. +

List on 07/05/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 1838/2014x +Indore dated :18/04/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Non-bailable warrant issued against appellant-Jitendra Mukhi has +return unserved with the report that he was not found at his given +address. +

Let perpetual warrant be issued against appellant-Jitendra Mukhi +to secure his presence before this Court. +

Superintendent of Police, Indore is directed to furnish the quarterly +report on completion of each quarters relating to efforts made by the +serving officer for the arrest of the appellant-Jitendra Mukhi. +

As per PUD No. 5, dated 29/01/2018 received from the Special +Judge ( NDPS), Indore the recovery proceedings against surety of the +appellant is going on and recovery warrant has been issued against him. +

List on 19/07/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 369/2013x +Indore dated :18/04/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

As per office report appellant-Jitendra has failed to mark his +presence on 10/04/2018. It is a matter of bail jump. +

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant- +Jitendra for securing his presence before this Court on 20/06/2018. +

List on 20/06/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 567/2012x +Indore dated :18/04/2018 + Shri Anurag Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep +present appellant -Munnalal @ Amarsingh before this Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

List on 04/05/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 479/2010x +Indore dated :18/04/2018 + Shri Pravir Porwal, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellants prays for fixed date to keep +present appellant No.2-Pankaj @ Pawan before this Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

List on 04/05/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 651/2015x +Indore dated :18/04/2018 + Smt. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Akhilesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent. + List alongwith Cr.R. No. 512/2015. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 512/2015x +Indore dated :18/04/2018 + Shri Akhilesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two +weeks time to file some necessary documents. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 7961/2018x +Indore dated :18/04/2018 + Shri Vishnu Dube, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time to argue the +matter, despite the fact that today the case is listed on the mention +memo. +

Prayer is allowed. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1116/2018x +Indore dated :18/04/2018 + Shri K.N. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the applicant on IA No. 1666/2018, Ist +application filed under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail +sentence and for grant of bail to the applicant-Ajay. +

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of +this Court to withdraw IA No. 1666/2018. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, IA No. 1666/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.14959/2018x +Indore dated :18/04/2018 + Shri A.K. Nahar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed + for restoration of Cr.R.No.897/2018, which has been dismissed for + want of prosecution vide order dated 19/03/2018. +

For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported + with the affidavit,the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. + is allowed, subject to depositing cost of Rs.500/- in the High Court + Legal Services Committee, Indore. Cr.R. No. 897/2018 be restored to + its original number. +

With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. + A copy of this order be placed in the record of Cr.R. No. + 897/2018. +

Certified copy, as per rules. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9524/2017x +Indore dated :18/04/2018 + Shri Ajay Mimrot, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No. +1 /State. +

List in the week commencing 14/05/2018 alongwith M.Cr.C. No. +13941/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.13941/2018x +Indore dated :18/04/2018 + Shri Gagan Bajad, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos. +1 to 3/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to file response to the +petition filed by the applicant under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by next +date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 14/05/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.14461/2018x +Indore dated :18/04/2018 + Shri Himanshu Dad, learned counsel for the applicants. + On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be +issued to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 by ordinary as well as registered AD on +admission alongwith IA No. 2534/2018, an application for stay. Notice +be made returnable within four weeks. +

List thereafter. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.651/2018 + (Laxman Singh & Ors.Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated : 17/04/2018 + Shri M.A. Bohra, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

ORDER + This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 +of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved by the +judgment dated 01/02/2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Rajgarh +(Bioara) in Cri.Appeal No.412/2014, confirming the judgment dated +10/12/2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jeerapur, +District-Rajgarh (Bioara) in Criminal Case No. 03/2014, by which +the applicants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo 1 +years RI with fine of Rs.300/- under Section 452 IPC and 3 months +RI. With fine of Rs.300/- under Section 323 of the IPC with default +stipulation. +

2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 28/12/201, at about +9:00 a.m., the complainant was sweeping her courtyard then +applicants came there and asked her why she is draining the water +infront of their house. On this account they started to abuse her and +assaulted her by kicks and fists. Thereafater applicant-Laxman +caused her injury by pelting stones on her head. When +complainant's sister-in-law- Kailash Bai interevened in the matter, +then applicants fled away from the spot. After the incident, +complainant-Gangabai lodged an FIR at Police Station-Machalpur and +on that basis case was registered against the applicants for the +offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294 and 506(II) IPC at +Crime No. 191/2013. On completion of investigation, the police filed +charge sheet before JMFC -Jeerapur, District-Rajgarh (Biaora). +

3. After framing the charge and recording the evidence, the +offences under Sections 452 & 323 IPC were found proved and the + applicants were convicted and sentenced as stated herein above. +Against the judgment of the trial court, the appeal was preferred +which was dismissed. Hence, this revision petition. +

4. Learned counsel for the applicants argued at length and +submitted that the applicant has been convicted illegally by the +courts below. Both the courts below have committed error in not +properly appreciating the evidence resulted into incorrect finding, +which is liable to be set aside in this revision. Learned counsel for +the applicants has alternatively submitted that the applicant has +remained in jail for a period of approximately 2 & 1/2 months and +they have no criminal past nor they are involved in any unlawful +activities subsequent to the incident involved in the present matter. +He prays that these factors be considered for reducing the period of +imprisonment imposed by the courts below to the period of +imprisonment already undergone. +

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that after due +appreciation of the evidence learned Courts below have found the +applicant guilty of the aforesaid offence. It is submitted that the +revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and no interference is +called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. +

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of +the record, it is noticed that the commission of the alleged offence +by the applicants is established on the basis of the statements of +complainant-Gangabai (PW 1), Kailash Bai (PW 3), Santosh Bai (PW +

4), Bapulal (PW 5) and Dr. R.S. Mathur (PW 6). Hence, considering +the material available on record, the Courts below have not +committed any error in convicting the applicants under Sections 452 +& 323 of IPC. +

7. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, I am of the +considered opinion that looking to the nature of allegation and +circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicants have +already remained approximately 2 & 1/2 months in jail, therefore, + the sentence awarded to the applicants is reduced to the sentence + already undergone by them subject to deposit of additional fine + amount of Rs.1200/-for the offence under Section 452 IPC, and + Rs.700/- for the offence under Section 323 IPC, within a period of + thirty days. Out of the total amount of fine, a sum of Rs.2000/- shall + be paid to the complainant-Gangabai as compensation under Section + 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In default of payment of + enhanced fine amount, the applicants shall suffer one months and + fifteen days RI respectively under Sections 452 and 323 of IPC. +

With the aforesaid modification in the judgment of conviction + and sentence, the revision petition is disposed of.

+
+
+                                                        (S.K.Awasthi)
+skt                                                        Judge
+ To Add in future-
+

7. Having considered the rival contentions and perused the + record, this Court is of the considered view that the contention of + the respondent has much force as the perusal of the evidence + establishes the occurrence of the incident and since the injuries were + sustained by injured Lakhan, which included the injury on the head, + the incident cannot be ignored. Further, the observation of the trial + Court with respect to the testimony of the doctor cannot be found + faulted with as the doctor's opinion is to be considered in the context + of the statement of the complainant, which does not mean that the + entire prosecution story is to be disbelieved because the incident has + taken place in open surrounding and there were several witnesses to + it. With regard to the contention that this matter is counter blast, + suffice it to observe that the courts below have examined this aspect + and the appellate Court has modified the judgment of sentence + considering that the parties to the incident are resident of same + village and are related. +

8. It is anyways a trite position of law, as has been held by the + Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Sujay + Mangesh Poyarekar, (2008) 9 SCC 475, that the revisional + jurisdiction of the High Court is to be exercised sparingly and only in + exceptional cases. A revisional Court cannot convert itself into a + regular Court of Appeal. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + + skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.733/2017 + (Sukhdev & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated : 17/04/2018 + Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 5737/2017, an +application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of +delay of 630 days in preferring this revision petition. +

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are +poor agriculturist and illiterate persons. At the time of pronouncement +of judgment, the applicants were not present before the appellate +Court, therefore, they were not having any knowledge about the +dismissal of the appeal. When they asked about their next date from +their counsel, then he informed them that the appeal of the applicants +is decided in their favour and the sentence awarded by the trial Court +is set-aside, therefore, they were in the impression that they are +acquitted by the appellate Court. In the last week of May, 2017 they +came to know that their appeal was dismissed when some police man +come and inquired about the applicants . After that applicants inquired +about the matter and got the certified copy of the judgments and then +they preferred this revision. Under these circumstances, learned +counsel for the applicants prays for condonation of delay of 630 days +in preferring this revision. +

Per contra learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for +condonation of delay by contending that the trial Court has convicted +the applicants for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 ( 3 counts) +and 324 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo 2 1/2 years R.I., 2 +1/2 years R.I. and 6 months R.I., and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, Rs. 200/- + and Rs. 100/- respectively with usual default stipulation. The appellate +Court although affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to 3 +months R.I., and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, Rs. 200/- and Rs.150/- +respectively for each offence. At the time of pronouncement of +judgment, applicants were not deliberately present before the appellate +Court and they filed an application for exemption of their non- +appearance, which was rejcted by the appellate Court. Aftter that they +have not surrender before the trial court and filed this revision petition +before this Court on 19/06/2017, which is not maintainable. Apart +from this the revision has been filed approximately 1 years and 7 +months of the impugned judgment passed by the appellate Court. The +reasons shown in the application for condonation of delay are not +bonafide, therefore, no sufficient ground is available to condone the +delay. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. + After considering the contention of the learned counsel for the +parties, this Court finds that the reasons given by the applicants for +condonation of delay are vague and they have not filed any affidavit +of their counsel, who wrongly informed them that the appeal preferred +by them is decided in their favour and they are acquitted by the +appellate Court, therefore, the reasons shown in the application for +condonation of delay in filing this revision petition is not accepetable. +In the case of B. Madhuri Goud Vs. B. Damodar Reddy, (2012) 12 +SCC 693, the apex Court has held that " If sufficient cause is not +shown, delay should not be condoned." In the case of Lanka +Venkateshwarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2011 (3) MPLJ SCC +135, the supreme Court held that " The courts do not enjoy unlimited + and unbridled discretionary powers in condonation of delay." In the +present case dealy caused by the applicants due to mistake and +negligence of their counsel. The reasons assigned for the condonation +of delay is not found sufficient and satisfactory and it does not seems +to be bonafide, therefore, delay cannot be condoned without sufficient +cause. +

The next question arises for consideration before this Court is +whether this revision is tenable despite the fact that the applicants have +not surrendered before the Appellate Court at the time of judgment. In +other words if the convicted is not in custody whether revision would +be tenable. +

Learned counsel for the applicants placing reliance on the +language of provision 397 of the Cr.P.C. and order of Delhi High +Court passed on 31/05/2017 in Cr.R. No. 299/2017 in the case of +Manish Kumar Vs. The State GNCT of Delhi & Ors. and order of +Madras High Court passed on 18/01/2016 in Cr.R. No. 588/2015 in the +case of M. Senthilkumar Vs. P. Ramlingam submits that there is no +provision or requirement under the Cr.P.C. which compells the accused +to surrender before filing of Criminal Revision, therefore, present +criminal revision is maintainable. +

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. + In the cases of Manish Kumar (supra) and M. Senthilkumar +(supra), Delhi High Court and Madras High Court has held that under +the provision of 397 of Cr.P.C. there is no such requirement that for +granting of relief of suspension of sentence, the accused surrender and +undergo confinement before filing of the Criminal Revision, unless +High Courts have made such provisions in their respective rules. +

From the perusal of aforesaid orders, it is evident that there is no +requirement under the Cr.P.C. which makes it necessary for the +accused to surrender after conviction before filing Criminal Revision, +however, it is opined that if the High Court has made such provisions +in their respective rules. As per Chapter X of Rules 48 of the M.P. +High Court Rules, 2008 makes it is obligatory to the applicants to +surrender and only then revision would be tenable. According to Rules +48, a declaration is obligatory for the accused to the effect that he is in +custody or has surrendered after the conviction except that whether the +sentence suspended by the Courts below. In the case of Dilip Sahu +Vs. State of M.P. 2012 (3) MPLJ 354 this Court while dealing with +the maintainability of the revision has held that Criminal Revision +against conviction is tenable only when applicants have given +declaration to the effect that the applicants are in custody or have +surrendered after the conviction. +

In view whereof in the considered opinion of this Court this +criminal revision dismissed as not maintainable as well as time barred. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R.No. 1157/2014x +Indore dated :13/04/2018 + Shri M.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Bailable warrant issued against applicant No.2-Banesingh @ +Bania was received unserved with the report that he has died on +05/07/2017 on the road accident, however, the documents filed +alongwith service report is related to death of Anil S/o Bhuriya. +

Superintendent of Police, Dewas is directed to verify the service +report of the warrant issued against applicant No.2-Banesingh @ Bania +and filed its report before this Court by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 18/06/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A.No. 56/2013x +Indore dated :17/04/2018 + Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellants. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have +been convicted for the offence under Section 8(C)/15 of the NDPS Act +and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I., and to pay fine of Rs.1 Lac for +each offence with usual default stipulation. The appellants have already +suffered more than 9 years of the jail sentence and he is ready to aruge +the appeal on merits. +

Office is directed to examine whether the appeal can be listed for +final hearing out of its turn under the caption of "High Court Expedited +Cases" or any other suitable caption of priority cases and proceed +further. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R.No. 1157/2014x +Indore dated :13/04/2018 + Shri M.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Bailable warrant issued against applicant No.2-Banesingh @ +Bania was received unserved with the report that he has died on +05/07/2017 on the road accident, however, the documents filed +alongwith service report is related to death of Anil S/o Bhuriya. +

Superintendent of Police, Dewas is directed to verify the service +report of the warrant issued against applicant No.2-Banesingh @ Bania +and filed its report before this Court by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 18/06/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A.No. 705/2014x +Indore dated :13/04/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

As per office report, the appellant-Prem Singh was absent on +12/03/2018 and it is a matter of bail jump. +

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant-Prem +Singh, for securing his presence before this Court on 19/06/2018. +

List on 19/06/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A.No. 303/2014x +Indore dated :13/04/2018 + Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant +Joravarsingh @ Jorsingh is detained in Bherugarh Jail, Ujjain in another +case. +

Let production warrant be issued against appellant-Joravarsingh @ +Jorsingh for securing his presence before this Court on 02/05/2018. +

List on 02/05/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9373/2018x +Indore dated : 13/04/2018 + None for the applicant, when the case is called for second + round. +

Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the + respondent/State. +

Shri Vivek Nagar, learned counsel for the complainant + /objector. +

On earlier occasions on 28/03/2018 also none appeared on + behalf of the applicant, which indicates that the applicant is no + longer interested in prosecuting this petition. +

Accordingly, this petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. + is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 236/2008 +Indore dated :12/04/2018 + Shri Abhijit Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri S.L. Ahiwasi, learned counsel for the respondent. + Arguments heard. +

Reserved for judgment. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +Indore dated : /04/2018 + + Judgment passed, signed and dated separately. +

+

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 6105/2006 +Indore dated :12/04/2018 + Shri Abhijit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri S.L. Ahiwasi, learned counsel for the respondent. + Arguments heard. +

Reserved for orders. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +Indore dated : /04/2018 + + Order passed, signed and dated separately. +

+

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.190/2017x + (Gaurav @ Goldy Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :13/04/2018 + Shri A.S. Solanki, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned counsel for the respondent/State. + Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 24682/2017, an +application for withdrawal of appeal. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has +already suffered the jail sentence awarded by the trial Court, therefore, +he does not want to press this appeal. +

On due consideration of the aforesaid IA No. 24682/2017 is +allowed and accordingly, Cr.A. No. 190/2017 is dismissed as +withdrawn. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1463/2014 +Indore dated :13/04/2018 + Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 received +unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address. +

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent +No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav +for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018. +

List on 19/06/2018. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1481/2014 +Indore dated :13/04/2018 + Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 received +unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address. +

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent +No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav +for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018. +

List on 19/06/2018. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1465/2014 +Indore dated :13/04/2018 + Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 received +unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address. +

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent +No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav +for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018. +

List on 19/06/2018. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1471/2014 +Indore dated :13/04/2018 + Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 received +unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address. +

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent +No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav +for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018. +

List on 19/06/2018. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1473/2014 +Indore dated :13/04/2018 + Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 received +unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address. +

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent +No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav +for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018. +

List on 19/06/2018. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1474/2014 +Indore dated :13/04/2018 + Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 received +unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address. +

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent +No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav +for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018. +

List on 19/06/2018. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1480/2014 +Indore dated :13/04/2018 + Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 received +unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address. +

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent +No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav +for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018. +

List on 19/06/2018. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1464/2014 +Indore dated :13/04/2018 + Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 received +unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address. +

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent +No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav +for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018. +

List on 19/06/2018. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 1752/2014x +Indore dated : 13/04/2018 + Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Appellant- Vikas @ Rakh is present in person and he has been duly +identified by his counsel. His presence is marked. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.2509/2018, an +application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant on +16/02/2018 before the registry of this Court. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant was +present before the Registry on 06/08/2017 but the incharge of Registry +instead of marking the signature of the present applicant, had marked his +presence on another file, therefore, he could not mark his presence on +16/02/2018 before this Court. +

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is +supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the +previous non-appearance of appellant-Vikas @ Rakh on 16/02/2018 before +this Court. +

Accordingly, IA No.2509/2018 is allowed and non-appearance of +appellant- Vikas @ Rakh before this Court on 16/02/2018 is hereby +condoned. +

Appellant- Vikas @ Rakh is directed to appear before the Office of +this Court on 09/08/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed +by the Office in this behalf.

+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                     Judge
+       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                 Cr.A. No.109/2014x
+Indore dated :13/04/2018
+

Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 22631/2017, an +application for final hearing at motion stage. +

From the perusal of the record, it appears that it is an admitted +matter. +

Office is directed to list the matter, under caption "High Court +Expedited Cases" or any other suitable caption of priority cases, +whichever is earlier. +

Accordingly, IA No. 22631/2017 is disposed of. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7466/2018x + (Mukesh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :13/04/2018 + Shri Dharmendra Gurjar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate 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.50/2018, Police Station-Rau, +District-Indore, concerning offence under Sections 420, 463, 467, 468 +& 471 of the IPC read with Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first application filed +under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.14313/2018x +Indore dated :13/04/2018 + Shri Apoorv Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time to argue the +matter. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Be listed in the week commencing 30/04/2018. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.14310/2018x +Indore dated :13/04/2018 + Shri Apoorv Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time to argue the +matter. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Be listed in the week commencing 30/04/2018. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.14098/2018 + (Goverdhan Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :13/04/2018 + Shri Manish Zharola, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate 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.799/2017, Police Station-Industrial +Area District-Dewas, concerning offence under Sections 394 and +216(A) of the IPC read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under +Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to renew his prayer after +recording the statement of the complainant before the trial Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn +with the aforesaid liberty . +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 1310/1997 +Indore dated :26/02/2018 + Shri Suhel Nisar, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Arguments heard. +

Reserved for judgment. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +Indore dated : /04/2018 + + Judgment passed, signed and dated separately. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 10858/2017 +Indore dated :15/02/2018 + Shri Anup Agrawal, present in person. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilyaa, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent No.1/State. +

Shri Vinod Kumar Bhavsar, learned counsel for the respondent +No.2. +

Arguments heard. +

Reserved for orders. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +Indore dated : /04/2018 + + Order passed, signed and dated separately. +

+

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 226/2012x +Indore dated :11/04/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Neither the service report of non-bailable warrant of arrest issued +against appellant-Dharmendra @ Pappu is received nor concerning +Superintendent of Police, District-Indore has filed any affidavit in +compliance of order dated 18/01/2018. +

Let direction be issued to the concerned Superintendent of Police +that he shall collect the service report of the warrant issued against the +appellant-Dharmendra @ Pappu and produced it with a detailed +affidavit before this Court as to why service could not be made +effective and naratting all the steps taken by the concerned officials for +service of non-bailable warrant, failing which he shall remain present +before this Court on next date of hearing positively. +

Copy of this order be supplied to learned Public Prosecutor, who +is present in Court for seeking the compliance of the aforesaid order. +

Be listed on 11/05/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.13887/2018x + (Shahrukh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :11/04/2018 + Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for +grant of bail in connection with Crime No.421/2017, Police Station- +Industrial Area, Jaora, District-Ratlam, concerning offence under +Sections 366, 376(2)(m) and 506 of the IPC. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this second application +filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this second application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 10734/2018x +Indore dated :11/04/2018 + Shri R.S. Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicnt prays for time to argue the +matter on the ground that arguing counsel is not available today. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Be listed on 02/05/2018. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 13211/2018x +Indore dated :11/04/2018 + Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. + Let record of the court below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 13327/2018x +Indore dated :11/04/2018 + Shri P.K. Bramhabhatt, learned counsel for the applicant. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for analogous hearing +with M.Cr.C. Nos. 6201/2018 and 8775/2018. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Office is directed to list the matter on 20/04/2018 alongwith +M.Cr.C. Nos. 6201/2018 and 8775/2018. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 13987/2018x +Indore dated :11/04/2018 + Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent No.1/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make availble the case- +diary by next date of hering positively. +

Be listed in the week commencing 30/04/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1555/2016x +Indore dated :11/04/2018 + Shri Shadab Khan, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Let status report of the trial be called from the concerned trial +Court. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to produce Balestic Expert +Report with regard to the pistol, which has been recovered at the +instance of the applicant. +

Be listed on 02/05/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.82/2017x + (Bhanwar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :11/04/2018 + Shri Shadab Khan, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel +for the applicants seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +revision petition filed under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 5500/2017 +Indore dated :10/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed after two weeks. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 99/2013x +Indore dated :10/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

As per office report appellant-Tauliya @ Anil @ Tolsingh was +failed to mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on +26/03/2018. +

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant- +Tauliya @ Anil @ Tolsingh for securing his presence before this Court +on 16/05/2018. +

List on 16/05/2018. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 771/2016x +Indore dated :10/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed after four weeks. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 1838/2016x +Indore dated :10/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Let record of the court below be requisitioned. + Be listed after four weeks. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 624/2017x +Indore dated :10/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed after four weeks. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1067/2017x +Indore dated :10/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed after four weeks. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 3671/2017 +Indore dated :10/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Appellant is directed to cure the defects pointed out by the office +within one week from today, failing which this appeal shall stands +dismissed without further reference to this Court. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 651/2018x +Indore dated :10/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Let record of the trial court be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 1938/2018 +Indore dated :10/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Today the matter is listed for consideration of IA No. 1595/2018, +an application for exemption from filing affidavit in support of appeal +and IA Nos. 1593/2018, an application under Section 5 of the +Limitation Act & 1594/2018, an application under Section 389 of the +Cr.P.C. +

On due consideration IA No. 1595/2018 is disposed of with a +direction that the affidavit shall be produced by next date of hearing +positively. +

Be listed after two weeks. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 12825/2018x +Indore dated :10/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

Be listed after two weeks. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 13513/2018x +Indore dated :10/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Case-diary is available. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed after two weeks. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 13595/2018x +Indore dated :10/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Case-diary is available. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed after two weeks. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1207/2018x +Indore dated :10/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Let record of the courts' below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 8203/2018x +Indore dated :10/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

Be listed after two weeks. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 390/2018x +Indore dated :10/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed after four weeks. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 26130/2017x +Indore dated :10/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed after four weeks. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 3212/2018x +Indore dated :10/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed after two weeks. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9062/2015x +Indore dated :10/04/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Respondent-Ashok Dashora is present in person. + Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed after four weeks. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 9779/2017x +Indore dated :10/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed after two weeks. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 9710/2017x +Indore dated :10/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed after two weeks. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1304/2014x +Indore dated :10/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Due to strike called by the M.P. State Bar Council, the Advocates +are abstaining from court work. +

In absence of learned counsel for the parties, the case is adjourned. + List the matter after a week. +

+ +

(P.K. Jaiswal) (S.K. Awasthi) + Judge Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 419/2008 +Indore dated :10/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Due to strike called by the M.P. State Bar Council, the Advocates +are abstaining from court work. +

In absence of learned counsel for the parties, the case is adjourned. + List the matter after three weeks. +

+ +
(P.K. Jaiswal)                                            (S.K. Awasthi)
+   Judge                                                     Judge
+
+skt
+           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  Cr.R. No. 480/2017
+Indore dated :20/03/2018
+

Shri Raghav Shrivastav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Arguments heard. +

Reserved for orders. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +Indore dated :10/04/2018 + + Order passed, signed and dated separately. +

+

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 6677/2017 +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri Saransh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent No.1/State. +

Shri Viraj Jain, learned counsel for the respondent +No.2/complainant. +

Arguments heard. +

Reserved for orders. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +Indore dated :10/04/2018 + + Order passed, signed and dated separately. +

+

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 11633/2018x +Indore dated :09/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Case-diary is available. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 2488/2018x +Indore dated :09/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary and also comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, +1989 by next date of hearing positively. +

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 12747/2018x +Indore dated :09/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Case-diary is available. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 13022/2018x +Indore dated :09/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Case-diary is available. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 13290/2018x +Indore dated :09/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Case-diary is available. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 13466/2018x +Indore dated :09/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Case-diary is available. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 13468/2018x +Indore dated :09/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Case-diary is available. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 13492/2018x +Indore dated :09/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Case-diary is available. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 13596/2018X +Indore dated :09/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Case-diary is available. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 13604/2018X +Indore dated :09/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Case-diary is available. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 13623/2018X +Indore dated :09/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case +diary by next date of hearing. +

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 9039/2018X +Indore dated :09/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Case-diary is available. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 10041/2018X +Indore dated :09/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Case-diary is available. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 10080/2018X +Indore dated :09/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Case-diary is available. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 10233/2018X +Indore dated :09/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Case-diary is available. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 10428/2018X +Indore dated :09/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case +diary by next date of hearing. +

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 11113/2018X +Indore dated :09/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Case-diary is available. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 11407/2018X +Indore dated :09/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Case-diary is available. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 11631/2018X +Indore dated :09/04/2018 + None for the parties. +

Case-diary is available. +

Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of +State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned. +

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.2480/2018x +Indore dated :06/04/2018 + Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri Peyush Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary and also comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, +1989 by next date of hearing positively. +

Be listed in the week commencing 16/04/2018. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.13114/2018x +Indore dated :06/04/2018 + Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

Be listed in the week commencing 16/04/2018. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.13261/2018x +Indore dated :06/04/2018 + Shri Neelesh Manore, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time to argue the +matter. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.13235/2018x + (Satish Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :06/04/2018 + Shri Shyam Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate 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.105/2018, Police Station- +Hatpipaliya District-Dewas, concerning offence under Sections 354, +354(A) and 506 of the IPC read with Section 7/8 of the Prevention of +Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to +renew his prayer after filing of the charge-sheet. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn +with the aforesaid liberty . +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.13277/2018x + (Ravin @ Ravindra Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :06/04/2018 + Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate 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.45/2018, Police Station-Warla +District-Barwani, concerning offence under Sections 354, 354(A) and +506 of the IPC read with Section 7/8 of the Prevention of Children +from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to +renew his prayer after filing of the charge-sheet. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn +with the aforesaid liberty . +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 621/2015x +Indore dated : 04/04/2018 + Shri Manish Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Appellant- Devkaran is present in person and he has been duly +identified by his counsel. His presence is marked. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.20316/2017, an +application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant on +13/10/2017 before the registry of this Court. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to the illness, +appellant could not appear before the registry of this Court on 13/10/2017. +

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is +supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the +previous non-appearance of appellant-Devkaran on 13/10/2017 before this +Court. +

Accordingly, IA No. 20316/2017 is allowed and non-appearance of +appellant- Devkaran before this Court on 13/10/2017 is hereby condoned. +

Appellant- Devkaran is directed to appear before the Office of this +Court on 06/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by +the Office in this behalf.

+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                     Judge
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.R. No. 841/2014x
+Indore dated : 04/04/2018
+

Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Applicant- Bhagwan Singh is present in person and he has been duly +identified by his counsel. His presence is marked. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.24848/2017, an +application for condonation of previous non-appearance of applicant on +07/12/2017 before the registry of this Court. +

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a +driver by profession and on the aforesaid date he was out of station, +therefore, he could not appear before the registry of this Court on +07/12/2017. +

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is +supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the +previous non-appearance of applicant-Bhagwan Singh on 07/12/2017 +before this Court. +

Accordingly, IA No. 24848/2017 is allowed and non-appearance of +applicant- Bhagwan Singh before this Court on 07/12/2017 is hereby +condoned. +

Applicant-Bhagwan Singh is directed to appear before the Office of +this Court on 10/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed +by the Office in this behalf.

+

(S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 1946/2014x +Indore dated : 04/04/2018 + Shri Navendu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Appellant- Shahrukh is present in person and he has been duly +identified by his counsel. His presence is marked. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.24092/2017, an +application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant on +03/10/2017 before the registry of this Court. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to illness, +appellant could not appear before the registry of this Court on 03/10/2017. +

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is +supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the +previous non-appearance of appellant-Shahrukh on 03/10/2017 before this +Court. +

Accordingly, IA No. 24092/2017 is allowed and non-appearance of +appellant- Shahrukh before this Court on 03/10/2017 is hereby condoned. +

Appellant- Shahrukh is directed to appear before the Office of this +Court on 11/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by +the Office in this behalf.

+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                     Judge
+                   THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        Cr.A. No. 941/2014x
+Indore dated : 04/04/2018
+

Shri Dharmendra Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Appellant- Lalit is present in person and he has been duly identified +by his counsel. His presence is marked. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.695/2018, an +application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant on +23/01/2018 before the registry of this Court. +

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is +supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the +previous non-appearance of appellant-Lalit on 23/01/2018 before this +Court. +

Accordingly, IA No. 695/2018 is allowed and non-appearance of +appellant- Lalit before this Court on 23/01/2018 is hereby condoned. +

Appellant- Lalit is directed to appear before the Office of this Court +on 09/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the +Office in this behalf.

+

(S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 1333/2016 +Indore dated : 04/04/2018 + Shri Gopal Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Appellant No.2- Jitendra Bhilala is present in person and he has been +duly identified by his counsel. His presence is marked. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.2362/2018, an +application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant on +11/12/2017 before the registry of this Court. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to the accident +appellant's left leg was fractured, therefore, he could not appear before the +registry of this Court on 11/12/2017. +

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is +supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the +previous non-appearance of appellant No.2-Jitendra Bhilala on 11/12/2017 +before this Court. +

Accordingly, IA No. 2362/2018 is allowed and non-appearance of +appellant No.2- Jitendra Bhilala before this Court on 11/12/2017 is +hereby condoned. +

Appellant No.2- Jitendra Bhilala is directed to appear before the +Office of this Court on 05/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as +may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.

+                                                      (S.K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                      Judge
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                 Cr.R. No.585/2017x
+Indore dated : 04/04/2018
+

None for the applicant, when the case is called for second + round. +

None for the respondents. +

On earlier occasions on 27/02/2018 and 19/12/2017 also none + appeared on behalf of the applicant, which indicates that the + applicant is no longer interested in prosecuting this petition. +

Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed for want of + prosecution. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.876/2018x +Indore dated :04/04/2018 + Ms. Sangita Parsai, learned counsel for the applicant. + Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to deposit +compounding fees before the trial Court and file its receipt before this +Court. +

List on 06/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1354/2006x +Indore dated :04/04/2018 + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State. + Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for the respondent. + Heard learned counsel for the partis on IA No. 22674/2017, an +application for grant of permission for renewal of passport. +

The facts of the case are that the sole respondent has been +acquitted vide judgment dated 26/09/2005 for offence under Sections +6(1)(a) of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 20 of the Indian +Wireless Act, 1985 in Criminal Case No. 86/2004. Against the acquittal, +the present appeal has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh. +

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the daughter of +the respondent is suffering from cancer and the passport No. E 7063637 +of the respondent was valid upto 12/01/2016. He has further submitted +that his daughter is required to be treated in United States of America, +therefore, permission be granted to renew his passport. +

Learned Govt. Advocate has no serious objection in allowing the +application. +

Keeping in view the totality of the circumstnaces of the case, IA +No. 22674/2017 is allowed and the respondent namely' Devendra S/o +Rajmal Jain is permitted to take appropriate steps for renewal of his +passport. Pendency of this appeal will not come in the way of the +respondent, so far as renewal of the passport is concerned. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10178/2018x +Indore dated :04/04/2018 + Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to file the legible copy of the +statement of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of +the Cr.P.C. by next date of hearing positively. +

List in tdhe week commencing 16/04/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.11933/2018x +Indore dated :04/04/2018 + Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in tdhe week commencing 16/04/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.11954/2018x + (Ranjeet Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :04/04/2018 + Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate 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.676/2017, Police Station-Aerodrum +District-Indore, concerning offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P. +Excise Act. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to +renew his prayer after recording the statement of the substantial +prosecution witnesses before the trial Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn +with the aforesaid liberty . +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 10853/2018x +Indore dated :04/04/2018 + Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned counsel for the respondent/State. + As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list on +06/04/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 463/2017x +Indore dated :04/04/2018 + Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Govind Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent/EOW. + As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants, list alongwith +Cr.R. No. 681/2017. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.635/2017x + (Mallu @ Molu @ Suresh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :04/04/2018 + Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court +to withdraw this revision petition filed under Section 102 of Juvenile +Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 843/2017x +Indore dated :04/04/2018 + Shri Brijesh Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Akshat Pahadia, learned counsel for the respondent. + Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted a +weeks time to file the power on behalf of the respondents. +

Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List on 25/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1005/2017x +Indore dated :04/04/2018 + Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri D. Patel, learned counsel for the respondents. + Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted a +weeks time to file the power on behalf of the respondents. +

List in the week commencing 23/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 903/2017x +Indore dated :04/04/2018 + Shri D. Patel, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the respondent. + List alongwith Cr.R. No. 1005/2017. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1084/2017x +Indore dated :04/04/2018 + None for the applicants. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is +adjourned. +

List after 8 weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1089/2017x +Indore dated :04/04/2018 + None for the applicant. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after 8 weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7232/2018x + (Manoj Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :04/04/2018 + Shri D. Khanchandani, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Peyush Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for +grant of bail in connection with Crime No.18/2015, Police Station- +Dindayal Nagar District-Ratlam, concerning offence under Section +420 of the IPC. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +second application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this second application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.143/2017x + (Sanjay @ Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:02/04/2018 + Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State . +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1943/2018-repeat +(third) application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal +Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on +behalf of the appellant No.1-Sanjay. +

Appellant No.1-Sanjay has been found guilty for offence under +Section 326/34 of the IPC read with Section 25(1)(1B) of the Arms Act +and has respectively been sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. & 1 years +R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- & Rs.1,000/- with usual default +stipulation. +

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the +appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty +granted to him. It is alleged that the appellant gave a blow of sword on +the hand of the Jitendra, however from the testimony of Mukesh +Shrivastava (P.W. 14) and Dr. Ankur Maheshwari (P.W. 15), it appears +that no bony injury was found on the person of Jitendra. As per +prosecution case co-accused Mohanlal gave an axe blow on the injured +Hari Singh but he caught the axe, due to which he sustained injuries on +his left hand. As per the statement of Dr. Mukesh Shrivastava (PW 14) +dislocation of left middle finger of Hari Singh (injurred) has been found, +however, the jail sentence of the co-accused-Mohanlal has already been +suspended by this Court vide order dated 07/04/2017. There is nothing +on record to show that the injuries inflicted by the appellant No.1- +Sanjay to the injured persons is found to be grievous in nature. The +appellant has already suffered more than 1 years of the jail sentence. + There are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellant cannot be +kept in custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him may render +infructuous. The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount before the Trial +Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence +and for grant of bail to the appellant. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. +

+

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts +and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail +sentence of the appellant No.1-Sanjay. +

+

Accordingly, I.A. No. 1943/2018 is allowed and it is directed that +subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by +each of the appellant No.1-Sanjay in the sum of Rs.85,000/- (Rupees +Eighty Five thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to +the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance +before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining +sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the +final disposal of this appeal. +

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his +presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.890/2018x +Indore dated :02/04/2018 + Shri N.S. Bhati, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the applicant on IA No. 1294/2018, Ist +application filed under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of +jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicant-Jeevan. +

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of +this Court to withdraw IA No. 1294/2018. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, IA No. 1294/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn. + List in the week commencing on 30/04/2018 for final hearing at +motion stage. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.877/2017x + (Surendra Singh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:02/04/2018 + Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Public Prosecutor for the + respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. + No.1915/2018, repeat (second) application under Section 389(1) of + Cr.P.C for temporary suspension of custodial sentence of appellant + Surendra. +

The appellant has been convicted for the offence + punishable under Sections 352, 307 (on two counts) of the IPC read + with Sections 25(1B)(B), 27(2) of the Arms Act and has been + respectively, sentenced to undergo 3 month R.I., 7 years R.I. (two + counts) and 1 years R.I. (two counts) and to pay with usual default + stipulation. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the + appellant was on bail during trial and the liberty so granted to him + has not misused by him. He further submits that the marriage of his + daughter Sapna Kunwar is scheduled to be held on 18/04/2018 and + being a father of the Sapna, the presence of the appellant is required + to perform certain rituals. +

This Court vide order dated 09/01/2018 has directed to + verify the factum of the marriage of the appellant's daughter. + Learned Public Prosecutor has filed the verification report received + from the SHO Police-Station-Kalukheda District-Ratlam and + submitted that the marriage of the daughter of the appellant is fixed + for 18/04/2018. +

After taking into facts and circumstances of the case, + particularly the fact that the appellant belongs to Hindu religion and + his daughters' marriage is going to be solmenized on 18/04/2018 and + in order to perform certain customary rites and rituals his presence is + necessary. +

In view of the aforesaid, it would be appropriate to + temporarily suspended the custodial sentence imposed against the + appellant for a period of 9 days. +

Accordingly, the application I.A. No. 1915/2018 is + hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond + and surety bond, each in the sum of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees Seventy + Five thousand Only), by the appellant - Surendra Singh, to the + satisfaction of the learned trial Court he shall be released on bail + temporarily from 14/04/2018 to 22/04/2018, subject to the condition + that he shall surrender himself before the concerned trial Court on + 23th April, 2018 for being taken into custody and sent to jail to + suffer the remaining sentence. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 12606/2018x +Indore dated :02/04/2018 + Shri L. Sethia, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned counsel for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

Meanwhile learned counsel for the applicants is directed to file the +entire copy of the charge-sheet by next date of hearing positively. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1284/2016x +Indore dated :02/04/2018 + Parties through their counsel. +

List alongwith Cr.R. No. 1320/2016. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1320/2016x +Indore dated : 02/04/2018 + Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Applicant- Jaamsingh is present in person and he has been duly +identified by his counsel. His presence is marked. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.1518/2018, an +application for condonation of non-appearance of applicant on 08/01/2018 +before the registry of this Court and change of date of appearance before +the Registry of this Court. +

Applicant submits that he has met with an accident and he is bed +ridden, therefore, he is not in a position to travel at Indore, therefore, he +could not mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on +09/11/2017. Thereafter, he also moved an application for change of date, +however, same application was considered and the next date was given on +08/01/2018. However, on the said date also he was in bed ridden, +therefore, he could not able to mark his presence. +

Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is +supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the +non-appearance of applicant-Jaamsingh on 08/01/2018 before this Court. +

Accordingly, IA No.1518/2018 is allowed and non-appearance of +applicant- Jaamsingh before this Court on 08/01/2018 is hereby +condoned. +

Applicant- Jaamsingh is directed to appear before the Office of this +Court on 07/08/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by +the Office.

+

(S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 11304/2016x +Indore dated :02/04/2018 + Shri A.Guru, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 656/2017x +Indore dated :02/04/2018 + Shri H.Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 798/2017x +Indore dated :02/04/2018 + Shri Umesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 22/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 4206/2017x +Indore dated :02/04/2018 + None for the applicants. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is +adjourned. +

List after 8 weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C.No.6936/2017x +Indore dated :02/04/2018 + Shri A.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Shri P.R. Panwar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. + Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have +entered into compromise, however, they could not produced the +compromise application before this Court, therefore, he prays for time. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that learned counsel +for the applicants is not complied with the direction issued by this Court +on 16/03/2018. +

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he will comply the +order during the course of the day. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.974/2018x +Indore dated :02/04/2018 + Shri J.Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Trial Court record is available. + Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks time to +argue on IA No. 1444/2018, an application under Section 397(2) of the +Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the +applicant-Heerasingh. +

Pryaer is allowed. +

List in the week commencing 23/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.2515/2018x + (Ganesh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:02/04/2018 + Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State . +

Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Record of the court below be called for. + Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.2130/2018- +an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure +for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the +appellant-Ganesh. +

Appellant has been found guilty for offence under Section 354(A) +of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 1 years R.I. and to pay +fine of Rs.2,500/- with usual default stipulation. +

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the +learned trial Court has recorded conviction without properly +appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions, +contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have +been overlooked. It is also submitted that the appellant was on bail +during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by him. There +are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellant cannot be kept in +custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him may render +infructuous. The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount before the Trial +Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence +and for grant of bail to the appellant. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. +

+

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts +and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail + sentence of the appellant. +

+

Accordingly, I.A. No. 2130/2018 is allowed and it is directed that +subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by +each of the appellant-Ganesh in the sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty +thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the +satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before +this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence +imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final +disposal of this appeal. +

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his +presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.56/2013x +Indore dated :02/04/2018 + Shri K.P. Pande, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for two weeks time to file reply +of IA No. 1436/2018, repeat (sixth) application under Section 389(1) of +the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the +appellant No.1-Parmanand. +

By way of last opportunity time is granted. + List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.839/2013x +Indore dated :02/04/2018 + Parties through their counsel. +

List alongwith Cr.A. No. 577/2017. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.577/2017x +Indore dated :02/04/2018 + Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for two weeks time to file reply +of IA No. 6980/2017, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. +for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant- +Mayur. +

By way of last opportunity time is granted. + List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.340/2014x +Indore dated :02/04/2018 + Shri K.P. Pande with Shri Jitendra Bajpai, learned counsel for the +appellants. +

Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the appellants on IA No. 1371/2018, 6 th +application filed under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail +sentence and for grant of bail to the appellants. +

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission +of this Court to withdraw IA No. 1371/2018. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, IA No. 1371/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.50/2015x +Indore dated :02/04/2018 + Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for two weeks time to file reply +of IA No. 4555/2017, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. +for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant- +Indresh. +

By way of last opportunity time is granted. + List after three weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.426/2016x +Indore dated :02/04/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after six weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.672/2016x +Indore dated :02/04/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after six weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1830/2016x +Indore dated :02/04/2018 + Shri Sandeep Rajoria, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks time to +argue on IA No. 1004/2018, third application under Section 389 of the +Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to appellant- +Saddam. +

Pryaer is allowed. +

List in tdhe week commencing 23/04/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6765/2018x + (Manohar Singh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :02/04/2018 + Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate 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.239/2017, Police Station-Jharda +District- Ujjain concerning offence under Sections 307, 447, 341, +294,506, 323 and 325/34 of the IPC. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first +application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6836/2018x +Indore dated :02/04/2018 + Ms. Sonam Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in tdhe week commencing 16/04/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7263/2018x +Indore dated :02/04/2018 + Ms. Sonam Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in tdhe week commencing 16/04/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7051/2018x + (Kadvi Bai Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :02/04/2018 + Shri Nilesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is repeat (fourth)) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for +grant of bail in connection with Crime No.73/2016, Police Station- +Balwada District- Khargone concerning offence under Sections 302 +and 307/34 of the IPC. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition . +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn . + Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7396/2018x +Indore dated :02/04/2018 + Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in tdhe week commencing 16/04/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7769/2018x +Indore dated :02/04/2018 + Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. + Shri Peyush Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Learned Public Prosecutor prays for time to complied with order +dated 07/03/2018. +

By way of indulgence one week's time is granted. + List in the week commencing 16/04/2018.

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.628/2013x +Indore dated :28/03/2018 + Parties through their counsel. +

List alongwith Cr.R. No. 347/2013.

+
+                                           (S. K. Awasthi)
+skt                                            Judge
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.R. No.347/2013x
+Indore dated :28/03/2018
+

Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Perused the PUD dated 04/01/2018, received from the Judicial +Magistrate First Class, Indore. In PUD prayer has been made for +transmission of record of Criminal Case No. 24471/2008 (Dr. Nalini +Jhaveri Vs. Kishore Parikh). +

Aforesaid record of the Criminal Case No. 24471/2008 had +already been sent to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore by this +Registry vide dispatch No. RD-436 dated 03/03/2014. +

Let necessary information be sent to the Judicial Magistrate First +Class, Indore in this regard. +

With the aforesaid PUD stands disposed of. + List the revision for final hearing in due course alongwith Cr.R. +No. 628/2013.

+ + + +

(S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1499/2016x +Indore dated :28/03/2018 + Shri D.S. Panwar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri V.K. Gangwal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2 & +

4. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.3/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two +weeks time to file the certified copy of the charge-sheet. +

List after two weeks. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1062/2017x +Indore dated :28/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

As per Office report, applicant-Sudhir could not mark his presence +before the Registry of this Court on 20/03/2018. +

Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against applicant- +Sudhir for securing his presence before this Court on 30/04/2018. +

List on 30/04/2018. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.3886/2017x +Indore dated :28/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after four weeks.

+
+                                                 (S. K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                  Judge
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.A. No.686/2010x
+Indore dated :28/03/2018
+

Shri Ramesh Gangare, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

As per the report received from the Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar, +appellant has suffered the entire jail sentence awarded by the trial Court. +Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant does not +wish to press this appeal. +

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as not pressed. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.651/2018x +Indore dated :28/03/2018 + Shri M.A. Bohra, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Let record of the Courts' below be called for. + List immediately after received of the record. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.27503/2017x +Indore dated :28/03/2018 + Shri Ajay Bagadia, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available by case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

IR to continue till next date of hearing. + Certified copy as per rules. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1221/2018x +Indore dated :28/03/2018 + Shri Arjun Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted a weeks +time to cure the defects pointed out by the Office. +

List after a week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.689/2018x +Indore dated :28/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.2096/2018x +Indore dated :28/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Let record of the Courts' below be called for. + List immediately after received of the record. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.5204/2017 + (Ram @ Smackchi Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:28/03/2018 + Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent/State . + Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.22553/2017- an +application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for +suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the +appellant-Ram @ Smackchi. +

The appellant has been found guilty for offence under Section +392/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. and +to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with usual default stipulation. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was +on bail during the trial and he has not misused the liberty so granted to +him. It is further submitted that the appellant is not named in the FIR. +Although it is alleged that complainant Sooraj Day (PW 1) had +identified the appellant in Test Identification Parade, however, he has +refused to identify the appellant during his examination before the +Court. The statement of the complainant does not disclose that any +person robbed his mobile phone. No identification parade of the seized +article has been conducted during the course of investigation. +Independent witness of the memorandum and seizure was also not +supported the prosecution version. Under these circumstances, the +appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 392 of the +IPC. There are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellant +cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him +may render infructuous. The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount +before the Trial Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of +jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. + Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts +and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail +sentence of the appellant. +

+

Accordingly, I.A. No.22553/2017 is allowed and it is directed that +subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by +the appellant-Ram @ Smackchi in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees +Seventy Five Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount +to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance +before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining +sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the +final disposal of this appeal. +

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his +presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.6284/2017 + (Shivam @ Shiv @ Dharam Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:28/03/2018 + Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent/State . + Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1616/2018- +an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure +for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the +appellant-Shivam @ Shiv @ Dharam. +

The appellant has been found guilty for offence under Section +392/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. and +to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with usual default stipulation. +

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the appellant was +on bail during the trial and he has not misused the liberty so granted to +him. It is further submitted that the appellant is not named in the FIR. +Although it is alleged that complainant Sooraj Day (PW 1) had +identified the appellant in Test Identification Parade, however, he has +refused to identify the appellant during his examination before the +Court. The statement of the complainant does not disclose that any +person robbed his mobile phone. No identification parade of the seized +article has been conducted during the course of investigation. +Independent witness of the memorandum and seizure was also not +supported the prosecution version. Under these circumstances, the +appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 392 of the +IPC. There are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellant +cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him +may render infructuous. The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount +before the Trial Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of + jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. +

+

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts +and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail +sentence of the appellant. +

+

Accordingly, I.A. No. 1616/2018 is allowed and it is directed that +subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by +the appellant-Shivam @ Shiv @ Dharam in the sum of Rs.75,000/- +(Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like +amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular +appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the +remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain +suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal. +

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his +presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1452/2018x +Indore dated :28/03/2018 + Shri M. Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the appellants. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellants prays for and is granted two +weeks time to argue on IA No. 1145/2018, an application under Section +389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail +to appellant No.1-Bharatsingh. +

List after two weeks. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.14461/2018 +Indore dated :18/04/2018 + Shri Himanshu Dad, learned counsel for the applicants. + On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be +issued to respondent by ordinary as well as registered AD on admission +alongwith IA No. 1934/2018, an application for stay. Notice be made +returnable within four weeks. +

List thereafter. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1388/2018x +Indore dated :28/03/2018 + Shri K.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. + On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be +issued to respondent by ordinary as well as registered AD on +admission . Notice be made returnable within four weeks. +

List thereafter. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.2086/2018x +Indore dated :28/03/2018 + Shri K.K. Bundela, learned counsel for the appellant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary on next date of hearing positively and also to comply with Section +15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989. +

List after two weeks. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.2097/2018x +Indore dated :28/03/2018 + Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

List alongwith Cr.A. No. 2421/2018. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.2421/2018x +Indore dated :28/03/2018 + Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Let record of the court below be called for. + List immediately after received of the record. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.2545/2018x +Indore dated :28/03/2018 + Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Let record of the court below be called for. + List immediately after received of the record. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.11441/2018x +Indore dated :28/03/2018 + Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicants. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positvely. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.11585/2018x +Indore dated :28/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.12275/2018x +Indore dated :28/03/2018 + Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the applicant. + On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be +issued to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 by ordinary as well as registered AD on +admission alongwith IA No. 2129/2018, an application for stay. Notice +be made returnable within four weeks. +

List thereafter. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.4685/2017x +Indore dated :27/03/2018 + Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the applicants. + None for the respondent, though duly served. + Heard learned counsel for the applicants on IA No. 2107/2018, an +application for condonation of delay of 1 days in serving the humdast +notice to the respondent. +

On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application, +which is supported with affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to +condone the delay. +

Accordingly, IA No.2107/2018 is allowed and delay of 01 days in +serving the humdast notice to the respondent is hereby condoned. +

List after two weeks. +

I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing. + Certified copy as per rules. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.5901/2017x +Indore dated :27/03/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Let record of the court below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6331/2017x +Indore dated :27/03/2018 + Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.2/State. +

On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be +issued to respondent No.1 by ordinary as well as registered AD. Notice +be made returnable within four weeks. +

Till the next date of hearing, no correcive action shall be taken +against the applicant. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8520/2017x +Indore dated :27/03/2018 + None for the parties. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is +adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8871/2017x +Indore dated :27/03/2018 + Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

None for the respondenet No.2. +

Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted four +weeks' time to argue the matter. +

List therafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8889/2017x +Indore dated :27/03/2018 + Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicants. + None for the respondent. +

Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted four +weeks' time to argue the matter. +

List therafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.22156/2017x +Indore dated :27/03/2018 + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State. + Learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted a weeks time to +argue the matter. +

List after a week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.23036/2017x +Indore dated :27/03/2018 + Shri Sandeep Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + On payment of process-fee within three working days, let notice +be issued to respondent by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode. +Notice be made returnable within four weeks. +

Meanwhile record of the court below be called for. + List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.23324/2017x +Indore dated :27/03/2018 + Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. + None for the respondent. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.23465/2017x +Indore dated :27/03/2018 + Shri Pourush Raka, learned counsel for the applicant. + Notice issued against respondent No.1 return unserved. + On payment of fresh process-fee within three working days, let +notice be issued to respondent No.1 by ordinary as well as by registered +AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.23821/2017x +Indore dated :27/03/2018 + Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.23989/2017x +Indore dated :27/03/2018 + Shri Ashish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + None for the respondent. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.11739/2018x + (Amrita Bai Sharma Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :27/03/2018 + Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate 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.06/2018, Police Station-Bercha +District- Shajapur concerning offence under Sections 363 and +364(A)/34 of the IPC. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first +application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.11631/2018x +Indore dated :27/03/2018 + Shri Imran Qureshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 09/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10428/2018x +Indore dated :27/03/2018 + Shri Rajnish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 09/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.11907/2018x +Indore dated :27/03/2018 + Shri N.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 09/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 5799/2018x +Indore dated :26/03/2018 + Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants. + None for the respondents. +

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he has filed the list +of documnts on 21/03/2018, however, these documents are not placed +on record. +

List on 27/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 5785/2018 +Indore dated :26/03/2018 + Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants. + None for the respondents. +

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he has filed the list +of documnts on 21/03/2018, however, these documents are not placed +on record. +

List on 27/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A.No. 2078/2018x +Indore dated :26/03/2018 + Shri Abhishek Tugnagwat, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has filed IA No. +1972/2018, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for +condonation of delay . +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary on next date of hearing positively and also to comply with Section +15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 alongwith notice of IA No. +1972/2018. +

List in the week commening 09/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1324/2018x +Indore dated :26/03/2018 + Shri Shahid Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicants. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Let record of the Courts below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C.No. 7502/2018x +Indore dated :26/03/2018 + Shri Ratnesh R. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a weeks time to +call report from the concerned SHO that what steps he has taken to +produce the prosecutrix before the trial Court for recording her +statement in the light of Section 35(1) of the Protection of Children from +Sexual Offences Act, 2012. +

List in the week commencing 09/04/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.4797/2018x + (Pappu Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :26/03/2018 + Shri Kaushal Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of +bail in connection with Crime No.468/2016, Police Station-Badnawar District- +Dhar concerning offence under Sections 376, 506 of the IPC read with Section ¾ +of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this third +application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this third application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.4770/2018x + (Manjit Singh @ Pappu Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :26/03/2018 + Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for the respondent/CBN. + Heard. Case diary perused. +

This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in +connection with Crime No. 1/2017, Police Station-CBN, Mandsaur District- +Mandsaur concerning offence under Sections 8/15 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs +and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first +application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 71/2018 +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Let record of the Courts below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. 5000/2017x +Indore dated :23/03/2018 + Shri Vishal Pawar, learned counsel for the appellant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 21856/2017, an +application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of +delay of 300 days in filing this appeal. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant's +father is old and sick person aged about 62 years and the appellant is in +custody, therefore, he could not file this appeal within the prescribed +time period. Under these circumstances, he prayed for condonation of +delay. +

Though prayer for condonation of delay is opposed by the learned +Public Prosecutor. +

On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application, +which is supported with affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to +condone the delay. +

Accordingly, IA No. 21856/2017 is allowed and delay of 300 days +in filing this appeal is hereby condoned. +

Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Record of the trial Court be called for. + List the appeal immediately after receipt of the record for +consideration of IA No. 1918/2018, an application under Section +389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of +bail to the appellant-Sodan Singh.

+

(S. K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.2267/2018x +Indore dated :23/03/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.617/2016x +Indore dated :23/03/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after six weeks for consideration of IA No. 182/2018, an +application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail +sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-Lakhan Singh. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.6098/2018x +Indore dated :23/03/2018 + Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks +time to file reply of IA No. 1950/2018, an application under Section +389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail +to the appellant-Salam. +

List in the week commencing 16/04/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.511/2018x +Indore dated :23/03/2018 + Shri Gyanendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted four +weeks time to argue on IA No. 377/2018, an application under Section +389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail +to the appellant-Ganpatlal Kumawat. +

List after four weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1166/2018x +Indore dated :23/03/2018 + Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two +weeks time to file the entire copy of the charge-sheet. +

List after two weeks alongwith M.Cr.C. No. 10790/2018 for +analogous hearing. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8179/2017x +Indore dated :23/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Anurag Chandra Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent. + At the request of learned counsel for the respondent list the matter +in the week commencing 16/04/2018 alongwith M.Cr.C. Nos. +8177/2017, 8182/2017, 8174/2017, 8183/2017, 8187/2017 and +8210/2017 for analogous hearing. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8211/2017x +Indore dated :23/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Anurag Chandra Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent. + At the request of learned counsel for the respondent list the matter +in the week commencing 16/04/2018 alongwith M.Cr.C. Nos. +8177/2017, 8182/2017, 8174/2017, 8183/2017, 8187/2017 and +8210/2017 for analogous hearing. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.3771/2018x +Indore dated :23/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after six weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.468/2017x +Indore dated :23/03/2018 + None for the applicants. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is +adjourned. +

List after six weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.964/2017x + (Irfan & Ors Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :23/03/2018 + Shri Pankaj Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicants does not wish to press this +criminal revision filed under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. +

Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed as not pressed. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.4311/2018x + (State of M.P. vs. Manoj) +Indore dated :23/03/2018 + + Smt. Archana Kher, Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State. +

+

None for the respondent.y + + ORDER + + The applicant/State has filed this petition under Section 378(3) Code of + +Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') for the grant leave to appeal + +against judgment dated 30/10/2017 passed by Additional 4 th Additional Sessions + +Judge, Badnawar, District Dhar in S.T. No. 302/2012, whereby the respondent- +

+

Manoj has been acquitted from the charge under Sections 420, 467, 469 and 471 of + +the IPC. +

+

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainant-Lalchand filed a + + private complaint against the respondent on the ground that on 25/05/2010, he + + purchased a motorcycle from one Bhaiyyu S/o Sadat Ali bearing registration No. + + MP-09-MS-4721 and an agreement was executed to this effect. Under the + + agreement parties were agreed that the complainant-Lalchand will use the + + motorcycle and if he found in defect in it, then transaction shall be cancelled. +

+

Complainant-Lalchand has handedover a cheque of Rs.40,000/- as a surety and it + + was also agreed that if the complainant found the vehicle in good condition then + + Bhaiyyu will entitled to encash the aforesaid cheque. After using the motorcycle + + for a period of one month the complainant cancelled the agreement and return + + back the motorcycle to the Bhaiyyu. When the complainant demanded the + + aforesaid cheque then Bhaiyyu did not return the him the cheque. On + 11/07/2011, complainant-Lalchand received a notice from the Advocate of + +respondent-Manoj, in which, it was stated that the cheque No. 3526720 was + +issued by him to the respondent towards financial assistance of Rs.1,50,000/-. +

+

When the cheque was presented for encashment the same were dishonoured for + +"insufficiency of funds", thereafter, respondent filed a private complaint under + +Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against complainant before + +Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badnawar District-Dhar and on the basis of the + +above complaint the Court has taken the cognizance against the complainant + +under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Then complainant + +filed a written complaint against the respondent at Police-Station-Badnawar + +regarding cheating and forgery, however, police has not taken any action in the + +aforesaid report. Thereafter, complainant filed a private complaint against the + +respondent before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badnawar. After receiving the + +report, the statement of the complainant-Lalchand and his witnesses were + +recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. and after considering the + +material available on record, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badnawar registered + +the complaint against the respondent for commission of the offence under + +Sections 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 of the IPC. The offence registered against + +the respondent was triable by Sessions Court, therefore, the case was committed + +to the Court of Sessions and ultimately it was transferred to the Court of 4 th + +Additional Sessions Judge, Badnawar District-Dhar. +

+

3. The trial Court after due appreciation of the entire record by the impugned + +judgment held that the prosecution has failed to proved that the cheque issued + +by the complainant-Lalchand was forged by the respondent-Manoj. +

4. learned counsel for the applicant/State submitted that the trial Court has + + wrongly disbelieved the statement of the complainant-Lalchand as well the + + documentary evidence available on record and acquigtted the respondent. Hence, + + he prayed for grant of leave to appeal. +

+

5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the + + applicant and perused the record. +

+

6. On the perusal of the impugned judgment, we are of the considered view + + that the trial Court on the basis of statement of the complainant and the material + + available on record, does not found prove that the complainant has issued cheque + + in pursuance to the agreement for sale of motorcycle in favour of the Bhaiyyu + + and he handed over the same cheque to the respondent, who misused the same + + and presented with the bankers for encashment. From the perusal of record, it + + appears that the dispute is of a civil nature and to given a cloak of criminal + + offence this complaint has been filed. In view of the aforesaid, the finding of + + acquittal recorded by the trial Court appears to be just and reasonable. No + + perversity is apparent in the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court + +

7. Resultantly, no grounds are available to grant leave to appeal against + +impugned judgment of acquittal, hence, the petition is hereby dismissed. +

+ + +

(Hemant Gupta) (S. K. Awasthi) + Chief Justice Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.24615/2017x +Indore dated :19/02/2018 + Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

The applicant has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of +the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR registered +at Crime No. 596/2017 at Police Station Barwah, District-Khargone +for offences punsihable under Section 354(d) of the IPC; Section +67(a) of the I.T. Act; Sections 11(4), 12 & 3/4 of the Protection of +Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 read with Sections 3(2)(vii) +3 (2)(5)(k) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989. +

From the perusal of the documents available on record, it +appears that neither the copy of FIR has been filed nor the case-diary +is available, therefore, learned counsel for the applicant is directed to +file the copy of the FIR. Meanwhile learned Govt. Advocate is +directed to make available the case-diary be next date of hearing +positively. +

List in the week commencing 09/04/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Writ Appeal No.418/2014x + (State of M.P. & ors. vs. Dushyant Pagare) + Indore dated :22/03/2018 + + Shri Mukesh Porwal, Govt. Advocate for the appellants/State. + None for the respondent. +

ORDER + + Challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single + + Bench on 04/03/2014 in writ petition No. 12598/2013, whereby transfer of the + + writ petitioner vide order dated 04/10/2013 was set aside. +

+

In an appeal against the order of setting aside the transfer, this Court + + passed an order of stay of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on + + 16/04/2014. An application for vacation of stay was dismissed on 09/05/2014. +

+

The respondent has filed an application IA No. 4989/2017 pointing out + + that the writ petitioner has been now transferred from Barwani to Shahdol on + + 10/07/2017 and the writ appeal has become infructuous. +

+

In view of the fact that transfer of the writ petitioner to Barwani, which + + was set aside by the learned Single Bench was stayed and subsequently, the writ + + petitioner has been transferred to Shahdol, we do not find that any cause in the + + present writ appeal survives. +

+

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed as infructuous. +

+ + +
            (Hemant Gupta)                               (S. K. Awasthi)
+              Chief Justice                                  Judge
+skt
+               HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.A. No.1030/2014
+Indore dated :21/03/2018
+

Shri S.K. Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the appellant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

List alongwith Cr.A. No. 1057/2014. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1057/2014x + (Azad Shah Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:21/03/2018 + Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Counsel for the respondent/State . + Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1832/2018- +repeat (second) application under Section 389(1) of the Code of +Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail +filed on behalf of the appellant-Azad Shah. +

The appellant has been found guilty for the offence under Sections +379 & 379/34 of the IPC and has respectively been sentenced to +undergo 2 years R.I. and 2 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for +each offence. +

First application for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of +bail to appellant-Azad Shah has been allowed by this Court, vide order +dated 31/07/2014 subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of +Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the +trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on 08/12/2014 and +on all such future dates as may be fixed in that behalf during the +pendency of this appeal. But appellant could not furnish the bail bond +before the trial Court, therefore, he filed an IA No. 9/2015, an +application for extension of time to furnish bail bond, which was +allowed by this Court, vide order dated 03/02/2015 and the appellant is +directed to furnish the bail bond in the line of the order dated +31/08/2014 and shall remain present in the Registry on 28/04/2015 and +on all such other dates as may be fixed in this behalf. Thereafter, +appellant regularly appear before this Court for his appearance. During +pendency of this appeal, the appellant was absent on 16/03/2017. Thus +this Court, vide order dated 16/05/2017 directed to issued non-bailable +warrant against the applicant. Thereafter, on 07/11/2017, it was + informed that the appellant is detained in Central Jail, Bherugarh in +some other case, therefore, production warrant was issued against him +and in pursuance of aforesaid production warrant the appellant was +produced before this Court on 13/12/2017 and since then he is in +custody. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was +detained in jail since 12/03/2017 in some other case, therefore, he could +not mark his presence before this Court on 16/03/2017 and he ensure +that in future appellant shall regularly appear before the registry of this +Court on all dates as may be given in this behalf. Under these +circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail +to the appellant. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. +

+

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts +and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail +sentence of the appellant. +

+

Accordingly, I.A. No. 1832/2018 is allowed and it is directed that +on furnishing personal bond by the appellant-Azad Shah in the sum of +Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the +like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular +appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the +remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain +suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal. +

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his +presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.2097/2018x + (Kamlesh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:21/03/2018 + Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Counsel for the respondent/State . + Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Record of the court below be called for. + Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1873/2018- +an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure +for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the +appellants-Kamlesh & Kailash. +

Each of the appellant has been found guilty for offence under +Section 325/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 3 years +R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with usual default stipulation. +

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the +learned trial Court has recorded conviction without properly +appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions, +contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have +been overlooked. It is also submitted that the appellants were on bail +during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by them. There +are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellants cannot be kept in +custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by them may render +infructuous. The appellants are ready to deposit the fine amount before the +Trial Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail +sentence and for grant of bail to the appellants. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. +

+

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts +and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail +sentence of the appellants. +

Accordingly, I.A. No. 1873/2018 is allowed and it is directed that +subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by +each of the appellants-Kamlesh and Kailash in the sum of +Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the +like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for their regular +appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the +remaining sentence imposed against the appellants shall remain +suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal. +

The appellants, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their +presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.2085/2018x + (Sangram Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:21/03/2018 + Shri M.M. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Counsel for the respondent/State . + Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Record of the court below be called for. + Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1748/2018- +an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure +for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the +appellant-Sangram. +

The appellant has been found guilty for offence under Sections +451, 354(A) of the IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PA) +Act, 1989 and Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 and has +respectively been sentenced to undergo 1 years R.I., 6 months R.I. and 3 +years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.5,000/- with +usual default stipulation. +

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the +learned trial Court has recorded conviction without properly +appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions, +contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have +been overlooked. It is also submitted that the appellant was on bail +during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by him. There +are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellant cannot be kept in +custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him may render +infructuous. The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount before the Trial +Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence +and for grant of bail to the appellant. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. + Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts +and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail +sentence of the appellant. +

+

Accordingly, I.A. No. 1748/2018 is allowed and it is directed that +subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the +appellant-Sangram in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand +only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the +learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the +execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against +the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this +appeal. +

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his +presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10711/2018x +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri Rakesh Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10229/2018x +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri M.M. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List on 28/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9899/2018x +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri Amit Raval, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10184/2018x + (Kaju Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri M.R. Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first +application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10220/2018x +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10891/2018x +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Shri Vikas Jaiswal, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. + Learned counsel for the complainant prays for and is granted time +to file written objection on the bail application. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10892/2018 +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after a week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10896/2018 +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after a week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10908/2018 +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri Surendra Tuteja, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10975/2018 + (Arjun Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri Pramod Choubey, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first +application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to +renew his prayer after recording the statement of the prosecutrix +before the trial Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn +with the aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.11009/2018 +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.29139/2017 +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.4774/2018x +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri Umesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List on 28/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.5235/2018x +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri Vaibhav Dube, learned counsel for the applicants. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9875/2018x + (Raju @ Rajesh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri K.C. Waghela, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first +application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.926/2016x +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted two +weeks' time to argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 16/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.617/2018x +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri K.C. Kabra, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1860/2018, an +application for amendment in the array of IA No. 460/2018, an +application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of +jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellants. +

On due consideration IA No. 1860/2018 is allowed. + Applicant is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the IA +No. 460/2018 during the course of the day. +

List in the week commencing 09/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1797/2018x +Indore, Dated:21/03/2018 + + None for the appellants. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Counsel for the respondent/State . + List alongwith Cr.A. No. 2197/2018.

+ + +

(S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.2197/2018x +Indore, Dated:21/03/2018 + + Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Counsel for the respondent/State . + Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Record of the Court below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record.

+
+                                              (S.K. Awasthi)
+skt                                              Judge
+       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  Cr.R. No.611/2017x
+Indore dated :20/03/2018
+

Shri Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

Learned counsel for the applicant is also directced to file the copy +of the entire charge-sheet. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1584/2017x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, list the matter +in the week commencing 02/04/2018 alongwith Cr.A. No. 1463/2017. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.3173/2017x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Vaibhav Dube, learned counsel for the applicant. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks +time to argue on the maintainability of the revision. +

List after a week . +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.3286/2017x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Sachin Parmar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the copy of the +entire charge-sheet. +

List after two weeks. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.3344/2017x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks +time to argue the matter. +

List after a week. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.3762/2017x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Ms. Shraddha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after two weeks. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.4206/2017x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri M. Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.4935/2017x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri M.L. Patidar, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Shri A. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. + Learned counsel for the partis prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after two weeks. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.5090/2017x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants. + None for the respondent. +

At the request of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is +adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.5567/2017x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri M.K. Khokar, learned counsel for the applicant. + On payment of process-fee within three working days, let notice +be issued to respondents by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode. +Notice be made returnable within four weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 6692/2017x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. + Let record of the Court below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 6689/2017x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. + Let record of the Court below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10332/2018x + (Gulab Kapoor Vs. Shilpa) +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant. + After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to raise all +the grounds before the trial Court, which are alleged in the present +petition. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10818/2018x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Sudarshan Pandit, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10856/2018x + (Sitarasingh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Anurag Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +second application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty +to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the substantial +prosecution witnesses before the trial Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this second application is dismissed as withdrawn +with the aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.26580/2017x + (Rajendra @ Bacha Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Jagdish Dangi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +second application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty +to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the substantial +prosecution witnesses before the trial Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this second application is dismissed as withdrawn +with the aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6108/2018x + (Sheru Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +second application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this second application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7586/2018x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for time to file FSL report +with regard to liquor seized from the possession of the applicant. +

By way of indulgence prayer is allowed. + List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8027/2018x + (Champalal Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Zishan Ali, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first +application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to +renew his prayer after recording the statement of the prosecutrix +before the trial Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn +with the aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8418/2018x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Gajendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9752/2018x + (Shekhar Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Surendra Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first +application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1213/2018x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Let record of the Courts' below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9933/2018x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10754/2018x + (Nandlkishore Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first +application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1313/2017x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri R.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1872/2018, an +application for grant of temporary bail to the appellant-Ramswaroop +Dangi. +

At this stage learned counsel for the appellant seeks leave of this +Court to withdraw IA No. 1872/2018. +

Pryaer is allowed. +

Accordingly, IA No. 1872/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn. + List the matter after three weeks for consideration of IA No. +6821/2017, an application 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail +sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-Ramswaroop. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.185/2011x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + None for the appellants. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellants, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1353/2016x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + None for the parties. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.803/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + None for the applicants. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Applicants are directed to cure the defects pointed out by the +office within 1 weeks from today, failing which this petition shall stands +dismissed without further reference to this Court. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.897/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Applicant is directed to cure the defects pointed out by the office +within 1 weeks from today, failing which this petition shall stands +dismissed without further reference to this Court. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1022/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + None for the parties. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1161/2018 x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + None for the applicants. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1169/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Applicant is directed to cure the defect pointed out by the office +within 1 weeks from today, failing which this petition shall stands +dismissed without further reference to this Court. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 1938/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9365/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks +time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office. +

List thereafter . +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 691/2015x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + None for the respondent. +

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to comply with order +dated 26/04/2017 passed by this Court by the next date of hearing +postively. +

List on 04/04/2018 . +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 639/2015x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Ranjeet Kalra, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent. + Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to comply with order +dated 26/04/2017 passed by this Court by the next date of hearing +postively. +

List on 04/04/2018 . +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 11331/2015x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + None for the applicants. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. + At the request of learned counsel for the respondent No.2, list on +04/04/2018 + (S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 163/2016x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. + At the request of learned counsel for the respondent No.2, list on +04/04/2018 + (S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.363/2018x + (Joy Bamiya Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Jil Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +revision petition. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, if +the applicant is moved fresh application by showing change of +circumstances before the Juvenile Justice Board, then same shall be +considered in accordance with law. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 9710/2017x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri A. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, list in the next +week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 9779/2017x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

At the request of learned counsel for the applicants, list in the next +week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1199/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Arun Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. + Respondent No.1- Vaishali Raipuriya is present in person before +this Court. +

Shri Hemant, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent +No.2 /State. +

This Criminal Revision is preferred under Sections 397 and 401 + of Cr.P.C. against judgment dated 08/03/2018 passed by IInd + Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani District- Barwani in Criminal + Appeal No.101/2017 confirming the judgment of conviction and + sentence dated 29/05/2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, + Barwani, District Barwani in Criminal Case No. 01/2016, whereby the + applicant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section + 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and he has been + sentenced to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment with + compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-. +

Heard on I.A. No.1811/2018, an application under Section 397 + (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf + of the applicant-Rajkumar. +

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant +has already paid the entire compensation amount to the respondent +No.1/complainant-Vaishali Raipuriya on 12/03/2018 and she has +sworned the affidavit in this regard. It is further submitted that the +applicant was on bail during the trial and the liberty so granted was not +misused by him. There is no possibility of the revision coming up for final +hearing in near future and hence, the applicant may be benefited by +suspension of sentence. +

Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposes the +submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and prays for +rejection of the application. +

Respondent No.1/complainant submits that she has no objection if +the application for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the +applicant is allowed. +

In view of the above, awaiting admission, this Court is of the +opinion that the application I.A.No.1811/2018 deserves to be and is +allowed and it is directed that the execution of the remaining sentence +awarded to the applicant shall remain suspended during the pendency of +this revision petition and he shall be released on bail subject to +depositing compensation amount and on furnishing personal bond in the +sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a solvent surety +in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance +before this Court on 18.5.2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which +are fixed in this regard by the Registry. +

List the revision on the question of admission after four weeks. + Certified copy, as per rules. +

+ +

(S. K. AWASTHI) + JUDGE +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.756/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Smt. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary on next date of hearing alongwith report of Probation Officer, +failing which the concerned Official shall remain present before this +Court to explain the reasons which prevented him to produce case-diary +and report. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.3142/2017x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1820/2018, an +application under Section 389(2) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of +sentence and for grant of bail to applicant-Wasim. +

After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw IA No. +1820/2018. +

Pryaer is allowed. +

Accordingly, IA No. 1820/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1802/2017x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Harish Joshi, +learned counsel for the appellant. +

Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that reply of IA No. +9085/2017 is ready and he filed the same during the course of the day. +

List on 21/03/2018 for consideration of IA No. 9085/2017. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 115/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Jitendra Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, list after four +weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 5468/2017x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks' +time to file the reply of IA No. 1819/2018, an application under Section +389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail +to appellant-Shyamlal @ Shyam. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.3764/2017x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Puyush Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 24732/2017, an +application under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of +sentence and for grant of bail to applicant-Prashant Soni. +

After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw IA No. +24732/2017. +

Pryaer is allowed. +

Accordingly, IA No. 24732/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1197/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Shashank Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a week's +time to file appropriate application for amendment in the aray of IA No. +1806/2018. +

List after a week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 2042/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Let record of the Court below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10790/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Ravi Sagre, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time on the ground +that arguing counsel is not available today due to some personal +difficulties. +

Prayer is allowed. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6710/2018x + (Firoz & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Mrs. Swati Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. + After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicants seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first +bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first bail application is dismissed as +withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6765/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary of Crime Nos. 239/2017 and 240/2017 registered at Police- +Station-Jharda, District-Ujjain by next date of hearing positively, failing +which concerned SHO shall remain present before this Court to explain +the reasons which prevented him to produce case-diary. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7051/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Nilesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7330/2018x + (Ballabh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first +bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first bail application is dismissed as +withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7396/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7584/2018x + (Mahendra Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Devendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this fourth +bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this fourth bail application is dismissed as +withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7669/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Anurag Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + In the present cae the applicants/accused persons are in jail since +11/02/2017. However, from the perusal of the order-sheets of the trial +Court, it appears that accused persons are not being produced before the +Court from the jail on the dates of hearing. +

Let report be called from the Additional Sessions Judge, Badnawar +District-Dhar that what efforts have been made to secure the presence of +the accused persons from the jail and ensure the presence of +prosecution witnesses. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7685/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Apurv Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7769/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Ms. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. + Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a weeks time to +comply with order dated 07/03/2018. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7804/2018x + (Fatehsingh @ Raju Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant does not wish to press this +first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Accordingly, this first bail application is dismissed as not +pressed. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.795/2016x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted time to +argue on IA No. 1067/2018. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 811/2016 +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellants, the case is +adjourned. +

List after three weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 1343/2016 +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellants, the case is +adjourned. +

List after three weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 583/2017 +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + None for the appellants. +

Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellants, the case is +adjourned. +

List after three weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1758/2017 + (Heeralal @ Heeru Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Piyush Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 8904/2017, an +application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf +of appellant-Heeralal @ Heeru for suspension of jail sentence and for +grant of bail. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, IA No.8904/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn . + List the appeal for final hearing in due course. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7649/2018x + (Pappu @ Akash Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Mrs. Anita Jain, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. + After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this third +bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this third bail application is dismissed as +withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8094/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Ms. Bhagyashree Sugandhi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Let health report of the applicant be called from the +Superintendent of Central Jail, Bhopal. +

List in the week commencing 26/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8883/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8980/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9054/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Gajendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9157/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Surendra Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 26/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9305/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9328/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.5394/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Apoorv Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Heard learned counsel for the applicant on IA No. 1620/2018, an +application for converting the application filed under Section 439 of the +Cr.P.C. into Criminal Appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (PA) +Act, 1989. +

On due consideration IA No. 1620/2018 is allowed. Learned +counsel for the applicant is directed to make out necessary corrections in +the cause title within 3 working days. +

Office is directed to register this M.Cr.C. into Criminal Appeal. + Accordingly, M.Cr.C. No. 5394/2018 stands disposed of. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10301/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri V.K. Markan, learned counsel for the applicants. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a week's +time to produce complainant before this Court and for filed his affidavit. +

List in the week commencing 26/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8732/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri I. Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10233/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10239/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9176/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Ashutosh Surana, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks +time to correct the Crime No. in memo of petition. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10281/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Jagdish Dangi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks +time file necessary documents. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10289/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks +time to argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10302/2018x + (Rahul Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first +bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first bail application is dismissed as +withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10346/2018x + (Praveen Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri K.P. Pande, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to renew +his prayer after recording the statement of the material prosecution +witnesses before the trial Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10383/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri O.P. Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks +time to argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 26/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10393/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10424/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Sunil Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10437/2018 +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri S.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10457/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 26/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9996/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Hemant Purohit, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 9380/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Ankit Khare, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two +weeks time to argue the matter. +

Let record of the Court below be called for. + List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 2053/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri M.R. Sheikh, learned counsel for the appellant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Let record of the Court below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 689/2018x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri Arpit Kumar Oswal, learned counsel for the applicants. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Let record of the Courts' below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10043/2018x + (Shekhar Vs. Smt. Amita & Ors) +Indore dated : 13/03/2018 + Shri Vinod Ameriya, learned counsel for the applicant. + Heard. +

The applicant has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of +the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against order dated 27/02/2018 +passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.Cr.C. No. +423/2015, whereby his right to produce evidence has been closed. +

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondent +has filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. before the +Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore for enhancement of +maintenance amount. The case is pending for enquiry of the said +application, wherein respondents alleged that the applicant is involved +in the business of laundry and by this he is getting sufficient amount. +Whereas the applicant contended that he is in private job and he is +earning only Rs.4,500/-per month and he is not having any laundry +business. To substantiate the fact that at present he is not conducting +any business of laundry, he wanted to produce the evidence of Officer +In-charge of License Branch, Municipal Corporation Indore. However, +he did not turn up even after the service of notice, therefore, a bailable +warrant was issued against him for securing his presence. But despite +of issuance of bailable warrant he did not appear in the Court. The +aforesaid witness is working in Semi Govt. Body, therefore, the +applicant is unable to bring him and produce before the Court. +

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 27/02/2018 the +case was fixed for recording the evidence of aforesaid witness, but due +to oversight, he could not pay the process-fee, therefore, on the + aforesaid date, the witness was not present and due to his single +default, the trial Court has closed his right to produce the evidence and +fixed the matter for final arguments. Due to this he has been deprived +to produce his evidence. The impugned order is contrary to the +principle of natural justice. Hence, he prayed for setting aside of the +impugned order and directing the trial Court to give him one +opportunity to produce his evidence. +

4. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and considering +the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is hereby +set-aside and this petition is disposed of with the direction that the +trial Court shall provide the applicant an opportunity to produce the +aforesaid witness. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + + + + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6640/2017x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after three weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6577/2017x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after three weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6348/2017x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after three weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 5537/2017x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + None for the parties. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is +adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6339/2017x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after three weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6627/2017x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri Ramesh Gangare, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8465/2018x + (Vinod Bargunda Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri Manish Manana, learned counsel for the applicant. + Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to renew +his prayer after recording the statement of the injured-Jyoti before the +trial Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.839/2013x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri R.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + List alongwith Cr.A. No. 577/2017. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.577/2017x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for and is granted two +weeks time to file the reply of IA No. 6980/2017, an application under +Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant- Mayur, for +suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.5821/2017x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.386/2018x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Let record of the court below be requisitioned. + List after four weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.905/2018x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri Mahesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Let record of the courts below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.5970/2018x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri Mahesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.29139/2017x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.28430/2017x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri S. Tenguriya, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant further prays for two weeks' +time to file the certified copy of the prosecutrix statement recorded +before the trial Court. +

By way of last indulgence the prayer is allowed. + List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.25705/2017x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri P.K. Shukla alongwith Shri M.S. Chouhan, learned counsel +for the applicant. +

Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Let current status report of the trial be called from the concerned +trial Court. +

List in the week commencing 26/03/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9956/2018x + (Narsingh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this second bail application is dismissed as +withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10707/2017x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.1460/2018x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri P.K. Shukla alongwith Shri M.S. Chouhan, learned counsel +for the applicant. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to call for the criminal +antecedents of the applicant from the concerning S.P. of Shivpuri and +Guna. +

List in the week commencing 26/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.5300/2018x + (Anil Kushwaha Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Manish Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.4278/2016x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9047/2016x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + None for the applicants, even in the second round. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Earlier also on 16/08/2017 and 24/07/2017, no one appeared on +behalf of the applicants, which shows that the applicants are no longer +interested in prosecuting this petition filed under Section 482 of the +Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, this petition is dismissed for want +of prosecution. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1287/2018x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Harshvardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1560/2018x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 483/2011x +Indore dated : 13/03/2018 + Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Appellant- Asharam is present in person and he has been duly +identified by his counsel. His presence is marked. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 963/2018, an +application for condonation of non-appearance of appellant on +13/09/2017 before the registry of this Court. +

For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported +with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the non- +appearance of appellant-Asharam on 13/09/2017 before this Court. +

Accordingly, IA No.963/2018 is allowed and non-appearance +of appellant- Asharam before this Court on 13/09/2017 is hereby +condoned. +

Appellant- Asharam is directed to appear before the Office of +this Court on 19/04/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be +fixed by the Office. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.706/2018x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Amit Raval, learned counsel for the applicant. + On payment of process-fee within three working days, let notice +be issued to respondent by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode. +Notice be made returnable within three weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.3393/2018x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent /State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1154/2018, an +application for amendment in the array of applicant's name. +

On due consideration IA No. 1154/2018 is allowed. + Applicant is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the +memo of petition within three working days. +

List in the week commencing 26/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.3610/2018x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent /State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1372/2018, an +application for impleading complainant as respondent No.2 in the +matter. +

On due consideration IA No. 1372/2018 is allowed. + Applicant is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the +memo of petition within three working days. +

Thereafter, on payment of process-fee within 7 working days, let +notice be issued to respondent No.2 by ordinary as well as by registered +AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.806/2015x + (Charan Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 19170/2017, an +application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf +of appellant-Charan for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of +bail. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, IA No.19170/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn . + List the appeal for final hearing in due course alongwith Cr.A. +No. 757/2015. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.757/2015x + (Bhura Gurjar Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Dharmendra Keharwar, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 25555/2017, an +application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf +of appellant-Bhura Gurjar for suspension of jail sentence and for grant +of bail. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, IA No.25555/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn . + List alongwith Cr.A. No. 806/2015. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.322/2016x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

List after four weeks alongwith Cr.A. No. 194/2016 for analogous +hearing. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.194/2016x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for and is granted two +weeks time to file the reply of IA No. 2206/2017, an application under +Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant- Sanju @ +Sanjay, for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.339/2016x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Shailendra Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 732/2018, an +application under Section 303 of the Cr.P.C. for change of counsel. +

On due consideration, IA No. 732/2018 is allowed. Shri Shailendra +Mishra and his associates are permitted to represent appellant-Barka. +

Office is directed to reflect the name of Shri Shailendra Mishra & +his associates in the cause-list on behalf of appellant-Barka. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1053/2016x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.488/2017x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks time +to file the reply of IA No. 1468/2018, an application under Section +389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant Sunil Borasi, for +suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.808/2017x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri H.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks time +to file the reply of IA No. 4224/2017, an application under Section +389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant Bhimji, for +suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.955/2017x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks time +to file the reply of IA No. 4147/2017, an application under Section +389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant Mangal Rathore, for +suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. 1705/2017x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

List the appeal alongwith Cr.A. No. 5669/2017 for analogous +hearing. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. 5669/2017x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Ravi Sagre, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 162/2018, an +application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of +delay of 13 days in filing this appeal. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was in +jail, therefore, he could not file this appeal within the prescribed time +period. +

On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application, +which is supported with affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to +condone the delay. +

Accordingly, IA No. 162/2018 is allowed and delay of 13 days in +filing this appeal is hereby condoned. +

List the appeal after two weeks alongwith Cr.A. No. 1705/2017 +for analogous hearing. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.4388/2017x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks time +to file the reply of IA No. 23924/2017, an application under Section +389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant Ramsingh @ Rama, +for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.5313/2017x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Let record of the court below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.5678/2017x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.324/2018x + (RajaramVs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Vikas Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 237/2018, an +application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of +appellant-Rajaram for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, IA No. 237/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8224/2018x + (Om Shanti Gas Agency Vs. Neeraj Sethiya) +Indore dated : 12/03/2018 + Shri Sameer Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Heard. +

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal +Procedure, 1973 has been filed for quashment of order dated +30/01/2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khilchipur +in Criminal Case R.T. No. 216/2017, by which the application filed by +the applicant under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for production of +documents has been dismissed. +

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has filed an +application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. For seeking bank statement +of the complainant for last five years from the date of filing of this +complaint, bank pass book, income tax return details from 2013 to +2017 and agreement (if made between the parties) for lending the +amount of Rs.1,88,000/- to the applicant. But the aforesaid application +was rejected by the Courts below on the ground that the respondent +has stated that he has already filed all the documents relation to the +transaction and now he has not having any document as desired by the +applicant. +

After hearing learned counsel for the applicant perused the +record. +

The apex Court held in the case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat +Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54 and P. Venugopal Vs. +Madan P. Sarathi, AIR 2009 SC 568, that intial burden was on the +complainant to prove existence of debt and the presumptions provided +under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not + extended to the extent that the cheque was issued for the discharged of +any debt or liability, which is required to be proved by the +complainant. +

In the light of the aforesaid decisions, this Court has not find any +substance in this petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed in +limine at the motion stage. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7029/2018 +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the applicant. + On payment of process-fee within three working days, let notice +be issued to respondent by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode. +Notice be made returnable within four weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7340/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Shri P.N. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two +weeks' time to argue the matter. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8150/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.2/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8756/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + None for the applicants. +

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is +adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8759/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +applicant/State. +

Let record of the court below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8760/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +applicant/State. +

Let record of the court below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8908/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks +time to file the entire copy of charge-sheet. +

List thereafter. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8935/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Ms. Indu Rajguru, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Let record of the court below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9017/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +applicant/State. +

Let record of the court below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9025/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +applicant/State. +

Let record of the court below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9128/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +applicant/State. +

Let record of the court below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9164/2018x + (Swapnadeep Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Shri Harshvardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant. + Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to renew +after filing of the charge-sheet. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1065/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after three weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9857/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.2/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after three weeks. . +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1412/2016x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Harshvardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent +Nos. 2 & 4. +

Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.5/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks. . +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1464/2016x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Shri K.P. Pande, learned counsel for the applicant. + None for the respondent, though duly served. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after after a week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.12845/2016x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after after a week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.419/2017x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has +already been acquitted by the trial Court, therefore, this revision petition +has become rendered infructuous. +

In view of the aforesaid, this petition is dismissed as having been +rendered infructuous. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.3560/2017x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + None for the applicants. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10266/2017x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.816/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Shri R.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

Meanwhile learned counsel for the applicant is at liberty to file the +entire copy of the charge-sheet. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 4817/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 5192/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + None for the applicants. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is +adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 5323/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 476/2016 +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + None for the applicants. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.5/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is +adjourned. +

List the matter in the week commencing 26th of March, 2018. + I.R. to continue till next date of hearing. + Certified copy as per rules. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 826/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + None for the applicants. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.569/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Shri Prasanna R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to +withdraw this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the +trial Court is directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the applicant +before passing any final order. +

Certified copy today. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 7319/2018 + (Rahul Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated : 12/03/2018 + Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length, on the merits of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to +surrender before the trial Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn. +However, the applicant is directed to surrender himself before the +competent Court and if he is filed any application for regular bail +before the competent Court, then it shall be considered as early as +possible in accordance with law. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6615/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks +time to argue the matter. +

List after one week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9433/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.4479/2017x +Indore dated :07/03/2018 + Shri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, list after two +weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1790/2017x +Indore dated :07/03/2018 + Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, list after two +weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1088/2015x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri R.K. Batham, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Shyamlal Patidar, learned counsel for the respondent. + At the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, list in the +next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. 1648/2018x +Indore dated :21/02/2018 + Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1438/2018, an +application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of +delay of 422 days in filing this appeal. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was in +jail, therefore, he could not file this appeal within the prescribed time +period. +

On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application, +which is supported with affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to +condone the delay. +

Accordingly, IA No. 1438/2018 is allowed and delay of 422 days +in filing this appeal is hereby condoned. +

List the appeal alongwith Cr.A. No. 1414/2016 for analogous +hearing. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1197/2015x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + None for the respondent. +

As per mediation report, parties are not interested for compromise. + List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.775/2017x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Office is directed to examine the matter and list before appropriate +Bench. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.2035/2017x + (Vishal Vs. Ku. Anjali & Ors.) +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Sanjay Kumar Saini, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vikas Meena, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and +

2. + Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.3/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9188/2017x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has already +cured the defects pointed out by the Office. +

Office is directed to examine and proceed further. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.3063/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri N. L. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

At the request of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after three weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.949/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after three weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.974/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Let record of the courts' below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.466/2018x + (Anil Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 677/2018, an +application filed under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf +of applicant-Anil for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, IA No. 677/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn . + Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.828/2018x + (Raja Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:09/03/2018 + + Shri Shyam Patidar, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent/State . + Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.650/2018- +an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure +for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the +appellant-Raja Mankar. +

The appellant has been found guilty for offence under Sections +450, 376(1) and 506(II) of the IPC and has respectively been +sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I.; 7 years R.I. And 1 years R.I. and to +pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,000/- with usual default +stipulation. +

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the +appellant was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty so +granted to him. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix is a major lady +and as per MLC report no internal or external injuries were found on her +body. From the statement of the prosecutrix and her husband, it reveals +that the prosecutrix is a consenting party. There are fair chances of +success of this appeal . The appellant cannot be kept in custody +unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him may render infructuous. The +appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount before the Trial Court. Under +these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of +bail to the appellant. +

Learned counsel for the appellants prays for rejection of the +application. +

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and facts +and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail +sentence of the appellant. +

+

Accordingly, I.A. No. 650/2018 is allowed and it is directed that +subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the +appellant-Raja Mankar in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy +Five thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the +satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before +this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence +imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final +disposal of this appeal. +

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his +presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course.

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1438/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Kushal Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the case is +adjourned. +

List in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7357/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7695/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +applicant/State. +

Let record of the court below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8279/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Sunil Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

On payment of process-fee within three working days, let notice +be issued to respondent No.2 on admission and IA No. 1416/2018, an +application for staying the proceedings of the trial Court by ordinary as +well as by registered AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four +weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.847/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted 10 days +time to file the entire copy of the charge-sheet. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.966/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Santosh Panoriya, learned counsel for the appellant. + On payment of process-fee within three working days, let notice +be issued to respondent by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode. +Notice be made returnable within four weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1755/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Navendu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent /State. +

Let record of the court below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8139/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after three weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9215/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Vinod Ameriya, learned counsel for the applicants. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted a +weeks time to move an appropriate application for impleading +complainant as respondent No.2 in the matter. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9313/2018x + (Mahesh @ Antim Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri M.L. Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the +statement of the substantial prosecution witnesses before the trial +Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9250/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri D.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9243/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9211/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Deepak Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9328/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.24944/2017x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri G.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted one +weeks time to argue the matter. +

Be listed in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.3256/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri G.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted one +weeks time to argue the matter. +

Be listed in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6116/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two +weeks' time to file the copy of order-sheets of the trial Court. +

List after two weeks. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7013/2018x + (Rakesh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri S.K. Mehra, learned counsel for the applicant. + Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the +statement of the prosecutrix before the trial Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1024/2017 +Indore, dated :07/03/2018 + Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

This is Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Code of +Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') is filed against the +order dated 24/09/2016 passed by Special Judge under NDPS Act, +Neemuch District-Neemuch in Special S.T. No. 25/2012, whereby +charges for offence under Sections 8/18(B) read with Section 29 of the +N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 has been framed against applicant-Kanhaiyalal. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 8460/2017, an +application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of +delay of 230 days in preferring this revision petition. +

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an +illiterate person and there is no male member in his family, who can +contact the lawyer at Indore. Therefore, his cousin brother approached +the lawyer at Indore and after taking certified copy of the proceedings +and charges, filed this criminal revision against the impugned order. +Affidavit has also been filed in support of this application. +

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and prayed +for its rejection. +

From the perusal of revision petition, it appears that the applicant +Kanhaiyalal, himself is a male member of aged about 36 years, +therefore, it cannot be said that due to non-availability of male family +members in his family, he could not contact his lawyer at Indore. +Neither the applicant has disclosed name of his cousin brother in the + application nor any affidavit of him has been filed in support of the +contents made in the application. +

Under these circumstances, the applicant has failed to make out +sufficient ground for condoning the huge delay of 230 days in +preferring this revision petition. Hence, IA No. 8460/2017 is +dismissed. Consequently, this revision petition is also hereby +dismissed as time barred. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.27487/2017x +Indore dated :07/03/2018 + Shri Ashish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. + At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the case is +adjourned. +

Be listed after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.876/2018x +Indore dated :07/03/2018 + Ms. Sangita Parsai, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Let record of the Courts' below be called for. + On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be +issued to respondent. Notice be made returnable within three weeks. +

Be listed thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.2247/2018x +Indore dated :07/03/2018 + Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a week's +time to file the copy of all relevant order-sheets of the trial Court. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.25888/2017x +Indore dated :07/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Applicant is directed to cure the defect pointed out by the office +within 10 days from today, failing which this petition shall stands +dismissed without further reference to this Court. +

List in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A.No. 1693/2018x +Indore dated :07/03/2018 + Shri Manish Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary on next date of hearing positively and also to comply with Section +15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989. +

List in the next week. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 733/2017x +Indore dated : 05/03/2018 + Shri Vishal Lashkari, learned counsel for the appellant. + Heard learned counsel for the appellant on IA No. 7263/2017, +an application for substituting the new address and request to summon +the non-applicant. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant +preferred M.Cr.C. No. 3380/2017 for leave to appeal, which was +allowed by this Court, vide order dated 10/04/2017 and office is +directed to register the matter as regular criminal appeal. But there +was no mentioned in the order with regard to issuance of summon or +warrant against the non-applicant for securing his presence before this +Court. +

On due consideration I.No. 7263/2017 is allowed. + Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of Rs.10,000/- against +non-applicant-Kamal Bharti S/o Ram Bharti Goswami, 656-B, +Scheme No. 71, Gumasta Nagar, Sudama Nagar Post Office-452009, +Indore for securing his presence before this Court on 25/04/2018. +

List the appeal for final hearing in due course. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 683/2006x +Indore dated : 05/03/2018 + Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Appellant- Mahesh @ Docotor is present in person and he has +been duly identified by his counsel. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1123/2018, an +application for condonation of non-appearance of appellant on +26/09/2017 before the registry of this Court. +

For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported +with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the non- +appearance of appellant-Mahesh @ Doctor on 20/02/2018 before this +Court. +

Accordingly, IA No.1123/2018 is allowed and non-appearance +of appellant- Mahesh @ Doctor before this Court on 26/09/2017 is +hereby condoned. +

Appellant- Mahesh @ Doctor is directed to appear before the +Office of this Court on 27/06/2018 and on all other subsequent dates +as may be fixed by the Office. +

Also heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1124/2018, +an application for recalling of bailable warrant issued in compliance +of order dated 07/12/2017. +

On due consideration, IA No. 1124/2018 is allowed and bailable +warrant issued against appellant, vide order dated 07/12/2017 is +hereby recalled. +

List the appeal for final hearing in due course. + (S.K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1779/2018x + (Gopal & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:05/03/2018 + + Shri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent/State . + Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Record of the Court below be called for. + Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. +No.1456/20188- an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of +Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail +filed on behalf of the appellants-Gopal and Pavan Rathore. +

Each of the appellants has been found guilty for offenence under +Section 354 of the IPC read with Section 7/8 of the Protection of +Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and has respectively been +sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I.; 3 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. +2,000/- for each offence with usual default stipulation. +

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the +learned trial Court has recorded conviction without properly +appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions, +contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have +been overlooked. It is also submitted that the appellants were on bail +during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by them. Lastly, +it is submitted that the appeal is likely to take sufficient time in its final +disposal and if the jail sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall +be rendered infructuous. +

+

Though the prayer for suspension of custodial sentence is opposed +by learned Public Prosecutor, however, this Court, after carefully going + through the record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, is of +the considered opinion that the application for suspension of custodial +sentence deserves to be allowed. +

+

Accordingly, I.A. No. 1456/2018 is allowed and it is directed that +subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the +appellants-Gopal and Pavan Rathore in the sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees +Sixty thousand only)each with a solvent surety in the like amount to +the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for their regular appearance +before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining +sentence imposed against the appellants shall remain suspended, till the +final disposal of this appeal. +

+

The appellants, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their +presence before the Registry of this Court on 14/05/2018 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course.

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) +skt Judge + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7211/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri A.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List in the next week. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7208/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri A.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List in the next week. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.1688/2018x + (Chiku @ Pratik Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merits of the case learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition petition. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.4037/2018x + (Lokendra Panwar Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merits of the case learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition petition. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.1703/2018x + (Santosh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merits of the case learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition petition. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.1750/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to comply +with order dated 19/02/2018. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.4269/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.4374/2018x + (Jasvant Singh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merits of the case learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition petition. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.4562/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri D.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicants further prays for time to argue +the matter. +

By way of indulgence, prayer is allowed. + Be listed in the next week. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.5168/2018x + (Rahul Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri M.S. Chandel, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the complainant/objecor. + After arguing at length on the merits of the case learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition petition. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8323/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks time +to call CFSL report of Hyderabad. +

List in the week commencing 26/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8400/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays and is granted time to file +the certified copies of order-sheets dated 12/02/2018 passed by the trial +Court. +

List in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8403/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on the basis of +report lodged by accused person Crime No. 42/2018 has been registered +against the complainant party at Police-Station-Tal, District-Ratlam of +offence under Sections 323, 295 and 506/34 of the IPC read with +Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary of present Crime alongwith the case-diary of Crime No. 42/2018 +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8410/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8419/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Case-diary is not available. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8463/2018x + (Husain Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri Lokesh R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merits of the case learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this second bail application is dismissed as +withdrawn. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8467/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri Vishal Pawar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +file some relevant documents. +

List in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8472/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that charge-sheet has +already been filed and he prays for and is granted time to argue the +matter. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8475/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8483/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri D.Patel, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8499/2018 +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 26/03/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + R.P. No.473/2018 + + Indore dated :23/03/2018 + + This Court has directed the trial Court to complete the trial within four + months vide order dated 3rd October, 2017. The learned trial Court has sought + further three months time for completion of trial. +

It has been pointed out that 14 witnesses have been examined whereas, + examination-in-chief of PW-15 has been completed. +

In view of the proceedings taken by the trial Court, it would be + appropriate to extend time to complete the trial expeditiously on or before + 18.05.2018. +

+ +
         (Hemant Gupta)                                 (S. K. Awasthi)
+           Chief Justice                                    Judge
+Moni
+

As per prosecution story, on 19/05/2017 at about 6:00 a.m., when the +complainant alongwith other relatives was sleeping near the well at that +time Vikram Singh, Kalu Singh and applicant-Suraj came their on their +motorcycles and they forcibly took him to Village-Kala Pipal, where they +confined him and beaten him by sticks, due to which he sustained injuries +on his left thigh, neck and back. Thereafter, his sons Rajendra Singh, Hari +Singh and Bharat Singh came there and rescue him. +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_61225509.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_61225509.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d7aea02fcb4b4498af9b7f04e2bc4547b7b43eb5 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_61225509.html @@ -0,0 +1,354 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Vislakshi vs The Secretary To Government on 21 July, 2014 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
" I am aware that Thiru Madhan is in remand in G5 Secretariat Colony Police Station Cr.Nos.740/2013, 943/2013 and 942/2013 and he has not moved any bail application so far. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru Madhan are taking action to take him on bail by filing bail application in G5 Secretariat Colony Police Station Cr.Nos.740/2013, 942/2013 and 943/2013 before the appropriate court. Similarly in a case registered at d4 Zam Bazaar Police Station Cr.NO.562/2012 u/s.379 IPC bail was granted by the 13th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, in Crl.MP.No.2482/2012. Similarly in a case registered at G5 Secretariat Colony Police Station Cr.No.903/2012 u/s.307, 506[ii] IPC @ 302 and 506[ii] IPC bail was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge in Crl.MP.No.11105/2012. Similarly in a case registered at G5 Secretariat Colony Police Station Cr.No.910/2012 registered u/s.341, 294[b], 397, 307, 336, 427 and 506[ii] IPC bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.11106/2012. Hence I infer that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail application for G5 Secretariat Colony Police Station Cr.Nos.740/2013, 942/2013 and 943/2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate Court, since in similar cases bails are granted by the Courts after a lapse of time. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order..............." +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_61671196.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_61671196.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..25a5ebf9528b26f6e282aba6dfafd68399864a33 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_61671196.html @@ -0,0 +1,371 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Nawal Kishore vs The State Of U.P And Anr. on 24 March, 2014 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

It has further been prayed that the court below be directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail on the same bail bonds or fresh bail bonds in respect of added Section 203 IPC and Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. +

+

3. In the present matter, the report was lodged on 11.01.2013 in view of the findings of the disciplinary proceedings, in which it was alleged that since 02.02.2010 to 31.03.2012, the petitioner had committed forgery and also prepared false and fabricated documents by which there was financial loss to the Bank. It was also alleged that the petitioner was involved in the corrupt practices and he had misused his post and power. After the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and the trial court has enlarged him on bail by order dated 21.01.2014. After the said bail order, supplementary charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner under Section 203 IPC and Section 7/13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, upon which, the trial court has taken cognizance on 27.01.2014. +

+
+ +
+ +
"In the case in hand, the respondents-accused could apply for bail afresh after the offence had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC. They deliberately did not do so and filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC in order to circumvent the procedure whereunder they would have been required to surrender as the bail application could be entertained and heard only if the accused were in custody. It is important to note that no order adverse to the respondents-accused had been passed by any Court nor there was any miscarriage of justice or any illegality. In such circumstances, the High Court committed manifest error of law in entertaining a petition under Section 482 CrPC and issuing a direction to the subordinate court to accept the sureties and bail bonds for the offence under Section 304 IPC. The effect of the order passed by the High Court is that the accused after getting bail in an offence under Section 324, 352 and 506 IPC on the very day on which they were taken into custody, got an order of bail in their favour even after the injured had succumbed to his injuries and the case had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC without any Court examining the case on merits, as it stood after conversion of the offence. The procedure laid down for grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC, though available to the respondents-accused, having not been availed of, the exercise of power by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is clearly illegal and the impugned order passed by it has to be set aside." +
+
+ +
+ +

Hon'ble Apex Court further observed as follows:- +

+
"Before parting with the case, we feel constrained to observe that in spite of repeated pronouncements of this Court that inherent power under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in rare cases and that too when miscarriage of justice is done, the High Court entertained the petition under Section 482 CrPC, the ultimate result whereof was that the order of bail granted in favour of the accused for an offence under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC enured to their benefit even after the offence had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC and also subsequently when charge had been framed against them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused did not remain in custody even for a single day nor did they approach the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate or Sessions Judge for being granted bail under Section 304 or 302 IPC, yet they got the privilege of bail under the aforesaid offences by virtue of the order passed by the High Court. The dockets of the High Courts are full and there is a long pendency of murder appeals in the High Court from which this case has arisen. Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 CrPC at an interlocutory stage which are often filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, as is the case here, or to delay the trial which will enable the accused to win over the witnesses by money or muscle power or they may become disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of justice". +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_63614049.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_63614049.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8a6141cf8a169d075e12a01bbde4631e6bed9223 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_63614049.html @@ -0,0 +1,455 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sonu Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The petitioner is in custody for about 4 years. + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 665 of 2023 + + The instant Revision is filed by CICL himself, + + challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order, + + dated 9th of August, 2023, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2023 + + by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum- + + Children's Court, Banka. The CICL was arrested in connection + + with Banduwa Kurawa P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023, corresponding + + to G.R. No. 1202 of 2023, for the offences punishable under + + Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 + + of the Arms Act. However, later on, Sections 34 of the IPC and + + Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section + + 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes + + (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added. Prayer for + + bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Appeal in + + exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Juvenile + + Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter + + referred to as 'said Act') vide order, dated 15th of June, 2023. + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 687 of 2023 + + The petitioner/CICL was arrested in connection + + with Fesar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, + + 325, 307, 34, 504, 506 and 379 of the IPC along with his father + + and uncle. The petitioner prayed for regular bail before the JJB, + + Aurangabad. In JJB Case No. 932 of 2023, prayer for bail was + + rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 41 + + of 2023 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children's Court, + + Aurangabad. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal + + and affirmed the order of the JJB. The petitioner has assailed the + + said order of the Appellate Court on various grounds, specially + + on the ground that the father and uncle of the petitioner have + + already been granted bail for the same offence. + +
+
+ +
+

Reg. Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2024 + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + The petitioner was booked along with other major + + accused persons in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 237 of + + 2022, dated 13th of August, 2022, under Section 302 and 34 of + + the IPC. The petitioner being a CICL prayed for bail before the + + Juvenile Justice Board, but his prayer for bail was rejected. He + + preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the said Act before the + + learned Special Judge, Children's Court and the said appeal was + + also dismissed and the order of rejection of bail passed by the + + JJB was affirmed. It is stated by the petitioner that the accused + + persons who are major, namely, Sushil Kumar Yadav and Anil + + Yadav were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on + + 26th of April, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 4091 of 2023. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_64074228.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_64074228.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1594e433841e01e03972de3661c325a65ff4f935 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_64074228.html @@ -0,0 +1,494 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Shariq Rehman vs State Of H.P on 5 January, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

15 To substantiate plea to enlarge the petitioner on bail, + +learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon order dated + +5.7.2023 passed in Cr.MP (M) No. 1501 of 2023, titled as + +Ram Singh @ Kaka Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under + +Section 302 IPC has been enlarged on bail on 5.7.2023 after + +remaining in jail for 3 years 2 months. +

+

16 Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred + +order dated 16.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1494 of + +2023, titled as Rampal @ Ramphal Vs. State of H.P., + +wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has been enlarged on + +bail after remaining in custody for 4 years 9 months by + +considering plea of the petitioner regarding delay in trial. +17 Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred order + +dated 20.10.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2481 of 2023, + +titled as Sanma Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under + +Section 302 IPC has been released on bail after 3 years 3 months + +detention considering the fact that only 22 witnesses out of 30 + +witnesses were examined by that time. +

+
+ +
+ 7

+18 Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied + +on order dated 4.11.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2618 of + +2023, titled as Jasbir Singh Vs. State of H.P., wherein + +accused under Section 302 IPC has been released on bail after 3 + +years 5 months detention considering the fact that only 16 + +witnesses out of 39 witnesses were examined by that time. +19 Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied + +on order dated 6.10.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2461 of + +2023, titled as Balwinder Singh @ Kadu Vs. State of H.P., + +wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has been released on + +bail after 3 years 1 month detention considering the fact that + +only 12 witnesses out of 34 witnesses were examined by that + +time. +

+
+ +
+ +

20 Learned counsel for the petitioner has further + +referred order dated 21.8.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1942 + +of 2023, titled as Robin Patrwal Vs. State of H.P., wherein + +accused under Section 302 IPC has been released on bail after 2 + +years 2 months detention considering the fact that only 10 + +witnesses out of 51 witnesses were examined by that time. +21 Learned counsel for the petitioner has further + +referred order dated 1.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1216 + +of 2023, titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P., wherein + +accused under Section 302 IPC has been released on bail after 4 + +years detention considering the fact that only 13 witnesses out + +of 47 witnesses were examined by that time. +

+
+ +
+ 8

+22 Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied + +on order dated 24.7.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1217 of + +2023, titled as Kulveer Singh Vs. State of H.P., wherein + +accused under Section 302 IPC has been released on bail after 1 + +year detention considering the fact that no witnesses out of 30 + +witnesses were examined by that time. +

+

23 Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied + +on order dated 3.8.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1631 of + +2023, titled as Mahammad Aadil Vs. State of H.P., wherein + +accused under Section 302 IPC has been released on bail after 2 + +years 5 months detention considering the fact that only 1 + +witness out of 50 witnesses were examined by that time. + +24 Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that co- + +accused Abdul Rehman and Sahil Khan have already been + +enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 15.06.2018 and + +30.06.2021 respectively. It has been submitted by learned + +counsel for petitioner that petitioner has been implicated for the + +commission of offence on the basis of circumstantial evidence + +whereas the corpus of deceased alleged to be of victum was not + +properly identified as there was no scientific test for conducting + +identification of the corpus but it was identified on the basis of + +verbal assertion of relatives. Further that corpus was recovered + +at the instance of petitioner. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_64122865.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_64122865.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8f720f63d5375180be038b0b9dac7772b8cde198 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_64122865.html @@ -0,0 +1,424 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Girdhar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:11536) on 7 March, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

4. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.69/2024) +

5. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.69/2024) +

6. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.69/2024) + + +

8. Concerned Police Station Shreekaranpur +

+
+ +
+

12. Date of passing of 21.10.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.14884/2023) + +

14. Concerned Police Station Kotwali Barmer +

15. District Barmer +

16. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 420 and 406 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.14885/2023) +

17. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.14885/2023) +

+
+ +
+

34. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.15296/2023) +

35. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application + No.15296/2023) +

36. Date of passing of 22.11.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.15296/2023) + +

38. Concerned Police Station Pratap Nagar +

+
+ +
+

76. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 406 and 420 + FIR (S.B. CRLMB of the IPC + No.90/2024) +

77. Offences added, if any Under Section 409 of the + (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail IPC + Application No.90/2024) +

78. Date of passing of 18.12.2023 + impugned order (S.B. + CRLMB No.90/2024) + + +

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no + + case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his + + incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in + + the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the + + accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based + + on conjectures and surmises. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_6421880.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_6421880.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4b5bf0e454db50d9d6c5da1667956ce136d15833 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_6421880.html @@ -0,0 +1,376 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Prem Shanker Dixit vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home And ... on 14 September, 2022 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. Heard Sri Alok Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for respondent - State and Ms. Divya Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. +

+

2. The present application for cancellation of bail has been filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail granted order dated 18.08.2021 in Bail No.8763 of 2021. +

+

3. It is contended that respondent No.2 is being tried under Sections 394, 397 and 411 IPC in Case Crime No.158 of 2017 and was granted bail vide this Court's order dated 18.08.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8763 of 2021. +

+
+ +
+ +

28. Thereafter, referring to 15 cases registered again accused showing that he was a history-sheeter and mostly under Section 302 IPC, order of bail was set aside. The court observed that there has to be a balance between personal liberty of an individual and peace and harmony of Society. No individual interest can be allowed to create a concavity in the stem of social stream otherwise it would bring chaos and anarchy in the Society. Relevant observations made in this regard are reproduced as under : +

+
+ +
+ +

33. In the case of X vs. The State of Telangana and Ors.; (2018)16 SCC 511, the accused, a Film Producer, based in Mumbai, was charged of offences under Sections 376, 342, 493, 506, 354(C) of IPC. Accused got anticipatory bail from Sessions Judge on 13.01.2017 and had advantage of that order for about eight months. The said order was cancelled by Sessions Judge on the ground that accused has not disclosed that he was also accused in 2G Spectrum case. This cancellation order was affirmed by High Court and also by Supreme Court. Thereafter accused moved a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by High Court and accused was released on bail. This order was challenged in appeal before Supreme Court. Upholding the said order, Court said that bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case, based on supervening event has been made out. +

+
+ +
+ +

34. In the case of Seema Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.; (2018) 16 SCC 10, the bail granted to accused by High Court in the case registered under Sections 498-A, 302, 120-B IPC was challenged in appeal before Supreme Court. Court noticed that accused-2's bail application was rejected by Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ghaziabad and thereafter bail was granted by High Court. Court said that gravity of offence is a relevant factor but not the sole ground to deny bail if there are other overwhelming circumstances justifying grant of bail. Noticing special feature, Court upheld order of High Court granting bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_64666774.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_64666774.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d056c6a9bf1be917746c9166eba5fc8ca4301c5c --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_64666774.html @@ -0,0 +1,508 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Vipin Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 2 September, 2019 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

and other injured medically examined from Deen Dyal + + Upadhyay, Shimla registered a case under Sections 323 and 324 + + + + + + of IPC against the present bail petitioners. +

+

4. On 1.7.2019, Vikas, who is one of the accused in the + + + + + + present FIR, also lodged a complaint, alleging therein that on + + 30.6.2019 at about 10:30 PM when he had come to cart road for + + + purchasing Ice cream, persons namely, Karan and Suraj stopped + + him and extended threats. He further alleged that after having + + + + heard noise, his younger brother Vikrant also came on the spot. +

+
+ +
+ +

On seeing his brother Vikrant, Karan and Suraj fled away from + + + + + the spot, but subsequently they came alongwith persons namely, + + + + + + Raju, Karan, Suraj, Rahul, Vicky and Vinod and gave beatings + + + + + + with the help of beer bottle and chopper, as a result of which, + + they suffered serious injuries. Police got the complainant + + medically examined at Deen Dyal Upadhyay Hospital, Shimla + + and subsequently on the basis of the aforesaid statement made + + by the complainant, named hereinabove, lodged formal FIR + + against the bail petitioners under Sections 307, 341, 323, 147, + + + + + + + + + + 148, 149 and 506 of IPC. Bail petitioners herein are behind the + + bars since 1st July, 2019, whereas co­accused Vikrant and Bunty + + + + + . +

+
+ +
+ +

6. Learned counsel representing the bail petitioners + + + + + + while inviting attention of this Court to the medical opinion + + + + + + rendered on record by the Medical Officer, contended that no + + case much less under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the + + bail petitioners because injuries suffered by the complainant in + + the FIR No.136 of 2019 have been opined to be simple in nature + + and not grievous. He further contended that as per own story of + + the prosecution, no evidence with regard to use of blunt weapon + + + + + + + + + + such as sword, chopper and Khokhari came to be established and + + as such, bail petitioners, who are behinds the bars for more than + + + + + . +

+
+ +
+

by learned counsel for the petitioner that no case much less + + + + + + under section 307 of IPC against the bail petitioner is + + + + + + sustainable. Moreover, leaving everything aside, this Court finds + + that qua the same incident, cross FIR's came to be lodged at + + + + + + police Station, Sadar, Shimla, H.P. In the FIR No.135/2019 + + lodged by the bail petitioner, persons who came to be arrested, + + + have been already ordered to be enlarged on bail by this Court. +

+ +
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_65545761.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_65545761.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..10ac0bd69a888b788abc0e5e262e39b81cd9b0f9 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_65545761.html @@ -0,0 +1,369 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Devendra Yadav Alias Jaggu vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 June, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
a. Case Crime No.216 of 2017, U/ss 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehgarh-- this FIR. was lodged as a cross F.I.R. after the applicant had lodged an F.IR vide Case Crime No.215 0f 2017, U/ss 506, 504, 307, 147, 148, 149 of I.P.C. against Kushal Parihar, Achal Parihar and four others. In order to retaliate vengefully Shri Kushal Singh Parihar lodged an F.I.R. vide Case Crime No.216 of 2017, Under Section 147, 148, 149 and 307 of I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehgarh against the brother of the applicant along with the applicant and twelve others. After investigation no offence was found to be committed under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of I.P.C. and instead the I.0. submitted the charge sheet under Section 504 and 506 I.P.C. the applicant was granted bail by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad on o4.07.2017. It is humbly submitted before this Court that the conclusion of the investigation itself shows that allegations as alleged were found to be false during investigation. +
+
+ +
+ +
c. Case Crime No.503 of 2019, U/ss 506, 504, 307, 147, 148, 149 of ILP.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehgarh--this is a cross F.I.R. as on 03.11.2019 an F.I.R. vide Case Crime No.443 of 2019, P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehgarh was lodged by Smt. Sarita Yadav wife of Yogendra Singh and sister-in-law of the applicant alleging therein allegation under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of I.P.C. while accusing Suneel Rathor and Sonu Solanki. In order to retaliate Suneel Kumar Rathor lodged F.I.R. vide Case Crime No.503 of 2019, P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehgarh not only against Yogendra Yadav but also the applicant and a few others who had earlier lodged F.I.Rs. against Suneel Rathor. Be that as it may the allegations as alleged in F.IR. vide Case Crime No.503 of 2019 were found to be false and charge sheet was submitted only U/ss 504, 506, of I.P.C. The applicant was granted bail in Case Crime No.503 of 2019 under Sections 504, 506 of I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehgarh by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad on 22.10.2020. Moreover, Suneel Kumar Rathor the informant has submitted an application for quashing of the case owing to a compromise between the adversarial parties on 16.05.2023. +
+
+ +
+ +

21. Let the applicant, Devendra Yadav Alias Jaggu, involved in Case Crime No. 73 of 2025, under Sections- 147, 149, 341, 323, 506, 364-A IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Fatehgarh, District- Farrukhabad, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. +

+
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_65629033.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_65629033.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6ba6acb6a3585a01fa832620172b9878151ddec6 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_65629033.html @@ -0,0 +1,555 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Mokhtar Ansari vs State Of U.P. on 13 June, 2022 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

4. + +Sarai lakhansi, Mau + +0008/2022 + +3(1) U.P.Gangster Act + +*New FIR registered on05.01.2022 + +

5. + +South tola Mau + +055/2021 + +Sessions Case No. is yet to be marked + +3(1) U.P.Gangster Act + +*Bail rejected by Sessions court + +* Charge sheeted case + +*File Transferred to MPMLA Court, Mau for trail + +

6. + +South tola Mau + +891/2010, S.T. No. 62000/2012 + +3(1) U.P.Gangster Act + +*Framing of charges. +

+

*MPMLA Court Mau for trial + +

7. + +Mohammadabad Ghazipu + + + +307, 506, 120B IPC + +* Evidence + +*Bail out + +*MPMLA court Ghazipur for trial + +

+
+ +
+

12. + +Mohamadabad Ghazipur & Varanasi + + + +420, 467,468, 120B IPC and 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act + +*Bail out. +

+

*Evidence + +*MPMLA court Varanasi + +

13. + +Bhelupur Varanasi + + + +506 IPC + +*Bail out. +

+

*Evidence + +*MPMLA court Varanasi + +

14. + +Chetganj Varanasi + + + +147, 148, 149, 302 IPC + +*Bail out. +

+

*Evidence + +*MPMLA court Varanasi + +

15. + +Tarwa Azamgarh + +20/2014, S.T. No. 6200195/2018 + +302,307, 147, 148, 149, 120B, 506 IPC and 7 CLA + +*Bail out. +

+

*Evidence + +*MPMLA court Azamgarh + +

16. + +Tarwa Azamgarh + +0160/2020, Sessions case no. is yet to be marked + +3(1) U.P.Gangster Act + +*Pending bail + +* Charge sheeted + +* Case/Trial in Special court Gangster Act, Azamgarh. +

+
+ +
+ +

17. + +Hazratganj, Lucknow + +236/2020 + +120B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention from Damage to Public Property Act + +* Charge sheeted case + +* CJM court Lucknow for copies + +

18. + +Alambagh, Lucknow + + + +147, 336, 353, 506 IPC + +*Bail out + +* Evidence + +*MPMLA court Lucknow + +

19. + +Kotwali Barabanki + +0369/2021, Crl. Case No. 02/2021 + +419,420,467, 468, 471, 120B, 177, 506 IPC and 7 CLA + +* Bail pending in High Court Lucknow. +

+

* Framing of charges + +* MPMLA Court Barabanki + +

+
+ +
+

20. + +Jagdishpura,Agra + + + +420, 419, 109, 120B IPC + +*Bail out + +*Framing of charges + +*MPMLA court Agra + +

21. + +Mataur Rupnagar, Punjab State + +05/2019 + +386, 506 IPC + +* Police Station + +*CJM, Mohali + +

25. Thus, it is clear that as per own admission by the applicant there are as many as 21 cases are pending against the applicant in which the applicant is facing a trial. The trial court are directed to take up the aforesaid Sessions Trials on the top most priority and decide without consuming further time. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_66538178.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_66538178.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b4b2ea7b2da10ebcbd88fc2826f3c77757c6e941 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_66538178.html @@ -0,0 +1,429 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Girish vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 November, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Order + +05/11/2020 + All the above mentioned bail applications shall stand decided + +by this common order as they arise out of same FIR. + +

The present bail applications have been filed under Section + +439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners who are in custody in + +connection with F.I.R. No.252/2020, Police Station Dovada, District + +Dungarpur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, + +394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B of I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12431/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 436, 394, + +384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of + +the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.11515/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, + +384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B of the I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.11861/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 384, + +284, 269, 270, 283 & 336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of + +P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11865/2020), + +under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 436, 394, 284, 269, 270, 283, + +336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11867/2020), under Sections + + (5 of 7) [CRLMB-12431/2020 + a/w connected nmatters] + + +147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, 384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336, + +120-B of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12205/2020), under Sections + +147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B + +of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. + +Bail Application No.12207/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, + +341, 394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 383, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and + +under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail + +Application No.12210/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, + +394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12433/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, + +284, 269, 270, 283, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 + +of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12436/2020). +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_66811580.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_66811580.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dbca7ae4f4a45df34afe5320ec5793f1a46b3121 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_66811580.html @@ -0,0 +1,516 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 24 May, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

- 15 - +

+

Section 307 IPC was inserted prior to it on 20.02.2024 + + and these bail applications were rejected by Learned + + Trial Court on 29.02.2024, on the ground, that the + + + + + . +

bail petitioners, have suppressed factum of insertion + + + + + + of Section 307 IPC in their bail applications ; coupled + + + + + + with the fact that the offence was grave/serious + + by deadly weapons and the fact that one of the + + + + + + weapon (Sword) has been recovered clearly points + + out, towards the intention of the bail petitioners to + + commit the offence and since the investigation was + + at nascent stage, therefore, grant of pre-arrest bail + + would have prejudiced the investigation, therefore, the + + + + Learned Trial Court dismissed the bail applications of + + the bail petitioners on 29.02.2024. +

+
+ +
+ +

ANALYSIS OF ORDER DATED 29.02.2024 + [Annexure P-2] PASSED BY LEARNED TRIAL + COURT-REJECTING BAIL APPLICATIONS: +

+

10. Though + + originally the FIR + + dated 20.1.2024 was registered under Sections 147, + + + 148, 149, 323 and 506 IPC, but keeping in view + + the medical opinion, gravity of offence, the nature of + + + injuries which were grievous in nature and dangerous + + to life, Section 307 IPC was inserted/added to the + + + + + aforesaid FIR on 20.02.2024, yet the bail petitioners + + + + + + filed the bail applications before Learned Trial Court + + + + + + i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, on 21.02.2024 + + without disclosing factum of Section 307 IPC having + + been inserted/added to the aforesaid FIR. All six bail + + application(s) were rejected by the Learned Trial Court + + + + + +

+
+ +
+
12 The most disturbing feature in this bail + + + + + application is that the bail applicant has + + + + + + misled this court while obtaining pre + arrest. Police report suggests that Section + 307 IPC had already been invoked against + + + + + + bail applicant and others on 20.02.2024 + and this application was admittedly + moved on 21.02.2024 and bail applicant + did not mention this fact in this application. + Thus, they are not entitled to relief from this + court on this count as well. +
+
+ +
+ +

19(ii). Mr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, Learned Senior + + Counsel, contends that another FIR No. 161 of 2022, + + dated 01.06.2022, was registered by one of the bail + + petitioners, namely, Satish Kumar, under Sections 341, + + + + 323 and 506 IPC, cannot be of any avail to the bail + + petitioners when, the aforesaid FIR, nowhere indicates + + + + + that the alleged offences were against or in the context + + + + + + of the complainant [Sandeep Kumar] and two friends, + + + + + + Neema and Kulbir, as in the instant case. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_67780095.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_67780095.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..50aaa2b9c4cb48df976d68a0acef9317f4300904 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_67780095.html @@ -0,0 +1,745 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Gurram Narasimhaswami Siddiram vs Dr. G. Harikishan And Ors on 7 June, 2019 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

rejected the summary report and directed the complainant to lead + +evidence. After examining the witnesses on oath, the learned Magistrate + +took cognizance of the complaint under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. Chapter + +XVI of Cr.P.C. relates to commencement of proceedings before Magistrate. + +The order issuing process in the present case indicate issuance of + +summons to the accused. Section 204 of Cr.P.C. stipulates that if in the + +opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is + +sufficient ground for proceedings, and the case appears to be a summons + +case, he shall issue his summons for attendance of the accused or if it is a + +warrant case, he may issue a warrant or, if he thinks fit, a summons for + +causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before + +the Court. In pursuant to the order issuing summons, respondent nos.1 to + +7 appeared before the Court on 3 rd September, 2016. Respondent no.8 + +preferred an application for exemption. He appeared before the Court on + +17th September, 2016. The complainant was represented by his advocate. + +His grievance is that he was not heard before passing order granting bail + +and that the statutory provisions of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. has not be + +complied by the trial Court. His application for sending the accused to + +custody has been erroneously rejected by the Court. It is pertinent to note + +that the complainant and his advocate were present in Court on 3 rd + +September, 2016 and on the same day application Exhibit - 25 was + +preferred. There was no provision in law for entertaining application + + + + + + rpa 19/30 907-wp-380-17.doc + + +Exhibit-25. The court took cognizance of the complaint and issued a + +process under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. The summons was served upon the + +accused. They appeared before the Court and showed their willingness to + +execute bail bond for their appearances. It is pertinent to note that + +summons were issued for their appearance before the Court. While + +preferring an application for bail, the grounds raised therein enumerated + +their availability and willingness to execute the bail bond. In the + +circumstances, I do not find any illegality of the order passed by learned + +Magistrate granting bail and order rejecting application Exhibit - 25. No + +case of cancellation of bail granted to the accused is made out. The + +judicial pronouncement relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are + +not applicable in those cases. There is no dispute about the principles to + +be followed in consonance with Section 437 of Cr.P.C. and the limitation + +for granting bail by the learned Magistrate. In the case of Bimla Devi + +(Supra), the accused was prosecuted for an offence under Section 302 + +read with 34 of IPC. Two earlier applications for bail preferred by the + +accused were successively rejected by the High Court. The Judicial + +Magistrate granted bail to the accused. Subsequently, the Magistrate + +cancelled the bail. The Court, therefore, depricated the approach of the + +trial Court by observing that the course adopted by the learned + +Magistrate is not only contrary to the settled principles of judicial + +discipline or propriety, but also contrary to the statutory provisions. In the + + + + + + rpa 20/30 907-wp-380-17.doc + + +decision delivered by this court in case of D.K. Rajepandhare (Supra). + +The accused were charged for offences under Sections 302, 498-A of IPC. + +One of them, who was mother-in-law of deceased applied for bail before + +Judicial Magistrate. Bail was granted by the Court on the ground that she + +was an old lady. The other accused, who was the husband of deceased + +preferred bail application before Sessions Court, which was rejected. He + +preferred second application before Sessions Court. During pendency of + +the application, the said accused preferred application for bail before + +aforesaid Magistrate, and the application before Sessions Court was + +withdrawn. The Magistrate granted bail in the ground that the alleged + +offences are triable by Court of Sessions, but, that does not mean + +unnecessarily the accused should be detained in jail. In these + +circumstances, it was observed that as far as Section 437 of Cr.P.C. is + +concerned, bail in the non-bailable offences cannot be granted by a Court + +other than the High Court or a Court of Sessions. The first proviso in + +Section 437(1) is the only provision which contains the exceptions, + +namely, that such a Court may grant bail if a person is under the age of 16 + +years or is a woman or is sick or infirm. These are the only grounds which + +are available. None of the grounds were made out in this case and at the + +Court who did not have jurisdiction to grant bail, had granted bail, is + +clearly outside his jurisdiction. In the case of Hanuman Vishwanath + +Nehare Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Supra), the applicant + + + + + + rpa 21/30 907-wp-380-17.doc + + +sought cancellation of time granted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class + +to the respondents-accused. The respondents - accused were arrested in + +connection with attempt to commit murder under section 307 of IPC. They + +were ordered to be released on bail even though APP was not available in + +the Court. The victim died subsequently and Section 302 of IPC was + +attracted. Charge-sheet was filed under Section 302 of IPC. In paragraph + +9 of the said decision, this Court has observed that the principles relating + +to cancellation of bail are now well settled. If the bail is granted illegally + +or by a Court having no jurisdiction or grant of bail shows arbitrariness in + +granting the same, such bail can be cancelled. In Shiv Kumar Vs. + +Hukam Chand & Anr.10, appellant was aggrieved because counsel + +appointed by him was not allowed to conduct prosecution inspite of + +obtaining a consent from the public prosecutor. The Court considered the + +effect of Section 302 of Cr.P.C., which relates to permission to conduct + +prosecution was initiated on a private complaint, hearing ought to have + +been given to him. In the present case, trial Court has dealt with the said + +contention and the prayer for sending the accused in judicial custody and + +rejected the application for the reasons stated therein. In the case of + +State of Maharashtra Vs. Khodya Alias Khodidas Sonabhai (Supra), + +Court had considered the powers to grant bail under Section 167(2) of + +Cr.P.C. and provisions of Section 437(1), (2), (5) of Cr.P.C. In case of Ram + + +10 (1999) 7 SCC 467 + + + + + + rpa 22/30 907-wp-380-17.doc + + +Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh & Ors.(Supra), Supreme + +Court has observed that while liberty of an individual is precious and + +there should always be an all round effort on the part of Law Courts to + +protect such liberties of individuals but this protection can be made + +available to the deserving persons only. The Court cancelled bail granted + +to accused by High Court. The facts of the case would indicate that FIR + +was lodged for offence under Section302 of IPC. Witnesses were + +threatened and assaulted. FIR was lodged under Sections 323 and 504 of + +IPC. High Court granted bail. Application for cancellation of bail was + +rejected, hence, appeal was preferred before Supreme Court. In the case + +of Shahzad Hasan Khan Vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan & Anr. (Supra), bail + +was granted by High Court in peculiar facts of the case ont eh ground + +that trial could not be commenced and concluded or directed by Court. + +Time was sought by complainant to place the facts before Court by filing + +counter affidavit. Prayer was rejected. The accused had obtained + +adjournments before trial Court. In these circumstances, it was observed + +that Court ought to have granted time to the complainant for filing + +affidavit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court cancelled bail granted by High + +Court. The petitioner had contended that the trial Court had directed that + +appropriate action be initiated about tampering of witnesses. Stopping + +them from tampering witnesses and evidence. The said order was passed + +on 30th October, 2013. The report seeking classification of the complaint + + + + + + rpa 23/30 907-wp-380-17.doc + + +as "C" Summary was submitted on 28th November, 2013. Thereafter, the + +evidence was adduced and the process was issued. The ratio laid down in + +the decisions referred to hereinabove, was in the context of the factual + +matrix of the said cases, where the accused were arrested for heinous + +crimes and they were in custody and bail was granted. The petitioner + +contends that the offences for which process was issued contain non- + +bailable offences and, therefore, Section 437 would be applicable. In the + +factual aspects of the present case, the submissions cannot be accepted. +14 In the case of Vishwa Nath Jiloka & Ors. Vs. Ist Munsif + +Lower Criminal Court, Bahraich & Anr. (Supra), the Allahabad High + +Court has dealt with the situation wherein the Court has considered the + +provisions of Section 88 of Cr.P.C. In the said case, the opposite party filed + +a criminal complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and + +406 of IPC. Statement was recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and 202 + +of Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate found prima facie case under Section 420 of + +IPC and summons was issued to the accused for their appearance before + +the Court. One of the petitioner was served with Non-bailable Warrant + +and he was arrested. He was granted bail by the trial Court. Other + +accused did not surrender. It was contended that one of the accused was + +arrested and they apprehended similar humiliation and harassment. The + +Court referred to Section 204 of Cr.P.C. and observed that, "It is evident + + + + + + rpa 24/30 907-wp-380-17.doc + + +from Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-Section (1) that a summons or warrant to + +the opposite party or the accused of a complaint case is issued only for his + +attendance before the Magistrate or for him being brought or to appear + +before the Magistrate. Even if warrant is issued to the accused or + +opposite party in a complaint case, it is not a direction for investigation + +and so the Magistrate cannot grant judicial remand under Section 167 of + +Cr.P.C. All that the accused or the opposite party of a complaint case has + +to do in response of a summon or a warrant issued, under Section 204, is + +to attend the Court of the Magistrate or to appear before him. It was + +further observed that it is evident from Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) that + +before issuing a warrant in a complaint case, which may be warrant case, + +a Magistrate himself should pause and think if the issue of summons + +should be more reasonable. The Magistrate should note that issue of + +warrant in a complaint case is to be governed by Sub-section (5) of + +Section 204 of Cr.P.C. and for that there must be compliance of section 87 + +of Cr.P.C. When contingency for issuing a warrant as laid down in Section + +87 has not arisen, the Magistrate should invariably think of issuing + +summons. While issuing summons, the Magistrate should bear in mind + +Section 205 of Cr.P.C., which empowers the Magistrate to dispense with + +the personal attendance of the accused and to permit him to appear by his + +pleader. The Magistrate may at any stage of the proceedings, even + +though he has earlier exempted personal attendance of the accused, + + + + + + rpa 25/30 907-wp-380-17.doc + + +order the accused to be personally present. Where the accused in a + +complaint case are of different districts or State, the Magistrate should + +invariably issue a summons to the accused dispensing his personal + +attendance and permitting him to appear through pleader. This will + +automatically minimize mischievous and vexatious complaints simplified + +for causing harassment and humiliation to the accused. Even when the + +personal attendance of the accused in a criminal case has not been + +exempted or when a warrant is issued to the accused in a complaint case + +under Section 204(1)(b) and the accused after being served with + +summons or warrant or having come to know of the same appears before + +the Magistrate, it is not at all legal for the Magistrate to take him into + +custody and then grant judicial remand necessitating a bail application + +and a bail order under Section 437 of Cr.P.C., when a person appears or is + +brought before a Magistrate or court in response of summons or warrant, + +the proper procedure to be followed is laid down in Section 88 of Cr.P.C. + +In case of breach of bonds furnished under Section 88 of Cr.P.C., action + +can be taken for enforcing the bonds and further for arrest under Section + +89 of Cr.P.C. It would be relevant to quote observations in the said + +decision in paragraph 11 of the said decision, which reads as follows: +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_68462673.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_68462673.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7cb6fdb48234b20846b3f290bb7096ec3e6ee1db --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_68462673.html @@ -0,0 +1,4322 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 2 February, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 80, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Gujarat High Court

+

Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 2 February, 2018

+ +

Author: S.G. Shah

+ +

Bench: S.G. Shah

+ +
                R/CR.RA/1188/2017                                             CAV JUDGMENT
+
+
+
+
+                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
+
+             CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
+                            SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 1188 of 2017
+
+         FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
+
+
+         HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. SHAH
+
+         ==========================================================
+
+         1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
+               to see the judgment ?
+
+         2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
+
+         3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
+               the judgment ?
+
+         4     Whether this case involves a substantial question of
+               law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
+               India or any order made thereunder ?
+
+         ==========================================================
+                         MANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SHAH....Applicant(s)
+                                        Versus
+                            STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s)
+         ==========================================================
+         Appearance:
+         MR ND NANAVATY, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR MITUL K SHELAT,
+         ADVOCATE WITH MS DISHA N NANAVATY, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s)
+         No. 1
+         MR MITESH AMIN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR WITH MR MANAN MEHTA, APP
+         for the Respondent(s) No. 1
+         ==========================================================
+
+             CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. SHAH
+                               Date : 02/02/2018
+                                         CAV JUDGMENT
+
+ +

1. Heard learned senior counsel Mr. N.D. + + + Page 1 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 1 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + Nanavaty appearing with Ms. Disha Nanavaty for + the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor Mr. + Mitesh R. Amin for the respondent No.1 - State. +

+

2. The applicant herein is accused No.3 before + the Sessions Court at Vadodara in Special A.C.B. + Case No.2 of 2017. Such Sessions case has been + initiated pursuant to Vadodara City A.C.B. Police + Station I-C.R.No. 3 of 2017 registered under + Sections 7, 8, 10 and 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of The + Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act', for + short) read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal + Code, 1860 ('IPC', for short) based upon the + complaint filed by one Dr. Jasminaben Dilipbhai + Devda (herein after referred to as the + 'complainant'). After investigation, when the + investigating agency has filed a chargesheet + against several accused, including present + applicant, the present applicant has filed an + application at Exh.13 on 16.11.2017 before the + Sessions Court. Such application has been + rejected by the impugned order dated 29.11.2017 + by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara. + Being aggrieved by such impugned order, present + Criminal Revision Application is filed. +

+

3. If we peruse such application, copy of which + is at Annexure-P1, it transpires that the + applicant has in the heading of the application, + described such application as "an application for + dropping the proceedings on behalf of accused + No.3 - Dr. Mansukh K. Shah". In the prayer clause + + + Page 2 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 2 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + also, the applicant has prayed to drop the + proceedings of Special A.C.B. Case. In view of + such disclosure, there is preliminary objection + by the respondents that there is no provision in + The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.', + for short), which permits the Sessions Court or + empowers it to drop the proceedings of any + criminal trial and therefore, there is no + irregularity or illegality in the impugned order, + and thereby present application needs to be + rejected. Whereas, it is submitted by the + applicant that, in fact, the application is + u/s.227 of the Cr.P.C. For the purpose, the + applicant has referred the contents of the + application, wherein in first line of first + paragraph itself, there is categorical disclosure + that the application is filed under the + provisions of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. Even in + impugned order, the Sessions Court has in first + line categorically disclosed that the application + is filed u/s.227 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, though + there is a word drop both in the heading and + prayer to drop the proceedings in such + application, practically, this application is + u/s.227 of the Cr.P.C. and therefore, considering + the settled legal position that disclosure of + improper provision of law, would not debar the + litigant from getting appropriate relief by the + court, it is to be held that the application is + for discharging the applicant from the charges + levelled against him and it is u/s.227 of the + + + Page 3 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 3 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + Cr.P.C. for that purpose. Therefore, such + contention of the respondents are rejected + holding that using the word "dropping" instead of + word "discharging" in such application by the + accused, would not curtail the right of the + accused - applicant to get appropriate relief in + accordance with law i.e. considering the + available prima facie material and applicable law + u/s.227 of the Cr.P.C. Thereby, practically, when + the application is u/s.227 of the Cr.P.C. and the + trial Court has also considered the application + for discharge under such section, it is to be + treated as such and thereby, when such order + refusing to discharge the applicant is challenged + in such revision application, the consideration + in revision application is regarding discharging + the applicant by scrutinizing that whether he can + be discharged from the charges levelled against + him or not. +

+

4. Similarly, before coming to the factual + details, it is to be recorded and make it clear + that in addition to the above-referred technical + ground, the respondents have taken another two + technical grounds while opposing the revision + application to be heard on merits and therefore, + such grounds are to be treated as preliminary + objections and dealt with accordingly. +

+

5. It is submitted by the respondents that the + matter is under active consideration before the + Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave + + + Page 4 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 4 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + to Appeal (Criminal) No.6228 of 2017 and + therefore, though it is not submitted in clear + words, the stand taken is to the effect that this + court may not proceed further in the revision + application, so as to decide the issue raised in + the present revision application. However, the + fact remains that the SLP under reference is + against the order dated 10.8.2017 in Criminal + Misc. Application No.14901 of 2017 passed by the + co-ordinate Bench of this court, wherein bail is + refused to the applicant for the alleged offences + against him. Therefore, when such co-ordinate + Bench has already observed in paragraph 6.17 of + its order dated 10.8.2017 that the observations + made in this order are confined to the + consideration u/s.439 of the Cr.P.C. and the + authorities concerned, including the court would + not be influenced by the same and would decide + the case or other proceedings, if any, strictly + in accordance with law; it is clear that the + issue pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + India is with reference to granting any relief to + the applicant u/s.439 of the Cr.P.C. and not + u/s.227 of the Cr.P.C. though the factual details + of the case may be common, and more particularly, + when the order of co-ordinate Bench is clear as + referred herein above. It is also clear that the + consideration of bail application would be + altogether on a different footing, whereas, + consideration of an application to discharge, + would rest upon altogether different issues + + + Page 5 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 5 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + though factual details may be common in both the + cases. So far as granting bail is concerned, it + is purely the discretionary powers of the + concerned court, though it is to be exercised in + accordance with law and consideration for + granting or refusing the bail would be different + i.e. whether there is chance of commission of + similar offence or not and whether there is + chance of tampering with the evidence or not by + the accused, pending trial. Whereas, stage of + discharge application is certainly after filing + of chargesheet, which is generally filed only + after completion of investigation and therefore, + there is least chance of tampering with evidence. + Moreover, at the stage of discharge application, + now, probable evidence in the form of statement + of witnesses as prima facie evidence is available + on record of the court and thereby, court has to + verify that whether there is sufficient evidence + available with the prosecution so as to proceed + further against the accused under particular + sections or not. Therefore, it cannot be said + that pendency of the bail application would + curtail the right of the accused - applicant + either to apply for discharge or for the same + reason, the competent court is not empowered to + decide the application for discharge. +

+

6. Similarly, there is another technical issue + raised by the respondent that an application + u/s.227 of Cr.P.C., cannot be filed on 16.11.2017 + because before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India + + Page 6 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 6 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + in pending SLP, there was a disclosure on + 10.11.2017 that the case is coming up before the + trial Court for framing of charge on 20.11.2017. + Thereupon, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has + hoped that the trial Court shall hear the + arguments on charge on that date and take a view + insofar as framing of charge is concerned. In + view of such submission, it would be appropriate + to recollect the record of proceedings dated + 10.11.2017 in SLP, which reads as under:- +

+
"We are informed by the learned counsel for the + parties that the case is coming up before the Trial + Court for framing of chargeon 20.11.2017. We hope + that the Trial Court shall hear the arguments on + charge on that date and take a view insofar as + framing of charge is concerned. +
+
List the matter in the first week of December, + 2017." +
+ +

7. Based upon the above record and proceedings, + it is submitted that when it is disclosed before + the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that when the + matter is coming up for framing of charge, and + when framing of charge is provided u/s.228 of the + Cr.P.C. and therefore, the case is at the stage + of Section 228 of Cr.P.C. the application u/s.227 + of Cr.P.C., cannot be entertained. If we believe + such submissions, which is surprising, but it + seems that respondents want to submit that once + charge is framed u/s.228, no order under any + sections prior to Section 228 can be passed by + the trial Court. Thereby, the trial Court may not + be entitled to even issue warrant or summons in + + Page 7 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 7 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + case of absence of accused, pending trial, since + provisions for issuance of summons and warrant of + arrest so also proclamation and attachment for + absconding accused are provided between Sections + 61 to 90. Similarly, the trial Court may not be + entitled to issue witness summons or other + appropriate orders in accordance with law. +

+

8. Whereas, even if we consider the submission + of respondent as it is, even then, it becomes + clear that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + India has hoped that trial Court shall hear the + arguments on charge and take a view insofar as + framing of the charge is concerned and therefore, + it is absolutely in order when the applicant has + preferred an application u/s.227 of the Cr.P.C. + to discharge him at the time of framing of charge + so as to enable the trial Court to decide the + issue regarding framing of charge, by conclusive + determination that whether there is sufficient + and prima facie evidence placed before it with + the charge by the prosecution so as to continue + the trial or to discharge the accused. +

+

9. Therefore, there is no substance in the + submissions made by the respondent that pursuant + to disclosure in record of proceedings dated + 10.11.2017 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in + the SLP between the parties, which is reproduced + herein above, the trial Court should not + entertain the application for discharge and + applicant may not be discharged. There is one + + + Page 8 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 8 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + another reason for such determination i.e. + perusal of impugned order makes it clear that + respondent has not taken such stand before the + trial Court and to that extent, it is a new plea + at this stage. However, since there is no + substance in such plea, the present revision + application cannot be dismissed solely for such + reason and thereby, we have to decide the + revision application on merits. +

+

10. The third similar technical plea by the + respondent is to the effect that, now, when thef + Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is seized with the + issued in above-referred SLP, this court should + not entertain such revision application. It is + already observed herein above, that SLP pending + before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India though + between the same parties and though factual + details before both the courts may be similar, + the fact remains that the issue before the SLP is + with reference to the entitlement of the + applicant u/s.439 of the Cr.P.C. to be released + on bail, wherein consideration would be + altogether different; whereas, at present, the + issues under consideration are with reference to + the entitlement of the applicant to be discharged + u/s.227 of the Cr.P.C. Moreover, it is also + settled legal position that in absence of + specific direction by the higher authority not to + proceed further in particular case or in absence + of stay of further proceedings by higher + authority, no court is restricted or prohibited + + Page 9 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 9 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + to proceed further in accordance with law to + dispose of any matter as early as possible so as + to meet the ends of justice. +

+ +

11. Therefore, there is no substance in any + technical ground raised by the respondent and + thus, now, we shall verify the factual details to + examine that whether there is any irregularity or + illegality in the impugned order or not; in + rejecting the application to discharge the + applicant from the charges levelled against him. +

+

12. It is undisputed fact that the applicant is + the President-Trustee of `Sumandeep Vidyapeeth, a + Deemed university, which runs four Educational + Institutions, including one Medical College. +

+

13. Complaint has been lodged by one Dr. + Jasminaben, wife of Dilipbhai Devda; doctor by + profession, alleging a demand of Rs. 20 lakh by + the applicant and other co-accused who are stated + to be in conspiracy with each other. The + complainant has averred that her daughter Maurvi + was MBBS student since August, 2012 and for MBBS + degree course, a sum of Rs. 31,59,000/- towards + fees for 4 years was paid in advance to the + Educational Institution and not a single paisa + was due when her final year examination was due + in the year 2017. The examination was held + between 19.1.2017 and 16.2.2017. As the date of + examination was fast approaching, the students + + + + Page 10 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 10 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + were required to fill up necessary form in the + students section of the institute and + accordingly, when Maurvi approached the student + section for form; she was told that she would be + able to fill up the form only if no objection + certificate was obtained from the applicant + herein. This fact was informed by the student to + his father; husband of the complainant who is + also a doctor by profession. He met the applicant + who demanded from him a sum of Rs. 20 lakh. He + retorted saying that what for such a huge sum was + demanded from him though the entire fee was paid + in advance. He was told to meet the co-accused + Bharatbhai Sawant and pay him the said money. + Particulars of Bharatbhai Sawant including his + mobile number were also given by the applicant to + the husband of the complainant. After meeting + Bharatbhai Sawant, the husband of the complainant + repeated the same question that on what account + such huge demand was made from him but accused + Bharatbhai Sawant is stated to have insisted for + the money. As the facts detailed in the complaint + would suggest, Bharatbhai Sawant kept on + insisting for the payment on different occasions. + It is also borne out from the complaint that the + husband of the complainant was told that owing to + demonetisation, if he does not have huge amount + of cash, cheque in the sum of Rs. 20 lakh can be + deposited and such cheque would be returned once + cash amount is paid. It is also borne out from + the FIR that the complainant's husband went on + + + Page 11 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 11 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + asking for time on few occasions for arrangement + of cash. It is also borne out from the FIR that + one Dr. Dhruvin had close relations with the + applicant and at the time of initial admission + process in the Medical Institution he was of the + help to the complainant's husband. He had given + mobile number to enable the complainant's husband + to contact him in case of need. The complainant + and her husband, therefore, contacted Dr. + Dhruvin; on intervention of whom eventually it + was agreed that cheque in the sum of Rs. 20 lakh + would be deposited within two days in the name of + the Institution and would be returned on payment + of Rs. 20 lakh in cash. The complainant's + daughter was permitted to fill in the examination + form upon intervention of Dr. Dhruvin. However, + the cheques were not deposited and the date of + examination was fast approaching. This delay made + the applicant and Bharatbhai restless and upon + insistence of Bharatbhai Sawant, eventually, in + order to see that the complainants daughter is + not deprived of the seat in the examination, two + cheques of each in the sum of Rs. 10 lakh were + deposited with the Institution. It is also borne + out that for the purpose of depositing of the + cheques the student who was in the midst of the + examination was disturbed and called to the + office and was told that she was required to + deposit the cheques. +

+

14. It is also borne out from the FIR that after + consuming some time and upon insistence of + + Page 12 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 12 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + Bharatbhai, eventually, the complainant's husband + arranged for money but as the complainant was not + in favour of paying illegal gratification, she + registered the case against the applicant and + others. +

+

15. It is stated that three different panchnamas + were drawn and raid was successfully carried out. + Necessary procedure was followed and + phenolphthalein powder was applied to the + currency notes and were delivered to accused - + Bharatbhai who is stated to have accounted the + said money by means of counting machine and the + said amount tainted with phenolphthalein powder + was recovered from him. +

+

16. In another raid 220 undated cheques drawn in + the name of the Institution, worth more than Rs. + 100 crore as also certain fixed deposits came to + be recovered from the accountants office of the + Institution, which was managed by one Purvi. It + is quite clear that presence of cheques and FDRs + may never prove the offence under the PC Act. +

+

17. In the third raid it is stated that the + incriminating material came to be recovered from + the office of the applicant. However, there is no + clarity that what is incriminating in such other + material. +

+

18. In the background of the aforesaid facts, + rival contentions are required to be answered. +

+ + + Page 13 of 90 + +

HC-NIC Page 13 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + +

19. As against that, the applicant has come + forward, both before the trial Court as well as + this court with following submissions to get him + discharged from the charges levelled against him. +

+

a) From the perusal of chargesheet filed by the + investigating agency, no prima facie case is + established under the provisions of the PC Act. +

+

b) Whatever is submitted with chargesheet, is + not sufficient for proceeding against the + applicant under the PC Act and to prove that, + applicant had demanded or accepted any illegal + gratification. +

+

c) The applicant is neither a public servant as + defined under the provisions of Section 2(c) of + the PC Act nor he has aided any public servant in + commission of alleged offence. +

+

d) The applicant does not hold any post, + whatsoever in Sumandeep Deemed to be an + University and therefore, invocation of Sections + of PC Act is unwarranted. +

+

e) So far as Educational Institutions are + concerned, special provisions are there under + definition clause in PC Act, however, applicant + does not come within the purview of any of the + said provision and therefore, he cannot be + charged with the offences under the PC Act. +

+ + Page 14 of 90 + +

HC-NIC Page 14 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + +

f) The applicant is neither a Chairman, Member + or an employee of any Service Commission or Board + or Member of any Selection Commission appointed + by such Service Commission or Board for + conducting any examination or making any + selection on behalf of such Service Commission or + Board within the meaning of Section 2(c)(x). +

+

g) The applicant is also not a Vice-Chancellor + nor a Member of any governing body, neither + Professor, Reader, Lecturer or Teacher of any + other cadre of any University and his services + were never availed by any University or any other + public authority in connection with holding or + conducting of examinations. +

+

h) Applicant is also not an office bearer or an + employee of any educational, scientific, social, + cultural or other Institution receiving any grant + or financial assistance from the Central or State + Government or local or other public authority and + therefore, he does not fall within the definition + of public servant. +

+

i) The applicant has been wrongly arrayed as a + public servant and therefore, the charges under + the PC Act, cannot be framed against him. +

+

j) When special provisions are in existence and + when charges cannot be framed under such special + + + Page 15 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 15 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + provisions, resort cannot be made to general + provisions, since general provisions cannot + abrogate such special provisions. Therefore, + applicant not being a public servant under the + special provisions, cannot be arrayed as a public + servant under other general provisions. +

+

k) The applicant does not hold any office, + authorising or requiring him to discharge any + public duty. +

+

l) There is no evidence in the chargesheet + submitted against the applicant to suggest that + applicant hold any office or he was authorised by + any authority of the State Government or Central + Government to discharged any public duty and + therefore, he cannot be arrayed as a public + servant. +

+

m) Otherwise also, chargesheet is bad in law in + view of provisions of Section 19(1)(c) of the PC + Act and Sections 50 and 51 of the Gujarat Public + Trusts Act, 2011 ('Trusts Act', for short). +

+

n) The office of the Charity Commissioner is not + entitled to accord any sanction to prosecute the + applicant as a public servant and sanction for + prosecution obtained by the prosecuting agency + from the incharge Joint Charity Commissioner is + bad in law. +

+ + + Page 16 of 90 + +

HC-NIC Page 16 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + +

o) The provisions of law invoked for the purpose + of granting sanction against the applicant is in + fact relates to the filing of the civil suit and + does not contemplate any authority to grant + sanction for prosecution under the PC Act. +

+

p) The Charity Commissioner has neither the + power to appoint the applicant nor remove the + applicant and there is no power under Sections 50 + and 51 of the Trusts Act, which authorises the + Charity Commissioner to grant sanction as + contemplated under Section 19 of the PC Act. +

+

q) The grant of valid sanction is sacrosanct for + proceeding further under the PC Act. However, + there is no valid sanction, which is pre- + requisite. +

+

r) The applicant was a Trustee of a public + charitable trust, which does not administer or + govern the Deemed to be University and the + Colleges constituted under it. +

+

s) The Deemed University is governed by the + Board of Management and its officers as per the + University Grants Commission Regulations, 2016 + ('UGC Regulations', for short) and all other + applicable regulations from time to time. +

+

t) There is no authority conferred upon the + trust so as to administer and manage the + + + Page 17 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 17 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + Educational Institution and trust is not declared + as Deemed to be University, control of which is + conferred upon the governing Board. +

+

u) Section 2(c)(xi) of the PC Act does not + include in its purview any Deemed University and + thereby, when the legislature intended to cover + only the University and not Deemed to be + University, and when it is otherwise clear that + the Deemed to be University, is not an + University, provisions of PC Act, cannot be + invoked in reference to an Institution, which is + not recorded, but which is only an institution, + Deemed to be an University and therefore, what is + included by the legislature, cannot be undone by + adopting the principle of purposive + interpretation because the legislature has + specifically not provided the deeming fiction in + Section 2(c)(xi) of the PC Act though deeming + fiction has been provided whenever the + legislature has thought it fit. +

+

v) UGC Regulations restrict the word of + 'University' by the Institutions, which are + defined as 'Deemed to be University'. Thus, the + Institution which is defined as 'Deemed to be + University', is certainly different from the + regular University as defined under the + University Grants Commission Act, 1956 ('UGC + Act', for short). Therefore, provisions of PC Act + + + Page 18 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 18 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + cannot be invoked against the office bearers of + an Institution, which is defined as Deemed to be + University and thereby, present proceedings are + required to be dropped since the Institution + under reference is not an University. +

+

w) One cannot imply anything in penal statute, + which is inconsistent with the words expressly + used, since the particular word used by the + legislature has to be understood strictly and + thereby, there is no scope for interpreting + criminal statute broadly, elaborately and + progressively when the scheme of statute clearly + shows that certain words were deliberately + omitted by the legislature for a particular + purpose or motive and thus, it is not open to the + investigating agency or the courts to add those + words either by confirming to the supposed + intention of the legislature or because the + insertion or the omission suits the ideology of + the investigating agency. Otherwise, it would + amount to interpolation of the statutory + provisions. In support of such submission, + applicant is relying upon the judgment by a + Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of + India in the case of Tolaram Relumal Vs. State of + Bombay reported in AIR 1954 SC 496. +

+ +

20. In addition to above-referred submissions + against the impugned order, learned senior + + + Page 19 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 19 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + counsel Mr. Nanavaty for the applicant is also + submitting as under:- +

+
(1) It is unfortunate that the investigating + agency and complainant have averred false + statement in the complaint itself so as to + initiate proceedings against the applicant. It is + undisputed fact that neither Sumandeep Vidyapith + nor any of its trust or associate Institutions + are getting grant from the Central Government. In + complaint, it is stated that Sumandeep Vidyapith + is getting grant from the Central Government. +

Similarly, though there is not a single piece of + evidence to confirm that applicant has been + authorised by any law or any authority to perform + any duty. In its averred that applicant has + misused his powers assigned under the statute by + accepting bribe. +

+

(2) It is specifically submitted that disclosure + regarding grant from Central Government and + assignment of powers by statute to the applicant + is absolutely incriminating statement and that + Sumandeep Vidyapith is unaided self-financed + institute. Thereby, it is specifically emphasized + by the applicant that neither the trust nor its + Institutions are getting any financial support or + aid to carry out educational activities from + either of the Government i.e. State or Central + and that all the expenses incurred by such + Institutions are managed from self-finance. +

+ + + Page 20 of 90 + +

HC-NIC Page 20 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + (3) It is also specifically submitted and + emphasized that applicant is not permanent + President of any Institution, but he is Trustee + of Sumandeep Charitable Trust, which is + sponsoring such Educational Institutions, + including Sumandeep Vidyapith, which is unaided, + self-financed Educational Institution run by its + governing body, purely on self-finance.

+
+         (4)    It       is         specifically                  emphasized               that             no
+         authority            whatsoever               is         conferred              upon          the
+         applicant             in        any        law           to        take           part             in
+

administration of such Deemed to be University + and thereby, he is not a public servant with + reference to either of the provisions viz. + Section 2(c)(viii) or (x), (xi) and (xii) and + that he is not holding any office or not + performing any public duty and not authorised in + any manner and therefore, he is not a public + servant so as to prosecute him under PC Act. In + support of such submission, applicant is relying + upon UGC Regulations, more particularly, as per + paragraphs 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 of such Regulations, + the highest governing body of the Deemed to be + University, shall be of Board of Management to be + headed by the Vice Chancellor; whereas, pursuant + to paragraph 5.5, such Board of Management of the + Institution shall be independent of the + sponsoring Society/Trust/Company and manage the + Society/Trust/Company with full autonomy to + perform its academic and administrative and + responsibilities and that number of + + Page 21 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 21 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + representative(es)/nominee(es) sponsoring + Society/Trust/Company on the Board of Management + shall be limited to maximum four. Thereby, when + in paragraph 5.7, list of 9 category of members + are prescribed, confirming that there shall be + Board of Management consisting of them and + therein the nominees sponsored by the + Society/Trust/Company shall be maximum four in + number, there is least chance of having any + possibility of misdeed. +

+

(5) Reference and reliance is also placed on + paragraph 4.4 of A-1 of UGC Regulations, which + provides for the powers of Board of Management, + wherein different activities are described, which + includes fixation of fees and other financial + activities. +

+

(6) Reference and reliance is also placed on A-2 + to such UGC Regulations, which is describing + other authorities of the Institutions, which are + considered as Deemed to be University, submitting + that list of such Officers do not include the + trustee as one of the trustee of such educational + institution and therefore, applicant being + trustee of Sumandeep Charitable Trust, cannot be + identified as an Officer of an Institution. + Similarly, in paragraph 6.8 of such A-2, there is + details with reference to Controller of + Examination and it also do not include the + trustee as such. +

+ + + Page 22 of 90 + +

HC-NIC Page 22 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + (7) Factual allegation has no relevance + considering the position of the applicant, not + being a public servant and not holding any public + office and not performing any public duty. +

+

(8) Reference is made to provisions of Sections + 2(f) and 3 of the UGC Act so as to understand the + definition and difference between the + "University" and "Deemed University". Section + 2(f) defines the word "University" confirming + that it means a University established or + incorporated by or under a Central Act, a + Provincial Act or a State Act and includes any + such Institution as may be in consultation with + the University concerned be recognized by + Commission in accordance with Regulations made in + this behalf under this Act. Whereas, Section 3 + provides that the Central Government may, on the + advice of the Commission, declare by notification + in Official Gazette that any Institution for + higher education, other than a University, shall + be Deemed to be a University, for the purpose of + this Act and on such a declaration being made, + all the provisions of this Act shall apply to + such Institution as if it were an University + within the meaning of Clause (f) of Section 2; + submitting that thereby, Deemed University is + different than a University as defined under the + Act, because to consider any Institution as a + Deemed University, is different than identifying + particular Institution as Deemed University; + because Section 23 of the same Act prohibits the + + Page 23 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 23 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + use of the word "University" associated with its + name in any manner whatsoever. Section 23 makes + it clear that no Institution, whether a corporate + body or not, other than a University established + or incorporated by or under Central Government or + Provincial Act or a State Act, shall be entitled + to have the word "University" associated with its + name in any manner whatsoever. Further reference + is made to Section 12A(1) of the Act, wherein it + is made clear that University means a University + or an Institution referred to in Sub-Section (1) + of Section 22 while providing Regulation of Fees + and Prohibition of Donations in Certain Cases. +

+

(9) In furtherance to above provisions, it is + submitted that the stand of the UGC on such issue + is declared by the UGC itself before the Hon'ble + Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Kumar + & Ors. Vs. Kartar Singh & Ors., which is + connected with the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation + Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors. in + Civil Appeal Nos.17869 - 17870 and 17902 - 17905 + of 2017 when Additional Solicitor General of + India appearing for UGC has submitted before the + Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that inclusive + definition of "University" in UGC Act was in a + completely and different context and the idea was + essentially to recognize Deemed to be University + for the purpose of funding and that such Deemed + to be University is not an University for all + purposes. +

+ + + Page 24 of 90 + +

HC-NIC Page 24 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + In light of above submission, applicant is + relying upon determination in paragraph 42 by + Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of + Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (supra), + which reads as under:- +

+ +
"42. The grant or empowerment in + Bharathidasan (supra) in favour of the + University in question came from the State + enactment which was its Charter. There is no + such Charter or grant in favour of a Deemed + to be University under any provision of the + UGC Act. All thatthe UGC Act does is to + confer Deemed to be University status on an + Institution which has achieved excellence in + its chosen field so that its development in + the concerned field and its attempts to + attain excellence and conduct research are + not hampered on any count and at the same + time it could be extended the facilities of + Aid. It is precisely for this that the + distinction between a regular University + established under a Central Act, a + Provincial Act or a State Act and an + Institution Deemed to be University is + maintained in the UGC Act. A Deemed to be + University can certainly award degrees but + cannot use the word "University" by virtue + of Section 23 of the UGC Act. Even after + conferral of such status it still continues + to be "an Institution Deemed to be + University" and if it is equated with a + University in every sense of the term it + would lead to incoherent and incongruous + results, in that its area of operation or the + field of its activity would be completely + unlimited and unregulated. In our view that + is certainly not the intent of the UGC Act." +
+ + + + Page 25 of 90 + +

HC-NIC Page 25 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + Though such observation is with reference to + the activities of the Deemed Universities and in + the field of educational activities, and that it + has been held that Deemed Universities are + required to abide by the provisions of 1994 AICTE + Regulations and could not introduce courses + leading to award of degrees in Engineering + without the approval of AICTE. 1994 AICTE + Regulations, the fact remains that Hon'ble the + Supreme Court of India has categorically held in + paragraph 43 that conceptually, there is some + difference between the status of the University + established under State Law and that of a Deemed + to be University and that the expectation from a + Deemed to be University are of a different + dimension i.e. excellence, research and + advancement in its chosen field for which such + status was accorded. +

+ +

(10) The UGC has issued a Circular on 10.11.2017 + to restrict use of word "University" by the + "Deemed University". Pursuant to paragraph 20 of + UGC Regulations and in case between A. + Subramaniam Vs. The Inspector of Police, CBI + Economic Offences Unit II. by its judgment dated + 25.6.2014 in Crl.RC.No.124 of 2013, the High + Court of Judicature at Madras has while + discharging the applicant before it from the + charges and while quashing the order framing the + charges under PC Act hold that the applicant + + + Page 26 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 26 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + before it, who is Dy. Registrar (Academics) of a + Deemed to be University is not a public servant + and does not come under the purview of Section + 2(c) of the PC Act. Therefore, it is submitted + that though SLP against such order may be pending + before the Hon'ble Supreme Court since such + judgment is neither stayed nor there is any + specific order so as to negativate the + observations in such judgment, till date, the + judgment is certainly effective and holds the + field on the subject that whether persons + connected with Deemed University can be termed as + a public servant or not. It is also submitted + that facts of the applicant is far better than + the applicant before the Madras High Court + inasmuch as, applicant before the Madras High + Court was in fact serving in Deemed University; + whereas, the present applicant is simply a + Trustee of the trust and not directly connected + in activities of the Deemed University, which is + under reference. The applicant has relied upon + paragraphs 24, 27, 30, 35, 38, 39, 40, 47, and 48 + of such judgment. +

+

(11) With reference to above submissions, it is + reiterated by the applicant that the Institution + before us is not getting any aid from the + Government and therefore, strict view of + definition of public servant and public duty is + to be taken and thereby, it is submitted that + even if there is factual material regarding + acceptance of some amount, it cannot be termed as + + Page 27 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 27 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + bribe. +

+

21. The applicant is relying upon several + decisions in support of above submissions, which + are briefly discussed as under:- +

+
(1) In Tolaram Relumal's case (supra), it is held + that it is a well settled rule of construction + of penal statutes that if two possible and + reasonable constructions can be put upon a penal + provision, the Court must lean towards that + construction which exempts the subject from + penalty rather than the one which imposes + penalty. It is not competent to the Court to + stretch the meaning of an expression used by the + Legislature in order to carry out the intention + of the Legislature and therefore, though there + was acceptance of money by the appellant before + the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held that it was + not made punishable under relevant statute. +
+
(2) In Spicer v Holt reported in (1976) 3 All + ER 71, the House of Lords has quoted the + following paragraphs from the case of Barnard Vs. + Gorman reported in (1941)3 All ER 45:- +
+
"Our duty in the matter is plain. We must + note give the statutory words a wider meaning + merely because, on a narrower construction, + the words might leave on a loophole for fraud + against the Revenue. If, on the proper + construction of the section, that is the + result, it is not for judges to attempt to + cure it. That is the business of Parliament. + Our duty is to take the words as they stand + + + Page 28 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 28 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + and to given them their true construction, + having regard to the language of the whole + section, and, as far as relevant, of the + whole Act, always preferring the natural + meaning of the word involved, but none the + less always giving the word its appropriate + construction according to the context." +
+ +

(3) In Bijaya Kumar Agrawala Vs. State of Orissa + reported in (1996)5 SCC 1, Hon'ble the Supreme + Court of India has hold that strict construction + is the general rule of penal statutes and + reproduced the determination in the case of + Tolaram Relumal's case (supra) confirming that + the same principle was echoed in the judgment of + the five Judge Bench in the case of Sanjay Dutt + v. The State through C.B.I., Bombay reported in + (1994)5 JT(SC) 225 : (1994 AIR SCW 4360) which + approved an earlier expression of the rule by us + in Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra + Bhimraj Bijiava, (1990)4 SCC 76 to reconfirm that + "when a law visits a person with serious penal + consequences extra care must be taken to ensure + that those whom the legislature did not intend to + be covered by the express language of the statute + are not roped in by stretching the language of + the law" +

+
(4) In Sakshi vs. Union of India reported in + (2004)5 SCC 518 again the Hon'ble the Supreme + Court of India has held that It is well settled + principle that the intention of the Legislature + is primarily to be gathered form the language + + + + Page 29 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 29 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + used, which means that attention should be paid + to what has been said as also to what has not + been said. As a consequence a construction which + requires for its support addition or substitution + of words or which results in rejection of words + as meaningless has to be avoided. It is contrary + to all rules of construction to read words into + an Act unless it is absolutely necessary to do + so. Similarly it is wrong and dangerous to + proceed by substituting some other words for + words of the statute. It is equally well settled + that a statute enacting an offence or imposing a + penalty is strictly construed. The fact that an + enactment is a penal provision is in itself a + reason for hesitating before ascribing to phrases + used in it a meaning broarder than that they + would ordinarily bear. +
+

Relying upon such determination, the Hon'ble + Supreme Court has further held that Prosecution + of an accused for any offence on radically + enlarged meaning of any provision as suggested by + the petitioner may violate the guarantee + enshrined in Article 20(1) of the Constitution + which says that no person shall be convicted of + any offence except for violation of a law in + force at the time of the commission of the act + charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a + penalty greater than that which might have been + inflicted under the law in force at the time of + the commission of the offence. The first and + foremost requirement in criminal law is that it + + Page 30 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 30 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + should be absolutely certain and clear. An + exercise to alter any definition by a process of + judicial interpretation, and that too when there + is no ambiguity in the provisions of the + enactment, is bound to result in good deal of + chaos and confusion, and will not be in the + interest of society at large. +

+

(5) In Aparna A. Shah Vs. Sheth Developers + Private Limited & Anr. reported in (2013)8 SCC + 71, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has + reiterated the principle that strict + interpretation is required to be given to penal + statutes. +

+

(6) In D.R. Venkatachalam & Ors. Vs. Dy. + Transport Commissioner & Ors. reported in (1977)2 + SCC 273, the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme + Court of India has observed as under:- +

+
"28. It is, however, becoming increasingly + fashionable to start with some` theory of what is + basic to a provision or a chapter or in a statute + or even to our Constitution in order to interpret + and determine the meaning of a particular provision + or rule made to sub-serve an assumed "basic" +

requirement. I think that this novel method of + construction puts, if I may say so, the cart before + the horse. It is apt to seriously mislead us + unless the tendency to use such a mode of + construction is checked or corrected by this + Court. What is basic for a section or a chapter in a + statute is provided: firstly, by the words used in + the statute itself; secondly, by the context in + which a provision occurs, or, in other words, by + reading the statute as a whole; thirdly, by the + preamble which could supply the "key" to the + meaning of the statute in cases of uncertainty or + doubt; and, fourthly, where some further aid to + + + + Page 31 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 31 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + construction may still be needed to resolve an + uncertainty by the legislative history which + discloses the wider context or perspective in + which a provision was made to meet a particular + need or to satisfy a particular purpose. The + last mentioned method consists of an application + of the Mischief Rule laid down in Heydon's case + long ago + + +

29. If we start from a theory as to. what the real + purpose or need is or could be, the danger is that + we may be injecting a subjective notion or purpose + of our own into what is, after all, a legal question + of construction or interpretation, according to + well recognised principles, although it may be + necessary, in exceptional eases, to explain or + fortify the interpretation adopted in the light of + so well under- stood and. well known a purpose or + theory that we could take judicial notice of it and + refer to it. The exposition of the well known + purpose or theoretical foundation must, however, + generally, flow from and explain an interpretation + adopted, on the strength of legally acceptable and + accepted canons of construction, if we are to avoid + the danger of an a priori determination of the + meaning of a provision based on our own preconceived + notions of an ideological structure or scheme into + which the provision to be interpreted is somehow + fitted. The path of judicial certainty and + predictability has to be paved with well settled + principles of construction and interpretation. We + cannot let it develop into a slippery slope be-set + with hazardous possibilities. The science of + statutory construction and interpretation- I think + can call it that--rests on certain systematised + principles and rules of common sense, logic, and + reason. It can not be transformed into a happy + hunting ground for whatever may captivate the + forensic or judicial fancy or become something akin + to poetry without even the attractions of euphony. +

+ +

(7) In State of Bihar Vs. Bhagirath Sharma & + Anr. reported in (1973)2 SCC 257 Hon'ble the + Supreme Court of India has held that according to + the fundamental principles of criminal + jurisprudence, which reflects fair play, the + + + Page 32 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 32 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + statute should clearly specify what is ones + obligation and what act of commission or omission + constitute a criminal offence. +

+

22. The learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavaty for + the applicant has also pressed upon to consider + the principle against doubtful penalisation + submitting that whenever it can be argued that an + enactment may have a legal meaning regarding + infliction of a detriment of any kind, the + principle against doubtful penalisation comes + into play. If the detriment is minor, the + principle will carry little weight. If the + detriment is severe, the principle will be + correspondingly powerful. It is a matter of + degree - the greater the unfairness, the more it + is to be expected that Parliament will make it + clear if that is intended. However, it operates, + the principle requires that persons should not be + subjected by law to any sort of detriment unless + this is imposted by clear words. Those who + content that a penalty may be inflicted must show + that the words of the Act distinctly enact that + it shall be incurred under the present + circumstances. They must fail if the words are + merely equally capable of a construction that + would, and one that would not, inflict the + penalty. The strict construction of penal + statutes seems to manifest itself in four ways: +

in the requirement of express language for the + creation of an offence; in interpreting strictly + words setting out the elements of an offence; in + + Page 33 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 33 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + requiring the fulfillment to the letter of + statutory conditions precedent to the infliction + of punishment; and in insisting on the strict + observance of technical provisions concerning + criminal procedure and jurisdiction. +
+

23. In addition to above-referred submission on + facts and concepts with reference to the + consideration of the applicant as public servant + or his duties as public duty, the applicant has + also assailed the chargesheet and impugned order + on procedural aspect also, submitting that no + prosecution can be initiated without proper and + valid sanction and that in the present case, + there is neither proper and valid sanction and + that in fact, when applicant is not a public + servant, practically, nobody can accord sanction + to prosecute him and when sanction is sine qua + non to initiate the proceeding under the PC Act, + on such ground also prosecution initiated by the + respondent, is unwarranted and applicant needs to + be discharged. In support of such submission, + applicant has submitted as under:- +

+ +
(a) Sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act has + been granted by the Incharge Joint Charity + Commissioner; whereas, the provision of Section + 19 of the PC Act makes it clear that no court + shall take cognizance of offences punishable + under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to + have been committed by a public servant except + with the previous sanction in following manner:- +
+ Page 34 of 90 + +
HC-NIC Page 34 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + (1) By or with the sanction of the Central + Government in case of a person, who is employed + in connection with the affairs of the Union and + is not removable from his office save by or with + the sanction of that Government; +
+
(2) By or with the sanction of the State + Government in case of a person, who is employed + in connection with the affairs of the Union and + is not removable from his office save by or with + the sanction of that Government; +
+
(3) In the case of any other person, the + authority competent to remove him from his + office. +
+
(b) Therefore, it is submitted that the office of + the Charity Commissioner, and more particularly, + Incharge Joint Charity Commissioner, is not + competent to remove the applicant from his office + as a Trustee of the trust, the sanction accorded + by the Incharge Joint Charity Commissioner is not + proper and valid sanction and therefore, + prosecution cannot be initiated. It is quite + clear that Section 19 is couched in mandatory + terms and forbids courts from taking cognizance + of any offence against public servant except with + the previous sanction of competent authority + enumerated in Clause a, b and c as above, which + is to be considered if at all as a public + servant, then, he would be governed by Clause (c) + + + Page 35 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 35 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + of Section 19 and sanction would be required to + be accorded by the authority competent to remove + him from office. However, there is no authority + conferred upon the Charity Commissioner acting + under the provisions of the Trusts Act. It is + submitted that there is no authority conferred + upon the Charity Commissioner acting under the + provisions of such Act either under Sections 50 + or 51 or under any other provisions to remove the + trustee. Therefore, either the Charity + Commissioner or his delegate, the Incharge Joint + Charity Commissioner has no authority to remove + the trustee and thus, sanction obtained from them + is not in accordance with Section 19(1)(c) of the + PC Act. It is quite clear that the sanction by a + person not authorised by law would be without + jurisdiction and thereby, nullity and therefore, + no cognizance can be taken by the court on the + basis of such sanction. It is further submitted + that duties and powers of qualification of + Charity Commissioner does not include the powers + to remove any trustee though the Charity + Commissioner may have a power to file a suit for + and on behalf of any trust and or to direct the + trust and to institute a suit so as to safeguard + the rights of such trust. But, extending such + power to accord the sanction for criminal + proceedings is certainly unwarranted and amounts + to exercising the jurisdiction, which is + otherwise not vested in such officer by law. +

Therefore, the observation by the Charity + + + Page 36 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 36 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + Commissioner in sanction dated 1.5.2017 that + trustees and office bearers of Sumandeep + Vidyapith falls within the the definition of + public servant u/s.2(c) of the PC Act, is + unwarranted and illegal and that when Sections 50 + and 51 of the Trusts Act is not extending any + such jurisdiction to Charity Commissioner, + sanction based upon Sections 50 and 51 of the + Trusts Act is absolutely illegal and cannot be + considered as proper sanction to prosecute the + petitioner under the PC Act. +

+ +

24. On the ground of sanction, the applicant is + relying upon following decisions:- +

+ +
(a) P.A. Mohandas Vs. State of Kerala reported + in (2003)9 SCC 504, wherein it is held that even + when sanction accorded by the competent authority + prior to the date of such authorisation, then, it + was without jurisdiction and proceedings were + quashed due to non-compliance of Section 19. +
+
(b) Manoranjan Prasad Choudhary Vs. State of + Bihar reported in 2004 SCC (Cri.) 1213 wherein + the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has + reconfirmed that in absence of sanction by + competent authority, the proceeding is vitiated + and liable to be quashed. +
+
(c) State of Goa Vs. Babu Thomas reported in + (2005)8 SCC 130 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court + of India has held that when sanction order is not + + + Page 37 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 37 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + issued by competent authority, even if cognizance + is taken by the trial Judge, it is invalid. The + applicant has read-out paragraphs 4 to 7 of such + judgment and emphasized the observation in + paragraph 12 that when authority that was not a + competent authority to have issued even + authorisation to accord the sanction and when the + authority, which was not competent to accord the + sanction, then, even if cognizance is taken by + the Judge in absence of sanction under the law, + the statute does not authorise him to take + cognizance, since this is a fundamental error, + which invalidates the cognizance as without + jurisdiction. +
+
(d) In State, Inspector of Police, + Vishakhapatnam Vs. Surya Sankaram Karri reported + in 2006 Cri.L.J. 4598 again the Hon'ble Supreme + Court of India has reconfirmed that the sanction + granted by authority, who is not competent to + remove the person from his service, then, such + sanction being without jurisdiction is invalid + and thereby, confirmed that grant of proper + sanction by competent authority is a sine qua non + for taking cognizance of the offence and that the + question as regards sanction may be determined at + an early stage and that when a sanction is + granted by a person not authorised in law, the + same being without jurisdiction, would be nullity + and therefore, no prosecution can be permitted or + in other words, the court is not empowered to + take cognizance in such a case. +
+ Page 38 of 90 + +

HC-NIC Page 38 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + +

(e) In Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka reported + in (2015)14 SCC 186 the applicant has relied upon + and read-out paragraphs 10, 11, 18 to 20 and 22. + I am avoiding to reproduce these paragraphs. + However, it specifically confirms that there is + no manner of doubt that Section 19(1) of the PC + Act is couched in mandatory terms and forbids + courts from taking cognizance of any offence + punishable under PC Act even against public + servants; whereas, in the present case, applicant + is not public servant. The court has relied upon + the case of Babu Thomas (supra) while determining + that if the trial Court proceeds, despite the + invalidity attached to the sanction order, the + same shall be Deemed to be non-est in the eyes of + law and shall not forbid a second trial for the + same offences, upon grant of a valid sanction for + such prosecution. Thereby,it is made clear that + proceeding further despite the invalid sanction + order, should be Deemed as non-est. + +

(f) Gaurishankar Purshottamdas Joshi Vs. State + of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application + (Quashing) No.952 of 2014, wherein the co- + ordinate Bench of this court has in its judgment + dated 29.3.2016 dealt with the similar issue + while making it clear that if a general power to + take cognizance of an offence is vested in a + Court, any prohibition to the exercise of that + power, by any provision of law, must be confined + to the terms of the prohibition. The Court is + + + Page 39 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 39 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + primarily concerned to see that the prosecution + for the offences in cases covered by the + prohibition, shall not commence without complying + that condition contained therein, such as + previous sanction of the competent authority in + the case of a public servant and any other case + with the consent of the party or the party + interested for the prosecution or aggrieved by + the offence.  Thus, from whatsoever angle, Sub- + section (1) of Section 19 of the Act of 1988 is + viewed, no Court of a Special Judge under the Act + can take cognizance of an offence except with the + previous sanction of the appropriate authority. +

+

(g) In State of Uttarakhand Vs. Yogendra Nath + Arora & Anr. reported in (2013)14 SCC 299 again + the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has confirmed + the quashing of prosecution initiated against the + person without valid sanction. +

+

25. As against that, learned APP Mr. Amin has + vehemently opposed the application and read-out + several pages from the chargesheet. However, + those factual details are already narrated in + previous paragraphs and therefore, there is no + reason or sense to reproduce the same again. In + addition to factual details, which may certainly + tempt any individual to think against the + applicant, the State has also tried to convince + the court on technical issues, so as to avoid the + decision in the matter at the earliest or to + dismiss the application on such technical and + + + Page 40 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 40 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + emotional ground. So far as technical issues by + respondent are concerned, they are dealt with in + previous part of the judgment and therefore, it + is not required to be re-discussed except + reiterating the fact that - +

+

(a) Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavaty for the + applicant has specifically made a statement that + he himself is appearing for the applicant before + the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in pending + matter wherein the issue before the Hon'ble + Supreme Court is limited regarding granting of + bail to the applicant and that pendency of this + revision application is already disclosed before + the Hon'ble Supreme Court by both the parties and + therefore, in absence of any specific restrictive + direction to proceed further in the present + matter by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, I + do not see any reason to keep any matter pending + on any such technical ground. +

+

(b) As already discussed herein above, the + Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its record of + proceedings dated 10.11.2017, which is reproduced + herein above that the trial Court shall hear the + arguments on charge and take a view insofar as + framing of charge is concerned and therefore, + whether charge is to be framed or not, is to be + decided by the trial Court and when trial Court + has decided to frame the charge and thereafter + when such order is challenged before this court, + this proceeding is in continuation of framing + + + Page 41 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 41 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + charge and therefore, there is no restriction to + proceed further in present revision application + in accordance with law irrespective of its + result. +

+

(c) Rest of the submission by the respondent on + factual merits and issue raised by the applicant + regarding consideration of 'public servant', + 'public duty' and 'sanction' are dealt with + herein after. +

+

26. Before discussing any submission by + respondent, it is to be recollected here that + while framing the charge, the court has to verify + the available prima facie evidence in the form of + paper of chargesheet and when it is settled legal + position that accused is not entitled to produce + any new evidence at the time of framing of + chargesheet, practically, same principle would + apply to the prosecution also that while framing + the chargesheet or at the time of deciding + discharge application altogether new documents or + facts, which are not part of the chargesheet, + cannot be taken into consideration and thereby, + if any documents, which are not part of the + chargesheet are to to be excluded while + considering the discharge application. However, + considering the fact that chargesheet is a bunch + of more than 1000 pages, we may extend the + benefit of doubt in favour of the prosecution + that all relevant pages relied upon by the + respondent are part of the chargesheet, though + + + Page 42 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 42 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + probably, it is not so. However, such papers also + do not confirm the view of the prosecution so as + to treat the applicant as a public servant. +

+ +

27. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Amin has + referred one affidavit dated 18.3.2017 by the + applicant disclosing that he is resigning with + immediate effect as a trustee of Sumandeep + Vidyapith Trust because he is unable to carry out + the responsibilities as such because of his busy + work schedule submitting that, thereby, till + 18.3.2017, the applicant was certainly trustee of + the Sumandeep Trust. Therefore, it is submitted + that such resignation is after the complaint + dated 23.2.2017 and therefore, it is to be + presumed that applicant was trustee of Sumandeep + Trust. The change report based upon such + affidavit is dated 29.4.2017, which is also + relied upon by learned PP. However, the fact + remains that either as a trustee or in any other + capacity, even if applicant is connected with + Sumandeep Vidyapith, which is not a regular + University getting Government grant in any manner + whatsoever and thereby, when there is no dispute + that it is only a Deemed University, the + submissions recorded herein above on behalf of + the applicant makes it clear that such Deemed + University cannot considered as a regular + University and thereby, applicant cannot be + termed as a public servant and therefore, + irrespective of such change report after the + + + Page 43 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 43 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + complaint, it is clear and obvious that applicant + cannot be termed as a public servant. +

+

28. The respondent is also relying upon a + visiting card in the name of the applicant + disclosing that he is Chancellor of Sumandeep + Vidyapith, which is recovered from the drawer of + his office-table in presence of the Panchas. + However, such visiting card, which is lying in + the table of the drawer, may not be considered as + a proper and sufficient evidence to prove + someones capacity, more particularly when it is + undisputed fact that probably in past applicant + was holding such post, but on the date of + incident, he was not holding such post and it is + not a case of the respondent also that applicant + is Chancellor of the Sumandeep Vidyapith on the + date of incident. Moreover, when card is not + recovered from the person of the applicant nor it + was presented to complainant or any witness, + making a show that applicant is Chancellor, + presence of such card at any place, including + drawer of the table of the applicant in his + office, does not prove anything against the + applicant. At the most, even in case of positive + evidence regarding utilisation of such card, + there may be charge of impersonation, but it + cannot be considered as an evidence to treat the + applicant as a public servant. +

+

29. Similarly, respondent has come forward with a + bunch of documents from the Bank and Government + + + Page 44 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 44 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + Notification dated 17.1.2007, whereby on advice + of the University Grants Commission, the Central + Government has declared Sumandeep Vidyapith as + Deemed to be University having four colleges, + which are affiliated to Gujarat University, + details of such notification and charges are not + material at present because only contention by + the respondent is to the effect that Chairman and + Managing Team. However, as already discussed and + said herein above, even if somebody is part of + the management team of any such Deemed + University, as decided by the Madras High Court + in the case of A. Subramaniam (supra), they + cannot be termed as a public servant. +

+

30. Therefore, some other documents regarding + administration of the Sumandeep Charitable Trust, + are not material and relevant to hold that + applicant is to be treated as a public servant + because no public duty is assigned to him by any + authority or by any statute in any manner + whatsoever and Sumandeep Vidyapith is unaided + self-finance Institution. +

+

31. Similarly, I have perused the statements + referred and relied upon by the respondent at + pages 133, 495, 498, 507, 387, 809, 799, 881 + etc., but it is settled legal position that when + statute does not identify the applicant as a + public servant, then, mere statement of the + witness, would not be enough to treat the + applicant as a public servant. Similarly, if the + + + Page 45 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 45 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + applicant is operating the account of Sumandeep + Vidyapith at the relevant time, but not at the + time of incident, then also, that past position + cannot be considered as an evidence against the + applicant to term him as a public servant. +

+

32. One more technical ground is taken by the + respondent that is to the effect that the + application at Exh.13, which is dismissed by + impugned order dated 29.11.2017 refusing to + discharge the applicant, is not by the applicant + himself, but signed by his advocate only and + therefore, statement in such application, which + is otherwise not on affidavit so also the + contents of present revision application, which + is also not signed by the applicant, but signed + by his advocate only and thereby, all such + contentions are not supported by affidavit, it + cannot be relied upon. However, it is clear that + for an application on law point and that too in + criminal matters, signature of accused is not + much material when his advocate has presented an + application and when applicant has failed + Vakalatnama signed by him in favour of such + advocate. In the present case, applicant is still + in judicial custody Vakalatnama is signed before + the Jailor, which is produced on record with the + revision application and therefore, it cannot be + said that this revision is not filed by the + applicant, but his advocate only. In my opinion, + all such issues are less material than relevant + merits of the case, because though not required + + Page 46 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 46 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + under law, even prosecution has registered a + complaint by making and endorsement by two Panch + witnesses below the signature of the complainant + and Police Inspector before whom complaint is + registered that they have read the complaint and + thereafter they have signed it. I fail to realise + that when complainant is a Doctor, what is logic, + requirement and under which constraint and/or + provision of law, I.O. has thought it proper to + get such complaint endorsed by two independent + witnesses that they have read the complaint and + signed it. How Panchas are material or involved + in registering a complaint? Learned Public + Prosecutor has also submitted that the scope of + revision application is limited and in absence of + non-perversity in order or if order is otherwise + not improper or illegal, then, revision + application cannot be entertained. It is also + submitted that there is no merits in the revision + application, since there is prima facie evidence + to go for the trial. For the purpose, reference + to the impugned order is material wherein it + becomes clear that though the case of A. + Subramaniam (supra) has been referred, the trial + Court has failed to appreciate its decision only + because it is under challenge before the Hon'ble + Supreme Court of India. However, it is also clear + and admitted position that, that order is not yet + set-aside and therefore, pendency of any + litigation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + India would not change the effective decision. +

+ + Page 47 of 90 + +

HC-NIC Page 47 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + The trial Court has also failed to appreciate + that the decisions cited by the respondent before + it and relied upon by the trial Court were not + with reference to the trustee of any private + charitable trust; wherein, though in the case of + C.B.I. Vs. Ramesh Gelli reported in (2016)3 SCC + 788 is concerning the person as a trustee of a + private bank, that decision is mainly based upon + the specific statutory provision in the form of + Section 46(A) of the Banking Regulation Act, + 1949, which confirms that trustees of the private + banks should be treated as public servant. + However, there is no such statutory provision so + far as trustee of any private charitable or + educational trust is concerned in any statute. + The judgment of the trial Court also shows that + trial Court has failed to appreciate all the + submissions by the applicant and to verify that + which public duty is assigned to the applicant by + whom and under which authority or statute and + provision so as to treat him as a public servant + and therefore, when impugned order would drag the + matter for couple of years by calling different + witnesses, it would be nothing, but a futile + exercise to first record the evidence of several + witnesses and then to decide that applicant is + not a public servant so as to acquit him from all + the charges and therefore, when there is lack of + prima facie evidence on record to consider the + applicant as a public servant, there is substance + in the revision application to decide such issue + + + Page 48 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 48 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + and therefore, I do not see any reason to dismiss + the revision application summarily. +

+

33. Reliance is also placed on the case of Orissa + Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (supra) wherein + the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has interfered + in the activities of Deemed University, but it is + not with reference to any criminal liability of + any one, but only with reference to conducting + courses in special subjects like engineering by + way of distance learning, which was not permitted + by the UGC. Hence, in absence of specific + provision and consideration of applicability of + criminal responsibility of a trustee, based upon + such judgment there cannot be wider consideration + as submitted by the prosecution. +

+

34. The core issue in the matter, therefore, rest + upon consideration of the identity of the + applicant as a public servant so as to determine + that whether applicant falls within the + definition of public servant as defined under the + PC Act or not and that whether any public duty is + assigned to him as defined under the PC Act or + not. So far as respondent is concerned, it is + their case that applicant is to be Deemed to be a + public servant considering the factual details of + the incident; whereas it is the case of the + applicant that since no public duty is assigned + to him and since he could not be termed as a + public servant, no prosecution can be initiated + against him under the PC Act and alternatively it + + + Page 49 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 49 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + is submitted that if at all applicant is to be + treated as a public servant, though he is not + assigned any public duty and though he is not + holding any post or responsibility as a trustee + of a private charitable trust, and there is no + valid sanction, which is mandatory under the PC + Act and therefore, in absence of sanction also, + he cannot be prosecuted under PC Act. +

+

35. In support of rival submissions, both the + sides have referred to and relied upon almost + same set of legal provisions and therefore, + instead of reproducing it separately, it would be + appropriate to directly consider the legal + provisions relied upon by both the sides in one + set only so as to ascertain and determine above- + referred issues regarding consideration of + 'public duty', 'public servant' and 'valid + sanction' for continuing the proceedings against + the present applicant. +

+

36. At first instance, we must look into the + provisions of PC Act wherein Section 2(b) defines + the phrase, 'public duties', confirming that it + means a duty in the discharge of which State, + Public or Committee at large has an interest. + Such sub-section has explanation that 'State' + includes a Corporation established by or under a + Central, Provincial or State Act or Authority or + Body under or control or aided by the Government + or a Government Company as defined in Section 617 + of the Companies Act, 1956. Therefore, bare + + + Page 50 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 50 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + reading of Clause (b) of Section 2 of the PC Act + makes it clear that there must be duty wherein + either State or the Public or the Committee at + large has a interest to that extent. Thus, it can + be said that for misdeed or mismanagement or any + other inappropriate activity in an educational + Institution, all above i.e. State, Public and the + Committee at large may have a interest. However, + on one hand, it is certain and clear that + performance of public duty alone would not be + enough to prosectue someone under the PC Act if + ingredients of the offence for which he is to be + prosecuted is absent in alleged activities by + him. It is clear and obvious that all activities + may always not be having a colour of criminality + though it may be tortuous or raising any other + issue and responsibility even if it is misdeed or + otherwise. In the present case, accepting an + amount either as a donation or for extending some + benefit, but in absence of proper evidence + regarding mensrea and criminality of + transactions, it cannot be considered as a crime + though it may be tortuous. As against that it is + submitted by the learned counsel for the + applicant that though definition of public duty + is wide enough, alleged activity by him cannot be + termed as a public duty because he is nowhere + concerned with any such public duty, and more + particularly when he cannot be termed as a public + servant as defined under the PC Act. +

+

37. Therefore, identification of the applicant as + + Page 51 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 51 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + a public servant is sina qua non for further + consideration. Both the sides have referred and + discussed the provisions of Clause (vii), (x) and +

(xi) of Clause (c) of Section 2 of the PC Act. + Clause (c) of Section 2 of the PC Act defines the + phrase 'public servant' and there are as many as + 12 sub-clauses with two explanations, amongst + which at present we are concerned with three Sub- + Clauses as quoted above i.e. Sub-Clause (viii), + which provides that any person, who holds an + office by virtue of which he is authorised or + requires to perform any public duty, can be + considered as public servant. However, when there + is no iota of evidence to prove that applicant is + holding any office and because of holding of such + office, he is authorised or required to perform + any public duty, in absence of such authorisation + and requirement to perform public duty, applicant + cannot be identified as public servant only + because he is connected with the Educational + Institution. At the cost of repetition, it may be + recollected here that except gathering + presumption from some submissions, there is no + cogent and reliable evidence on record to confirm + and prove that on the date of incident, applicant + was holding office and in virtue of such holding, + he was authorised or required to perform any + public duty. Therefore, when no public duty is + attached with the activities of the applicant and + when he is not holding any office as such, such + Sub-Clause would not be applicable to consider + + + Page 52 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 52 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + the applicant as public servant. There is reason + to say so, because there is no prima facie + evidence in bunch of chargesheet to confirm that + applicant is holding particular office and in + pursuance of holding such office, he is + authorised to perform any public duty. Therefore, + even if any of the activity of the applicant is + vulnerable on any count, either as a criminal + offence or as a tortuous act or even immoral act, + he cannot be defined or identified as a public + servant, as defined under the PC Act so as to + prosecute him in such Act. +

+

38. In this regard, the submission of the + applicant, which is recorded herein above are + more reliable so as to approve and endorse it + then the submissions by the respondent, which is + based upon presumption only and therefore, + applicant cannot be considered as a public + servant pursuant to provision of Sub-Clause +

(viii) of Section 2(b). +

+

39. so far as definition Clause (x), (xi) and +

(xii) are concerned, the bare reading of such + provision makes it clear that for being a public + servant, a person must be either a Chairman, + Member of an employee of any Service Commission + or Board for conducting any examination or making + any selection on behalf of such Commission or who + is Vice-Chancellor or Member of any Government + body or Professor or Reader or Lecturer or any + other Teacher or employee of any University and + + + Page 53 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 53 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + any person, whose services have been availed by a + University or public authority in connection with + holding or conducting examinations or any person, + who is an office bearer or an employee of an + Educational, Scientific, Social, Cultural or + other Institution receiving or having received + any financial assistance from the Central + Government or any State Government or local or + other public authority. The bare reading of above + three provisions make it clear that for + identifying any person as a public servant, there + must be any of the above title or activity + attached with such person. The evidence on record + categorically confirms that none of the title or + activity, which is listed herein above with + reference to Sub-Clauses (x), (xi) and (xii) are + attached with the activity of the applicant as a + trustee of a private charitable trust. Similarly, + applicant is not involved in any activity + referred in such Sub-Clauses viz. Conducting and + holding examination or making selection. + Similarly, it is quite clear and obvious that + applicant's trust is a private charitable trust + and the Institutions run through the fund of such + trust are self-aided Institutions and they are + not getting any financial aid in any manner + whatsoever from either of the Government or + public authority. Therefore, when trust, wherein + applicant is only one of the trustee is owning + and managing the Institutions from their self- + finance, without the aid of the public fund and + + + Page 54 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 54 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + when such trustee, though he may be involved in + administration of such Educational Institution in + past, is not concerned with any of the activity + or administration of such Educational Institution + on the date of incident, even if he has accepted + any amount as alleged, since he is not a public + servant and not performing any public duty with + reference to the PC Act, there cannot be a + prosecution against him under PC Act for any such + activity. +

+

40. Learned Public Prosecutor in support of his + submission to consider the applicant as public + servant, in addition to the provision of the PC + Act, relied and referred several provisions of + UGC Act and Regulations. On perusal of all such + provisions, it becomes clear that none of the + provision is applicable to consider the applicant + as a public servant, because the basic difference + is quite clear that Educational Institutions run + and managed by the trust of the applicant are not + full-fledged University as required under law, + but they are part of a Deemed University only and + it is settled legal position that Deemed + University is not a full-fledged University as + required under law, but they are part of a Deemed + University only and it is settled legal position + that Deemed University is not a full-fledged + University, more particularly, when it is not + getting any financial aid from the Government. +

+

41. Therefore, even presumption under Section 20 + + + Page 55 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 55 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + of the PC Act would not be applicable as + suggested by the learned Public Prosecutor in + such case because when charges are under Sections + 7, 8, 10, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the PC Act, we + have to consider provisions of such sections + also. Provision of Section 7 of the Act is quite + clear when it says that public servant taking + gratification other than legal remuneration in + respect of official act. Therefore, what is + required to be seen even as prima facie evidence + is not only restricted to consider that whether + applicant is public servant or not, but it also + needs to be verified that whether amount, if any + received by the applicant is other than legal + remuneration and in respect of official act or + not. Though in general, it can be said that an + amount received in addition to fees may be other + than legal remuneration, the fact remains that + unless there is clarity about a legal + remuneration in respect of official act, + provision of this section would not be attracted. + In any case, though legal remuneration is not + restricted to remuneration, which a public + servant can lawfully demand, but include a + remuneration which is not permitted by the + Government or the organisation, which he serves, + to accept. The fact remains that when applicant + is not doing any official act whatever he has + received, is not against or in addition to any + legal remuneration, but it may be for the purpose + of charitable trust. Similarly, though section + + + Page 56 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 56 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + expands the meaning of public servant by using + the phrase "expected to be a public servant", it + is the case of the prosecution herein that + considering the activities of the applicant, he + is to be expected to be a public servant, then in + that case, the Explanation (a) to Section 7 is + quite clear, which makes it clear that if a + person not expecting to be in office, obtains a + gratification by deceiving the complainant into a + belief that he is about to be in office, and that + he would serve them as expected; in the present + case to appear in the examination; he may be + guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of + offence under Section 7. +

+

42. Whereas, provision of Section 8 is with + reference to influence public servant, but when + there is no such allegation in the chargesheet, I + do not see any reason to permit the trial Court + to proceed further either under Section 7 or 8 of + the PC Act. Similarly, Section 10 of the PC Act + provides for abetment so also Section 109 of the + Indian Penal Code, which is part of the + chargesheet, but as discussed herein above, when + there is no sufficient evidence to consider the + applicant as public servant and thereby, there is + no scope of considering alleged transaction as + illegal gratification, there cannot be + presumption. +

+

43. Whereas, so far as provisions of Sections + 13(1)(b) and 13(2) are concerned, again, the + + + Page 57 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 57 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + basic requirement is that a person against whom + charges are levelled is a public servant; whereas + in the present case, when applicant cannot be + termed as a public servant, there is no scope of + proceeding further against him because Section 13 + also provides for act committed by a public + servant. +

+

44. It cannot be ignored that the maximum + punishment is for 10 years and therefore, unless + there is sentence to proceed further against the + applicant, certainly there is no reason to allow + the prosecution to proceed further when there is + no prima facie evidence to confirm that applicant + is a public servant. +

+

45. Similarly, applicant is right in submitting + that provision of Section 19 of the PC Act is + mandatory and without sanction, no prosecution + can be continued. Whereas, in the present case, + there is no scope of according any prosecution, + because, in fact, there is no authority to remove + the applicant from his office except by following + provisions of the Trusts Act. Therefore, though + Trusts Act provides for certain contingencies + when trustee can be removed or changed, in + absence of any provision to remove the trustee by + particular authority, there is no authority which + can grant sanction under the PC Act against such + trustee of public charitable trust to prosecute + them. It is quite clear and obvious that + applicant is a trustee of charitable trust and + + + Page 58 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 58 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + there is no direct authority, who can appoint or + remove such trustee by administrative order only + and therefore, there is no chance to identify the + applicant as a public servant. There is no + substance in the submission of the respondent + that for considering such legal issues that + whether provision of UGC Act is applicable to + consider the applicant as public servant, so that + whether sanction by Incharge Jt. Charity + Commissioner is proper and in accordance with + law, there is need of full trial so as to + understand such law point. If such submission is + accepted, then, practically, it would amount to + permit the abuse of process of court instead of + securing the ends of justice, because, allowing + the prosecution to continue the trial means + dragging the judicial process for long time for + no valid reason and thereafter, while + interpreting any law, if it is held that + applicant is not a public servant, then, it is + better that such exercise is to be carried out + before the trial itself, more particularly when + allegations made in the FIR and the complaint + even if taken on their face value and accepted in + their entirety, do not make out a case against + the applicant to justify to continue the trial + against him under PC Act, more particularly, on + legal issues raised in this revision application + and discussion and determination herein. As + already discussed herein above, even explanation + to Section 7 confirms that in such cases, even if + + + Page 59 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 59 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + any person is guilty of cheating, he is not + guilty of offence defined under the PC Act, it + could never have been the intention of the law + makers that a speculative complaint be made + against a person and later, if possible, + something could be fished out against him. +

+

46. The perusal of the impugned order makes it + clear that though the learned Judge has gone + through the allegations, he has missed the track + in not finding out how the allegations can + sustain without the bone of material particulars + that whether applicant is a public servant or + not. Whereas, the conclusion regarding public + servant by the trial Court is erroneous in view + of discussion and determination made herein. +

+

47. Thereby, the scrutiny of factual details make + it clear that there is no evidence on record to + confirm that applicant is a public servant or any + public duty is assigned to him and therefore, he + could cannot be charged with the charges under + the PC Act and more particularly, pursuant to + explanation to Section 7, there is now clarity + that, even if there is commission of any other + offence, there cannot be charges under PC Act. +

+

48. Alternatively, even if applicant is + considered as a public servant, there is no valid + sanction under Section 19, which is mandatory and + therefore also, prosecution under PC Act against + the applicant, cannot be allowed to be continued + + + Page 60 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 60 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + in absence of proper and valid sanction. Thereby, + though prosecution may proceed further in + accordance with law against the applicant + pursuant to factual details of the complaint, + without being emotional on such facts, the + judicial authority cannot confirm that because + such facts are serious, applicant should be tried + even under the PC Act, though there is no clarity + that applicant is a public servant and assigned + with any public duty and when there is no valid + sanction for such prosecution. +

+

49. For my above conclusion, it is to be + recollected that applicant is only a trustee of a + charitable trust and Institutions, which are run + by such trust, are also self-financed i.e. they + are not getting any financial aid from the + Government or authority and therefore, there is + no authority to sanction prosecution as required + under Section 19 against the applicant even if he + is termed as a public servant and therefore, + though prosecution may initiate appropriate + proceedings in accordance with law, the available + material and applicable law makes it clear that + applicant cannot be charged with the charges + levelled against him in the chargesheet filed + against him before the trial Court and therefore, + trial Court should have considered the discharge + application irrespective of factual allegations + and without being emotional on such factual + allegations. Therefore, when trial Court has + failed to consider such aspect, which results + + Page 61 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 61 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + into irregularity and illegality and therefore, + there is reason to interfere with in such + impugned order so as to quash and set-aside the + impugned order and to allow the Criminal Revision + Application as prayed for. +

+

50. Respondent has relied upon the case of Ramesh + Gelli (supra), submitting that it cannot be + ignored that the court need not speculate the + reasons for omission of particular provision and + consider that perhaps one possible reason could + be wide expanse of the definition of public + servant in amended Act. It cannot be ignored that + court has relied upon exception after recording + that rule of casus omissus i.e. what has not been + provided for in the statute, cannot be settled by + the courts as a strict rule of interpretation. + Therefore, unless there is a consideration that + the case of the applicant falls within any of + such well-known expectations, as discussed in + such judgment, it cannot be said that courts are + free to presume or to add any provision in the + Act. It cannot be ignored that the case before + the Hon'ble Supreme Court was with reference to + the Bank and that there is a specific provision + in Banking Act and Regulations to consider its + trustees as a public servant. Whereas, in the + present case, there is no such provision and + therefore, considering the explanation to Section + 7 of the PC Act, there is least chance to add + anything in the provisions of PC Act while + identifying the applicant so as to define him as + + Page 62 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 62 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + a public servant though there is no specific + provision to that effect either under PC Act or + under Trusts Act or under any other enactment + whatsoever. +

+

51. As against such judgment of regular two + Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, + the judgment in the case of Tolaram Relumal + (supra), which is by the constitutional Bench, + needs to be followed, more particularly, when + such judgment has not been referred in the case + of Ramesh Gelli (supra). In such judgment by + larger Bench, which has referred several previous + judgments, it has been categorically held that it + is not competent to the Court to stretch the + meaning of an expression used by the Legislature + in order to carry out the intention of the + Legislature. Where penalties for infringement are + imposed it is not legitimate to stretch the + language of a rule, however beneficent its + intention, beyond the fair and ordinary meaning + of its language. Therefore, judgment of Ramesh + Gelli (supra) cannot help the respondent. +

+

52. Above principle has already been followed in + several cases including a case between Jeyaram + Educational Trust Vs. A.G. Syed Mohideen reported + in (2010)2 SCC 513 wherein it is held that a + provision of a statute should have to be read as + it is, in a natural manner, plain and straight, + without adding, substituting or omitting any + words. While doing so, the words used in the + + + Page 63 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 63 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + provision should be assigned and ascribed their + natural, ordinary or popular meaning. Only when + such plain and straight reading, or ascribing the + natural and normal meaning to the words on such + reading, leads to ambiguity, vagueness, + uncertainty, or absurdity which were not + obviously intended by the Legislature or the + Lawmaker, a court should open its interpretation + tool kit containing the settled rules of + construction and interpretation, to arrive at the + true meaning of the provision. While using the + tools of interpretation, the court should + remember that it is not the author of the Statute + who is empowered to amend, substitute or delete, + so as to change the structure and contents. A + court as an interpreter cannot alter or amend the + law. It can only interpret the provision, to make + it meaningful and workable so as to achieve the + legislative object, when there is vagueness, + ambiguity or absurdity. The purpose of + interpretation is not to make a provision what + the Judge thinks it should be, but to make it + what the legislature intended it to be. +

+

53. So far as inappropriate nomenclature by + applicant is concerned, applicant has relied upon + the decision in the case of Mohd. Yousuf Vs. Afaq + Jahan reported in (2006)1 SCC 627, which confirms + that improper disclosure in application, would + not debar the litigant to get appropriate relief + in accordance with law. +

+ + + Page 64 of 90 + +

HC-NIC Page 64 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + +

54. Crime is a social and economic phenomenon and + is as old as the human society. Crime is a legal + concept and has the sanction of the law. Crime or + an offence is "a legal wrong that can be followed + by criminal proceedings which may result into + punishment." The hallmark of criminality is that, + it is breach of the criminal law. The criminal + quality of an act cannot be discovered by + reference to any standard but one: is the act + prohibited with penal consequences. At the same + time, for prosecuting and for awarding + punishment, on found guilty, provisions of law is + to be followed in its strict sense and not as per + desire or wish or wisdom or requirement etc. + Thus,process of criminal trial could not be + molded according to requirement but provision of + law and procedure should be followed properly, + else there would be discriminating treatment and + that would result in to arbitrariness, chaos and + anarchism. +

+

55. Generally, taking or attempting to take or + doing or attempting to do any act by means or + process which is not accepted by the "norms of + the society"; or by unfair means may not be + termed as crime, though it may be violent or + silent; may be complained off or even may not be + complained off by the sufferer unless it is a + conduct accompanied by act or omission prohibited + by law and consequential breach of which is + visited by penal consequences. +

+ + + Page 65 of 90 + +

HC-NIC Page 65 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + +

56. Therefore Essentials of crime are + + (1) There must be some statutory provisions + precisely defining crime; +

(2) There must be some punishment provided by the + statute; and + (3) There must be procedure provided for + punishment. +

+

57. The term "Crime" is probably nowhere defined + in any statue but its meaning is quite clear as + "an action or omission which constitutes an + offence and is punishable by law." Synonyms of + the term crime are offence, unlawful act, illegal + act, breach/violation/infraction of the law, + misdemeanour, misdeed, wrong, felony, violation, + transgression, fault, injury; malfeasance, + malefaction, tort; archaic trespass; but anarchy + i.e. Lawlessness (Lack of Control) or Chaos + could not be considered as an offence. +

+

58. In ordinary language, a crime is an unlawful + act punishable by a state or other authority. The + term "crime" does not, in modern criminal law, + have any simple and universally accepted + definition, though statutory definitions have + been provided for certain purposes. +

+

59. The most popular view is that crime is a + category created by law; in other words, + something is a crime if declared as such by the + relevant and applicable law. One proposed + definition is that a crime or offence (or + criminal offence) is an act harmful not only to + + Page 66 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 66 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + some individual but also to a community, society + or the state ("a public wrong"). Such acts are + forbidden and punishable by law. +

+

60. The notion that acts such as murder, rape and + theft are to be prohibited exists worldwide. What + precisely is a criminal offence is defined by + criminal law of each country. While many have a + catalogue of crimes called the criminal code, in + some common law countries no such comprehensive + statute exists. +

+

61. The State (Government) has the power to + severely restrict one's liberty for committing a + crime. In modern societies, there are procedures + to which investigations and trials must adhere. + If found guilty, an offender may be sentenced to + a form of reparation such as a community + sentence, or, depending on the nature of their + offence, to undergo imprisonment, life + imprisonment or, in some jurisdictions, + execution. +

+

62. Usually, to be classified as a crime, the + "act of doing something criminal" (actusreus) + must - with certain exceptions - be accompanied + by the "intention to do something criminal" (mens + rea). +

+

63. While every crime violates the law, not every + violation of the law counts as a crime. Breaches + of private law (torts and breaches of contract) + + + + Page 67 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 67 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + are not automatically punished by the state, but + can be enforced through civil procedure. +

+

64. Bribe means dishonestly persuade (someone) to + act in one's favour by a gift of money or other + inducement, which is considered as crime. +

+

65. The learned Sessions Judge is of the view + that since UGC Regulations are applicable to + educational institutions and therefore, the + Deemed to be University are to be controlled by + the Government, though it is not stated as to + what extent the Government could interfere in the + affairs of such institution when they are self- + financed and not getting any financial aid from + the Government. +

+

66. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court + in the case of S.S. Dhanoa Vs. Municipal + Corporation, reported at (1981)3 SCC 431 the + question that came up for determination of the + Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the member of + the Indian Administrative service, whose services + are placed at the disposal of the Organization + which is neither local authority, nor Corporation + established by or under the Central Provincial + or State Act by the Central Government or the + Government of the State, can be treated to be + public servant or not. There in it is held that + such person though coming from Indian + Administrative Services is not a public servant + when he is not assigned any duty by the office of + + + Page 68 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 68 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + the Government. Such view has been confirmed in + AIR 2009 SC 483 between Hardeep Singh v. State of + Punjab and Ors. +

+

67. In WP(C).No. 11822 of 2013 (C) between + Karthikeya Varma @ Kartik Varma, Vs. The Union Of + India, the High Court Of Kerala has observed that + primarily, there are two approaches to determine + 'public function' or 'State function' or 'public + duty' carried out by a Corporation or a private + body. They are structural approach and functional + approach. The structural approach is one relating + to examining the structure of the body to + consider whether the body can be treated as a + State instrumentality or an agency of the + Government. +

+

68. Thus, a public servant must be under the + positive command under the law to discharge such + a duty. If a body or Corporation exercises a + State function, without obligation under the + existing laws, it is only an exercise of State + function and cannot be treated as a discharge of + public duty.It is to be noted that penal law + operates on ex ante mode of function of the law. + The citizen must know beforehand the offence + which would entail him to criminal punishment. + The maxim nullapona sine lege has four different + notions which states that the categories of + criminal law should be determined by general + rules; that a person should not be punished + unless his act is a breach of Rules; that penal + + + Page 69 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 69 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + statutes should be strictly construed; that penal + statutes should not have retrospective operation. +

+

69. As far as application of section 2(c) +

(viii) to the case of the applicant is concerned, + learned trial judge has observed that since the + applicant was a public servant within the meaning + of section he obviously was performing public + duty and therefore, his case could also be + covered by section 2(c)(viii). In my view this + interpretation is not correct in as much as if + section had to be made applicable, the + prosecuting agency was under an obligation to + prima facie demonstrate as to what public duty + the applicant was supposed to perform by virtue + of his office held in the trust. Charge sheet + does not indicate that the applicant was + performing any public duty by virtue of his + office. Chargesheet is mainly based on the + factual ground that the applicant is managing the + admissions and appearing in examination by + student and therefore, he is a public servant. + Since the contention of the prosecuting agency + with regard to section 2(c)(viii) has been + rejected by this court, the prosecution agency + was under an obligation to independently + demonstrate as to how section 2(c)(viii) will be + applicable. I do not find anything in the charge + sheet on the basis of which section 2(c)(viii), +

(x), (xi) or (xii) can be made applicable to the + applicant. +

+ + + Page 70 of 90 + +

HC-NIC Page 70 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + +

70. In AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 1801 between Anil + Kumar and Ors. v. M. K. Aiyappa and Anr. it is + held that it is incorrect to say that the + requirement of sanction is only procedural in + nature and hence, directory or else S. 19(3) + would be rendered otiose thus the requirement to + obtain sanction is a mandatory requirement and + Section 19(3) does not have effect of making it + directory. (Para 13) + +

71. In Criminal Revision Application No.25 of + 2014 between Smt. Sumitra W/o Prabhakar Thakre + VS. State of Maharashtra, through Anti Corruption + Bureau, The Bombay High Court has held that the + words 'performance of public duty' cannot be read + independently and these words will have to be + read conjointly with the earlier part of clause +

(i) and that part deals with 'any person in the + service or pay of the Government or remunerated + by the Government by fees or commission for the + performance of any public duty'.In the present + case, there was no material placed before the + learned Sessions Judge by the prosecution to show + that the applicant was receiving either pay from + the Government or remuneration or fees or + commission from the Government. For the reason + that here also the word 'public duty' will have + to be read with keywords 'any person who holds an + office by virtue of which he is authorised or + required to perform any public duty. There is no + material placed on record to show that the + applicant was holding any office and was + + Page 71 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 71 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + authorized by the Government or any authority to + perform public duty. +

+

72. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in + (2009) 13 SCC 418, in the case of State of Punjab + vs. Nirmal Kaur, dealt with the aspect. The + respondent therein was running a private coaching + centre and was facing the accusation of + commission of offences punishable under Section + 420, 465, 467, 468, 470 and 120-B of the Indian + Penal Code and under Section 13(1)(d) read with + Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. It was the stand + of the appellant/State that as the respondent was + running a coaching center, the respondent was + performing public duty. The Apex Court, by + quoting the provisions of Section 2(c), clauses +

(i) to (xii), observed that the stand of the + applicant/State is that in any event, by running + coaching centre, the respondent was performing + public duty. The Apex Court in clear words held + that the submission overlooks basic requirement + of clause (vii) of Section 2(c) which is + applicable only when a public servant holds an + office by which he is authorised or required to + perform any public duty. Here, it is nobody's + case that the applicant was holding any office by + which he was authorized or required to perform + the public duty and as such the judgment in + Nirmal Kaur's case is applicable in the present + matter as the applicant is similarly situated + because the applicant was neither authorized nor + holding any office to perform public duty. +

+ Page 72 of 90 + +

HC-NIC Page 72 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + +

73. The upshot of the above discussions + inevitably has to conclude that the complaint is + not maintainable and the entire proceedings + resulting from the impugned orders have to be + quashed. Accordingly, the same are quashed and + the petition is allowed. In view of the fact that + the complaint is not maintainable, the challenge + in the writ petitions regarding validity + of Sections 2(v) and 2(c)(viii) under the PC + Act does not require consideration. However, if + the act of the petitioners constitutes an offence + under any other provisions of law, this judgment + will not stand in the way of the State in + proceeding against the petitioners in accordance + with law. +

+

74. Hence, I endorse the grounds in paragraphs + 19(h) to (w) so also submissions of the applicant + recorded in paragraphs 20(1) to (4) and (7) to + (11). The perusal and discussion of judgments by + both the sides also confirm that barring a traced + judgment to consider the wide sense of the term + 'public servant', the settled law of larger Bench + of Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the + applicant is required to be followed, which + confirms that there cannot be an addition to + statutory provisions while interpreting in any + manner whatsoever. In view of above facts, now, + it is very much clear that :- +

+ +
(a) The applicant is only trustee of a private + + + Page 73 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 73 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + charitable trust and he is not authorised by any + statute or law to perform any duty with reference + to Educational Institute where complainant's + daughter is studying and therefore, he has no + role or responsibility or duty so far as + Educational Institution is concerned and + therefore, he cannot be termed as a public + servant in any manner whatsoever. +
+
(b) It also very much clear that though + prosecution has tried to pose the Educational + Institution under reference as an aided + institution, the institution is in fact self- +

financed institution and it is run by the funds + available to the trust and such institution is + not getting any financial aid in any manner + whatsoever from the Government or any other + public body in any manner whatsoever and + therefore, when such institution is otherwise + also not an University in its true sense and + defined as Deemed University only, and its + management is carried out by the Board, wherein + applicant is nowhere concerned, applicant can + never be termed as a public servant. +

+

(c) There is no provision in Trusts Act to accord + sanction to prosecute the trustee. The Charity + Commissioner has no authority whatsoever to + accord sanction to prosecute the trustee like the + present applicant and therefore, existence of + physical document confirming that Charity + Commissioner has accorded sanction, could not be + + + Page 74 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 74 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + considered as valid sanction under law and in + absence of sanction, no prosecution can be + initiated under the PC Act. +

+

(d) Section 7 of the PC Act also confirms that in + such a case, if a person is not expecting to be + in office, though he may be guilty of other + offence like cheating etc., but he is not guilty + of the offence defined in this Section. +

+

(e) The pendency of bail application before the + Hon'ble Supreme Court, would not debar to decide + the discharge application, moreover, such plea + was never taken by the prosecution before the + trial Court. +

+

75. In view of above discussion, though there may + be proof of commission of any offence, since + there is no categorical and specific evidence in + the chargesheet, which can even prima-facie show + that the applicant - accused is a public servant, + there is no reason to ask the petitioner to face + the trial for couple of years. If at all it is so + allowed, the entire machinery will unnecessarily + waste their energy, to prove the case against the + present petitioner, even in absence of any prima + facie evidence against him to convict. +

+

76. Therefore, though it is certain that any + accused cannot be discharged if there is any + prima-facie evidence against him, it is also + certain that thereby presence of minimum and + + + + Page 75 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 75 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + prima-facie evidence is must to frame charge and, + therefore, there is provision regarding discharge + of accused in Cr.P.C. that in absence of prima- + facie evidence against any person, the Court may + discharge such person from the alleged offences. +

+

77. In support of such conclusion, reference to + certain judgments of the Apex Court are + necessary, which are as under. +

+

(1) AIR 1997 S.C. 2041: State of Maharashtra vs. + Priya Sharan Maharaj - +

+

It is held that at the stage of framing the + charge, the Court has to consider the material + with a view to find out if there is ground for + presuming that accused has committed an offence + or that there is no sufficient ground for + proceeding against him and not for the charges by + arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely + to lead to a conviction. +

+

(2) AIR 2000 SC 665 = 2000 SCC(2) 57 : State of + MP vs. SB Johari - +

+

It was held that, the Court at the stage of S.227 + and S.228 is not required to appreciate the + evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the + materials produced are sufficient or not for + convicting the accused. Only prima facie case is + to be looked into. The charge can be quashed if + the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to + prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully + + Page 76 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 76 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + accepted, it cannot show that accused committed + that particular offence. Thus it is settled law + that at the stage of framing the charge, the + Court has to prima facie consider whether there + is sufficient ground for proceeding against the + accused. The Court is not required to appreciate + the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that + the materials produced are sufficient or not for + convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied + that a prima facie case is made out for + proceeding further then a charge has to be + framed. The charge can be quashed if the evidence + which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove + the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted + before it is challenged by cross-examination or + rebutted by defence evidence, if any, cannot show + that accused committed the particular offence. In + such case there would be no sufficient ground for + proceeding with the trial. +

+

(3) 2005 SC 359: State of Orissa vs. Debendra + Nath Padhi - +

+

The Apex Court has held that, it is seen from + S.227 of the Code that in a case triable before + the Court of Session, if the Court on + consideration of the record of the case and the + documents submitted therewith and after hearing + the submission of the prosecution and the accused + if the Judge considers that there is no + sufficient ground for proceeding against the + + Page 77 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 77 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + accused, he shall discharge the accused after + recording reasons for doing so. +

+

(4) (1997) 4 SCC 393 = 1997 AIR SCW 1833: State + of Maharashtra vs. Priya Sharan Maharaj - +

+

Referring to the case of Niranjan Singh Karam + Singh Punjabi (supra) held that at the stage of + Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to + evaluate the material and documents on record + with a view to find out if the facts emerging + there from taken at their face value disclose the + existence of all the ingredients constituting the + alleged offence. The Court may, for this limited + purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be + expected even at that initial stage to accept all + that the prosecution states as gospel truth and + even if it is opposed to common sense or the + broad probabilities of the case. Therefore, at + the stage of framing of the charge, the Court has + to consider the material with a view to find out + that whether there is any ground for presuming + that the accused has committed the offence or + that there is not sufficient ground for + proceeding against him and not for the purpose of + arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely + to lead to a conviction. +

+

(5) AIR 2007 SC 2149 = 2007 AIR SCW 3683 - Soma + Chakravarty v. State - +

+

It is held that before framing a charge the court + + + Page 78 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 78 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + must apply its judicial mind on the material + placed on record and must be satisfied that the + commitment of offence by the accused was + possible. +

+

(6) AIR 2012 SC 1890 - General Officer + Commanding Vs. CBI + + It is held that the cognizance has to be taken of + the offence and not of the offender and that it + is the duty of the investigating agency to + collect and to produce cogent evidence against + the accused for framing charge and Court can + convict the accused only if such charges i.e. + evidence is proved on record without reasonable + doubt. Therefore, if there is no chance to prove + a commission of offence by the accused, charge + cannot be framed. +

+

(7) AIR 2009 SC Supplimentary 1744 - State of + M.P. Vs.Sheetla Sahai + + + It is held that if the Court arrives at only + opinion, there is no evidence against the + accused, the Court shall not put accused to + harassment by asking him to face a trial. +

+

78. Thus, the law on the subject is now well + settled, that at Ss.227 and 228 stage, the Court + is required to evaluate the material and + documents on record with a view to finding out if + the facts emerging there from taken at their face + + + Page 79 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 79 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + value disclose the existence of all the + ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The + Court may, for this limited purpose, shift the + evidence as it cannot be expected even at that + initial stage to accept all that the prosecution + states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to + commonsense or the broad probabilities of the + case. Therefore, at the stage of framing of the + charge, the Court has to consider the material + with a view to find out if there is ground for + presuming that the accused has committed the + offence or that there is no sufficient ground for + proceeding against him and not for the purpose of + arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely + to lead to a conviction. +

+

79. However it cannot be ignored that what is to + be looked in to is "a very strong suspicion + founded upon materials before the Magistrate, + which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as + to the existence of the factual ingredients + constituting the offence alleged"; therefore only + because Apex Court has held so, it can not be + said that even if in absence of suspicion, + presumptive opinion of the commission of offence + as alleged charge must be framed. Suffice to say + that when enactment / statute provides for + discharging accused, basically accused has a + right to get discharge, which may be subject to + fulfillment of certain criteria, that may be laid + down either in the statute as well as its + interpretation by the Apex Court and not + + Page 80 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 80 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + otherwise. Therefore there can be order of + discharge if there is no evidence with charge + sheet which gives rise to even little suspicion + to presume the commission of offence by the + accused. Needless to say that even if there is + suspicion regarding commission of offence, what + is required to refuse discharge is suspicion of + commission of offence by the accused against whom + charge sheet is filed. Thus even if suspicion is + possible for commission of offence, and if there + is no evidence to link such suspicion with the + accused, there cannot be a presumption against + the accused that he had committed the offence and + he may entitled to get discharged from the + charges levied against him under the charge + sheet. Needless to say that the charges levied + against the person is to be considered and not + the story or history of incident which results in + to the commission of offence. For more clarity, + commission of offence alone is not sufficient to + frame charge against any person, there must be + some suspicion that offence had been committed by + the said person and not by any other person., If + the suspicion is to the effect that though + offence has been committed, probably accused + might have not committed such offence but real + offender may be some one else, Court has to see + that truth comes out whereby the Investigating + Agency may not be permitted to put their hands + down merely by filing charge sheet against any + one suspect or any innocent person. In such cases + + + Page 81 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 81 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + trial cannot be allowed to continue only upon + opinion of the investigating agency that accused + had committed the offence as alleged in charge + sheet. The Court has to arrive at independent + opinion, after considering the available prima + facie evidenced on record - which is only in the + form of charge sheet, not only tabular charge + sheet but list of witnesses and their statement + before the investigating agency (police papers). + It can not be ignored that the ratio of + conviction is quite low only because of the + reason that though police papers supports the + charge sheet, at the time of trail witnesses does + not support their statement; this happens because + of the possibility that in most of the crimes + against the person/body under the Penal Code, the + statement of witnesses are common to the effect + that accused had acted in particular manner. + However when crime is pertaining to some + documents or properties - intellectual and real, + the investigating agency has to find out the real + culprit with probable cogent evidenced, rather + than only oral evidence that accused had + committed crime as alleged. This is the area when + its Courts duty to frame independent suspicion + regarding not only commission of crime but + involvement or roll of the accused against whom + charge sheet is filed and if there is no + possibility of even little suspicion against the + accused regarding commission of offence by him, + there is no bar to discharge such person from the + + + Page 82 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 82 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + + charges levied against him. In such cases it + would be open for the original complainant and + the investigating agency to keep such person + under suspicion but to investigate further so as + to find out real culprit, else filing of charge + against a person only on suspicion but without + sufficient evidence against him would be a futile + exercise and it will not only increase + unnecessary workload but crime in the society + also, since real culprits are able to secluded + them from the trial. +

+

80. In view of above discussion, all citations + which confirms rejection of discharge is to be + read and understood in its real sense, rather + than to consider that only because in given case, + order of discharge was refused, there cannot be + any order to discharge any accused in any case. + If it is so, the statute book would not have the + provisions of Section 227 in Cr PC. In light of + such discussion if we peruse AIR 2008 SC 2991 - + Yogesh Vs.State of Maharashtra on the issue, the + relevant observation will make above concept more + clear, which are as under: +

+

81. Following para from the case of Yogesh v. + State of Maharashtra reported AIR 2008 SC 2991 + are relevant to recollect here: +

+
13. Before adverting to the rival submissions, we + may briefly notice the scope and ambit of powers of + the Trial Judge under Section 227 of the Code. +
14. Chapter XVIII of the Code lays down the + + + + Page 83 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 83 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + procedure for trial before the Court of Sessions, + pursuant to an order of commitment under Section 209 + of the Code. Section 227 contemplates the + circumstances whereunder there could be a discharge + of an accused at a stage anterior in point of time + to framing of charge under Section 228. It provides + that upon consideration of the record of the + case, the documents submitted with the police report + and after hearing the accused and the prosecution, + the Court is expected, nay bound to decide whether + there is "sufficient ground" to proceed against the + accused and as a consequence thereof either + discharge the accused or proceed to frame charge + against him. +
15.It is trite that the words "not sufficient ground + for proceeding against the accused" appearing in + the Section postulate exercise of judicial mind on + the part of the Judge to the facts of the case in + order to determine whether a case for trial has + been made out by the prosecution. However, in + assessing this fact, the Judge has the power to + sift and weigh the material for the limited purpose + of finding out whether or not a prima facie case + against the accused has been made out. The test to + determine a prima facie case depends upon the facts + of each case and in this regard it is neither + feasible nor desirable to lay down a rule of + universal application. By and large, however, if two + views are equally possible and the Judge is + satisfied that the evidence produced before him + gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from + grave suspicion, he will be fully within his right + to discharge the accused. At this stage, he is not + to see as to whether the trial will end in + conviction or not.The broad test to be applied is + whether the materials on record, if unrebutted, + makes a conviction reasonably possible. [See: State + of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39 and Union + of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr, (1979) + 3 SCC 4.] +
16. In the light of the aforenoted principles, we + may now consider whether or not in the present + case the High Court was justified in declining to + discharge the appellant. +
         xxx       xxx       xxx   xxx         xxx         xxx
+         27. For the reasons          aforesaid, we are constrained to
+         allow the appeals.           Consequently,     the     impugned
+         orders   are  set            aside   and   the   appellant   is
+         discharged from the           charges levelled against him in
+
+
+                                         Page 84 of 90
+
+HC-NIC                              Page 84 of 90        Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018
+              R/CR.RA/1188/2017                                                    CAV JUDGMENT
+
+
+
+             the charge-sheet.
+
+
82. Considering the above discussions, both on + facts and on law point, it becomes clear that + investigating agency, has squarely failed to + properly investigate the incident and to collect + cogent and reliable evidence so as to confirm + conviction applicant by filing proper + chargesheet. +
+
83. I have scrutinized the prima facie evidence + on record which categorically fails to prove the + involvement of the accused in commission of crime + and that there is no prima facie evidence against + him for framing the charges, hence the revision + applications deserves to be allowed, thereby + allowing the application for discharge by the + petitioner. +
+
84. In the result, the revision application is + allowed. The order dated 29.11.2017 below Exh.13 + passed by the learned Special Judge, A.C.B. + Court, Vadodara in Special A C B Case: No. + 2/2017, is quashed and set aside. The + applicant/accused is discharged in Crime No. + 3195/2010 for the offences punishable under + Sections 7, 8, 10, 13(1)(d)and 13(2) of the + Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988., read with + Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, pending + before the learned Sessions Judge Vadodara, vide + Special A.C.B. Case No.2 of2017. Therefore if + petitioner is in custody, he shall be released + forthwith. +
+ + Page 85 of 90 + +

HC-NIC Page 85 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + +

85. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid + extent. Direct service today is permitted. +

+ +

(S.G. SHAH, J.) + binoy + + + + + Further Order dated 2.2.2018 + + +

1. After the pronouncement of judgment today, + learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Amin for the + respondent - State has submitted that the would + like to challenge such judgment before + appropriate court and for the purpose, he would + like to file an affidavit while seeking stay + against execution of this judgment and thereby, + he has come with an affidavit of one Punamchand + Ramachand Gehlot, Assistant Director of A.C.B., + Vadodara, contending and practically repeating + the arguments, which are already advanced during + hearing of the main Revision Application and + which are dealt with herein above regarding + pendency of SLP (Criminal) No.622 of 2017 before + the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India submitting + that such SLP is now scheduled for hearing on + 9.2.2018 and therefore, being aggrieved and + dissatisfied by the judgment pronounced today by + this court, he would like to challenge the order + of discharge before Hon'ble Apex Court, and that + + + Page 86 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 86 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + for doing so, he requires certified copy of the + judgment as well as the entire paper-book to be + prepared for the purpose of challenging the same + before the Hon'ble Apex Court with consultation + of counsels before the Hon'ble Apex Court and + therefore, when a question of commercialisation + of Medical Education is involved with allegation + regarding demand of bribe from the students, the + present judgment by stayed since larger interest + of public, society and State if involved. It is + further disclosed and submitted that in view of + the above and considering the gravity, the would + require four weeks' to approach the Hon'ble Apex + Court for assailing the judgment passed today and + therefore, prayed to stay the implementation, + opoeration and execution of this judgment. + Learned Public Prosecution Mr. Amin is relying + upon a decision in the case of State of Gujarat + Vs. Lalji Popat reported in 1988(2) GLR 1073 + submitting that whenever Sessions Court releases + any accused on bail on request by the Public + Prosecutor, the Sessions Judge should stay such + judgment of bail for few days so as to enable the + State to challenge it before higher court. +

+

2. As against that learned senior counsel Mr. + N.D. Nanavaty for the applicant has submitted + that there is nothing additional in such + affidavit except referring the judgment of Lalji + Popat (supra) inasmuch as the issue regarding + + Page 87 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 87 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + pendency of bail application before the Hon'ble + Supreme Court has been argued at length while + arguing the main matter and if after considering + such argument, court has decided such + application, then, on such ground, order of + discharge cannot be stayed. It is further + submitted that factual details, though may be + inviting any perception of seriousness, when the + prosecution has failed to prove on record that + how prosecution under PC Act can be initiated, + and more particularly, when if this court has + decided that applicant is not a public servant, + then, irrespective of factual details, + prosecution under PC Act cannot continue. It is + further submitted that if at all there is any + offence committed by the applicant, then, + prosecution may initiate appropriate proceedings + in accordance with law, but when there is now + clarity by present judgment that prosecution + under PC Act, cannot continue against the + applicant, there is no reason or scope to stay + the execution of such judgment, whereby ... court + has held that no case is made out under PC Act so + as to continue the trial and therefore, applicant + be released immediately since otherwise also, he + is not going to abscond or going to tamper with + the evidence already collected by the + prosecution. It is also submitted that during + hearing of discharge application before the + + + + Page 88 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 88 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + Sessions Court, prosecution has not objected or + referred the pendency of SLP before the Hon'ble + Supreme Court of India and therefore, when such + contentions are part of the arguments of main + revision application also, there cannot be re- + hearing of the revision application on same issue + only to stay the operation and execution of + judgment whereby, now, there is clarity that no + trial can be continued against the applicant + under PC Act. So far as the decision of Lalji + Popat (supra) is concerned, it is submitted that + it was a case against order of bail by Sessions + Court where proceedings would remain pending + against the accused and therefore, considering + the constitutional right of liberty, when + applicant is already been discharged from the + charges levelled against him under PC Act, State + has no authority whatsoever to keep the applicant + in custody any further. +

+

3. Considering the rival submissions, it becomes + clear that prosecution is submitting, nothing but + repetition of the issues, which are already + submitted and dealt with by this court in the + judgment. Therefore, I do not see any reason to + endorse any such ground submitted by the + respondent to stay the execution and + implementation of present order. So far as + judgment of Lalji Popat (supra) is concerned, + learned advocate for the applicant is correct in + + Page 89 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 89 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 + R/CR.RA/1188/2017 CAV JUDGMENT + + + + submitting that once applicant is discharged from + all the charges, his custody could not be + continued any further only because of whims and + desire of the prosecuting agency. If at all + applicant has committed any other offence like + impersonation or cheating etc., though + prosecution may initiate proceedings in + accordance with law, the custody of the applicant + pursuant to charge under PC Act, cannot be + allowed to be extended any further. +

+

4. Therefore, I do not see any substance or + reason to stay the execution and implementation + of present judgment. Learned advocate for the + applicant has pointed out that though case is of + Vadodara District, the applicant has been shifted + to Sabarmati Central Jail, Ahmedabad and + therefore, requested to forward Yadi of this + order to Sabarmati Central Jail, Ahmedabad also. + Such request is granted as prayed for. Registry + shall forward Yadi of this judgment to Jailer, + Sabarmati Central Jail, Ahmedabad. Direct service + today upon the Jailer, Sabarmati Central Jail, + Ahmedabad is also permitted. +

+ +

(S.G. SHAH, J.) + binoy + + + + + Page 90 of 90 + +HC-NIC Page 90 of 90 Created On Thu Feb 08 23:44:41 IST 2018 +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_68672984.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_68672984.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5699081cd790f73c8cfc31984923907d17199134 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_68672984.html @@ -0,0 +1,442 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Gurinder Mohan Singh Sambhi & Ors vs The State ( Nct Of Delhi) on 7 February, 2017 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

3. In FIR No.799/2015 under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC registered +at PS Hari Nagar, anticipatory bail applications were filed by the family +members of the applicant i.e. Gurinder Mohan Singh Sambhi, Ramanjeet +Sambhi, parents of the applicant and Gurmukh Singh Sambhi, brother of the +applicant before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which were +dismissed vide order dated 6th August, 2015. Hence the three of them filed +bail application before this Court being Bail Appln. No.1645/2015 which +came up for hearing before this Court on 14 th August, 2015 wherein this +Court passed the following order:- +

+
+ +
+ "BAIL APPLN. 1645/2015 +
The petitioners before this Court are father-in-law, + mother-inlaw and brother-in-law of the complainant. The + complainant had been married to the son of petitioner nos.1 and +
2. Parties had been married on 04.12.2013. Contention in the + complaint besides harassment qua the petitioners and her + husband for dowry demand was that she was forced into an + abortion for which she had filed a complaint pursuant to which + FIR under Sections 313/34 of the IPC. Learned senior counsel + for petitioners states that the petitioners have been granted bail + in that matter. The present FIR has been registered under + Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the IPC. It is stated that + complainant is living separately from her husband since + 19.12.2014. This Court has been informed that her husband + + + + + (Dr.Ajit Singh Sambhi) is a British citizen and is living in London + and has taken up a job in London. He is a dentist by profession. +
+
+ +
+

6. As noted above, though the applicant had not filed any anticipatory +bail application in FIR No.799/2015 under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC +but so that parties could negotiate a settlement and appear in mediation +proceedings, the applicant was granted interim protection by this Court in +Bail Appln. No.1645/2015. The applicant herein filed an anticipatory bail +application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in case FIR +No.15/2015 under Sections 313/34 IPC which also came up for hearing on +24th August, 2015 wherein on the opposition of the complainant and time +sought to file the reply, the application was adjourned to 25th August, 2015 +without passing any interim order in favour of the applicant. Vide order +dated 25th August, 2015, learned Additional Sessions Judge granted interim +protection noting as under:- +

+
+ +
+

12. The interim protection granted to the applicant in case FIR +No.799/2015 under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC continued by this Court +in Bail Appln. No.205/2016. However, on 26th August, 2016 since none +appeared on behalf of the applicant, the interim order in his favour was +vacated. Pursuant thereto, the applicant was arrested and was granted +regular bail by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 29 th August, 2016, +the relevant portion whereof is reproduced in para 15 hereinafter. +

13. It is in these applications that on 22nd April, 2016, learned counsel for +the complainant stated that despite directions given to the husband of the +complainant, he has not deposited his passport. Thus, this Court passed +order dated 22nd April, 2016 as noted above directing him to deposit the +passport on or before 12 noon of 23rd April, 2016. A perusal of the order +sheets as noted above clearly shows that no Court had directed the applicant +Ajit Singh Sambhi to deposit his passport. Only discretion was granted to +the investigating officer to impound the passport which it had no jurisdiction +to do. It is not disputed that till date the investigating officer has sent no +recommendation to the competent authority for impounding of the passport +of Ajit Singh Sambhi. Thus the observation of this Court on 22nd April, +2016 that despite directions the petitioner/applicant has failed to deposit the +passport was on the statement of the learned counsel for the complainant and +directions were issued to the applicant to deposit the passport. This Court in +the present proceedings is refraining from making any observation that the +statement of learned counsel for the complainant was in overreach of the +proceedings of the Court however suffice it is to state that till date there is + + + + + no order of any competent court directing the petitioner to deposit the +passport and in the order granting bail in FIR No.799/2015 the condition +imposed is that the applicant will seek permission from the Court before +leaving the country and in FIR No.15/2015 that the applicant will inform the +investigating officer of the case as well as the Trial Court/CMM/ACMM. +Thus, the order dated 22nd April, 2016 passed by this Court directing deposit +of the passport was on erroneous statement made by learned counsel for the +complainant. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_69135435.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_69135435.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e6384353b46cd288bdf0a6c07e504d20c8700b88 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_69135435.html @@ -0,0 +1,564 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Vaibhav Rajendra Aglave vs State Of Maharashtra on 22 December, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

According to the learned counsel, if the charge-sheet is not + +filed within the extended period provided by sub-section 2 + +of Section 21 of the MCOCA, right accrues in favour of the + +applicants to claim the default bail. The concern expressed + +by the learned senior advocate is that there may be a + +deliberate delay in invoking provisions of the MCOCA by the + +investigating agency, to defeat the statutory right of the + +applicants to claim the default bail. The submission is that + +as the investigation into the MCOCA takes time, the + +investigating agency may file the charge-sheet in the IPC + +offence within the period prescribed by Section 167(2) so + +that the statutory right to claim default bail comes to an + +end and thereafter invoke MCOCA. This would enable the + +investigating agency to file the charge-sheet at their sweet + +will thereby virtually circumventing the fundamental right of + +the accused to claim default bail. It is submitted that the + + + + Diksha Rane/Darshan Patil ba 154323 & 57223.doc + + +applicants are literally pushed to a situation where they will + +be required to apply for regular bail before the Special + +Court by satisfying the twin conditions of Section 21(4)(b) + +of the MCOCA making it difficult to obtain bail. The + +submission, therefore, is that even if the cognizance has + +been taken by the Sessions Court pursuant to the filing of + +the charge-sheet for the IPC offence upon the approval + +being granted under Section 21(1)(a) of the MCOCA the + +same will have to be regarded as an independent + +investigation and therefore, the statutory right under + +Section 167(2) will revive. +

+
+ +
+

18. It is the submission that once the investigating agency + +starts an investigation into the offence under the MCOCA + +upon obtaining prior approval, the custody under Section + +309 will have to be read as one in respect of the offence + +under the IPC, whereas the custody for the purpose of the + +investigation under the MCOCA will have to be regarded as + +one under Section 167 and hence the applicants are entitled + +to the facility of default bail if the investigation is not + +completed within the period prescribed under sub-section + +(2) of Section 21 of the MCOCA. Learned counsel for the + +applicants went to the extent of submitting that even if + +MCOCA is invoked after the filing of the charge-sheet in + +respect of IPC offence, nonetheless it is the first date of + +remand as held in Bharti Chandmal Varma's case (supra) + +will have to be regarded for the purpose of entitling the + +applicants for default bail. Learned counsel relied heavily on + +the decision in Fakhrey Alam (supra). +

+
+ +
+ +

21. In the present case, the charge-sheet was already + +filed within 90 days as the FIR initially was registered only + +under the provisions of the IPC. The MCOCA was invoked + +after filing of the charge-sheet. It is observed in Bikramjit + +Singh vs. State of Punjab24 that default bail under first + +proviso of Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. is a fundamental + +right and not merely a statutory right as it is, a procedure + +established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution. A + +fundamental right is granted to an accused person to be + +released on bail once the conditions of the first proviso to + +Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. are fulfilled. In my view, in the + +present case, as the charge-sheet was already filed within a + +period of 90 days, the condition of the first proviso to + +Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be fulfilled, + +therefore, the applicants are not entitled for default bail. If + +the subsequent invocation of MCOCA cannot have a effect of + +extending the time period under Section 167(2) of the +24 (2020) 10 SCC 616 + + + Diksha Rane/Darshan Patil ba 154323 & 57223.doc + + +Cr.P.C. it will have to be construed that the applicants + +cannot claim an entitlement for default bail after the + +charge-sheet is filed for the IPC offence. +

+
+ +
+ +

+

28. In the light of what is observed by the Supreme Court, + +I do not find any force in the submission of learned counsel + + + + Diksha Rane/Darshan Patil ba 154323 & 57223.doc + + +for the applicants that on the grant of prior approval under + +Section 23(1) of the MCOCA the investigation to be carried + +out is a new investigation. I am in respectful agreement + +with the observations of His Lordship Kotwal, J. in Suraj + +Arun Pote (supra) that the investigation carried from the + +point of prior approval was not a new investigation but only + +a further investigation. The investigation under the MCOCA + +was continuation of the earlier investigation for IPC offence. + +The provisions of MCOCA were invoked because the + +material under the MCOCA was found against the Applicant. + +The charge-sheet in the present case was already filed + +under IPC offence on 1/1/2022 in respect of some accused + +and on 23/2/2022 in respect of the other accused. The + +cognizance of the charge-sheet was taken and therefore, + +the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The + +application made by the investigation agency seeking + +custody under Section 21(7) of the MCOCA was rejected. + +The MCOCA was not invoked at the time of registration of + +the offence under IPC. The right to claim default bail under + +Section 167(2) of the Cr,P.C. will not revive as the + + + + + Diksha Rane/Darshan Patil ba 154323 & 57223.doc + + +invocation of the provisions of the MCOCA was not a new + +investigation but a continuation of the earlier investigation + +for IPC offence. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_70201503.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_70201503.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b5a52883017ef275855377c36bebe8d422a33828 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_70201503.html @@ -0,0 +1,385 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + R.Natarajan vs State Rep By on 7 December, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

55.In the result, the criminal appeal in Crl.A.No.592 of 2001 is + + allowed. The conviction and sentence as against the appellant/ A2 in + + the judgment dated 13.06.2001 in C.C.No.89 of 1997 passed by the + + learned Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai, are set aside. + + The appellant/ A2 is acquitted from the charge under Sections 120B, + + 120B r/w 420 of IPC. The bail bonds executed by him, shall stand + + terminated/ discharged. +

+
+ +
+

58.The criminal appeal in Crl.A.No.645 of 2001 is allowed in + + respect of the second appellant/ A4. The conviction and sentence as + + against the second appellant/ A4 in the judgment dated 13.06.2001 in + + C.C.No.89 of 1997 passed by the learned Additional Special Judge for + + CBI cases, Chennai, are set aside. The second appellant/ A4 is + + acquitted from the charge under Sections 120B, 120B r/w 420, 201 of + + IPC. The bail bonds executed by him, shall stand terminated/ + + discharged. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_70341734.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_70341734.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..71f60edf8fddf21b99bd8d84c55a2132214c550f --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_70341734.html @@ -0,0 +1,475 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Makhan Din vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 5 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
writing, of opinion that it is not practicable + + + + + + to give such notice. +
+
Provided further that the High Court or the + Court of Session shall, before granting bail + + + + + + to a person who is accused of an offence triable + under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section + 376AB or section 376DA or section 376 DB + of the Indian Penal Code, give notice of the + application for bail to the Public Prosecutor + + + + + + within a period of fifteen days from the date + of receipt of the notice of such application. +
+
+ +
+

- 23 - +

+

IPC is prima-facie is made out against the bail petitioner + + {Makhan Din}. +

+

While dealing with a bail application, relating + + + + + . +

to offence under Section 376 IPC, it has been mandated + + + + + + that complete go by to the allegation made in the + + + + + + FIR and statement recorded under Sections 161 and + + 164 of the Cr.P.C. as also the testimony of the + + + + + + prosecutrix before the jurisdictional court cannot be + + ignored, in terms of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme + + Court in Criminal Appeal No.____ of 2023 [@ Special + + Leave Petition (Crl. No.6199 of 2023)], titled as + + Bhagwan Singh Versus Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ + + + + Depak and another alongwith connected matter, + + which reads as under:- +

+
+ +
+ + ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2024 20:45:15 :::CIS +

- 25 - +

+

In the background of the above facts and + + the gravity of the offence, whereby, the bail petitioner + + [Makhan Din] had kidnapped and then resorted to + + + + + . +

+

unwarranted sexual assault on a girl of 14 years, + + points out towards ill intention and even statement of + + + + + + victim [X] point out towards the accusation under + + Sections 361, 363 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code + + + + + + against the bail petitioner, when, the bail petitioner + + was kidnapped without her consent and without the + + consent of the lawful guardianship of such a minor + + girl, by forcibly muffling her mouth and then forcibly + + taking her in a vehicle towards Jammu. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_70497171.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_70497171.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..16539da07fcedc0fb88a725e08d77f592ca2f703 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_70497171.html @@ -0,0 +1,577 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Nagesh Rajshekhar Mense vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 January, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

4. Learned Advocate in ABA No. 799 OF 2022 submitted + +that, the applicant is apprehending arrest in C.R. No. 579 of 2021 + +registered with Jodbhavi Police Station for offences under Sections + +188, 272, 273, 328 of IPC and Section 59 of FSS Act. It is + +submitted that, the applicant was not found in possession of any + +article. Co-accused has been arrested and granted bail. The + +applicant is arrested on the basis of statement of co-accused. The + +applicant was named in the remand application for the first time. + +Section 328 of IPC is not applicable. The co-accused was arrested + +and granted bail. Reliance is placed on the order dated 11.08.2021 + + +Sajakali Jamadar 10 of 66 + Common Order-ABA-799-2022 and ors.doc + + + + +passed by this Court in ABA No.1756 of 2021 and ABA No.1757 of + +2021, wherein pre-arrest bail was granted to the applicants therein + +on the ground that their custodial interrogation is not necessary. + +

+
+ +
+ 
Sajakali Jamadar                      39 of 66
+                                                Common Order-ABA-799-2022 and ors.doc
+
+
+
+
+Such statement is not admissible in evidence.             Shahjad Khan is
+
+granted anticipatory bail.         Role of Shahjad Khan and Sarfaraz
+
+

Shaikh is similar. There is no evidence to connect the applicants + +with the crime. There is no evidence of CDR. Transportation is not + +covered under Section 328 of IPC. No specific role is attributed to + +the applicant. Reading definition of Section 328 of IPC would + +indicate that, it is not applicable in the present case. There is no + +allegations of administration of any substance. The decision of the + +Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Kurian (supra) is + +applicable. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Aurangabad + +Bench of this Court delivered in ABA No.944 of 2021 and other + +connected matters vide order dated 30.09.2021. Reliance is also + +placed on the decision in the case of Nilesh S/o Narayan Sanghavi + +Vs. The State of Maharashtra delivered in Criminal Application + +No.442 of 2020 by the division Bench of the Nagpur Bench of this + +Court and the observations made in Paragraph Nos. 12, 13 & 14 of + +the said decision. It is submitted that this Court in several other + +applications had granted anticipatory bail on the ground that + +Section 328 of IPC is not attracted in such cases. +

+
+ +
+ +
"Issue Notice. Until further orders, there shall + be a stay of operation of the impugned + judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High + Court. Tag with SLP (Cri.) Diary No. + 8224/2020". +
+
+

48. Learned Single Judge of this Court dealt with the issue + +about the applicability of Section 328 of IPC in the case of Vinod + +Ramnath Gupta (supra). The contention of the applicants in the + +said application was that offences punishable under Sections 188, + +272 and 273 of IPC are bailable and so far as offence under Section + +328 of the IPC is concerned, the Division Bench of this Court in the + +case of Anand Chaurasia (supra) has held that mere storage of + +prohibited food articles without any further action and on + +contemplation that it would be sold in the market, brought by a + +person from the market and consumed by him is too far fetch + +consequence of an act of administering or causing to be taken. This + +Court in the case of Vinod Gupta vide order dated 06.11.2020 had + +taken into consideration the decisions delivered in the case of + +Anand Chaurasia (supra) and Ganesh Jadhao (supra). It was + + +Sajakali Jamadar 53 of 66 + Common Order-ABA-799-2022 and ors.doc + + + + +observed that in the case of Anand Chaurasia, FIR was registered + +on the basis of complaint received from Food Safety Officer + +recording that search of residence and warehouse of the petitioner + +resulted in recovery of Gutkha and Pan Masala and the storage + +contravened the notification dated 28.07.2020 issued by the Food + +Safety Commissioner. Accused were arrested and released on bail. + +Petitioners therein had challenged the action initiated against them + +by registering the FIR. The judgment in the case of Anand + +Chaurasia (supra) has been stayed by the Apex Court. The + +judgment in the case of Ganesh Jadhao (supra) was stayed by same + +bench for a period of six weeks. Considerations for quashing + +FIR/complaint under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and + +under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., being different, cannot be applied in + +pre-arrest bail proceeding. Section 328 of IPC is attracted where + +the substance in question is poison or any stupefying, intoxicating + +or unwholesome drug or other thing is administered or caused to + +be taken by any person with an intent to cause hurt or with an + +intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or + +intent it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, becomes + +punishable under the provision. The first part of Section 328 + +contemplates a direct involvement of person and second part + +suggest any indirect method for causing one of the substances to be + +Sajakali Jamadar 54 of 66 + Common Order-ABA-799-2022 and ors.doc + + + + +taken by any person. Expression "causing" involves some action. +

+
+ +
+ +

55. ABA No. 483/2021 was decided by me vide order dated + +24th March 2021. I am reiterating and in agreement with all the + +decisions wherein it is held that Section 328 of I.P.C. is applicable in + +such cases. There is no bar for invoking provisions of I.P.C. In all the + +applications before me, involvement of applicants is disclosed. They + +are not entitled for anticipatory bail. Section 328 of I.P.C. is + +applicable in all these cases. The Apex Court had no occasion to + +deal with latter part of Section 328 of I.P.C. in the case of Joseph + +Kurian (supra). I have considered the decision of learned Single + +Judge of this Court dated 30.09.2021 in ABA No.944/2020 and + + + +Sajakali Jamadar 65 of 66 + Common Order-ABA-799-2022 and ors.doc + + + + + other connected applications while deciding ABA No.1405/2021 + + and other connected applications and vide order dated 23.12.2021 + + took a view that Section 328 of IPC is applicable in similar cases. It + + appears in some cases the Hon'ble Apex Court has granted interim + + relief in some mattes. However, in the light of view taken by me, + + the contentions of applicants cannot be accepted. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_72065565.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_72065565.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4e8f934a8bbfb6d3c24e568b0e23af7d37934ed3 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_72065565.html @@ -0,0 +1,7928 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ansingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 April, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 118, Cited by 7] + +
+ +

Madhya Pradesh High Court

+

Ansingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 April, 2018

+ +
                                           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                                                 Cr.R.No. 1157/2014x
+           Indore dated :13/04/2018
+                Shri M.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicants.
+                                Shri Vishal    Sanothiya,   learned   Govt. Advocate    for   the
+           respondent/State.
+                                Bailable warrant issued against applicant No.2-Banesingh @
+           Bania was received unserved with the report that he has died on
+           05/07/2017 on the road accident, however, the documents filed
+           alongwith service report is related to death of Anil S/o Bhuriya.
+                                Superintendent of Police, Dewas is directed to verify the service
+           report of the warrant issued against applicant No.2-Banesingh @ Bania
+           and filed its report before this Court by next date of hearing positively.
+                                List in the week commencing 18/06/2018.
+                                                                            (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                                              Judge
+
+           skt
+Digitally signed by Santosh Kumar Tiwari
+Date: 2018.04.17 10:57:03 +05'30'
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.A.No. 705/2014x
+Indore dated :13/04/2018
+     None for the appellant.
+      Shri Vishal    Sanothiya,    learned    Govt. Advocate    for   the
+respondent/State.
+      As per office report, the appellant-Prem Singh was absent on
+12/03/2018 and it is a matter of bail jump.
+      Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant-Prem
+Singh, for securing his presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.
+      List on 19/06/2018.
+                                                   (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                     Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.A.No. 303/2014x
+Indore dated :13/04/2018
+     Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
+        Shri Vishal    Sanothiya,   learned   Govt. Advocate     for   the
+respondent/State.
+        Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant
+Joravarsingh @ Jorsingh is detained in Bherugarh Jail, Ujjain in another
+case.
+        Let production warrant be issued against appellant-Joravarsingh @
+Jorsingh for securing his presence before this Court on 02/05/2018.
+        List on 02/05/2018.
+                                               (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                   Judge
+
+skt
+               THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.9373/2018x
+Indore dated : 13/04/2018
+     None for the applicant, when the case is called for second
+ round.
+      Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+ respondent/State.
+      Shri Vivek Nagar, learned counsel for the complainant
+ /objector.
+      On earlier occasions on 28/03/2018 also none appeared on
+ behalf of the applicant, which indicates that the applicant is no
+ longer interested in prosecuting this petition.
+      Accordingly, this petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
+ is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.
+
+
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  Cr.A. No. 236/2008
+Indore dated :12/04/2018
+     Shri Abhijit Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
+     Shri S.L. Ahiwasi, learned counsel for the respondent.
+     Arguments heard.
+     Reserved for judgment.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+Indore dated : /04/2018
+
+     Judgment passed, signed and dated separately.
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  M.Cr.C. No. 6105/2006
+Indore dated :12/04/2018
+     Shri Abhijit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
+     Shri S.L. Ahiwasi, learned counsel for the respondent.
+     Arguments heard.
+     Reserved for orders.
+
+
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+Indore dated : /04/2018
+
+     Order passed, signed and dated separately.
+
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  Cr.A. No.190/2017x
+          (Gaurav @ Goldy Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :13/04/2018
+     Shri A.S. Solanki, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 24682/2017, an
+application for withdrawal of appeal.
+      Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has
+already suffered the jail sentence awarded by the trial Court, therefore,
+he does not want to press this appeal.
+      On due consideration of the aforesaid IA No. 24682/2017 is
+allowed and accordingly, Cr.A. No. 190/2017 is dismissed as
+withdrawn.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  Cr.A. No.1463/2014
+Indore dated :13/04/2018
+     Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 received
+unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address.
+      Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent
+No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav
+for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.
+      List on 19/06/2018.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  Cr.A. No.1481/2014
+Indore dated :13/04/2018
+     Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 received
+unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address.
+      Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent
+No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav
+for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.
+      List on 19/06/2018.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  Cr.A. No.1465/2014
+Indore dated :13/04/2018
+     Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 received
+unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address.
+      Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent
+No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav
+for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.
+      List on 19/06/2018.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                 Cr.A. No.1471/2014
+Indore dated :13/04/2018
+     Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 received
+unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address.
+      Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent
+No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav
+for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.
+      List on 19/06/2018.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  Cr.A. No.1473/2014
+Indore dated :13/04/2018
+     Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 received
+unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address.
+      Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent
+No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav
+for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.
+      List on 19/06/2018.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                 Cr.A. No.1474/2014
+Indore dated :13/04/2018
+     Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 received
+unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address.
+      Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent
+No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav
+for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.
+      List on 19/06/2018.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  Cr.A. No.1480/2014
+Indore dated :13/04/2018
+     Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 received
+unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address.
+      Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent
+No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav
+for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.
+      List on 19/06/2018.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  Cr.A. No.1464/2014
+Indore dated :13/04/2018
+     Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 received
+unserved with a report that they are not found on their given address.
+      Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against respondent
+No.2-Mahindra Singh and respondent No.3-Dinesh Laxman Jadhav
+for securing their presence before this Court on 19/06/2018.
+      List on 19/06/2018.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+               THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        Cr.A. No. 1752/2014x
+Indore dated : 13/04/2018
+      Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Appellant- Vikas @ Rakh is present in person and he has been duly
+identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.2509/2018, an
+application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant on
+16/02/2018 before the registry of this Court.
+      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant was
+present before the Registry on 06/08/2017 but the incharge of Registry
+instead of marking the signature of the present applicant, had marked his
+presence on another file, therefore, he could not mark his presence on
+16/02/2018 before this Court.
+      Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is
+supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the
+previous non-appearance of appellant-Vikas @ Rakh on 16/02/2018 before
+this Court.
+      Accordingly, IA No.2509/2018 is allowed and non-appearance of
+appellant- Vikas @ Rakh before this Court on 16/02/2018 is hereby
+condoned.
+      Appellant- Vikas @ Rakh is directed to appear before the Office of
+this Court on 09/08/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed
+by the Office in this behalf.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                     Judge
+       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                 Cr.A. No.109/2014x
+Indore dated :13/04/2018
+     Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Shri Vishal Sanothiya,      learned Govt. Advocate       for the
+respondent/State.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 22631/2017, an
+application for final hearing at motion stage.
+      From the perusal of the record, it appears that it is an admitted
+matter.
+      Office is directed to list the matter, under caption "High Court
+Expedited Cases" or any other suitable caption of priority cases,
+whichever is earlier.
+      Accordingly, IA No. 22631/2017 is disposed of.
+
+
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  M.Cr.C. No.7466/2018x
+                 (Mukesh Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :13/04/2018
+     Shri Dharmendra Gurjar, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate 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.50/2018, Police Station-Rau,
+District-Indore, concerning offence under Sections 420, 463, 467, 468
+& 471 of the IPC read with Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act.
+      After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
+seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first application filed
+under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  M.Cr.C. No.14313/2018x
+Indore dated :13/04/2018
+     Shri Apoorv Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate            for the
+respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is available.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time to argue the
+matter.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 30/04/2018.
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  M.Cr.C. No.14310/2018
+Indore dated :13/04/2018
+     Shri Apoorv Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate            for the
+respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is available.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time to argue the
+matter.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 30/04/2018.
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.14098/2018
+                      (Goverdhan Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :13/04/2018
+     Shri Manish Zharola, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate 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.799/2017, Police Station-Industrial
+Area District-Dewas, concerning offence under Sections 394 and
+216(A) of the IPC read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
+      After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
+seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application filed under
+Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to renew his prayer after
+recording the statement of the complainant before the trial Court.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn
+with the aforesaid liberty .
+      Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                 Cr.A. No. 1310/1997
+Indore dated :26/02/2018
+     Shri Suhel Nisar, learned counsel for the appellant.
+     Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+     Arguments heard.
+     Reserved for judgment.
+
+
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+Indore dated : /04/2018
+
+    Judgment passed, signed and dated separately.
+
+
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  M.Cr.C. No. 10858/2017
+Indore dated :15/02/2018
+     Shri Anup Agrawal, present in person.
+     Mrs. Mamta Shandilyaa, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent No.1/State.
+     Shri Vinod Kumar Bhavsar, learned counsel for the respondent
+No.2.
+     Arguments heard.
+     Reserved for orders.
+
+
+                                                  (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                     Judge
+
+Indore dated : /04/2018
+
+     Order passed, signed and dated separately.
+
+                                                  (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                     Judge
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        Cr.A. No. 226/2012x
+Indore dated :11/04/2018
+     None for the appellant.
+      Shri   Rajesh    Mali,     learned   Govt.   Advocate     for      the
+respondent/State.
+      Neither the service report of non-bailable warrant of arrest issued
+against appellant-Dharmendra @ Pappu is received nor concerning
+Superintendent of Police, District-Indore has filed any affidavit in
+compliance of order dated 18/01/2018.
+      Let direction be issued to the concerned Superintendent of Police
+that he shall collect the service report of the warrant issued against the
+appellant-Dharmendra @ Pappu and produced it with a detailed
+affidavit before this Court as to why service could not be made
+effective and naratting all the steps taken by the concerned officials for
+service of non-bailable warrant, failing which he shall remain present
+before this Court on next date of hearing positively.
+      Copy of this order be supplied to learned Public Prosecutor, who
+is present in Court for seeking the compliance of the aforesaid order.
+      Be listed on 11/05/2018.
+
+
+                                                        (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                           Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  M.Cr.C. No.13887/2018x
+                 (Shahrukh Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :11/04/2018
+     Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Heard. Case diary perused.
+      This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
+grant of bail in connection with Crime No.421/2017, Police Station-
+Industrial Area, Jaora, District-Ratlam, concerning offence under
+Sections 366, 376(2)(m) and 506 of the IPC.
+      After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant
+seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this second application
+filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this second application is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                                  (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                     Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No. 10734/2018x
+Indore dated :11/04/2018
+     Shri R.S. Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicnt prays for time to argue the
+matter on the ground that arguing counsel is not available today.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Be listed on 02/05/2018.
+                                                      (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                         Judge
+
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         M.Cr.C. No. 13211/2018x
+Indore dated :11/04/2018
+     Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Let record of the court below be requisitioned.
+      List immediately after receipt of the record.
+                                                        (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                           Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No. 13327/2018x
+Indore dated :11/04/2018
+     Shri P.K. Bramhabhatt, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for analogous hearing
+with M.Cr.C. Nos. 6201/2018 and 8775/2018.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Office is directed to list the matter on 20/04/2018 alongwith
+M.Cr.C. Nos. 6201/2018 and 8775/2018.
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         M.Cr.C. No. 13987/2018x
+Indore dated :11/04/2018
+     Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.
+     Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent No.1/State.
+     Case-diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make availble the case-
+diary by next date of hering positively.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 30/04/2018.
+
+
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.R. No. 1555/2016x
+Indore dated :11/04/2018
+     Shri Shadab Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.
+     Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+     Let status report of the trial be called from the concerned trial
+Court.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to produce Balestic Expert
+Report with regard to the pistol, which has been recovered at the
+instance of the applicant.
+      Be listed on 02/05/2018.
+
+
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+               THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        Cr.R. No.82/2017x
+               (Bhanwar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :11/04/2018
+     Shri Shadab Khan, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicants seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+revision petition filed under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.A. No. 5500/2017
+Indore dated :10/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed after two weeks.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.A. No. 99/2013x
+Indore dated :10/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      As per office report appellant-Tauliya @ Anil @ Tolsingh was
+failed to mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on
+26/03/2018.
+      Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant-
+Tauliya @ Anil @ Tolsingh for securing his presence before this Court
+on 16/05/2018.
+      List on 16/05/2018.
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         Cr.R. No. 771/2016x
+Indore dated :10/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed after four weeks.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.A. No. 1838/2016x
+Indore dated :10/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Let record of the court below be requisitioned.
+      Be listed after four weeks.
+
+
+                                                        (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                           Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.R. No. 624/2017x
+Indore dated :10/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed after four weeks.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.R. No. 1067/2017x
+Indore dated :10/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed after four weeks.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         Cr.R. No. 3671/2017
+Indore dated :10/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Appellant is directed to cure the defects pointed out by the office
+within one week from today, failing which this appeal shall stands
+dismissed without further reference to this Court.
+      List after two weeks.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.R. No. 651/2018x
+Indore dated :10/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Let record of the trial court be requisitioned.
+      List immediately after receipt of the record.
+
+
+                                                        (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                           Judge
+
+skt
+               THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         Cr.A. No. 1938/2018
+Indore dated :10/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Today the matter is listed for consideration of IA No. 1595/2018,
+an application for exemption from filing affidavit in support of appeal
+and IA Nos. 1593/2018, an application under Section 5 of the
+Limitation Act & 1594/2018, an application under Section 389 of the
+Cr.P.C.
+      On due consideration IA No. 1595/2018 is disposed of with a
+direction that the affidavit shall be produced by next date of hearing
+positively.
+      Be listed after two weeks.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No. 12825/2018x
+Indore dated :10/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Case-diary is not available.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
+diary by next date of hearing positively.
+      Be listed after two weeks.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No. 13513/2018x
+Indore dated :10/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Case-diary is available.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed after two weeks.
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No. 13595/2018x
+Indore dated :10/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Case-diary is available.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed after two weeks.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.R. No. 1207/2018x
+Indore dated :10/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Let record of the courts' below be requisitioned.
+      List immediately after receipt of the record.
+
+
+                                                          (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                             Judge
+
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         M.Cr.C. No. 8203/2018x
+Indore dated :10/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Case-diary is not available.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
+diary by next date of hearing positively.
+      Be listed after two weeks.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    Cr.A. No. 390/2018x
+Indore dated :10/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed after four weeks.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    M.Cr.C. No. 26130/2017x
+Indore dated :10/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed after four weeks.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    M.Cr.C. No. 3212/2018x
+Indore dated :10/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed after two weeks.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  M.Cr.C. No.9062/2015x
+Indore dated :10/04/2018
+     None for the applicant.
+     Respondent-Ashok Dashora is present in person.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed after four weeks.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    M.Cr.C. No. 9779/2017x
+Indore dated :10/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed after two weeks.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     M.Cr.C. No. 9710/2017x
+Indore dated :10/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed after two weeks.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                   Cr.A. No.1304/2014x
+Indore dated :10/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Due to strike called by the M.P. State Bar Council, the Advocates
+are abstaining from court work.
+      In absence of learned counsel for the parties, the case is adjourned.
+      List the matter after a week.
+
+
+(P.K. Jaiswal)                                            (S.K. Awasthi)
+   Judge                                                     Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                   Cr.A. No. 419/2008
+Indore dated :10/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Due to strike called by the M.P. State Bar Council, the Advocates
+are abstaining from court work.
+      In absence of learned counsel for the parties, the case is adjourned.
+      List the matter after three weeks.
+
+
+(P.K. Jaiswal)                                            (S.K. Awasthi)
+   Judge                                                     Judge
+
+skt
+           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  Cr.R. No. 480/2017
+Indore dated :20/03/2018
+      Shri Raghav Shrivastav, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
+/State.
+      Arguments heard.
+      Reserved for orders.
+
+
+                                                  (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                     Judge
+
+Indore dated :10/04/2018
+
+     Order passed, signed and dated separately.
+
+                                                  (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                     Judge
+           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  M.Cr.C. No. 6677/2017
+Indore dated :14/03/2018
+     Shri Saransh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
+     Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent No.1/State.
+     Shri Viraj Jain, learned counsel for the respondent
+No.2/complainant.
+     Arguments heard.
+     Reserved for orders.
+
+
+                                                  (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                     Judge
+
+Indore dated :10/04/2018
+
+     Order passed, signed and dated separately.
+
+                                                  (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                     Judge
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                   M.Cr.C. No. 11633/2018x
+Indore dated :09/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Case-diary is available.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.A. No. 2488/2018x
+Indore dated :09/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Case-diary is not available.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
+diary and also comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act,
+1989 by next date of hearing positively.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                   M.Cr.C. No. 12747/2018x
+Indore dated :09/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Case-diary is available.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                   M.Cr.C. No. 13022/2018x
+Indore dated :09/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Case-diary is available.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  M.Cr.C. No. 13290/2018x
+Indore dated :09/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Case-diary is available.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  M.Cr.C. No. 13466/2018x
+Indore dated :09/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Case-diary is available.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                   M.Cr.C. No. 13468/2018x
+Indore dated :09/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Case-diary is available.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                   M.Cr.C. No. 13492/2018x
+Indore dated :09/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Case-diary is available.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                   M.Cr.C. No. 13596/2018X
+Indore dated :09/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Case-diary is available.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                   M.Cr.C. No. 13604/2018X
+Indore dated :09/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Case-diary is available.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No. 13623/2018X
+Indore dated :09/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Case-diary is not available.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
+diary by next date of hearing.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                   M.Cr.C. No. 9039/2018X
+Indore dated :09/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Case-diary is available.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                   M.Cr.C. No. 10041/2018X
+Indore dated :09/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Case-diary is available.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                 M.Cr.C. No. 10080/2018X
+Indore dated :09/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Case-diary is available.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                M.Cr.C. No. 10233/2018X
+Indore dated :09/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Case-diary is available.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+                 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No. 10428/2018X
+Indore dated :09/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Case-diary is not available.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case
+diary by next date of hearing.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No. 11113/2018X
+Indore dated :09/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Case-diary is available.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No. 11407/2018X
+Indore dated :09/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Case-diary is available.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No. 11631/2018X
+Indore dated :09/04/2018
+     None for the parties.
+     Case-diary is available.
+     Advocates are abstaining from Court work today on the call of
+State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the case is adjourned.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.A. No.2480/2018x
+Indore dated :06/04/2018
+     Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants.
+      Shri   Peyush    Jain,   learned     Govt. Advocate     for    the
+respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
+diary and also comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act,
+1989 by next date of hearing positively.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 16/04/2018.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  M.Cr.C. No.13114/2018x
+Indore dated :06/04/2018
+     Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate             for the
+respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
+diary by next date of hearing positively.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 16/04/2018.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  M.Cr.C. No.13261/2018x
+Indore dated :06/04/2018
+     Shri Neelesh Manore, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate             for the
+respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is available.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time to argue the
+matter.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Be listed in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
+                                                  (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                     Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.13235/2018x
+                      (Satish Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :06/04/2018
+     Shri Shyam Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate 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.105/2018, Police Station-
+Hatpipaliya District-Dewas, concerning offence under Sections 354,
+354(A) and 506 of the IPC read with Section 7/8 of the Prevention of
+Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to
+renew his prayer after filing of the charge-sheet.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn
+with the aforesaid liberty .
+      Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.13277/2018x
+                  (Ravin @ Ravindra Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :06/04/2018
+     Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate 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.45/2018, Police Station-Warla
+District-Barwani, concerning offence under Sections 354, 354(A) and
+506 of the IPC read with Section 7/8 of the Prevention of Children
+from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to
+renew his prayer after filing of the charge-sheet.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn
+with the aforesaid liberty .
+      Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.A. No. 621/2015x
+Indore dated : 04/04/2018
+      Shri Manish Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Appellant- Devkaran is present in person and he has been duly
+identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.20316/2017, an
+application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant on
+13/10/2017 before the registry of this Court.
+      Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to the illness,
+appellant could not appear before the registry of this Court on 13/10/2017.
+      Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is
+supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the
+previous non-appearance of appellant-Devkaran on 13/10/2017 before this
+Court.
+      Accordingly, IA No. 20316/2017 is allowed and non-appearance of
+appellant- Devkaran before this Court on 13/10/2017 is hereby condoned.
+      Appellant- Devkaran is directed to appear before the Office of this
+Court on 06/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by
+the Office in this behalf.
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                     Judge
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.R. No. 841/2014x
+Indore dated : 04/04/2018
+     Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Applicant- Bhagwan Singh is present in person and he has been duly
+identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.24848/2017, an
+application for condonation of previous non-appearance of applicant on
+07/12/2017 before the registry of this Court.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a
+driver by profession and on the aforesaid date he was out of station,
+therefore, he could not appear before the registry of this Court on
+07/12/2017.
+      Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is
+supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the
+previous non-appearance of applicant-Bhagwan Singh on 07/12/2017
+before this Court.
+      Accordingly, IA No. 24848/2017 is allowed and non-appearance of
+applicant- Bhagwan Singh before this Court on 07/12/2017 is hereby
+condoned.
+      Applicant-Bhagwan Singh is directed to appear before the Office of
+this Court on 10/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed
+by the Office in this behalf.
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                     Judge
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.A. No. 1946/2014x
+Indore dated : 04/04/2018
+      Shri Navendu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Appellant- Shahrukh is present in person and he has been duly
+identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.24092/2017, an
+application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant on
+03/10/2017 before the registry of this Court.
+      Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to illness,
+appellant could not appear before the registry of this Court on 03/10/2017.
+      Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is
+supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the
+previous non-appearance of appellant-Shahrukh on 03/10/2017 before this
+Court.
+      Accordingly, IA No. 24092/2017 is allowed and non-appearance of
+appellant- Shahrukh before this Court on 03/10/2017 is hereby condoned.
+      Appellant- Shahrukh is directed to appear before the Office of this
+Court on 11/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by
+the Office in this behalf.
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                     Judge
+                   THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        Cr.A. No. 941/2014x
+Indore dated : 04/04/2018
+      Shri Dharmendra Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Appellant- Lalit is present in person and he has been duly identified
+by his counsel. His presence is marked.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.695/2018, an
+application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant on
+23/01/2018 before the registry of this Court.
+      Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is
+supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the
+previous non-appearance of appellant-Lalit on 23/01/2018 before this
+Court.
+      Accordingly, IA No. 695/2018 is allowed and non-appearance of
+appellant- Lalit before this Court on 23/01/2018 is hereby condoned.
+      Appellant- Lalit is directed to appear before the Office of this Court
+on 09/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the
+Office in this behalf.
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                     Judge
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.A. No. 1333/2016
+Indore dated : 04/04/2018
+      Shri Gopal Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants.
+      Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Appellant No.2- Jitendra Bhilala is present in person and he has been
+duly identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.2362/2018, an
+application for condonation of previous non-appearance of appellant on
+11/12/2017 before the registry of this Court.
+      Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to the accident
+appellant's left leg was fractured, therefore, he could not appear before the
+registry of this Court on 11/12/2017.
+      Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is
+supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the
+previous non-appearance of appellant No.2-Jitendra Bhilala on 11/12/2017
+before this Court.
+      Accordingly, IA No. 2362/2018 is allowed and non-appearance of
+appellant No.2- Jitendra Bhilala before this Court        on 11/12/2017    is
+hereby condoned.
+      Appellant No.2- Jitendra Bhilala is directed to appear before the
+Office of this Court on 05/07/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as
+may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.
+                                                      (S.K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                      Judge
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                 Cr.R. No.585/2017x
+Indore dated : 04/04/2018
+     None for the applicant, when the case is called for second
+ round.
+      None for the respondents.
+      On earlier occasions on 27/02/2018 and 19/12/2017 also none
+ appeared on behalf of the applicant,         which indicates that the
+ applicant is no longer interested in prosecuting this petition.
+      Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed for want of
+ prosecution.
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.R. No.876/2018x
+Indore dated :04/04/2018
+     Ms. Sangita Parsai, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant         is directed to deposit
+compounding fees before the trial Court and file its receipt before this
+Court.
+      List on 06/04/2018.
+                                             (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                 Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.A. No.1354/2006x
+Indore dated :04/04/2018
+     Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State.
+      Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for the respondent.
+      Heard learned counsel for the partis on IA No. 22674/2017, an
+application for grant of permission for renewal of passport.
+      The facts of the case are that the sole respondent has been
+acquitted vide judgment dated 26/09/2005 for offence under Sections
+6(1)(a) of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 20 of the Indian
+Wireless Act, 1985 in Criminal Case No. 86/2004. Against the acquittal,
+the present appeal has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh.
+      Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the daughter of
+the respondent is suffering from cancer and the passport No. E 7063637
+of the respondent was valid upto 12/01/2016. He has further submitted
+that his daughter is required to be treated in United States of America,
+therefore, permission be granted to renew his passport.
+      Learned Govt. Advocate has no serious objection in allowing the
+application.
+      Keeping in view the totality of the circumstnaces of the case, IA
+No. 22674/2017 is allowed and the respondent namely' Devendra S/o
+Rajmal Jain is permitted to take appropriate steps for renewal of his
+passport. Pendency of this appeal will not come in the way of the
+respondent, so far as renewal of the passport is concerned.
+      Certified copy as per rules.
+                                              (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                  Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.10178/2018x
+Indore dated :04/04/2018
+     Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to file the legible copy of the
+statement of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of
+the Cr.P.C. by next date of hearing positively.
+      List in tdhe week commencing 16/04/2018.
+
+
+                                                  (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.11933/2018x
+Indore dated :04/04/2018
+     Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
+diary by next date of hearing positively.
+      List in tdhe week commencing 16/04/2018.
+
+
+                                             (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                 Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    M.Cr.C. No.11954/2018x
+                  (Ranjeet Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :04/04/2018
+     Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate 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.676/2017, Police Station-Aerodrum
+District-Indore, concerning offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P.
+Excise Act.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to
+renew his prayer after recording the statement of the substantial
+prosecution witnesses before the trial Court.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn
+with the aforesaid liberty .
+      Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                  (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                     Judge
+
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No. 10853/2018x
+Indore dated :04/04/2018
+     Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
+      As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list on
+06/04/2018.
+
+
+                                                   (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.R. No. 463/2017x
+Indore dated :04/04/2018
+     Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Shri Govind Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent/EOW.
+      As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants, list alongwith
+Cr.R. No. 681/2017.
+
+
+                                                   (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+                 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         Cr.R. No.635/2017x
+               (Mallu @ Molu @ Suresh Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :04/04/2018
+     Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court
+to withdraw this revision petition filed under Section 102 of Juvenile
+Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                         Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.R. No. 843/2017x
+Indore dated :04/04/2018
+     Shri Brijesh Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Shri Akshat Pahadia, learned counsel for the respondent.
+      Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted a
+weeks time to file the power on behalf of the respondents.
+      Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted time to
+argue the matter.
+      List on 25/04/2018.
+                                              (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                  Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.R. No. 1005/2017x
+Indore dated :04/04/2018
+     Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri D. Patel, learned counsel for the respondents.
+      Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted a
+weeks time to file the power on behalf of the respondents.
+      List in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
+                                              (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                  Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.R. No. 903/2017x
+Indore dated :04/04/2018
+     Shri D. Patel, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the respondent.
+      List alongwith Cr.R. No. 1005/2017.
+                                              (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                  Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.R. No. 1084/2017x
+Indore dated :04/04/2018
+     None for the applicants.
+      In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List after 8 weeks.
+                                            (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.R. No. 1089/2017x
+Indore dated :04/04/2018
+     None for the applicant.
+      In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List after 8 weeks.
+                                            (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    M.Cr.C. No.7232/2018x
+                  (Manoj Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :04/04/2018
+     Shri D. Khanchandani, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri    Peyush   Jain,   learned   Govt.   Advocate     for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Heard. Case diary perused.
+      This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
+grant of bail in connection with Crime No.18/2015, Police Station-
+Dindayal Nagar District-Ratlam, concerning offence under Section
+420 of the IPC.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+second application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this second application is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                                  (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                     Judge
+
+skt
+                   THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                             Cr.A. No.143/2017x
+                      (Sanjay @ Ors. Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore, Dated:02/04/2018
+     Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellants.
+     Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State .
+    Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1943/2018-repeat
+(third) application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal
+Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on
+behalf of the appellant No.1-Sanjay.
+      Appellant No.1-Sanjay has been found guilty for offence under
+Section 326/34 of the IPC read with Section 25(1)(1B) of the Arms Act
+and has respectively been sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. & 1 years
+R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- & Rs.1,000/- with usual default
+stipulation.
+      It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
+appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty
+granted to him. It is alleged that the appellant gave a blow of sword on
+the hand of the Jitendra, however from the testimony of Mukesh
+Shrivastava (P.W. 14) and Dr. Ankur Maheshwari (P.W. 15), it appears
+that no bony injury was found on the person of Jitendra. As per
+prosecution case co-accused Mohanlal gave an axe blow on the injured
+Hari Singh but he caught the axe, due to which he sustained injuries on
+his left hand. As per the statement of Dr. Mukesh Shrivastava (PW 14)
+dislocation of left middle finger of Hari Singh (injurred) has been found,
+however, the jail sentence of the co-accused-Mohanlal has already been
+suspended by this Court vide order dated 07/04/2017. There is nothing
+on record to show that the injuries inflicted by the appellant No.1-
+Sanjay to the injured persons is found to be grievous in nature. The
+appellant has already suffered more than 1 years of the jail sentence.
+ There are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellant cannot be
+kept in custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him may render
+infructuous. The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount before the Trial
+Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence
+and for grant of bail to the appellant.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
+
+      Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
+and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail
+sentence of the appellant No.1-Sanjay.
+
+      Accordingly, I.A. No. 1943/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
+subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
+each of the appellant No.1-Sanjay in the sum of Rs.85,000/- (Rupees
+Eighty Five thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to
+the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance
+before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining
+sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the
+final disposal of this appeal.
+      The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
+presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such
+subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
+
+      List in due course.
+                                                          (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                              Judge
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.R. No.890/2018x
+Indore dated :02/04/2018
+     Shri N.S. Bhati, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Vishal     Sanothiya,    learned   Govt. Advocate     for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Heard learned counsel for the applicant on IA No. 1294/2018, Ist
+application filed under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of
+jail sentence and for grant of bail to the applicant-Jeevan.
+      At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of
+this Court to withdraw IA No. 1294/2018.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, IA No. 1294/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.
+      List in the week commencing on 30/04/2018 for final hearing at
+motion stage.
+
+
+                                               (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                   Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                           Cr.A. No.877/2017x
+                    (Surendra Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore, Dated:02/04/2018
+           Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant.
+             Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Public Prosecutor for the
+ respondent/State.
+             Heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   on   I.A.
+ No.1915/2018, repeat (second) application under Section 389(1) of
+ Cr.P.C for temporary suspension of custodial sentence of appellant
+ Surendra.
+             The appellant has been convicted for the offence
+ punishable under Sections 352, 307 (on two counts) of the IPC read
+ with Sections 25(1B)(B), 27(2) of the Arms Act and has been
+ respectively, sentenced to undergo 3 month R.I., 7 years R.I. (two
+ counts) and 1 years R.I. (two counts) and to pay with usual default
+ stipulation.
+             Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
+ appellant was on bail during trial and the liberty so granted to him
+ has not misused by him. He further submits that the marriage of his
+ daughter Sapna Kunwar is scheduled to be held on 18/04/2018 and
+ being a father of the Sapna, the presence of the appellant is required
+ to perform certain rituals.
+             This Court vide order dated 09/01/2018 has directed to
+ verify the factum of the marriage of the appellant's daughter.
+ Learned Public Prosecutor has filed the verification report received
+ from the SHO Police-Station-Kalukheda District-Ratlam and
+ submitted that the marriage of the daughter of the appellant is fixed
+  for 18/04/2018.
+              After taking into facts and circumstances of the case,
+ particularly the fact that the appellant belongs to Hindu religion and
+ his daughters' marriage is going to be solmenized on 18/04/2018 and
+ in order to perform certain customary rites and rituals his presence is
+ necessary.
+              In view of the aforesaid, it would be appropriate to
+ temporarily suspended the custodial sentence imposed against the
+ appellant for a period of 9 days.
+              Accordingly, the application I.A. No. 1915/2018 is
+ hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond
+ and surety bond, each in the sum of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees Seventy
+ Five thousand Only), by the appellant - Surendra Singh, to the
+ satisfaction of the learned trial Court he shall be released on bail
+ temporarily from 14/04/2018 to 22/04/2018, subject to the condition
+ that he shall surrender himself before the concerned trial Court on
+ 23th April, 2018 for being taken into custody and sent to jail to
+ suffer the remaining sentence.
+              Certified copy as per rules.
+
+
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                     Judge
+skt
+               THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No. 12606/2018x
+Indore dated :02/04/2018
+     Shri L. Sethia, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned counsel for the respondent
+No.1/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted time to
+argue the matter.
+      Meanwhile learned counsel for the applicants is directed to file the
+entire copy of the charge-sheet by next date of hearing positively.
+      List after two weeks.
+                                              (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                  Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.R. No. 1284/2016x
+Indore dated :02/04/2018
+     Parties through their counsel.
+      List alongwith Cr.R. No. 1320/2016.
+                                            (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                Judge
+
+skt
+               THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        Cr.R. No. 1320/2016x
+Indore dated : 02/04/2018
+      Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri    Vishal   Sanothiya,   learned   Govt.    Advocate     for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Applicant- Jaamsingh is present in person and he has been duly
+identified by his counsel. His presence is marked.
+      Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No.1518/2018, an
+application for condonation of non-appearance of applicant on 08/01/2018
+before the registry of this Court and change of date of appearance before
+the Registry of this Court.
+      Applicant submits that he has met with an accident and he is bed
+ridden, therefore, he is not in a position to travel at Indore, therefore, he
+could not mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on
+09/11/2017. Thereafter, he also moved an application for change of date,
+however, same application was considered and the next date was given on
+08/01/2018. However, on the said date also he was in bed ridden,
+therefore, he could not able to mark his presence.
+      Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, which is
+supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the
+non-appearance of applicant-Jaamsingh on 08/01/2018 before this Court.
+      Accordingly, IA No.1518/2018 is allowed and non-appearance of
+applicant- Jaamsingh before this Court         on 08/01/2018      is hereby
+condoned.
+      Applicant- Jaamsingh is directed to appear before the Office of this
+Court on 07/08/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by
+the Office.
+                                                      (S.K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                      Judge
+                THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No. 11304/2016x
+Indore dated :02/04/2018
+     Shri A.Guru, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
+No.1/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted time to
+argue the matter.
+      List after two weeks.
+                                              (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                  Judge
+
+skt
+       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                   Cr.R. No. 656/2017x
+Indore dated :02/04/2018
+     Shri H.Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
+argue the matter.
+      List after two weeks.
+                                             (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                 Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.R. No. 798/2017x
+Indore dated :02/04/2018
+     Shri Umesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
+argue the matter.
+      List in the week commencing 22/04/2018.
+                                             (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                 Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No. 4206/2017x
+Indore dated :02/04/2018
+     None for the applicants.
+      Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List after 8 weeks.
+                                             (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                 Judge
+
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C.No.6936/2017x
+Indore dated :02/04/2018
+     Shri A.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
+No.1/State.
+      Shri P.R. Panwar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
+      Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have
+entered into compromise, however, they could not produced the
+compromise application before this Court, therefore, he prays for time.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that learned counsel
+for the applicants is not complied with the direction issued by this Court
+on 16/03/2018.
+      Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he will comply the
+order during the course of the day.
+      List after two weeks.
+                                              (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                  Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.R. No.974/2018x
+Indore dated :02/04/2018
+     Shri J.Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Shri Vishal     Sanothiya,   learned   Govt. Advocate   for    the
+respondent/State.
+      Trial Court record is available.
+      Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks time to
+argue on IA No. 1444/2018, an application under Section 397(2) of the
+Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the
+applicant-Heerasingh.
+      Pryaer is allowed.
+      List in the week commencing 23/04/2018.
+                                                   (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                        Judge
+
+skt
+                     THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                              Cr.A. No.2515/2018x
+                           (Ganesh Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore, Dated:02/04/2018
+     Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant.
+     Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State .
+     Heard on the question of admission.
+      Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
+      Record of the court below be called for.
+      Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.2130/2018-
+an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
+for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
+appellant-Ganesh.
+      Appellant has been found guilty for offence under Section 354(A)
+of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 1 years R.I. and to pay
+fine of Rs.2,500/- with usual default stipulation.
+      It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
+learned trial Court has recorded conviction without properly
+appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions,
+contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have
+been overlooked. It is also submitted that the appellant was on bail
+during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by him. There
+are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellant cannot be kept in
+custody unnecessarily otherwise the       appeal filed by him may render
+infructuous. The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount before the Trial
+Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence
+and for grant of bail to the appellant.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
+
+      Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
+and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail
+ sentence of the appellant.
+
+      Accordingly, I.A. No. 2130/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
+subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
+each of the appellant-Ganesh in the sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty
+thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the
+satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before
+this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence
+imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final
+disposal of this appeal.
+      The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
+presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such
+subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
+
+      List in due course.
+                                                       (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                           Judge
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.A. No.56/2013x
+Indore dated :02/04/2018
+     Shri K.P. Pande, learned counsel for the appellants.
+      Shri Vishal    Sanothiya,   learned   Govt. Advocate      for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor prays for two weeks time to file reply
+of IA No. 1436/2018, repeat (sixth) application under Section 389(1) of
+the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the
+appellant No.1-Parmanand.
+      By way of last opportunity time is granted.
+      List after two weeks.
+                                              (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                  Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.A. No.839/2013x
+Indore dated :02/04/2018
+     Parties through their counsel.
+      List alongwith Cr.A. No. 577/2017.
+                                           (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                               Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.A. No.577/2017x
+Indore dated :02/04/2018
+     Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Shri Vishal    Sanothiya,   learned   Govt. Advocate      for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor prays for two weeks time to file reply
+of IA No. 6980/2017, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C.
+for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-
+Mayur.
+      By way of last opportunity time is granted.
+      List after two weeks.
+                                              (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                  Judge
+
+skt
+               THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        Cr.A. No.340/2014x
+Indore dated :02/04/2018
+     Shri K.P. Pande with Shri Jitendra Bajpai, learned counsel for the
+appellants.
+      Shri Vishal     Sanothiya,   learned    Govt. Advocate     for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Heard learned counsel for the appellants on IA No. 1371/2018, 6 th
+application filed under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail
+sentence and for grant of bail to the appellants.
+      At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission
+of this Court to withdraw IA No. 1371/2018.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, IA No. 1371/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.
+
+
+                                               (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                   Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.A. No.50/2015x
+Indore dated :02/04/2018
+     Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Shri Vishal     Sanothiya,   learned   Govt. Advocate     for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor prays for two weeks time to file reply
+of IA No. 4555/2017, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C.
+for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-
+Indresh.
+      By way of last opportunity time is granted.
+      List after three weeks.
+                                              (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                  Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        Cr.A. No.426/2016x
+Indore dated :02/04/2018
+     None for the appellant.
+      Shri Vishal     Sanothiya,   learned   Govt. Advocate     for   the
+respondent/State.
+      In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List after six weeks.
+                                              (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                  Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        Cr.A. No.672/2016x
+Indore dated :02/04/2018
+     None for the appellant.
+      Shri Vishal     Sanothiya,   learned   Govt. Advocate     for   the
+respondent/State.
+      In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List after six weeks.
+                                              (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                  Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.A. No.1830/2016x
+Indore dated :02/04/2018
+     Shri Sandeep Rajoria, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Shri Vishal    Sanothiya,    learned   Govt. Advocate       for   the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks time to
+argue on IA No. 1004/2018, third application under Section 389 of the
+Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to appellant-
+Saddam.
+      Pryaer is allowed.
+      List in tdhe week commencing 23/04/2018.
+
+
+                                               (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                   Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  M.Cr.C. No.6765/2018x
+             (Manohar Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :02/04/2018
+     Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate 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.239/2017, Police Station-Jharda
+District- Ujjain concerning offence under Sections 307, 447, 341,
+294,506, 323 and 325/34 of the IPC.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first
+application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                              (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                 Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.6836/2018x
+Indore dated :02/04/2018
+     Ms. Sonam Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
+diary by next date of hearing positively.
+      List in tdhe week commencing 16/04/2018.
+
+
+                                            (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.7263/2018x
+Indore dated :02/04/2018
+     Ms. Sonam Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
+diary by next date of hearing positively.
+      List in tdhe week commencing 16/04/2018.
+
+
+                                            (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                Judge
+
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.7051/2018x
+                     (Kadvi Bai Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :02/04/2018
+     Shri Nilesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Heard. Case diary perused.
+      This is repeat (fourth)) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for
+grant of bail in connection with Crime No.73/2016, Police Station-
+Balwada District- Khargone concerning offence under Sections 302
+and 307/34 of the IPC.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
+petition .
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn .
+      Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                    (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No.7396/2018x
+Indore dated :02/04/2018
+     Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
+diary by next date of hearing positively.
+      List in tdhe week commencing 16/04/2018.
+
+
+                                            (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                Judge
+
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.7769/2018x
+Indore dated :02/04/2018
+     Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Ms. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.
+      Shri Peyush Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor prays for time to complied with order
+dated 07/03/2018.
+      By way of indulgence one week's time is granted.
+      List in the week commencing 16/04/2018.
+
+                                               (S. K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                Judge
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.R. No.628/2013x
+Indore dated :28/03/2018
+     Parties through their counsel.
+      List alongwith Cr.R. No. 347/2013.
+
+                                           (S. K. Awasthi)
+skt                                            Judge
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.R. No.347/2013x
+Indore dated :28/03/2018
+     Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri   Hemant     Sharma,   learned   Govt.   Advocate   for    the
+respondent/State.
+      Perused the PUD dated 04/01/2018, received from the Judicial
+Magistrate First Class, Indore. In PUD prayer has been         made for
+transmission of record of Criminal Case No. 24471/2008 (Dr. Nalini
+Jhaveri Vs. Kishore Parikh).
+      Aforesaid record of the Criminal Case No. 24471/2008 had
+already been sent to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore by this
+Registry vide dispatch No. RD-436 dated 03/03/2014.
+      Let necessary information be sent to the Judicial Magistrate First
+Class, Indore in this regard.
+      With the aforesaid PUD stands disposed of.
+      List the revision for final hearing in due course alongwith Cr.R.
+No. 628/2013.
+
+
+
+                                                    (S. K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                     Judge
+               THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        Cr.R. No.1499/2016x
+Indore dated :28/03/2018
+     Shri D.S. Panwar, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri V.K. Gangwal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2 &
+4.
+      Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
+No.3/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
+weeks time to file the certified copy of the charge-sheet.
+      List after two weeks.
+
+                                                     (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                         Judge
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.R. No.1062/2017x
+Indore dated :28/03/2018
+     None for the applicant.
+      Shri   Hemant    Sharma,   learned   Govt.   Advocate    for   the
+respondent/State.
+      As per Office report, applicant-Sudhir could not mark his presence
+before the Registry of this Court on 20/03/2018.
+      Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against applicant-
+Sudhir for securing his presence before this Court on 30/04/2018.
+      List on 30/04/2018.
+
+                                                   (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.R. No.3886/2017x
+Indore dated :28/03/2018
+     None for the applicant.
+      Shri   Hemant    Sharma,   learned   Govt.   Advocate   for    the
+respondent/State.
+      In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List after four weeks.
+
+                                                   (S. K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                    Judge
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.A. No.686/2010x
+Indore dated :28/03/2018
+     Shri Ramesh Gangare, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Shri   Hemant    Sharma,    learned    Govt.   Advocate     for   the
+respondent/State.
+      As per the report received from the Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar,
+appellant has suffered the entire jail sentence awarded by the trial Court.
+Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant does not
+wish to press this appeal.
+      Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as not pressed.
+
+                                                     (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                         Judge
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.R. No.651/2018x
+Indore dated :28/03/2018
+     Shri M.A. Bohra, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Shri   Hemant    Sharma,     learned   Govt.     Advocate   for    the
+respondent/State.
+      Let record of the Courts' below be called for.
+      List immediately after received of the record.
+
+                                                       (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                           Judge
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.27503/2017x
+Indore dated :28/03/2018
+     Shri Ajay Bagadia, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri   Hemant    Sharma,       learned   Govt.   Advocate   for    the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available by case-
+diary by next date of hearing positively.
+      List in the next week.
+      IR to continue till next date of hearing.
+      Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                       (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                           Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.A. No.1221/2018x
+Indore dated :28/03/2018
+     Shri Arjun Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Shri   Hemant    Sharma,    learned    Govt.    Advocate   for    the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted a weeks
+time to cure the defects pointed out by the Office.
+      List after a week.
+                                                      (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                          Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.R. No.689/2018x
+Indore dated :28/03/2018
+     None for the applicant.
+      Shri   Hemant   Sharma,   learned   Govt.   Advocate   for    the
+respondent/State.
+      In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List after two weeks.
+                                                  (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.A. No.2096/2018x
+Indore dated :28/03/2018
+     None for the applicant.
+      Shri   Hemant    Sharma,     learned   Govt.     Advocate   for    the
+respondent/State.
+      Let record of the Courts' below be called for.
+      List immediately after received of the record.
+
+                                                       (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                           Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        Cr.A. No.5204/2017
+                      (Ram @ Smackchi Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore, Dated:28/03/2018
+     Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant.
+       Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent/State .
+       Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.22553/2017- an
+application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
+suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
+appellant-Ram @ Smackchi.
+       The appellant has been found guilty for offence under Section
+392/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. and
+to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with usual default stipulation.
+       Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was
+on bail during the trial and he has not misused the liberty so granted to
+him. It is further submitted that the appellant is not named in the FIR.
+Although it is alleged that complainant Sooraj Day (PW 1) had
+identified the appellant in Test Identification Parade, however, he has
+refused to identify the appellant during his examination before the
+Court. The statement of the complainant does not disclose that any
+person robbed his mobile phone. No identification parade of the seized
+article has been conducted during the course of investigation.
+Independent witness of the memorandum and seizure was also not
+supported the prosecution version.          Under these circumstances, the
+appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 392 of the
+IPC.    There are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellant
+cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him
+may render infructuous. The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount
+before the Trial Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of
+jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant.
+       Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
+       Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
+and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail
+sentence of the appellant.
+
+      Accordingly, I.A. No.22553/2017 is allowed and it is directed that
+subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
+the appellant-Ram @ Smackchi in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees
+Seventy Five Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount
+to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance
+before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining
+sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the
+final disposal of this appeal.
+      The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
+presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such
+subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
+
+      List in due course.
+                                                        (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                           Judge
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.A. No.6284/2017
+               (Shivam @ Shiv @ Dharam Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore, Dated:28/03/2018
+     Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.
+       Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent/State .
+       Heard on the question of admission.
+       Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
+       Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1616/2018-
+an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
+for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the
+appellant-Shivam @ Shiv @ Dharam.
+       The appellant has been found guilty for offence under Section
+392/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. and
+to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with usual default stipulation.
+       Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the appellant was
+on bail during the trial and he has not misused the liberty so granted to
+him. It is further submitted that the appellant is not named in the FIR.
+Although it is alleged that complainant Sooraj Day (PW 1) had
+identified the appellant in Test Identification Parade, however, he has
+refused to identify the appellant during his examination before the
+Court. The statement of the complainant does not disclose that any
+person robbed his mobile phone. No identification parade of the seized
+article has been conducted during the course of investigation.
+Independent witness of the memorandum and seizure was also not
+supported the prosecution version.       Under these circumstances, the
+appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 392 of the
+IPC.    There are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellant
+cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him
+may render infructuous. The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount
+before the Trial Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of
+ jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application.
+
+      Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts
+and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail
+sentence of the appellant.
+
+      Accordingly, I.A. No. 1616/2018 is allowed and it is directed that
+subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by
+the appellant-Shivam @ Shiv @ Dharam in the sum of Rs.75,000/-
+(Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like
+amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular
+appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the
+remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain
+suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
+      The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his
+presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such
+subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.
+
+      List in due course.
+                                                          (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                             Judge
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.A. No.1452/2018x
+Indore dated :28/03/2018
+     Shri M. Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the appellants.
+      Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the appellants prays for and is granted two
+weeks time to argue on IA No. 1145/2018, an application under Section
+389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail
+to appellant No.1-Bharatsingh.
+      List after two weeks.
+
+                                                     (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                         Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.R. No.1270/2018x
+Indore dated :28/03/2018
+     Shri N.K. Soni, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be
+issued to respondent by ordinary as well as registered AD on admission
+alongwith IA No. 1934/2018, an application for stay. Notice be made
+returnable within four weeks.
+      List thereafter.
+
+                                                   (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      Cr.R. No.1388/2018x
+Indore dated :28/03/2018
+     Shri K.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be
+issued to respondent     by ordinary as well as registered AD on
+admission . Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
+      List thereafter.
+
+                                                  (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+               THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        Cr.A. No.2086/2018x
+Indore dated :28/03/2018
+     Shri K.K. Bundela, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
+No.1/State.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
+diary on next date of hearing positively and also to comply with Section
+15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989.
+      List after two weeks.
+
+                                                  (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.A. No.2097/2018x
+Indore dated :28/03/2018
+     Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      List alongwith Cr.A. No. 2421/2018.
+
+                                                   (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.A. No.2421/2018x
+Indore dated :28/03/2018
+     Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Let record of the court below be called for.
+      List immediately after received of the record.
+
+                                                       (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                           Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.A. No.2545/2018x
+Indore dated :28/03/2018
+     Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Let record of the court below be called for.
+      List immediately after received of the record.
+
+                                                       (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                           Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     M.Cr.C. No.11441/2018x
+Indore dated :28/03/2018
+     Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
+diary by next date of hearing positvely.
+      List after two weeks.
+                                                  (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+                  THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.11585/2018x
+Indore dated :28/03/2018
+     None for the applicant.
+      Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List after four weeks.
+                                                 (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                     Judge
+
+skt
+                   THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No.12275/2018x
+Indore dated :28/03/2018
+     Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be
+issued to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 by ordinary as well as registered AD on
+admission alongwith IA No. 2129/2018, an application for stay. Notice
+be made returnable within four weeks.
+      List thereafter.
+
+                                                  (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.4685/2017x
+Indore dated :27/03/2018
+     Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      None for the respondent, though duly served.
+      Heard learned counsel for the applicants on IA No. 2107/2018, an
+application for condonation of delay of 1 days in serving the humdast
+notice to the respondent.
+      On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application,
+which is supported with affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to
+condone the delay.
+      Accordingly, IA No.2107/2018 is allowed and delay of 01 days in
+serving the humdast notice to the respondent is hereby condoned.
+      List after two weeks.
+      I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.
+      Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                   (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.A. No.5901/2017x
+Indore dated :27/03/2018
+     None for the appellant.
+      Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Let record of the court below be called for.
+      List immediately after receipt of the record.
+
+                                               (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                   Judge
+
+skt
+               THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No.6331/2017x
+Indore dated :27/03/2018
+     Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
+No.2/State.
+      On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be
+issued to respondent No.1 by ordinary as well as registered AD. Notice
+be made returnable within four weeks.
+      Till the next date of hearing, no correcive action shall be taken
+against the applicant.
+      Certified copy as per rules.
+
+                                                  (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.8520/2017x
+Indore dated :27/03/2018
+     None for the parties.
+      In absence of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List after four weeks.
+                                           (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                               Judge
+
+skt
+                   THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        M.Cr.C. No.8871/2017x
+Indore dated :27/03/2018
+     Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
+No.1/State.
+      None for the respondenet No.2.
+      Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted four
+weeks' time to argue the matter.
+      List therafter.
+                                                  (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.8889/2017x
+Indore dated :27/03/2018
+     Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      None for the respondent.
+      Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted four
+weeks' time to argue the matter.
+      List therafter.
+                                                  (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     M.Cr.C. No.22156/2017x
+Indore dated :27/03/2018
+     Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
+      Learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted a weeks time to
+argue the matter.
+      List after a week.
+                                                  (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.23036/2017x
+Indore dated :27/03/2018
+     Shri Sandeep Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      On payment of process-fee within three working days, let notice
+be issued to respondent by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode.
+Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
+      Meanwhile record of the court below be called for.
+      List thereafter.
+                                                   (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    M.Cr.C. No.23324/2017x
+Indore dated :27/03/2018
+     Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      None for the respondent.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
+argue the matter.
+      List after two weeks.
+                                             (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                 Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.23465/2017x
+Indore dated :27/03/2018
+     Shri Pourush Raka, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Notice issued against respondent No.1 return unserved.
+      On payment of fresh process-fee within three working days, let
+notice be issued to respondent No.1 by ordinary as well as by registered
+AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
+      List thereafter.
+                                                  (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                      Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                      M.Cr.C. No.23821/2017x
+Indore dated :27/03/2018
+     Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
+diary by next date of hearing positively.
+      List after two weeks.
+                                             (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                 Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    M.Cr.C. No.23989/2017x
+Indore dated :27/03/2018
+     Shri Ashish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      None for the respondent.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
+argue the matter.
+      List after two weeks.
+                                             (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                 Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                   M.Cr.C. No.11739/2018x
+              (Amrita Bai Sharma Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :27/03/2018
+     Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Ms.    Nidhi   Bohra,    learned    Govt.      Advocate   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.06/2018, Police Station-Bercha
+District- Shajapur concerning offence under Sections 363 and
+364(A)/34 of the IPC.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first
+application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                         (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                            Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    M.Cr.C. No.11631/2018x
+Indore dated :27/03/2018
+     Shri Imran Qureshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is available.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to
+argue the matter.
+      List in the week commencing 09/04/2018.
+                                             (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                 Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    M.Cr.C. No.10428/2018x
+Indore dated :27/03/2018
+     Shri Rajnish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
+diary by next date of hearing positively.
+      List in the week commencing 09/04/2018.
+                                             (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                 Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    M.Cr.C. No.11907/2018x
+Indore dated :27/03/2018
+     Shri N.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is not available.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
+diary by next date of hearing positively.
+      List in the week commencing 09/04/2018.
+                                             (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                 Judge
+
+skt
+       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  M.Cr.C. No. 5799/2018x
+Indore dated :26/03/2018
+     Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      None for the respondents.
+      Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he has filed the list
+of documnts on 21/03/2018, however, these documents are not placed
+on record.
+      List on 27/03/2018.
+                                                     (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                          Judge
+
+skt
+       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                  M.Cr.C. No. 5785/2018
+Indore dated :26/03/2018
+     Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      None for the respondents.
+      Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he has filed the list
+of documnts on 21/03/2018, however, these documents are not placed
+on record.
+      List on 27/03/2018.
+                                                     (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                          Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.A.No. 2078/2018x
+Indore dated :26/03/2018
+     Shri Abhishek Tugnagwat, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
+      Case-diary is not available.
+      Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has filed IA No.
+1972/2018, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
+condonation of delay .
+      Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case-
+diary on next date of hearing positively and also to comply with Section
+15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 alongwith notice of IA No.
+1972/2018.
+      List in the week commening 09/04/2018.
+                                             (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                 Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    Cr.R. No. 1324/2018x
+Indore dated :26/03/2018
+     Shri Shahid Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Let record of the Courts below be called for.
+      List immediately after receipt of the record.
+
+
+                                                      (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                           Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    M.Cr.C.No. 7502/2018x
+Indore dated :26/03/2018
+     Shri Ratnesh R. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a weeks time to
+call report from the concerned SHO that what steps he has taken to
+produce the prosecutrix before the trial Court for recording her
+statement in the light of Section 35(1) of the Protection of Children from
+Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
+      List in the week commencing 09/04/2018.
+
+
+                                                    (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                         Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                   M.Cr.C. No.4797/2018x
+                 (Pappu Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :26/03/2018
+     Shri Kaushal Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Heard. Case diary perused.
+      This is repeat (third) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of
+bail in connection with Crime No.468/2016, Police Station-Badnawar District-
+Dhar concerning offence under Sections 376, 506 of the IPC read with Section ¾
+of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this third
+application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this third application is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                           (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                              Judge
+
+skt
+             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     M.Cr.C. No.4770/2018x
+            (Manjit Singh @ Pappu Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :26/03/2018
+     Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for the respondent/CBN.
+      Heard. Case diary perused.
+      This is first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in
+connection with Crime No. 1/2017, Police Station-CBN, Mandsaur District-
+Mandsaur concerning offence under Sections 8/15 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
+and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
+      After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel
+for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first
+application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
+      Prayer is allowed.
+      Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn .
+
+
+                                          (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                             Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                    Cr.R. No. 71/2018
+Indore dated :16/03/2018
+     Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Shri Vishal     Sanothiya,   learned   Govt. Advocate      for    the
+respondent/State.
+      Let record of the Courts below be called for.
+      List immediately after receipt of the record.
+
+
+                                                      (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                           Judge
+
+skt
+       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                   Cr.A. 5000/2017x
+Indore dated :23/03/2018
+     Shri Vishal Pawar, learned counsel for the appellant.
+     Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondents/State.
+     Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 21856/2017, an
+application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of
+delay of 300 days in filing this appeal.
+      Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant's
+father is old and sick person aged about 62 years and the appellant is in
+custody, therefore, he could not file this appeal within the prescribed
+time period. Under these circumstances, he prayed for condonation of
+delay.
+      Though prayer for condonation of delay is opposed by the learned
+Public Prosecutor.
+      On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application,
+which is supported with affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to
+condone the delay.
+      Accordingly, IA No. 21856/2017 is allowed and delay of 300 days
+in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.
+      Heard on the question of admission.
+      Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
+      Record of the trial Court be called for.
+      List the appeal immediately after receipt of the record for
+consideration of IA No. 1918/2018, an application under Section
+389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of
+bail to the appellant-Sodan Singh.
+                                                 (S. K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                  Judge
+               THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                        Cr.A. No.2267/2018x
+Indore dated :23/03/2018
+     None for the appellant.
+      Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List after four weeks.
+
+
+                                            (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                Judge
+
+skt
+         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                   Cr.A. No.617/2016x
+Indore dated :23/03/2018
+     None for the appellant.
+      Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List after six weeks for consideration of IA No. 182/2018, an
+application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail
+sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-Lakhan Singh.
+
+
+                                              (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                  Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.A. No.6098/2018x
+Indore dated :23/03/2018
+     Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks
+time to file reply of IA No. 1950/2018, an application under Section
+389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail
+to the appellant-Salam.
+      List in the week commencing 16/04/2018.
+
+
+                                               (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                   Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.A. No.511/2018x
+Indore dated :23/03/2018
+     Shri Gyanendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
+      Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted four
+weeks time to argue on IA No. 377/2018, an application under Section
+389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail
+to the appellant-Ganpatlal Kumawat.
+      List after four weeks.
+
+
+                                               (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                   Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.R. No.1166/2018x
+Indore dated :23/03/2018
+     Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
+      Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
+respondent/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
+weeks time to file the entire copy of the charge-sheet.
+      List after two weeks alongwith M.Cr.C. No. 10790/2018 for
+analogous hearing.
+
+
+                                               (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                   Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.8179/2017x
+Indore dated :23/03/2018
+     None for the applicant.
+      Shri Anurag Chandra Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent.
+      At the request of learned counsel for the respondent list the matter
+in the week commencing 16/04/2018 alongwith M.Cr.C. Nos.
+8177/2017,    8182/2017,    8174/2017,    8183/2017,    8187/2017     and
+8210/2017 for analogous hearing.
+
+
+                                              (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                  Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.8211/2017x
+Indore dated :23/03/2018
+     None for the applicant.
+      Shri Anurag Chandra Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent.
+      At the request of learned counsel for the respondent list the matter
+in the week commencing 16/04/2018 alongwith M.Cr.C. Nos.
+8177/2017,    8182/2017,    8174/2017,    8183/2017,    8187/2017     and
+8210/2017 for analogous hearing.
+
+
+                                              (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                  Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       M.Cr.C. No.3771/2018x
+Indore dated :23/03/2018
+     None for the applicant.
+      In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List after six weeks.
+
+
+                                            (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                Judge
+
+skt
+              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                       Cr.R. No.468/2017x
+Indore dated :23/03/2018
+     None for the applicants.
+      In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is
+adjourned.
+      List after six weeks.
+
+
+                                            (S. K. Awasthi)
+                                                Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.R. No.964/2017x
+                  (Irfan & Ors Vs. State of M.P.)
+Indore dated :23/03/2018
+     Shri Pankaj Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants.
+      Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
+/State.
+      Learned counsel for the applicants does not wish to press this
+criminal revision filed under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C.
+      Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed as not pressed.
+
+
+                                                   (S.K. Awasthi)
+                                                       Judge
+
+skt
+            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                         M.Cr.C. No.4311/2018x
+                        (State of M.P. vs. Manoj)
+Indore dated :23/03/2018
+
+      Smt. Archana Kher, Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.
+
+      None for the respondent.y
+
+                              ORDER
+
+

The applicant/State has filed this petition under Section 378(3) Code of + +Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') for the grant leave to appeal + +against judgment dated 30/10/2017 passed by Additional 4 th Additional Sessions + +Judge, Badnawar, District Dhar in S.T. No. 302/2012, whereby the respondent- +

+

Manoj has been acquitted from the charge under Sections 420, 467, 469 and 471 of + +the IPC. +

+

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainant-Lalchand filed a + + private complaint against the respondent on the ground that on 25/05/2010, he + + purchased a motorcycle from one Bhaiyyu S/o Sadat Ali bearing registration No. + + MP-09-MS-4721 and an agreement was executed to this effect. Under the + + agreement parties were agreed that the complainant-Lalchand will use the + + motorcycle and if he found in defect in it, then transaction shall be cancelled. +

+

Complainant-Lalchand has handedover a cheque of Rs.40,000/- as a surety and it + + was also agreed that if the complainant found the vehicle in good condition then + + Bhaiyyu will entitled to encash the aforesaid cheque. After using the motorcycle + + for a period of one month the complainant cancelled the agreement and return + + back the motorcycle to the Bhaiyyu. When the complainant demanded the + + aforesaid cheque then Bhaiyyu did not return the him the cheque. On + 11/07/2011, complainant-Lalchand received a notice from the Advocate of + +respondent-Manoj, in which, it was stated that the cheque No. 3526720 was + +issued by him to the respondent towards financial assistance of Rs.1,50,000/-. +

+

When the cheque was presented for encashment the same were dishonoured for + +"insufficiency of funds", thereafter, respondent filed a private complaint under + +Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against complainant before + +Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badnawar District-Dhar and on the basis of the + +above complaint the Court has taken the cognizance against the complainant + +under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Then complainant + +filed a written complaint against the respondent at Police-Station-Badnawar + +regarding cheating and forgery, however, police has not taken any action in the + +aforesaid report. Thereafter, complainant filed a private complaint against the + +respondent before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badnawar. After receiving the + +report, the statement of the complainant-Lalchand and his witnesses were + +recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. and after considering the + +material available on record, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badnawar registered + +the complaint against the respondent for commission of the offence under + +Sections 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 of the IPC. The offence registered against + +the respondent was triable by Sessions Court, therefore, the case was committed + +to the Court of Sessions and ultimately it was transferred to the Court of 4 th + +Additional Sessions Judge, Badnawar District-Dhar. +

+

3. The trial Court after due appreciation of the entire record by the impugned + +judgment held that the prosecution has failed to proved that the cheque issued + +by the complainant-Lalchand was forged by the respondent-Manoj. +

4. learned counsel for the applicant/State submitted that the trial Court has + + wrongly disbelieved the statement of the complainant-Lalchand as well the + + documentary evidence available on record and acquigtted the respondent. Hence, + + he prayed for grant of leave to appeal. +

+

5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the + + applicant and perused the record. +

+

6. On the perusal of the impugned judgment, we are of the considered view + + that the trial Court on the basis of statement of the complainant and the material + + available on record, does not found prove that the complainant has issued cheque + + in pursuance to the agreement for sale of motorcycle in favour of the Bhaiyyu + + and he handed over the same cheque to the respondent, who misused the same + + and presented with the bankers for encashment. From the perusal of record, it + + appears that the dispute is of a civil nature and to given a cloak of criminal + + offence this complaint has been filed. In view of the aforesaid, the finding of + + acquittal recorded by the trial Court appears to be just and reasonable. No + + perversity is apparent in the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court + +

7. Resultantly, no grounds are available to grant leave to appeal against + +impugned judgment of acquittal, hence, the petition is hereby dismissed.

+
+
+
+      (Hemant Gupta)                                  (S. K. Awasthi)
+        Chief Justice                                     Judge
+skt
+

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.24615/2017x +Indore dated :19/02/2018 + Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

The applicant has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of +the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR registered +at Crime No. 596/2017 at Police Station Barwah, District-Khargone +for offences punsihable under Section 354(d) of the IPC; Section +67(a) of the I.T. Act; Sections 11(4), 12 & 3/4 of the Protection of +Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 read with Sections 3(2)(vii) +3 (2)(5)(k) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989. +

From the perusal of the documents available on record, it +appears that neither the copy of FIR has been filed nor the case-diary +is available, therefore, learned counsel for the applicant is directed to +file the copy of the FIR. Meanwhile learned Govt. Advocate is +directed to make available the case-diary be next date of hearing +positively. +

List in the week commencing 09/04/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Writ Appeal No.418/2014x + (State of M.P. & ors. vs. Dushyant Pagare) + Indore dated :22/03/2018 + + Shri Mukesh Porwal, Govt. Advocate for the appellants/State. + None for the respondent. +

ORDER + + Challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single + + Bench on 04/03/2014 in writ petition No. 12598/2013, whereby transfer of the + + writ petitioner vide order dated 04/10/2013 was set aside. +

+

In an appeal against the order of setting aside the transfer, this Court + + passed an order of stay of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on + + 16/04/2014. An application for vacation of stay was dismissed on 09/05/2014. +

+

The respondent has filed an application IA No. 4989/2017 pointing out + + that the writ petitioner has been now transferred from Barwani to Shahdol on + + 10/07/2017 and the writ appeal has become infructuous. +

+

In view of the fact that transfer of the writ petitioner to Barwani, which + + was set aside by the learned Single Bench was stayed and subsequently, the writ + + petitioner has been transferred to Shahdol, we do not find that any cause in the + + present writ appeal survives. +

+

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed as infructuous.

+
+
+
+            (Hemant Gupta)                               (S. K. Awasthi)
+              Chief Justice                                  Judge
+skt
+               HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
+                     Cr.A. No.1030/2014
+Indore dated :21/03/2018
+

Shri S.K. Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the appellant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

List alongwith Cr.A. No. 1057/2014. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1057/2014x + (Azad Shah Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:21/03/2018 + Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Counsel for the respondent/State . + Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1832/2018- +repeat (second) application under Section 389(1) of the Code of +Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail +filed on behalf of the appellant-Azad Shah. +

The appellant has been found guilty for the offence under Sections +379 & 379/34 of the IPC and has respectively been sentenced to +undergo 2 years R.I. and 2 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for +each offence. +

First application for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of +bail to appellant-Azad Shah has been allowed by this Court, vide order +dated 31/07/2014 subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of +Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the +trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on 08/12/2014 and +on all such future dates as may be fixed in that behalf during the +pendency of this appeal. But appellant could not furnish the bail bond +before the trial Court, therefore, he filed an IA No. 9/2015, an +application for extension of time to furnish bail bond, which was +allowed by this Court, vide order dated 03/02/2015 and the appellant is +directed to furnish the bail bond in the line of the order dated +31/08/2014 and shall remain present in the Registry on 28/04/2015 and +on all such other dates as may be fixed in this behalf. Thereafter, +appellant regularly appear before this Court for his appearance. During +pendency of this appeal, the appellant was absent on 16/03/2017. Thus +this Court, vide order dated 16/05/2017 directed to issued non-bailable +warrant against the applicant. Thereafter, on 07/11/2017, it was + informed that the appellant is detained in Central Jail, Bherugarh in +some other case, therefore, production warrant was issued against him +and in pursuance of aforesaid production warrant the appellant was +produced before this Court on 13/12/2017 and since then he is in +custody. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was +detained in jail since 12/03/2017 in some other case, therefore, he could +not mark his presence before this Court on 16/03/2017 and he ensure +that in future appellant shall regularly appear before the registry of this +Court on all dates as may be given in this behalf. Under these +circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail +to the appellant. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. +

+

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts +and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail +sentence of the appellant. +

+

Accordingly, I.A. No. 1832/2018 is allowed and it is directed that +on furnishing personal bond by the appellant-Azad Shah in the sum of +Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the +like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular +appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the +remaining sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain +suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal. +

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his +presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.2097/2018x + (Kamlesh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:21/03/2018 + Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Counsel for the respondent/State . + Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Record of the court below be called for. + Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1873/2018- +an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure +for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the +appellants-Kamlesh & Kailash. +

Each of the appellant has been found guilty for offence under +Section 325/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 3 years +R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with usual default stipulation. +

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the +learned trial Court has recorded conviction without properly +appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions, +contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have +been overlooked. It is also submitted that the appellants were on bail +during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by them. There +are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellants cannot be kept in +custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by them may render +infructuous. The appellants are ready to deposit the fine amount before the +Trial Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail +sentence and for grant of bail to the appellants. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. +

+

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts +and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail +sentence of the appellants. +

Accordingly, I.A. No. 1873/2018 is allowed and it is directed that +subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by +each of the appellants-Kamlesh and Kailash in the sum of +Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the +like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for their regular +appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the +remaining sentence imposed against the appellants shall remain +suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal. +

The appellants, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their +presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.2085/2018x + (Sangram Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:21/03/2018 + Shri M.M. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Counsel for the respondent/State . + Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Record of the court below be called for. + Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1748/2018- +an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure +for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the +appellant-Sangram. +

The appellant has been found guilty for offence under Sections +451, 354(A) of the IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PA) +Act, 1989 and Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 and has +respectively been sentenced to undergo 1 years R.I., 6 months R.I. and 3 +years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.5,000/- with +usual default stipulation. +

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the +learned trial Court has recorded conviction without properly +appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions, +contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have +been overlooked. It is also submitted that the appellant was on bail +during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by him. There +are fair chances of success of this appeal . The appellant cannot be kept in +custody unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him may render +infructuous. The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount before the Trial +Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence +and for grant of bail to the appellant. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the application. + Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and facts +and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail +sentence of the appellant. +

+

Accordingly, I.A. No. 1748/2018 is allowed and it is directed that +subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the +appellant-Sangram in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand +only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the +learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before this Court, the +execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence imposed against +the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this +appeal. +

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his +presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10711/2018x +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri Rakesh Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10229/2018x +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri M.M. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List on 28/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9899/2018x +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri Amit Raval, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10184/2018x + (Kaju Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri M.R. Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first +application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10220/2018x +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10891/2018x +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Shri Vikas Jaiswal, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. + Learned counsel for the complainant prays for and is granted time +to file written objection on the bail application. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10892/2018 +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after a week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10896/2018 +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after a week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10908/2018 +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri Surendra Tuteja, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10975/2018 + (Arjun Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri Pramod Choubey, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first +application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to +renew his prayer after recording the statement of the prosecutrix +before the trial Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn +with the aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.11009/2018 +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.29139/2017 +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.4774/2018x +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri Umesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List on 28/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.5235/2018x +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri Vaibhav Dube, learned counsel for the applicants. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9875/2018x + (Raju @ Rajesh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri K.C. Waghela, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first +application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.926/2016x +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted two +weeks' time to argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 16/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.617/2018x +Indore dated :21/03/2018 + Shri K.C. Kabra, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1860/2018, an +application for amendment in the array of IA No. 460/2018, an +application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of +jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellants. +

On due consideration IA No. 1860/2018 is allowed. + Applicant is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the IA +No. 460/2018 during the course of the day. +

List in the week commencing 09/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1797/2018x +Indore, Dated:21/03/2018 + + None for the appellants. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Counsel for the respondent/State . + List alongwith Cr.A. No. 2197/2018.

+
+
+                                            (S.K. Awasthi)
+skt                                            Judge
+

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.2197/2018x +Indore, Dated:21/03/2018 + + Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Counsel for the respondent/State . + Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Record of the Court below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record.

+
+                                              (S.K. Awasthi)
+skt                                              Judge
+

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.611/2017x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

Learned counsel for the applicant is also directced to file the copy +of the entire charge-sheet. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1584/2017x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, list the matter +in the week commencing 02/04/2018 alongwith Cr.A. No. 1463/2017. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.3173/2017x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Vaibhav Dube, learned counsel for the applicant. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks +time to argue on the maintainability of the revision. +

List after a week . +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.3286/2017x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Sachin Parmar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the copy of the +entire charge-sheet. +

List after two weeks. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.3344/2017x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks +time to argue the matter. +

List after a week. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.3762/2017x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Ms. Shraddha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after two weeks. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.4206/2017x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri M. Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.4935/2017x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri M.L. Patidar, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Shri A. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. + Learned counsel for the partis prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after two weeks. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.5090/2017x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants. + None for the respondent. +

At the request of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is +adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.5567/2017x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri M.K. Khokar, learned counsel for the applicant. + On payment of process-fee within three working days, let notice +be issued to respondents by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode. +Notice be made returnable within four weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 6692/2017x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. + Let record of the Court below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 6689/2017x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. + Let record of the Court below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10332/2018x + (Gulab Kapoor Vs. Shilpa) +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant. + After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to raise all +the grounds before the trial Court, which are alleged in the present +petition. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10818/2018x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Sudarshan Pandit, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10856/2018x + (Sitarasingh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Anurag Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +second application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty +to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the substantial +prosecution witnesses before the trial Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this second application is dismissed as withdrawn +with the aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.26580/2017x + (Rajendra @ Bacha Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Jagdish Dangi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +second application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty +to renew his prayer after recording the statement of the substantial +prosecution witnesses before the trial Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this second application is dismissed as withdrawn +with the aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6108/2018x + (Sheru Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +second application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this second application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7586/2018x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for time to file FSL report +with regard to liquor seized from the possession of the applicant. +

By way of indulgence prayer is allowed. + List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8027/2018x + (Champalal Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Zishan Ali, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first +application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to +renew his prayer after recording the statement of the prosecutrix +before the trial Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn +with the aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8418/2018x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Gajendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9752/2018x + (Shekhar Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Surendra Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first +application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1213/2018x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Let record of the Courts' below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9933/2018x +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10754/2018x + (Nandlkishore Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :20/03/2018 + Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first +application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first application is dismissed as withdrawn . +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1313/2017x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri R.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1872/2018, an +application for grant of temporary bail to the appellant-Ramswaroop +Dangi. +

At this stage learned counsel for the appellant seeks leave of this +Court to withdraw IA No. 1872/2018. +

Pryaer is allowed. +

Accordingly, IA No. 1872/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn. + List the matter after three weeks for consideration of IA No. +6821/2017, an application 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail +sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-Ramswaroop. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.185/2011x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + None for the appellants. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellants, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1353/2016x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + None for the parties. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.803/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + None for the applicants. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Applicants are directed to cure the defects pointed out by the +office within 1 weeks from today, failing which this petition shall stands +dismissed without further reference to this Court. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.897/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Applicant is directed to cure the defects pointed out by the office +within 1 weeks from today, failing which this petition shall stands +dismissed without further reference to this Court. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1022/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + None for the parties. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1161/2018 x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + None for the applicants. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1169/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Applicant is directed to cure the defect pointed out by the office +within 1 weeks from today, failing which this petition shall stands +dismissed without further reference to this Court. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 1938/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9365/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks +time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office. +

List thereafter . +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 691/2015x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + None for the respondent. +

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to comply with order +dated 26/04/2017 passed by this Court by the next date of hearing +postively. +

List on 04/04/2018 . +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 639/2015x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Ranjeet Kalra, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent. + Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to comply with order +dated 26/04/2017 passed by this Court by the next date of hearing +postively. +

List on 04/04/2018 . +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 11331/2015x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + None for the applicants. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. + At the request of learned counsel for the respondent No.2, list on +04/04/2018 + (S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 163/2016x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. + At the request of learned counsel for the respondent No.2, list on +04/04/2018 + (S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.363/2018x + (Joy Bamiya Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Jil Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +revision petition. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, if +the applicant is moved fresh application by showing change of +circumstances before the Juvenile Justice Board, then same shall be +considered in accordance with law. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 9710/2017x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri A. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, list in the next +week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 9779/2017x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

At the request of learned counsel for the applicants, list in the next +week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1199/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Arun Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. + Respondent No.1- Vaishali Raipuriya is present in person before +this Court. +

Shri Hemant, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent +No.2 /State. +

This Criminal Revision is preferred under Sections 397 and 401 + of Cr.P.C. against judgment dated 08/03/2018 passed by IInd + Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani District- Barwani in Criminal + Appeal No.101/2017 confirming the judgment of conviction and + sentence dated 29/05/2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, + Barwani, District Barwani in Criminal Case No. 01/2016, whereby the + applicant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section + 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and he has been + sentenced to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment with + compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-. +

Heard on I.A. No.1811/2018, an application under Section 397 + (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf + of the applicant-Rajkumar. +

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant +has already paid the entire compensation amount to the respondent +No.1/complainant-Vaishali Raipuriya on 12/03/2018 and she has +sworned the affidavit in this regard. It is further submitted that the +applicant was on bail during the trial and the liberty so granted was not +misused by him. There is no possibility of the revision coming up for final +hearing in near future and hence, the applicant may be benefited by +suspension of sentence. +

Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposes the +submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and prays for +rejection of the application. +

Respondent No.1/complainant submits that she has no objection if +the application for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the +applicant is allowed. +

In view of the above, awaiting admission, this Court is of the +opinion that the application I.A.No.1811/2018 deserves to be and is +allowed and it is directed that the execution of the remaining sentence +awarded to the applicant shall remain suspended during the pendency of +this revision petition and he shall be released on bail subject to +depositing compensation amount and on furnishing personal bond in the +sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a solvent surety +in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance +before this Court on 18.5.2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which +are fixed in this regard by the Registry. +

List the revision on the question of admission after four weeks. + Certified copy, as per rules. +

+ +

(S. K. AWASTHI) + JUDGE +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.756/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Smt. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary on next date of hearing alongwith report of Probation Officer, +failing which the concerned Official shall remain present before this +Court to explain the reasons which prevented him to produce case-diary +and report. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.3142/2017x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1820/2018, an +application under Section 389(2) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of +sentence and for grant of bail to applicant-Wasim. +

After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw IA No. +1820/2018. +

Pryaer is allowed. +

Accordingly, IA No. 1820/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1802/2017x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Harish Joshi, +learned counsel for the appellant. +

Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that reply of IA No. +9085/2017 is ready and he filed the same during the course of the day. +

List on 21/03/2018 for consideration of IA No. 9085/2017. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 115/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Jitendra Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, list after four +weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 5468/2017x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks' +time to file the reply of IA No. 1819/2018, an application under Section +389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail +to appellant-Shyamlal @ Shyam. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.3764/2017x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Puyush Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 24732/2017, an +application under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of +sentence and for grant of bail to applicant-Prashant Soni. +

After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw IA No. +24732/2017. +

Pryaer is allowed. +

Accordingly, IA No. 24732/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 1197/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Shashank Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a week's +time to file appropriate application for amendment in the aray of IA No. +1806/2018. +

List after a week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 2042/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Let record of the Court below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10790/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Ravi Sagre, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time on the ground +that arguing counsel is not available today due to some personal +difficulties. +

Prayer is allowed. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6710/2018x + (Firoz & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Mrs. Swati Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. + After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicants seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first +bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first bail application is dismissed as +withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6765/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary of Crime Nos. 239/2017 and 240/2017 registered at Police- +Station-Jharda, District-Ujjain by next date of hearing positively, failing +which concerned SHO shall remain present before this Court to explain +the reasons which prevented him to produce case-diary. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7051/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Nilesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7330/2018x + (Ballabh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first +bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first bail application is dismissed as +withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7396/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7584/2018x + (Mahendra Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Devendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this fourth +bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this fourth bail application is dismissed as +withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7669/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Anurag Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + In the present cae the applicants/accused persons are in jail since +11/02/2017. However, from the perusal of the order-sheets of the trial +Court, it appears that accused persons are not being produced before the +Court from the jail on the dates of hearing. +

Let report be called from the Additional Sessions Judge, Badnawar +District-Dhar that what efforts have been made to secure the presence of +the accused persons from the jail and ensure the presence of +prosecution witnesses. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7685/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Apurv Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7769/2018x +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Ms. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. + Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a weeks time to +comply with order dated 07/03/2018. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7804/2018x + (Fatehsingh @ Raju Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :19/03/2018 + Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant does not wish to press this +first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Accordingly, this first bail application is dismissed as not +pressed. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.795/2016x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted time to +argue on IA No. 1067/2018. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 811/2016 +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellants, the case is +adjourned. +

List after three weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 1343/2016 +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellants, the case is +adjourned. +

List after three weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 583/2017 +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + None for the appellants. +

Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellants, the case is +adjourned. +

List after three weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1758/2017 + (Heeralal @ Heeru Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Piyush Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 8904/2017, an +application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf +of appellant-Heeralal @ Heeru for suspension of jail sentence and for +grant of bail. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, IA No.8904/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn . + List the appeal for final hearing in due course. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7649/2018x + (Pappu @ Akash Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

Mrs. Anita Jain, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. + After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this third +bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this third bail application is dismissed as +withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8094/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Ms. Bhagyashree Sugandhi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Let health report of the applicant be called from the +Superintendent of Central Jail, Bhopal. +

List in the week commencing 26/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8883/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8980/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9054/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Gajendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9157/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Surendra Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 26/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9305/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9328/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.5394/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Apoorv Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Heard learned counsel for the applicant on IA No. 1620/2018, an +application for converting the application filed under Section 439 of the +Cr.P.C. into Criminal Appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (PA) +Act, 1989. +

On due consideration IA No. 1620/2018 is allowed. Learned +counsel for the applicant is directed to make out necessary corrections in +the cause title within 3 working days. +

Office is directed to register this M.Cr.C. into Criminal Appeal. + Accordingly, M.Cr.C. No. 5394/2018 stands disposed of. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10301/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri V.K. Markan, learned counsel for the applicants. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a week's +time to produce complainant before this Court and for filed his affidavit. +

List in the week commencing 26/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8732/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri I. Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10233/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10239/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9176/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Ashutosh Surana, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks +time to correct the Crime No. in memo of petition. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10281/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Jagdish Dangi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks +time file necessary documents. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10289/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks +time to argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10302/2018x + (Rahul Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this first +bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this first bail application is dismissed as +withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10346/2018x + (Praveen Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri K.P. Pande, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to renew +his prayer after recording the statement of the material prosecution +witnesses before the trial Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10383/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri O.P. Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks +time to argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 26/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10393/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10424/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Sunil Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10437/2018 +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri S.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10457/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 26/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9996/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Hemant Purohit, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 9380/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri Ankit Khare, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two +weeks time to argue the matter. +

Let record of the Court below be called for. + List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 2053/2018x +Indore dated :16/03/2018 + Shri M.R. Sheikh, learned counsel for the appellant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Let record of the Court below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 689/2018x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri Arpit Kumar Oswal, learned counsel for the applicants. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Let record of the Courts' below be called for. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10043/2018x + (Shekhar Vs. Smt. Amita & Ors) +Indore dated : 13/03/2018 + Shri Vinod Ameriya, learned counsel for the applicant. + Heard. +

The applicant has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of +the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against order dated 27/02/2018 +passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.Cr.C. No. +423/2015, whereby his right to produce evidence has been closed. +

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondent +has filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. before the +Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore for enhancement of +maintenance amount. The case is pending for enquiry of the said +application, wherein respondents alleged that the applicant is involved +in the business of laundry and by this he is getting sufficient amount. +Whereas the applicant contended that he is in private job and he is +earning only Rs.4,500/-per month and he is not having any laundry +business. To substantiate the fact that at present he is not conducting +any business of laundry, he wanted to produce the evidence of Officer +In-charge of License Branch, Municipal Corporation Indore. However, +he did not turn up even after the service of notice, therefore, a bailable +warrant was issued against him for securing his presence. But despite +of issuance of bailable warrant he did not appear in the Court. The +aforesaid witness is working in Semi Govt. Body, therefore, the +applicant is unable to bring him and produce before the Court. +

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 27/02/2018 the +case was fixed for recording the evidence of aforesaid witness, but due +to oversight, he could not pay the process-fee, therefore, on the + aforesaid date, the witness was not present and due to his single +default, the trial Court has closed his right to produce the evidence and +fixed the matter for final arguments. Due to this he has been deprived +to produce his evidence. The impugned order is contrary to the +principle of natural justice. Hence, he prayed for setting aside of the +impugned order and directing the trial Court to give him one +opportunity to produce his evidence. +

4. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and considering +the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is hereby +set-aside and this petition is disposed of with the direction that the +trial Court shall provide the applicant an opportunity to produce the +aforesaid witness. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + + + + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6640/2017x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after three weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6577/2017x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after three weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6348/2017x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after three weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 5537/2017x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + None for the parties. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is +adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6339/2017x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after three weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6627/2017x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri Ramesh Gangare, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8465/2018x + (Vinod Bargunda Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri Manish Manana, learned counsel for the applicant. + Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to renew +his prayer after recording the statement of the injured-Jyoti before the +trial Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.839/2013x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri R.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + List alongwith Cr.A. No. 577/2017. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.577/2017x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for and is granted two +weeks time to file the reply of IA No. 6980/2017, an application under +Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant- Mayur, for +suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail. +

List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.5821/2017x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.386/2018x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Let record of the court below be requisitioned. + List after four weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.905/2018x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri Mahesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Let record of the courts below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.5970/2018x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri Mahesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.29139/2017x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.28430/2017x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri S. Tenguriya, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant further prays for two weeks' +time to file the certified copy of the prosecutrix statement recorded +before the trial Court. +

By way of last indulgence the prayer is allowed. + List in the week commencing 02/04/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.25705/2017x +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri P.K. Shukla alongwith Shri M.S. Chouhan, learned counsel +for the applicant. +

Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Let current status report of the trial be called from the concerned +trial Court. +

List in the week commencing 26/03/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9956/2018x + (Narsingh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :14/03/2018 + Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this second bail application is dismissed as +withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10707/2017x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.1460/2018x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri P.K. Shukla alongwith Shri M.S. Chouhan, learned counsel +for the applicant. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to call for the criminal +antecedents of the applicant from the concerning S.P. of Shivpuri and +Guna. +

List in the week commencing 26/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.5300/2018x + (Anil Kushwaha Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Manish Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.4278/2016x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9047/2016x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + None for the applicants, even in the second round. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Earlier also on 16/08/2017 and 24/07/2017, no one appeared on +behalf of the applicants, which shows that the applicants are no longer +interested in prosecuting this petition filed under Section 482 of the +Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, this petition is dismissed for want +of prosecution. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1287/2018x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Harshvardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1560/2018x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 483/2011x +Indore dated : 13/03/2018 + Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Appellant- Asharam is present in person and he has been duly +identified by his counsel. His presence is marked. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 963/2018, an +application for condonation of non-appearance of appellant on +13/09/2017 before the registry of this Court. +

For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported +with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the non- +appearance of appellant-Asharam on 13/09/2017 before this Court. +

Accordingly, IA No.963/2018 is allowed and non-appearance +of appellant- Asharam before this Court on 13/09/2017 is hereby +condoned. +

Appellant- Asharam is directed to appear before the Office of +this Court on 19/04/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be +fixed by the Office. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.706/2018x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Amit Raval, learned counsel for the applicant. + On payment of process-fee within three working days, let notice +be issued to respondent by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode. +Notice be made returnable within three weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.3393/2018x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent /State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1154/2018, an +application for amendment in the array of applicant's name. +

On due consideration IA No. 1154/2018 is allowed. + Applicant is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the +memo of petition within three working days. +

List in the week commencing 26/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.3610/2018x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent /State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1372/2018, an +application for impleading complainant as respondent No.2 in the +matter. +

On due consideration IA No. 1372/2018 is allowed. + Applicant is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the +memo of petition within three working days. +

Thereafter, on payment of process-fee within 7 working days, let +notice be issued to respondent No.2 by ordinary as well as by registered +AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.806/2015x + (Charan Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 19170/2017, an +application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf +of appellant-Charan for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of +bail. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, IA No.19170/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn . + List the appeal for final hearing in due course alongwith Cr.A. +No. 757/2015. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.757/2015x + (Bhura Gurjar Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Dharmendra Keharwar, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 25555/2017, an +application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf +of appellant-Bhura Gurjar for suspension of jail sentence and for grant +of bail. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, IA No.25555/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn . + List alongwith Cr.A. No. 806/2015. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.322/2016x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

List after four weeks alongwith Cr.A. No. 194/2016 for analogous +hearing. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.194/2016x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for and is granted two +weeks time to file the reply of IA No. 2206/2017, an application under +Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant- Sanju @ +Sanjay, for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.339/2016x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Shailendra Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 732/2018, an +application under Section 303 of the Cr.P.C. for change of counsel. +

On due consideration, IA No. 732/2018 is allowed. Shri Shailendra +Mishra and his associates are permitted to represent appellant-Barka. +

Office is directed to reflect the name of Shri Shailendra Mishra & +his associates in the cause-list on behalf of appellant-Barka. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1053/2016x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.488/2017x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks time +to file the reply of IA No. 1468/2018, an application under Section +389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant Sunil Borasi, for +suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.808/2017x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri H.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks time +to file the reply of IA No. 4224/2017, an application under Section +389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant Bhimji, for +suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.955/2017x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks time +to file the reply of IA No. 4147/2017, an application under Section +389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant Mangal Rathore, for +suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. 1705/2017x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

List the appeal alongwith Cr.A. No. 5669/2017 for analogous +hearing. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. 5669/2017x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Ravi Sagre, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 162/2018, an +application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of +delay of 13 days in filing this appeal. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was in +jail, therefore, he could not file this appeal within the prescribed time +period. +

On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application, +which is supported with affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to +condone the delay. +

Accordingly, IA No. 162/2018 is allowed and delay of 13 days in +filing this appeal is hereby condoned. +

List the appeal after two weeks alongwith Cr.A. No. 1705/2017 +for analogous hearing. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.4388/2017x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks time +to file the reply of IA No. 23924/2017, an application under Section +389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant Ramsingh @ Rama, +for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.5313/2017x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Let record of the court below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.5678/2017x +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + None for the appellant. +

Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.324/2018x + (RajaramVs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :13/03/2018 + Shri Vikas Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 237/2018, an +application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of +appellant-Rajaram for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, IA No. 237/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + + + + + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8224/2018x + (Om Shanti Gas Agency Vs. Neeraj Sethiya) +Indore dated : 12/03/2018 + Shri Sameer Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Heard. +

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal +Procedure, 1973 has been filed for quashment of order dated +30/01/2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khilchipur +in Criminal Case R.T. No. 216/2017, by which the application filed by +the applicant under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for production of +documents has been dismissed. +

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has filed an +application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. For seeking bank statement +of the complainant for last five years from the date of filing of this +complaint, bank pass book, income tax return details from 2013 to +2017 and agreement (if made between the parties) for lending the +amount of Rs.1,88,000/- to the applicant. But the aforesaid application +was rejected by the Courts below on the ground that the respondent +has stated that he has already filed all the documents relation to the +transaction and now he has not having any document as desired by the +applicant. +

After hearing learned counsel for the applicant perused the +record. +

The apex Court held in the case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat +Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54 and P. Venugopal Vs. +Madan P. Sarathi, AIR 2009 SC 568, that intial burden was on the +complainant to prove existence of debt and the presumptions provided +under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not +extended to the extent that the cheque was issued for the discharged of +any debt or liability, which is required to be proved by the +complainant. +

In the light of the aforesaid decisions, this Court has not find any + substance in this petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed in +limine at the motion stage. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7029/2018 +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the applicant. + On payment of process-fee within three working days, let notice +be issued to respondent by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode. +Notice be made returnable within four weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7340/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Shri P.N. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two +weeks' time to argue the matter. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8150/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.2/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8756/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + None for the applicants. +

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is +adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8759/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +applicant/State. +

Let record of the court below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8760/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +applicant/State. +

Let record of the court below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8908/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks +time to file the entire copy of charge-sheet. +

List thereafter. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8935/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Ms. Indu Rajguru, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

Let record of the court below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9017/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +applicant/State. +

Let record of the court below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9025/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +applicant/State. +

Let record of the court below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9128/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +applicant/State. +

Let record of the court below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9164/2018x + (Swapnadeep Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Shri Harshvardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant. + Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a liberty to renew +after filing of the charge-sheet. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1065/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after three weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9857/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.2/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after three weeks. . +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1412/2016x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Harshvardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent +Nos. 2 & 4. +

Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.5/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks. . +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1464/2016x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Shri K.P. Pande, learned counsel for the applicant. + None for the respondent, though duly served. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after after a week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.12845/2016x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List after after a week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.419/2017x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has +already been acquitted by the trial Court, therefore, this revision petition +has become rendered infructuous. +

In view of the aforesaid, this petition is dismissed as having been +rendered infructuous. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.3560/2017x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + None for the applicants. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.10266/2017x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.816/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Shri R.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available case-diary +by next date of hearing positively. +

Meanwhile learned counsel for the applicant is at liberty to file the +entire copy of the charge-sheet. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 4817/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 5192/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + None for the applicants. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is +adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 5323/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after four weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 476/2016 +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + None for the applicants. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.5/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is +adjourned. +

List the matter in the week commencing 26th of March, 2018. + I.R. to continue till next date of hearing. + Certified copy as per rules. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No. 826/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + None for the applicants. +

Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. + In absence of the learned counsel for the applicants, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.569/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Shri Prasanna R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to +withdraw this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the +trial Court is directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the applicant +before passing any final order. +

Certified copy today. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No. 7319/2018 + (Rahul Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated : 12/03/2018 + Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length, on the merits of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to +surrender before the trial Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn. +However, the applicant is directed to surrender himself before the +competent Court and if he is filed any application for regular bail +before the competent Court, then it shall be considered as early as +possible in accordance with law. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6615/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a weeks +time to argue the matter. +

List after one week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9433/2018x +Indore dated :12/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.4479/2017x +Indore dated :07/03/2018 + Shri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, list after two +weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1790/2017x +Indore dated :07/03/2018 + Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, list after two +weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1088/2015x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri R.K. Batham, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Shyamlal Patidar, learned counsel for the respondent. + At the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, list in the +next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. 1648/2018x +Indore dated :21/02/2018 + Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1438/2018, an +application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of +delay of 422 days in filing this appeal. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was in +jail, therefore, he could not file this appeal within the prescribed time +period. +

On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application, +which is supported with affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to +condone the delay. +

Accordingly, IA No. 1438/2018 is allowed and delay of 422 days +in filing this appeal is hereby condoned. +

List the appeal alongwith Cr.A. No. 1414/2016 for analogous +hearing. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1197/2015x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + None for the respondent. +

As per mediation report, parties are not interested for compromise. + List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.775/2017x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Office is directed to examine the matter and list before appropriate +Bench. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.2035/2017x + (Vishal Vs. Ku. Anjali & Ors.) +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Sanjay Kumar Saini, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Vikas Meena, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and +

2. + Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.3/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn . +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9188/2017x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has already +cured the defects pointed out by the Office. +

Office is directed to examine and proceed further. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.3063/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri N. L. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

At the request of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after three weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.949/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after three weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.974/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Manan Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Let record of the courts' below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.466/2018x + (Anil Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 677/2018, an +application filed under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf +of applicant-Anil for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail. +

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant +seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, IA No. 677/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn . + Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.828/2018x + (Raja Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:09/03/2018 + + Shri Shyam Patidar, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent/State . + Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.650/2018- +an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure +for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the +appellant-Raja Mankar. +

The appellant has been found guilty for offence under Sections +450, 376(1) and 506(II) of the IPC and has respectively been +sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I.; 7 years R.I. And 1 years R.I. and to +pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,000/- with usual default +stipulation. +

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the +appellant was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty so +granted to him. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix is a major lady +and as per MLC report no internal or external injuries were found on her +body. From the statement of the prosecutrix and her husband, it reveals +that the prosecutrix is a consenting party. There are fair chances of +success of this appeal . The appellant cannot be kept in custody +unnecessarily otherwise the appeal filed by him may render infructuous. The +appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount before the Trial Court. Under +these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of +bail to the appellant. +

Learned counsel for the appellants prays for rejection of the +application. +

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and facts +and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspended the jail +sentence of the appellant. +

+

Accordingly, I.A. No. 650/2018 is allowed and it is directed that +subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the +appellant-Raja Mankar in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy +Five thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the +satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his regular appearance before +this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining sentence +imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final +disposal of this appeal. +

The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his +presence before the Registry of this Court on 18/05/2018 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course.

+
+                                                (S.K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                 Judge
+

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1438/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Kushal Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the case is +adjourned. +

List in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7357/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7695/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +applicant/State. +

Let record of the court below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8279/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Sunil Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

On payment of process-fee within three working days, let notice +be issued to respondent No.2 on admission and IA No. 1416/2018, an +application for staying the proceedings of the trial Court by ordinary as +well as by registered AD mode. Notice be made returnable within four +weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.847/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted 10 days +time to file the entire copy of the charge-sheet. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.966/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Santosh Panoriya, learned counsel for the appellant. + On payment of process-fee within three working days, let notice +be issued to respondent by ordinary as well as by registered AD mode. +Notice be made returnable within four weeks. +

List thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1755/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Navendu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent /State. +

Let record of the court below be requisitioned. + List immediately after receipt of the record. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8139/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent +No.1/State. +

In absence of the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List after three weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9215/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Vinod Ameriya, learned counsel for the applicants. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted a +weeks time to move an appropriate application for impleading +complainant as respondent No.2 in the matter. +

List after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9313/2018x + (Mahesh @ Antim Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri M.L. Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the +statement of the substantial prosecution witnesses before the trial +Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9250/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri D.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9243/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9211/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Deepak Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.9328/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.24944/2017x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri G.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted one +weeks time to argue the matter. +

Be listed in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.3256/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri G.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted one +weeks time to argue the matter. +

Be listed in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.6116/2018x +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the applicant. + Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two +weeks' time to file the copy of order-sheets of the trial Court. +

List after two weeks. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7013/2018x + (Rakesh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :09/03/2018 + Shri S.K. Mehra, learned counsel for the applicant. + Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merit of the case, learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition with a liberty to renew his prayer after recording the +statement of the prosecutrix before the trial Court. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the +aforesaid liberty. +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.1024/2017 +Indore, dated :07/03/2018 + Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

This is Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Code of +Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') is filed against the +order dated 24/09/2016 passed by Special Judge under NDPS Act, +Neemuch District-Neemuch in Special S.T. No. 25/2012, whereby +charges for offence under Sections 8/18(B) read with Section 29 of the +N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 has been framed against applicant-Kanhaiyalal. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 8460/2017, an +application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of +delay of 230 days in preferring this revision petition. +

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an +illiterate person and there is no male member in his family, who can +contact the lawyer at Indore. Therefore, his cousin brother approached +the lawyer at Indore and after taking certified copy of the proceedings +and charges, filed this criminal revision against the impugned order. +Affidavit has also been filed in support of this application. +

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and prayed +for its rejection. +

From the perusal of revision petition, it appears that the applicant +Kanhaiyalal, himself is a male member of aged about 36 years, +therefore, it cannot be said that due to non-availability of male family +members in his family, he could not contact his lawyer at Indore. +Neither the applicant has disclosed name of his cousin brother in the + application nor any affidavit of him has been filed in support of the +contents made in the application. +

Under these circumstances, the applicant has failed to make out +sufficient ground for condoning the huge delay of 230 days in +preferring this revision petition. Hence, IA No. 8460/2017 is +dismissed. Consequently, this revision petition is also hereby +dismissed as time barred. +

+

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.27487/2017x +Indore dated :07/03/2018 + Shri Ashish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. + At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the case is +adjourned. +

Be listed after two weeks. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.R. No.876/2018x +Indore dated :07/03/2018 + Ms. Sangita Parsai, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Let record of the Courts' below be called for. + On payment of process-fee within 3 working days, let notice be +issued to respondent. Notice be made returnable within three weeks. +

Be listed thereafter. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.2247/2018x +Indore dated :07/03/2018 + Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a week's +time to file the copy of all relevant order-sheets of the trial Court. +

List after two weeks. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.25888/2017x +Indore dated :07/03/2018 + None for the applicant. +

Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Applicant is directed to cure the defect pointed out by the office +within 10 days from today, failing which this petition shall stands +dismissed without further reference to this Court. +

List in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A.No. 1693/2018x +Indore dated :07/03/2018 + Shri Manish Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary on next date of hearing positively and also to comply with Section +15(A)(3) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989. +

List in the next week. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 733/2017x +Indore dated : 05/03/2018 + Shri Vishal Lashkari, learned counsel for the appellant. + Heard learned counsel for the appellant on IA No. 7263/2017, +an application for substituting the new address and request to summon +the non-applicant. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant +preferred M.Cr.C. No. 3380/2017 for leave to appeal, which was +allowed by this Court, vide order dated 10/04/2017 and office is +directed to register the matter as regular criminal appeal. But there +was no mentioned in the order with regard to issuance of summon or +warrant against the non-applicant for securing his presence before this +Court. +

On due consideration I.No. 7263/2017 is allowed. + Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of Rs.10,000/- against +non-applicant-Kamal Bharti S/o Ram Bharti Goswami, 656-B, +Scheme No. 71, Gumasta Nagar, Sudama Nagar Post Office-452009, +Indore for securing his presence before this Court on 25/04/2018. +

List the appeal for final hearing in due course. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No. 683/2006x +Indore dated : 05/03/2018 + Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant. + Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Appellant- Mahesh @ Docotor is present in person and he has +been duly identified by his counsel. +

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1123/2018, an +application for condonation of non-appearance of appellant on +26/09/2017 before the registry of this Court. +

For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported +with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the non- +appearance of appellant-Mahesh @ Doctor on 20/02/2018 before this +Court. +

Accordingly, IA No.1123/2018 is allowed and non-appearance +of appellant- Mahesh @ Doctor before this Court on 26/09/2017 is +hereby condoned. +

Appellant- Mahesh @ Doctor is directed to appear before the +Office of this Court on 27/06/2018 and on all other subsequent dates +as may be fixed by the Office. +

Also heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 1124/2018, +an application for recalling of bailable warrant issued in compliance +of order dated 07/12/2017. +

On due consideration, IA No. 1124/2018 is allowed and bailable +warrant issued against appellant, vide order dated 07/12/2017 is +hereby recalled. +

List the appeal for final hearing in due course. + (S.K. Awasthi) + Judge +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + Cr.A. No.1779/2018x + (Gopal & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore, Dated:05/03/2018 + + Shri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants. + Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent/State . + Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal is admitted for final hearing. + Record of the Court below be called for. + Also Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. +No.1456/20188- an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of +Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail +filed on behalf of the appellants-Gopal and Pavan Rathore. +

Each of the appellants has been found guilty for offenence under +Section 354 of the IPC read with Section 7/8 of the Protection of +Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and has respectively been +sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I.; 3 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. +2,000/- for each offence with usual default stipulation. +

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the +learned trial Court has recorded conviction without properly +appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions, +contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have +been overlooked. It is also submitted that the appellants were on bail +during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by them. Lastly, +it is submitted that the appeal is likely to take sufficient time in its final +disposal and if the jail sentence is not suspended, then the appeal shall +be rendered infructuous. +

+

Though the prayer for suspension of custodial sentence is opposed +by learned Public Prosecutor, however, this Court, after carefully going + through the record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, is of +the considered opinion that the application for suspension of custodial +sentence deserves to be allowed. +

+

Accordingly, I.A. No. 1456/2018 is allowed and it is directed that +subject to deposit of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the +appellants-Gopal and Pavan Rathore in the sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees +Sixty thousand only)each with a solvent surety in the like amount to +the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for their regular appearance +before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the remaining +sentence imposed against the appellants shall remain suspended, till the +final disposal of this appeal. +

+

The appellants, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their +presence before the Registry of this Court on 14/05/2018 and on all such +subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry. +

+

List in due course.

+
+                                                (S.K. Awasthi)
+skt                                                 Judge
+

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7211/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri A.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List in the next week. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.7208/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri A.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. + Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the case is +adjourned. +

List in the next week. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.1688/2018x + (Chiku @ Pratik Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merits of the case learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition petition. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.4037/2018x + (Lokendra Panwar Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merits of the case learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition petition. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.1703/2018x + (Santosh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merits of the case learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition petition. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.1750/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to comply +with order dated 19/02/2018. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.4269/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.4374/2018x + (Jasvant Singh Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merits of the case learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition petition. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.4562/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri D.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicants further prays for time to argue +the matter. +

By way of indulgence, prayer is allowed. + Be listed in the next week. +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.5168/2018x + (Rahul Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri M.S. Chandel, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the complainant/objecor. + After arguing at length on the merits of the case learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +petition petition. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8323/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted two weeks time +to call CFSL report of Hyderabad. +

List in the week commencing 26/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8400/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays and is granted time to file +the certified copies of order-sheets dated 12/02/2018 passed by the trial +Court. +

List in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8403/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri R.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicants. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on the basis of +report lodged by accused person Crime No. 42/2018 has been registered +against the complainant party at Police-Station-Tal, District-Ratlam of +offence under Sections 323, 295 and 506/34 of the IPC read with +Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989. +

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary of present Crime alongwith the case-diary of Crime No. 42/2018 +by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8410/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8419/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondents/State. +

Case-diary is not available. + Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to make available the case- +diary by next date of hearing positively. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8463/2018x + (Husain Vs. State of M.P.) +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri Lokesh R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

After arguing at length on the merits of the case learned counsel +for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this +second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

Prayer is allowed. +

Accordingly, this second bail application is dismissed as +withdrawn. +

+ +

(S.K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8467/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri Vishal Pawar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +file some relevant documents. +

List in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8472/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that charge-sheet has +already been filed and he prays for and is granted time to argue the +matter. +

List in the next week. +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8475/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8483/2018x +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri D.Patel, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 19/03/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + M.Cr.C. No.8499/2018 +Indore dated :05/03/2018 + Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Suraj Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the +respondent/State. +

Case-diary is available. +

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted time to +argue the matter. +

List in the week commencing 26/03/2018. +

+ +

(S. K. Awasthi) + Judge + +skt + THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH + R.P. No.473/2018 + + Indore dated :23/03/2018 + + This Court has directed the trial Court to complete the trial within four + months vide order dated 3rd October, 2017. The learned trial Court has sought + further three months time for completion of trial. +

It has been pointed out that 14 witnesses have been examined whereas, + examination-in-chief of PW-15 has been completed. +

In view of the proceedings taken by the trial Court, it would be + appropriate to extend time to complete the trial expeditiously on or before + 18.05.2018.

+
+
+         (Hemant Gupta)                                 (S. K. Awasthi)
+           Chief Justice                                    Judge
+Moni
+
+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_72406675.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_72406675.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2d0019f965c3542c965bcd9115d68d37ec93d033 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_72406675.html @@ -0,0 +1,10445 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Union Of India, C.B.N. vs Devram on 30 October, 2015 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 97, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Madhya Pradesh High Court

+

Union Of India, C.B.N. vs Devram on 30 October, 2015

+ +
                                    M.Cr.C. No.9664/2015
+30.10.2015
+                    None for the applicant.
+
+                    Shri CS Ujjainiya, counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+                    Case diary is available.
+
+                    List in the week commencing 16.11.2015.
+
+
+
+                                                               (Alok Verma)
+                                                                   Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.9693/2015
+30.10.2015
+                    Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                    Shri CS Ujjainiya, counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+                    Counsel for the State seeks time to argue the matter, as he
+
+               wants to seek instructions from the Investigating Officer.
+
+                    List on 05.11.2015.
+
+                                                               (Alok Verma)
+                                                                   Judge
+   Kratika/-
+                               M.Cr.C. No.9694/2015
+30.10.2015
+               None for the applicant.
+
+               Shri CS Ujjainiya, counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+               Case diary is not available.
+
+               List in the week commencing 16.11.2015.
+
+
+
+                                                         (Alok Verma)
+                                                             Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                              M.Cr.C. No.9706/2015
+30.10.2015
+               None for the applicant.
+
+               Shri CS Ujjainiya, counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+               Case diary is not available.
+
+               List in the week commencing 16.11.2015.
+
+
+
+                                                         (Alok Verma)
+                                                                    Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                      MCRC No.5634/2015
+30.10.2015
+                        This matter is listed today for disposal of PUD dated
+
+               20.10.2015 received from the Additional Sessions Judge,
+
+               Indore in Sessions Trial No.949/2014, State of MP Vs.
+
+               Yogesh.
+
+                        As per the PUD, this Court ordered that trial should be
+
+               concluded within three months. However, as per the PUD,
+
+               statements of four more prosecution witnesses are to be
+
+               recorded. Hence, further time is sought for conclusion of
+
+               trial.
+
+                        Accordingly, it is directed that the trial Court should
+
+               dispose of the matter within next four months after receiving
+
+               certified copy of this order.
+
+                        In view of the aforesaid, PUD stands disposed of.
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                    Cr.A. No.839/1997
+30.10.2015
+                    Appellants - Chhaganlal and Dayaram are present
+
+               today before the Court in person.
+
+                    Heard on I.A. No.6197/2015.
+
+                    Appellants submit that they wish to engage Shri OP
+
+               Solanki as their lawyer. They also submit that all the
+
+               appellants are members of the same family and they will all
+
+               engage the same lawyer. It is further averted in the
+
+               application that the Senior Counsel Shri Jai Singh has died.
+
+                    Accordingly, the appellants are permitted to engage a
+
+               new lawyer Shri OP Solanki.
+
+                    List after two weeks.
+
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+   Kratika/-
+                                       Cr.A. No.980/2006
+30.10.2015
+                    Issue fresh non-bailable warrant against the present
+
+               appellant, returnable for 16.02.2016.
+
+                    Office is directed to take necessary steps for engaging a
+
+               Lawyer through High Court Legal Services Authority for
+
+               disposal of this appeal on merit.
+
+                                                               (Alok Verma)
+                                                                   Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                      Cr.A. No.890/2007
+30.10.2015
+                    Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the appellant/CBN.
+
+                    Shri A. Saraswat, learned counsel for the respondent.
+
+                    Counsel for the respondent Dayaram submits that the
+
+               respondent is under custody in District Jail, Mandsaur.
+
+                    Office is directed to issue a production warrant for
+
+               appearance of the respondent - Dayaram before this Court on
+
+               02.12.2015.
+                                                                (Alok Verma)
+                                                                   Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.8773/2015
+29.10.2015
+
+
+                       Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                       Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the
+
+               respondent /State.
+
+                       Case diary is available.
+
+                       This is first application filed by the applicant under
+
+               section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of
+
+               bail.
+
+                       The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police
+
+               Station - Suthliya, District - Rajgarh in Crime No.173/2014
+
+               under sections 457 and 435 of IPC and under section 3/4 of
+
+               Lok Sampathi Ko Nuksani Ka Niwaran Adhiniyam, 1984.
+
+                       It is alleged that the present applicant alongwith the
+ other co-accused was burning the insulated copper wire
+
+which they stolen from Biaora. The total weight of the wire
+
+was about 44 kg and value of which was stated to be
+
+Rs.26,000/-.
+
+     Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
+
+application.
+
+     Arguments heard, case diary perused.
+
+     Learned counsel for the applicant submits that bail to
+
+co-accused Prakash Tiwari S/o Gulab Tiwari was granted in
+
+MCRC No.10292/2014 vide order dated 09.01.2015.
+
+     Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of
+
+the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, I
+
+am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The
+
+application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is
+
+allowed.
+
+     It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail
+
+on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty
+                Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to
+
+               the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his
+
+               appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in
+
+               this regard during trial.
+
+                     He is further directed that on being so released on bail,
+
+               he would comply with the conditions enumerated under
+
+               section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
+
+                     Certified copy as per rules.
+
+                                                            ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.9451/2015
+29.10.2015
+                    Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                    Shri    RS     Parmar,     learned   counsel    for    the
+
+               respondent/State.
+
+                    Case diary is available.
+      This is fourth application under section 439 of Cr.P.C.
+
+First application of the applicant was dismissed, as
+
+withdrawn in MCRC No.1320/2015 vide order dated
+
+19.02.2015. The second application was dismissed on merit
+
+in MCRC No.3050/2015 vide order dated 28.04.2015. The
+
+third application was filed on the ground that the prosecutrix
+
+is not appearing before the Court, therefore, bail may be
+
+granted to the present applicant. While disposing of the
+
+application, following observations were made and directions
+
+were issued:-
+
+                  Accordingly, this third application under
+           section 439 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed as not
+           tenable with direction to the trial Judge to take
+           suitable measures for service of summons and
+           bailable warrants on the witnesses. A copy of
+           this order be also sent to the concerning
+           Superintendent of Police with direction to
+           ensure that the concerned Station Incharge of
+           the police station should keep the witnesses
+           present before the trial Judge on the date fixed
+           for prosecution evidence. The applicant is given
+           a liberty to file fresh application after six
+             months if the prosecution witnesses do not
+            appear before the trial Judge.
+
+
+
+      After these directions, the prosecutrix was examined before
+
+the court on 13.10.2015. In her statement, she did not support the
+
+prosecution story at all. She completely turned hostile and even
+
+while she was cross examined in detail by the Public Prosecutor,
+
+she did not support the prosecution story.
+
+      Now this fourth application is filed on the ground that as
+
+the prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution story, there is
+
+no possibility of conviction in this case, therefore, this bail is
+
+sought on the ground that as there is no possibility of conviction,
+
+no benefit would arise if the present applicant would be kept
+
+under custody.
+
+      After taking into consideration the statements of the
+
+prosecutrix recorded before the court and all other relevant facts
+
+and circumstances of the case, this fourth application under
+
+section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail is allowed.
+
+      It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on
+                his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
+
+               Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the
+
+               satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all
+
+               the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
+
+                     He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he
+
+               would comply with the conditions enumerated under section
+
+               437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
+
+                     Certified copy as per rules.
+
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                             Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.9105/2015
+29.10.2015
+                     Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Shri   Bhuvan     Deshmukh,     learned    counsel   for   the
+
+               respondent/State.
+
+                     Case diary is available.
+
+                     This is second bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C for
+ grant of temporary bail to the present applicant, who is a lady and
+
+is pregnant and due date for delivery is reported to be
+
+17.11.2015.
+
+      The first application filed by the present applicant was
+
+dismissed on merit in MCRC No.6856/2015 vide order dated
+
+22.09.2015. A report was sought from the jail authority and
+
+according to the report, she is pregnant by eight and half months
+
+and her due date for delivery is 17.11.2015.
+
+      I have heard counsel for the parties.
+
+      After taking into consideration the report, the application
+
+for grant of temporary bail is allowed.
+
+      It is directed that applicant shall be released on temporary
+
+bail for a period of Sixty days from the date of her release on his
+
+furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand)
+
+and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
+
+the trial Judge. The trial Judge is directed to fix a date for his
+
+surrender before the Court depending upon her release from jail.
+
+      With the aforesaid       observation     and direction, the
+                application stands disposed of.
+
+                    Certified copy as per rules.
+
+                                                             (Alok Verma)
+                                                                 Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     MCRC No.9076/2015
+29.10.2015
+                    Case diary is not available.
+
+                    Let it be called for.
+
+                    List alongwith MCRC No.9301/2015 in the next week.
+
+
+
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                              Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                     MCRC No.9101/2015
+29.10.2015
+                    Shri Kaushal Sisodia, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                    Shri RS Parmar, counsel for the respondent/State.
+                     After arguing the matter for some time, counsel for the
+
+               applicant seeks leave to withdraw the application as not pressed.
+
+                    Prayer is allowed.
+
+                    The application is accordingly, dismissed, as not pressed.
+
+                    C.c. as per rules.
+
+                                                             (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                    MCRC No.9124/2015
+29.10.2015
+                    Shri Ikram Ansari, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                    Shri RS Parmar, counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+                    Case diary is available.
+
+                    Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
+
+                    List in the next week, as prayed.
+
+                                                             (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                    MCRC No.9134/2015
+ 29.10.2015
+                     Shri Vivek Singh, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+                     Case diary is available.
+
+                     Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.
+
+                     List in the next week.
+
+                                                             (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                     MCRC No.9154/2015
+29.10.2015
+                     Shri Pawan Sharma, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+                     Counsel for the State is directed to call for the FSL report
+
+               on the next date of hearing.
+
+                     List in the week commencing 16.11.2015.
+
+
+
+                                                             (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+   Kratika/-
+                                     MCRC No.9727/2015
+29.10.2015
+                     As prayed by counsel for the applicant, the case is
+
+               adjourned.
+
+                     List on 02.11.2015, as prayed.
+
+                                                             (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                      CRA No.930/2013
+29.10.2015
+                     Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants
+
+                     Appellants Dilip S/o Ratanlal and Chanda Bai w/o
+
+               Mohanlal are present before the Court. They have been identified
+
+               by the counsel.
+
+                     Heard on I.A. No.7143/2015, which is an application filed
+
+               on behalf of the appellants for condonation of their earlier non-
+
+               appearance on 20.07.2015 before the registry of this Court.
+
+                     After due consideration, the application is allowed. The
+
+               appellants are directed to appear before the registry of this Court
+                on 20.01.2016 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be
+
+               fixed by the registry in this behalf.
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                       CRR No.1342/2015
+29.10.2015
+                     Ms. Chitralekha Hardia, learned counsel for the
+
+               appellant.
+
+                     Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the
+
+               respondent/State.
+
+                     Heard on the question of admission.
+
+                     The revision is admitted for final hearing.
+
+                     Let record of the lower court be called for.
+
+                     Also heard on I.A. No.7967/2015, which is an application
+
+               under section 397 read with section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension
+
+               of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of present
+
+               applicant namely - Nandu S/o Kashiram.
+       The applicant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-
+
+CONVICTION           SENTENCE
+
+Section and Act      Imprisonment        Fine
+341 of IPC           1 month SI          Rs.1000/-
+323 of IPC           3 months' RI        Rs.500/-
+325 of IPC           6 months            Rs.500/-
+
+
+
+        The applicant is reported to be under custody.
+
+        Taking    into   consideration       all     the   facts   and
+
+ circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merit
+
+ of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that if,
+
+ the present applicant furnishes personal bond of Rs.30,000/-
+
+ (Rupees Thirty Thousand) and a solvent surety of the like
+
+ amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to
+
+ payment of fine, the remaining portion of the jail sentence of
+
+ the applicant shall be suspended and he be released on bail
+
+ for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on
+
+ 21.01.2016 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be
+
+ fixed by the Registry in this behalf.
+
+      Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                             (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.9200/2015
+29.10.2015
+
+
+                       Shri RR Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                       Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the
+
+               respondent /State.
+
+                       Case diary is available.
+
+                       This is first application filed by the applicant under
+
+               section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of
+
+               bail.
+
+                       The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police
+
+               Station - Mahidpur, District - Ujjain in Crime No.322/2015
+
+               under section 379 of IPC.
+
+                       As per the prosecution story, present applicant was
+
+               charged for stealing a truck bearing registration No.MP-09-
+ HG-5840.
+
+     Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
+
+application on the ground that the truck was seized from his
+
+possession and he was found sitting in the truck.
+
+     Arguments heard, case diary perused.
+
+     Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is
+
+no criminal antecedents of the present applicant. There was
+
+only some financial dispute between driver of the vehicle
+
+and the present applicant.
+
+     Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of
+
+the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, I
+
+am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The
+
+application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is
+
+allowed.
+
+     It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail
+
+on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty
+
+Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to
+                 the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his
+
+                appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in
+
+                this regard during trial.
+
+                      He is further directed that on being so released on bail,
+
+                he would comply with the conditions enumerated under
+
+                section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
+
+                      Certified copy as per rules.
+
+                                                             ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                 Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.9210/2015
+29.10.2015
+
+
+                     Shri Yashwant Singh Nigote, learned counsel for the
+
+                applicant.
+
+                     Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the
+
+                respondent /State.
+
+                     Case diary is available.
+                      Counsel for the State submits that there are as many as
+
+                13 criminal cases pending against the present applicant.
+
+                     Counsel for the applicant seeks time to verify criminal
+
+                antecedents of the present applicant.
+
+                     Counsel for the State is directed to supply copy of the
+
+                list of criminal cases pending against the present applicant to
+
+                counsel for the applicant during the course of the day.
+
+                     List in the next week.
+
+                                                             ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                 Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.9218/2015
+29.10.2015
+
+
+                     Shri Amit Bhatia, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the
+
+                respondent /State.
+
+                     Case diary is available.
+         This is first application filed by the applicant under
+
+section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of
+
+bail.
+
+        The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police
+
+Station - Hira Nagar, District - Indore in Crime No.443/2015
+
+under section 34(2) of MP Excise Act for keeping in his
+
+possession 63 bulk liters of contraband country liquor.
+
+        Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
+
+application on the ground that there are as many as 4 cases
+
+pending against the present applicant.
+
+        Arguments heard, case diary perused.
+
+        Learned counsel for the applicant submits that all the
+
+cases were of the years 2009 and 2011 and none of them is
+
+under MP Excise Act. He undertakes that on being released
+
+on bail, he will not indulge in any kind of criminal activities
+
+whatsoever.
+
+        Taking    into    consideration    the    facts    and
+ circumstances of the case and also the undertaking given
+
+by counsel for the applicant, which shall form condition of
+
+this bail order, without commenting on the merits of the
+
+case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.
+
+The application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is
+
+allowed.
+
+     It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail
+
+subject to the aforesaid condition and on his furnishing a
+
+personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only)
+
+and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction
+
+of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the
+
+dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
+
+     He is further directed that on being so released on bail,
+
+he would comply with the conditions enumerated under
+
+section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
+
+     In case of breach of the aforesaid condition of this bail
+
+order, the bail order shall be deemed to have been cancelled
+                 without reference to this Court.
+
+                        Certified copy as per rules.
+
+                                                              ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                  Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      MCRC No.9009/2015
+28.10.2015
+
+
+                        Shri Sanjay Sharma, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                        Shri    Bhuvan      Deshmukh,     counsel        for   the
+
+                respondent/State.
+
+                        Case diary is available.
+
+                        This is first application filed by the applicant under
+
+                section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of
+
+                bail.
+
+                        The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police
+
+                Station - Jawad, District - Neemuch in Crime No.276/2015
+
+                under sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
+      According to the prosecution story, the deceased
+
+Govardhan was taken by the present applicant for drinking
+
+liquor alongwith prosecution witness Karulal. All the three
+
+persons were consuming liquor near the village tank. Present
+
+applicant was suspicious about relationship of deceased
+
+Govardhan with his wife. It is alleged that after consuming
+
+liquor, the deceased insisted that he would sleep in the house
+
+of the present applicant on which present applicant got
+
+furious. It is further alleged that prosecution witness Karulal
+
+left them drinking liquor and came back. After that,
+
+according to the prosecution, present applicant took the
+
+deceased Govardhan and in a pit near the tank, he committed
+
+murder of the deceased by hitting him with stones. Dead
+
+body in highly decomposed state was found after three days
+
+and thereafter, statements of three witnesses Chhaganlal, who
+
+is real brother of the deceased, Karulal, who was consuming
+
+liquor with the deceased and the present applicant and left
+ them drinking and also Ramchandra, the shop owner from
+
+where they purchased the liquor, were recorded on
+
+18.07.2015. Thereafter present applicant was arrested on
+
+21.07.2015. On his memorandum, blood stained clothes of
+
+the present applicant which he was wearing at the time of
+
+incident, were recovered.
+
+     Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.
+
+     Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
+
+deceased was consuming liquor with the present applicant on
+
+14.07.2015, however, his dead body was recovered only on
+
+17.07.2015. Meanwhile, no case of missing person was
+
+reported by the family members of the deceased. No
+
+explanation has been given by the prosecution as to why, no
+
+report was lodged. The evidence in respect of last seen
+
+together is also not very convincing, as the prosecution
+
+witness Karulal, who was with them, left their company at
+
+about 5:30 pm. After which whether, they remained there or
+ they also parted company, is not clear. Only prosecution
+
+witness Ramchandra stated that he saw both of them going
+
+from the tank after drinking liquor.
+
+     So far as the recovery of blood stained clothes are
+
+concerned, counsel for the applicant alleged that draft letter
+
+through which the seized property was sent to FSL, Gwalior,
+
+shows that blood stained clothes were seized on 17.07.2015,
+
+however, present applicant was arrested on 21.07.2015. His
+
+memorandum under section 27 of the Evidence Act was also
+
+prepared on 21.07.2015, therefore, there is no question of
+
+seizure before 21.07.2015 and this according to him, creates
+
+doubt.
+
+     I have gone through the case diary.
+
+     So far as the evidence in respect of last seen together is
+
+concerned, there are ample evidence to show that he was last
+
+seen alive with the present applicant and soon thereafter, as
+
+per time assessed by the doctor in the postmortem report, the
+                 deceased died. Therefore, at this stage, no doubt can be
+
+                created on this evidence. Similarly, so far as mentioning of
+
+                date in the draft letter for sending material to FSL is
+
+                concerned, same appears to be typographical error which can
+
+                be clarified at the time of evidence.
+
+                     In this view of the matter, taking all the facts and
+
+                circumstances of the case in totality, I find no case is made
+
+                out for grant of bail to the present applicant.
+
+                     The application is accordingly, dismissed.
+
+                     Certified copy as per rules.
+
+                                                                  ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                      Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     MCRC No.9539/2015
+28.10.2015
+
+
+                     Shri A. Saraswat, Counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Miss Mini Ravindran, counsel for the respondent/State.
+      Case diary is available.
+
+     This is first application filed by the applicant under section
+
+439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.
+
+     The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police Station -
+
+Jhabua, District - Jhabua in Crime No.506/2015 under sections
+
+363, 366, 376 and 368/34 of IPC and under section 7/8 of
+
+Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
+
+     According to the prosecution story, on 05.08.2015, the
+
+prosecutrix was going to her school alongwith her two brothers.
+
+It is alleged that present applicant alongwith other co-accused
+
+caught hold of her and took her with them. Thereafter, during
+
+night, co-accused Prabhu committed rape on her.
+
+     So far as the present applicant is concerned, it is stated that
+
+in the village - Nanankhedi, she was kept by the co-accused
+
+Prabhu in the residence of present applicant.
+
+     Arguments heard, case diary perused.
+
+     Learned counsel for the State opposes the application and
+
+submits that the prosecutrix was only 15 years and 3 months old
+ at the time of incident.
+
+      Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that present
+
+applicant only helped the main accused as per the prosecution
+
+story. He was not the main accused. The prosecutrix was taken as
+
+per the customs prevailing in such tribes.
+
+      Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances
+
+of the case and the role assigned to the present applicant,
+
+without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the
+
+view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application filed
+
+under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
+
+      It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on
+
+his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
+
+Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the
+
+satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all
+
+the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
+
+      He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he
+
+would comply with the conditions enumerated under section
+
+437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
+                       Certified copy as per rules.
+
+                                                                    ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                        Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                       MCRC No.9545/2015
+28.10.2015
+
+
+                      Shri Dharmendra Keharwar, Counsel for the applicant.
+
+                      Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, Counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+                      This fourth application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. is filed on
+
+                the ground that Investigating Officer Jinu Vishnoi is not appearing in
+
+                the case for the last three months. Therefore, it is prayed that bail may
+
+                be granted to the present applicant.
+
+                      Counsel for the State is directed to ask the concerning
+
+                Superintendent of Police to keep the Investigating Officer present on
+
+                the next date of hearing positively. Failing which, the concerning
+
+                Incharge of the police station should remain present before this Court
+
+                to explain as to why the Investigating Officer could not be produced
+                 before the Court on earlier occasions.
+
+                      List in the week commencing 16.11.2015.
+
+                      Copy of this order be supplied to Counsel for the State.
+
+
+
+                                                                  ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                      Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      MCRC No.9548/2015
+28.10.2015
+
+
+                      Shri A. Saraswat, Counsel for the applicant.
+
+                      Case diary is not available.
+
+                      Let it be called for.
+
+                      List in the next week.
+
+                                                                  ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                      Judge
+    Kratika/-
+                                      MCRC No.9549/2015
+28.10.2015
+
+
+                      Case diary is not available.
+                 Let it be called for.
+
+                List in the next week.
+
+                                                        ( Alok Verma)
+                                                            Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+                               MCRC No.9550/2015
+28.10.2015
+
+
+                Shri Amit Bhatia, Counsel for the applicant.
+
+                Case diary is available.
+
+                Counsel for the applicant seeks time.
+
+                List in the next week, as prayed.
+
+                                                        ( Alok Verma)
+                                                            Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                               MCRC No.9551/2015
+28.10.2015
+
+
+                Case diary is not available.
+
+                Let it be called for.
+                      List in the next week.
+
+                                                            ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    MCRC No.9569/2015
+28.10.2015
+
+
+                     None for the applicant.
+
+                     Case diary is available.
+
+                     List in the next week.
+
+                                                            ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     CRR No.1354/2015
+28.10.2015
+
+
+                     Counsel for the applicant submits that he has cured the
+
+                default pointed out by the office.
+
+                     Office to verify and list the matter on 30.10.2015.
+                                                                 ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                    Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      CRR No.589/2015
+28.10.2015
+
+
+                     As prayed by counsel for applicant, list after a week on
+
+                any Wednesday.
+
+                     I.R. to continue.
+
+                     C.c as per rules.
+
+                                                                ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                    Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      CRA No.584/2014
+28.10.2015
+
+
+                     Shri Jitendra Jhala, counsel for the appellant.
+
+                     Shri B. Deshmukh, counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+                     Appellant - Shashi Bhushan S/o Laxman is present today
+
+                before the Court. He has been identified by the counsel.
+                       Counsel for the appellant submits that he has filed I.A.
+
+                No.8264/2015 today before the registry of this Court, which is
+
+                not available.
+
+                      Office is directed to trace the application and place it on
+
+                record.
+
+                      After due consideration, I.A. No.8264/2015 is allowed.
+
+                      His earlier non-appearance before the registry of this Court
+
+                is condoned. He is directed to appear before the registry of this
+
+                Court on 28.01.2016 and thereafter, on all dates as may be fixed
+
+                by the registry in this behalf.
+
+                                                               ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                   Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      MCRC No.9546/2015
+28.10.2015
+
+
+                      Shri AS Rathore, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                      Shri B. Deshmukh, counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+                      Case diary is available.
+                      As prayed by counsel for the applicant, list on
+
+                03.11.2015.
+
+                                                            ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     CRA No.278/2015
+28.10.2015
+
+
+                     As prayed by counsel for the appellant, list the matter
+
+                on 04.10.2015.
+
+                                                            ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                   MCRC No.10428/2014
+28.10.2015
+
+
+                     As prayed by counsel for the applicant, list the matter in
+
+                the week commencing 16.11.2015 on Wednesday.
+                                                            ( Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                  MCRC No.7716/2015
+28.10.2015
+
+
+                    As prayed by counsel for the applicant, list the matter in
+
+                the week commencing 16.11.2015 on Wednesday.
+
+
+
+                                                           ( Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                  MCRC No.8714/2015
+28.10.2015
+
+
+                    As prayed by counsel for the applicant, list the matter in
+
+                the week commencing 16.11.2015.
+
+                                                           ( Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+                                   Cr.A. No.1177/2014
+ 28.10.2015
+
+
+                         Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant/State.
+
+                         Shri HK Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.
+
+                         Respondent - Mohan Singh is present today before the Court.
+
+                He has been identified by the counsel.
+
+                         Heard on I.A. No.7664/2015, which is an application for
+
+                condonation of his non-appearance on 28.09.2015.
+
+                         The ground stated in the application is that on 28.09.2015, local
+
+                holiday was declared by the Collector, therefore, under mistaken
+
+                belief that High Court is also closed, he did not appear before the
+
+                Court.
+
+                         Taking the ground stated in the application into consideration,
+
+                his earlier non-appearance on 28.09.2015 is hereby, condoned. He is
+
+                directed to appear before the registry of this Court on 19.01.2016 and
+
+                thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the registry in
+
+                this behalf.
+
+                                                                     ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                         Judge
+    Kratika/-
+                                       RP No.271/2015
+28.10.2015
+
+
+                     Shri SC Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
+
+                     Issue notice to the respondents No.1 to 7 on payment of
+
+                PF within a week, returnable within four weeks
+
+
+
+                                                           ( Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+                                     Cr.A. No.409/2006
+28.10.2015
+
+
+                     Shri Ramesh Gangare, learned counsel for the
+
+                appellant.
+
+                     Counsel for the appellant seeks fix date for production
+
+                of the appellant before the Court.
+
+                     He is directed to keep the appellant present on
+
+                30.11.2015.
+
+                                                           ( Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+ Kratika/-
+                                   M.Cr.C. No.8997/2015
+28.10.2015
+
+
+                  Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                  Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the
+
+             respondent /State.
+
+                  This is first application under section 439 of Cr.P.C for
+
+             grant of bail to the present applicant.
+
+                  The applicant failed to mark his presence before the
+
+             trial Court while he was on bail, on 28.08.2012. Thereafter,
+
+             he remained absent and did not appear before the trial Court
+
+             till 07.07.2015 when he was arrested. As per the rejection
+
+             order passed by learned trial Court for his absence before the
+
+             trial Court was stated to be that he was mentally upset and
+
+             due to this reason, he could not appear before the Court.
+
+                  The Superintendent of District Jail, Shajapur, is
+
+             directed to submit a report in respect of his mental health
+
+             specially, whether, he is in mental state to defend the
+                 criminal case against him.
+
+                      Copy of this order may also be sent to the trial Court.
+
+                The trial Court is directed to verify the fact before
+
+                proceeding in the trial of the case.
+
+                      List in the week commencing 16.11.2015.
+
+
+
+                                                                ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                    Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.9004/2015
+28.10.2015
+
+
+                      Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                      Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondent
+
+                /State.
+
+                      This is first application under section 439 of Cr.P.C.
+
+                      While arguing the matter, it was pointed out by the counsel
+
+                that in the order passed by learned First Additional Sessions
+             Judge, Shajapur, dated 15.09.2015, after report was lodged by the
+
+            prosecutrix and also statements of mother of the prosecutrix were
+
+            recorded before the Court of Judicial Magistrate and video
+
+            recording was also done. While statement was recorded, in this
+
+            statement the prosecutrix stated that she was raped by the present
+
+            applicant. However, no such statements are available in the
+
+            charge-sheet.
+
+                  Case diary is not available.
+
+                 Counsel for the State is directed to verify whether, there is
+
+            any statement of the prosecutrix apart from the statement
+
+            recorded on 04.08.2015 and 10.08.2015 under section 164 of
+
+            Cr.P.C.
+
+                 List on 03.11.2015.
+
+                 Let copy of this order be supplied to counsel for the State.
+
+
+
+                                                           ( Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+Kratika/-
+                                   M.Cr.C. No.9439/2015
+27.10.2015
+
+
+                   Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the
+
+             applicant.
+
+                   Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondent
+
+             /State.
+
+                   Case diary is available.
+
+                   This is first application filed by the applicant under section
+
+             439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.
+
+                   The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police Station -
+
+             Chhatripura, District - Indore in Crime No.257/2015 under
+
+             sections 307/34, 394, 397 of IPC and under section 25 of the
+
+             Arms Act.
+
+                   According to the prosecution story, on 07.06.2015 at about
+
+             9:00 pm, when the complainant was coming back to his house
+
+             after selling vegetables, three accused persons were standing with
+
+             Activa two wheeler vehicle. It is alleged that one of the boy
+ inflicted knife injury on his abdomen but he did not stop to
+
+continue towards his house and narrated the incident to Sunil and
+
+Jitendra, who came back on the spot where they saw that the
+
+miscreants inflicted knife injuries on Ganesh Sahoo and Rahul
+
+Pagare, who were shifted to the hospital. The matter was reported
+
+to the police against unknown persons under section 307 of IPC.
+
+Subsequently, present applicant was arrested.
+
+     According to counsel for the applicant, there was no
+
+mention of money in his memorandum under section 27 of the
+
+Evidence Act. There was also no identification parade conducted
+
+though, the incident took place at 9:00 pm when it was dark. The
+
+knife recovered on his information, was not used in commission
+
+of the crime. He further submits that co-accused Pammu @
+
+Shubham was granted bail by this Court in                MCRC
+
+No.8349/2015 vide order dated 22.09.2015.
+
+     Learned counsel for the State opposes the application on
+
+the ground that the incident took place at 9:00 pm and in FIR, it
+
+was mentioned that due to darkness, complainant could not
+             recognized the miscreants.
+
+                  Arguments heard, case diary perused.
+
+                  Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances
+
+            of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, I
+
+            am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The
+
+            application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
+
+                  It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on
+
+            his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
+
+            Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the
+
+            satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all
+
+            the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
+
+                  He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he
+
+            would comply with the conditions enumerated under section
+
+            437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
+
+                  Certified copy as per rules.
+
+                                                             ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                 Judge
+Kratika/-
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.3718/2015
+
+27.10.2015
+
+                     Ms. Shraddha Dixit, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Shri CS Ujjainiya, counsel for the respondent /State.
+
+                     Case diary is available.
+
+                     Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the
+
+               matter.
+
+                     List after a week, as prayed.
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+    Kratika/
+
+
+
+
+                                   M.Cr.C. No.3984/2015
+
+27.10.2015
+
+                     Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Shri CS Ujjainiya, learned counsel for the respondent
+
+               /State.
+                     Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the
+
+               matter.
+
+                    List after a week, as prayed.
+
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+    Kratika/
+
+
+
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.9235/2015
+
+27.10.2015
+
+                    Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                    Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the
+
+               respondent /State.
+
+                    After arguing the matter for some time, counsel for the
+
+               applicant seeks leave to withdraw the application with liberty
+
+               to file a fresh application after recording of statements of
+
+               material prosecution witnesses.
+
+                    Prayer is allowed.
+
+                    With the aforesaid liberty, the application is dismissed,
+                as withdrawn.
+
+                       Certified copy as per rules.
+
+                                                               (Alok Verma)
+                                                                   Judge
+    Kratika/
+
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.9293/2015
+
+27.10.2015
+
+                       Ms. Sofiya Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                       Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the
+
+               respondent /State.
+
+                       Case diary is available.
+
+                       This is first bail application filed by the applicant under
+
+               section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of
+
+               bail.
+
+                       The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police
+
+               Station - Azad Nagar, District - Indore in Crime
+ No.624/2014 under sections 306 and 498-A/34 of IPC.
+
+     According to the prosecution story, the deceased
+
+Poonam was married to one Jitendra about 7 to 8 years prior
+
+to her death on 05.01.2015. Subsequently, about 3 years prior
+
+to her death, when she came back to her parental house, she
+
+developed intimacy with the present applicant and married
+
+him. Out of the wedlock, one daughter was also born.
+
+Subsequently, on 29.11.2014, by pouring kerosene on herself
+
+and by putting herself on fire, she sustained serious burn
+
+injuries and due to which, she died on 05.01.2015.
+
+     Her statement was recorded on 20.12.2014 in which,
+
+she levelled certain allegations against present applicant and
+
+his mother. However, parents of the deceased turned hostile
+
+before the trial Judge and did not support the prosecution
+
+story.
+
+     Arguments heard, case diary perused.
+
+     Counsel for the State opposed the bail application.
+       Counsel for the applicant submits that her statement
+
+was recorded after 20 days of the incident. Her mother did
+
+not support the allegations made by her in her statement
+
+made under section 161 of Cr.P.C.
+
+      After going through the case diary and taking into
+
+consideration the all the facts and circumstances of the case,
+
+without commenting on the merits of the case, the
+
+application is allowed.
+
+      It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail
+
+on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
+
+Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to
+
+the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his
+
+appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in
+
+this regard during trial.
+
+      He is further directed that on being so released on bail,
+
+he would comply with the conditions enumerated under
+
+section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
+                 Certified copy as per rules.
+
+                                                      (Alok Verma)
+                                                          Judge
+     Kratika/
+
+
+
+
+                               M.Cr.C. No.9435/2015
+27.10.2015
+
+
+                Case diary is not available.
+
+                Let it be called for.
+
+                List in the next week.
+
+
+
+                                                      ( Alok Verma)
+                                                          Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+                               M.Cr.C. No.9436/2015
+27.10.2015
+
+
+                Case diary is not available.
+
+                Let it be called for.
+
+                List in the next week.
+                                                               ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                  Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      M.Cr.C. No.9449/2015
+27.10.2015
+
+
+                        Shri Ratnesh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                        Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the
+
+                respondent /State.
+
+                        Case diary is available.
+
+                        This is first application filed by the applicant under
+
+                section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of
+
+                bail.
+
+                        The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police
+
+                Station - Aerodrome, District - Indore in Crime No.698/2015
+
+                under section 34(2) of MP Excise Act for keeping in his
+ possession 63 bulk liters of contraband country liquor.
+
+     Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
+
+application on the ground that there are as many as 12 cases
+
+pending against the present applicant apart from the present
+
+case, out of which, one is under section 394 of IPC and
+
+another is under section 147, 148 of IPC. One case is also
+
+pending against him under the MP Excise Act.
+
+     Arguments heard, case diary perused.
+
+     Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in most
+
+of the cases, he is acquitted. He also submits that in case
+
+under section 394 of IPC, he was acquitted and he has got
+
+certified copy of the judgment. In other cases, which are
+
+petty in nature, he is on bail and he is appearing regularly.
+
+He further submits that on being released on bail, he will not
+
+indulge in any kind of criminal activities whatsoever.
+
+     Taking into consideration the quantity of contraband
+
+country liquor seized from possession of the present
+ applicant and also the undertaking given by counsel for
+
+the applicant, which shall form condition of this bail
+
+order, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am
+
+of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The
+
+application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is
+
+allowed.
+
+     It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail
+
+subject to the aforesaid condition and on his furnishing a
+
+personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only)
+
+and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction
+
+of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the
+
+dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
+
+     He is further directed that on being so released on bail,
+
+he would comply with the conditions enumerated under
+
+section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
+
+     In case of breach of the aforesaid condition of this bail
+
+order, the bail order shall be deemed to have been cancelled
+                 without reference to this Court.
+
+                     Certified copy as per rules.
+
+                                                           ( Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      MCC No.829/2015
+26.10.2015
+                     Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the
+
+                applicant.
+
+                     Issue notice on I.A. No.7851/2015 as well as main
+
+                application filed under Order 41 Rule 19 read with section
+
+                151 of CPC on payment of PF within a week, returnable
+
+                within four weeks.
+
+                                                          (Alok Verma)
+                                                             Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                      MA No.841/2015
+26.10.2015
+                     Shri    Pankaj    Jain,   learned   counsel   for     the
+                appellant/Insurance Company.
+
+                     As per office report, all the respondents are served.
+
+               However, none appeared on their behalf.
+
+                     Heard on I.A. No.3878/2015, which is an application for
+
+               dispensing with filing of certified copy of the award.
+
+                     At this stage, counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company
+
+               submits that he has already filed certified copy of the award,
+
+               therefore, this application has been rendered infructuous.
+
+                     Accordingly, the application is dismissed, as being
+
+               rendered infructuous.
+
+                     Office is directed to calculate the period of limitation and
+
+               delay, if any, in filing of this appeal and submit its report on the
+
+               next date of hearing.
+
+                     List after a week alongwith the report.
+
+                                                               (Alok Verma)
+                                                                  Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                       MA No.979/2015
+26.10.2015
+                     Shri LR Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant.
+
+                    List after two weeks alongwith service report of the
+
+               respondent.
+
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                              Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+                                     MA No.1088/2015
+26.10.2015
+                    Shri Manish Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
+
+                    He submits that matter be placed before the forthcoming
+
+               Lok Adalat.
+
+                    Office is directed to explore possibility of placing the
+
+               matter before the forthcoming Lok Adalat.
+
+
+
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                              Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    CONC No.799/2014
+26.10.2015
+                     As prayed by both the counsels, list on 27.10.2015.
+
+
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     CONC No.464/2014
+26.10.2015
+                    Shri Nilesh Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner.
+
+                    Respondent - Shri BM Gupta, CEO, Dewas Development
+
+               Authority, Dewas, is present in person.
+
+                    As prayed, list the matter after 30.10.2015.
+
+                    Meanwhile, personal appearance of Shri BM Gupta is
+
+               exempted.
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                   M.Cr.C. No.9423/2015
+ 26.10.2015
+
+                     Shri Amit Bhatia, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Shri CS Ujjainiya, learned counsel for the respondent
+
+             /State.
+
+                     Case diary is available.
+
+                     This is first bail application filed by the applicant under
+
+             section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of
+
+             bail.
+
+                     The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police
+
+             Station - Hira Nagar District - Indore in Crime No.430/2015
+
+             under sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(I) of IPC and under
+
+             section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
+
+             Act.
+
+                     According to the prosecution story, on 07.07.2015, the
+
+             prosecutrix, who was about 17 years old, was taken by the
+
+             present applicant promising her that he would marry her, to
+
+             Kanpur. There, she remained in the company of the present
+ applicant till 12.07.2015. The police went to Uttar Pradesh
+
+and brought the prosecutrix back.
+
+     Her statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. was
+
+recorded in which she stated that she was forcibly taken by
+
+the present applicant to Uttar Pradesh but there was no
+
+mention of committing rape on her. Her statement under
+
+section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 16.07.2015 in which
+
+she stated that 15 days prior to 07.07.2015, present applicant
+
+had forcible intercourse with her.
+
+     Counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant
+
+is falsely implicated in the case. In Dastayabi Panchnama, it
+
+is stated that on 12.07.2015, she came to the police station
+
+alongwith her parents and there, Dastayabi Panchnama was
+
+made and she was handed over to her parents. While in her
+
+statement made under section 161 of Cr.P.C., she stated that
+
+police came to Uttar Pradesh and brought present applicant
+
+and herself back. For this fact, there is no evidence available
+ in the charge-sheet, which has already been filed. Hence, he
+
+prays for grant of bail to the present applicant.
+
+     Arguments heard, case diary perused.
+
+     Counsel for the State submits that age of the
+
+prosecutrix at the time of incident was below 18 years. She
+
+was stated in her statement that she was forcibly taken to
+
+Uttar Pradesh by the present applicant. He had physical
+
+relationship with her also 15 days prior to the incident.
+
+Therefore, at this stage, bail should not be granted to the
+
+present applicant.
+
+     After going through the case diary and taking into
+
+consideration the all the facts and circumstances of the case,
+
+without commenting on the merits of the case, the
+
+application is allowed.
+
+     It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail
+
+on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
+
+Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to
+                the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his
+
+               appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in
+
+               this regard during trial.
+
+                     He is further directed that on being so released on bail,
+
+               he would comply with the conditions enumerated under
+
+               section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
+
+                     Certified copy as per rules.
+
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+    Kratika/
+
+
+
+                                    MCRC No.9425/2015
+26.10.2015
+                     Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri
+
+               Animesh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the
+
+               respondent/State.
+
+                     Case diary is not available.
+                      Let it be called for.
+
+                     List in the next week.
+
+                                                              (Alok Verma)
+                                                                 Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      MCRC No.9426/2015
+26.10.2015
+                     Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Shri CS Ujjainiya, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+                     Counsel for the applicant submits that his earlier
+
+               application was dismissed as withdrawn in MCRC No.1583/2015
+
+               vide order dated 23.04.2015 with liberty to file a fresh
+
+               application after obtaining copy of statement of the prosecutrix
+
+               under section 164 of Cr.P.C. According to him, he applied for the
+
+               copy, however, it was reported that in Special Case No.66/2014
+
+               pending before the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of
+
+               Atrocities) Act, statement of the prosecutrix made under section
+
+               164 of Cr.P.C. is not available, therefore, supplying of the copy is
+ not possible.
+
+      Counsel for the State submits that as per the case diary,
+
+Station Incharge of Police Station - Kannod, District - Dewas,
+
+informed that her statement was recorded in Criminal Case
+
+No.1653/2014. They have applied for obtaining the copy of the
+
+statement but the copy was not given to them.
+
+      Let the concerning Sessions Judge, Dewas, be requested to
+
+submit a report as to whether, any statement of the prosecutrix
+
+under section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded in the matter relating
+
+to Police Station - Kannod, District - Dewas in Crime
+
+No.367/2014 under sections 363, 366-A, 368, 376(2)(N) and
+
+506/34 of IPC, under section 3(1)(12) of SC/ST (Prevention of
+
+Atrocities) Act and under section 3/4 of Protection of Children
+
+from Sexual Offences Act.
+
+      List in the next week alongwith the report of the Sessions
+
+Judge.
+
+      Counsel for the State is also directed to verify whether, the
+
+statement was recorded and if such statement is recorded, copy of
+                the same should be produced alongwith the case diary.
+
+
+
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                              Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     CRA No.546/2013
+26.10.2015
+                    Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.
+
+                    Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the
+
+               respondent/State.
+
+                    Counsel for the appellant prays for time to argue the
+
+               matter.
+
+                    List in the week commencing 16.11.2015, as prayed.
+
+
+
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                              Judge
+   Kratika/-
+                                     CRA No.1030/2015
+26.10.2015
+                   Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
+
+                   Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the
+
+             respondent/State.
+
+                   Heard on I.A. No.7994/2015, which is an application under
+
+             section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and
+
+             grant of bail filed on behalf of present appellant namely - Komal
+
+             @ Komal Singh.
+
+                   The appellant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-
+
+             CONVICTION          SENTENCE
+
+             Section and Act     Imprisonment     Fine if deposited   Imprisonment
+                                                                      in lieu of fine
+             307 of IPC          7 years' RI      Rs.1000/-           1        month
+                                                                      RI
+
+
+
+                     Presently, the appellant is stated to be under custody.
+
+              He was also under custody during trial. As per the
+
+              allegations, he inflicted injuries on the complainant
+
+              Mohabbat Singh by sword due to which ear lobule of the
+             complainant was partly severed. Counsel for the appellant
+
+            submits that the appellant is already under custody for the last
+
+            15 months.
+
+                  Taking    into     consideration   all   the   facts   and
+
+            circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merit
+
+            of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that if,
+
+            the present appellant furnishes personal bond of Rs.50,000/-
+
+            (Rupees Fifty Thousand) and a solvent surety of the like
+
+            amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to
+
+            payment of fine, the remaining portion of the jail sentence of
+
+            the appellant shall be suspended and he be released on bail
+
+            for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on
+
+            01.03.2016 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be
+
+            fixed by the Registry in this behalf.
+
+                Certified copy as per rules.
+
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                              Judge
+Kratika/-
+
+                                   MCRC No.9067/2015
+ 26.10.2015
+                    Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                    Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the
+
+               respondent/State.
+
+                    Case diary is not available.
+
+                    Let it be called for.
+
+                    List in the next week.
+
+                                                          (Alok Verma)
+                                                             Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+                                    MCRC No.9390/2015
+26.10.2015
+                    None for the applicant.
+
+                    Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the
+
+               respondent/State.
+
+                    Case diary is available.
+
+                    List in the next week.
+
+                                                          (Alok Verma)
+                                                             Judge
+   Kratika/-
+                                   M.Cr.C. No.7708/2015
+
+26.10.2015
+
+                   Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                   Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondent
+
+             /State.
+
+                   Case diary is available.
+
+                   This is second bail application filed by the applicant under
+
+             section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.
+
+             His first application was dismissed on merit in MCRC
+
+             No.379/2015 vide order dated 02.02.2015.
+
+                   The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police Station -
+
+             Gandhawani District - Dhar in Crime No.334/2014 under
+
+             sections 304(b)/34 of IPC and under section 3/4 of Dowry
+
+             Prohibition Act.
+
+                   According to the prosecution, the deceased Manisha was
+
+             wife of co-accused Mohan @ Monu Bhilala. Their marriage took
+
+             place about six months prior to her death on 28.10.2014. There
+ was an allegation of demand of dowry by the present applicant as
+
+well as other co-accused. It is alleged that due to demand of
+
+dowry, she committed suicide by consuming some poisonous
+
+substance(pesticide).
+
+      According to counsel for the applicant, father, mother and
+
+uncle of the deceased were examined before the trial Court. They
+
+did not support prosecution story at all and turned completely
+
+hostile. Copies of the statements are filed by counsel for the
+
+applicant. He further submits that there is only one more
+
+prosecution witness to be examined, who is Vijay but, he is not
+
+directly related to the deceased and apart from three witnesses,
+
+no other important witness is left to be examined.
+
+      Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the fact that
+
+no other important witness is left to be examined, however, he
+
+opposed the application on the ground that his first application
+
+was dismissed on merit, therefore, till all the prosecution
+
+witnesses are examined, bail should not be granted to the present
+
+applicant.
+                  Arguments heard, case diary perused.
+
+                 After   going   through    the   case   diary,   taking   into
+
+           consideration the all the facts and circumstances of the case and
+
+           specially the fact that parents and other relatives of the deceased
+
+           have been examined and turned hostile, this second application is
+
+           allowed.
+
+                 It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on
+
+           his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
+
+           Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the
+
+           satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all
+
+           the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
+
+                 He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he
+
+           would comply with the conditions enumerated under section
+
+           437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
+
+                 Certified copy as per rules.
+
+
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+Kratika/
+                                     MCRC No.7849/2015
+26.10.2015
+                    Shri BL Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                    Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the
+
+               respondent/State.
+
+                    After arguing the matter for some time, counsel for the
+
+               applicant seeks leave to withdraw the application with liberty
+
+               to file a fresh application after recording of statements of
+
+               material prosecution witnesses.
+
+                    Prayer is allowed.
+
+                    The application is accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn
+
+               with the aforesaid liberty.
+
+                    C.c. as per rules.
+
+                                                          (Alok Verma)
+                                                             Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                    MCRC No.9036/2015
+ 26.10.2015
+                    Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                    Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the
+
+               respondent/State.
+
+                    Case diary is not available.
+
+                    Let it be called for.
+
+                    List in the next week.
+
+                                                        (Alok Verma)
+                                                           Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    MCRC No.9037/2015
+26.10.2015
+                    Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                    Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the
+
+               respondent/State.
+
+                    Case diary is available.
+
+                    Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the
+
+               matter.
+                     List in the next week, as prayed.
+
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                              Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                       MCRC No.9105/2015
+26.10.2015
+                    Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                    Shri Bhuvan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the
+
+               respondent/State.
+
+                    This is second application filed under section 439 of
+
+               Cr.P.C. for grant of temporary bail on the ground that the
+
+               applicant herself is pregnant and while in custody, her proper
+
+               care is not possible.
+
+                    Counsel for the applicant also filed relevant medical
+
+               papers alongwith the application.
+
+                    A report be called from the concerning jail authority in
+                respect of medical condition and probable date of delivery of
+
+               the applicant.
+
+                    List on 29.10.2015.
+
+                                                          (Alok Verma)
+                                                             Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      CRR No.854/2015
+20.10.2015
+                    Shri Kaushal Sisodiya, learned counsel for the
+
+               applicant.
+
+                    Shri     Mukesh   Parwal,   learned   counsel   for   the
+
+               respondent/State.
+
+                    Heard.
+
+                    This Criminal Revision is filed under section 53 of the
+
+               Juvenile Justice Act against the order passed by learned
+
+               Sessions Judge, Dhar, District - Dhar in Criminal Appeal
+
+               No.191/2015 dated 02.07.2015 whereby, learned Sessions
+ Judge confirmed the order passed by learned Principal Judge
+
+of Juvenile Justice Board, Dhar. The Juvenile Justice Board
+
+by order dated 09.06.2015, dismissed the application filed by
+
+the present applicant for grant of custody of the juvenile in
+
+conflict with law and in appeal, the same was confirmed by
+
+the Sessions Judge.
+
+2.   This revision is filed by father of the juvenile and his
+
+guardian for his custody during trial.
+
+3.   The relevant facts giving rise to this revision are that
+
+the complainant Magar Singh lodged a complaint on
+
+01.06.2015 that his daughter was missing and on his report,
+
+Crime No.77/2015 under section 363 of IPC was registered
+
+by the concerning police station. On investigation, it was
+
+found that on the night of 01.06.2015, when the complainant
+
+woke-up at 6 o'clock in the morning, he found her daughter
+
+missing. The prosecutrix was recovered on 05.06.2015 and in
+
+her statement made to the police, she stated that she was
+ kidnapped by the present applicant alongwith two other co-
+
+accused and there, it is alleged that present applicant
+
+committed rape on her.
+
+4.   A report of Probation Officer, District - Dhar, was
+
+sought. The report has been submitted by learned counsel for
+
+the State before this Court. In the statement, it is stated that
+
+the juvenile in conflict with law is facing trial before the
+
+Juvenile Justice Board for the last 5 months. He is interested
+
+in his studies and he is repenting what he had done. He stated
+
+before the Probation Officer that the prosecutrix went with
+
+him with her consent and also told him that if he would not
+
+take her, she would commit suicide. He was not knowing that
+
+taking her, would harm him and he promised the Probation
+
+Officer that in future, he will not repeat the mistake. Finally,
+
+the Probation Officer recommended custody of the present
+
+applicant to be handed over to his guardian.
+
+5.   Looking to the benevolent provisions of the Juvenile
+ Justice Act and the report of the Probation Officer in respect
+
+of the boys in conflict with law, this revision stands allowed.
+
+6.   It is directed that if by the guardians of the present
+
+applicant, a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.
+
+Thirty Thousand) and a solvent surety of the like amount be
+
+furnished before the Juvenile Justice Board with undertaking
+
+therein that they will take care of the present applicant and
+
+take care that he will not indulge in any kind of criminal
+
+activities, his custody be handed over to their guardian.
+
+7.   It is further directed that guardian and the juvenile in
+
+conflict with law will produce the juvenile before the
+
+Probation Officer once in fifteen days and he would keep an
+
+eye on his conduct during the period of his custody to his
+
+guardian. If any unsocial activity is observed on the part of
+
+the juvenile, the same should be reported to the Juvenile
+
+Justice Board and the Juvenile Justice Board is at liberty to
+
+take suitable action for cancellation of this order.
+             8.   With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
+
+            revision stands disposed of.
+
+                 C.c. as per rules.
+
+                                               (Alok Verma)
+                                                 Judge
+Kratika/-
+                                      WP No.7174/2015
+20.10.2015
+                  Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri
+
+             Akash Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
+
+                  Shri Pushyamitra Bhargav, learned counsel for the
+
+             respondents No.1 to 5 on caveat.
+
+                  Let notice be issued to the respondents No.6 and 7 on
+
+             payment of PF within three working days.
+
+                   It is submitted that one more petition which has been
+
+             filed by the petitioner vide WP No.6822/2015 is going to be
+
+             listed on 30.11.2015.
+
+                  In respect of the interim relief, learned counsel for the
+
+             Caveator submits that the bank guarantee of the petitioner
+
+             has already been encashed.
+
+                  It has also pointed out by learned Sr. Counsel that
+
+             number of writ petitions are pending and in other writ
+
+             petitions, the Division Bench has directed that the result of
+
+             auction notice shall be subject to final decision of the writ
+                petition.
+
+                     As prayed, list after three weeks.
+
+                     Meanwhile, it is directed that the result of auction
+
+               notice shall be subject to final decision of the writ petition.
+
+                     List alongwith W.P. Nos.6818/2015 and 6822/2015 for
+
+               analogous hearing.
+
+                     C.c. as per rules.
+
+
+
+                (P.K. Jaiswal)                              (Alok Verma)
+                    Judge                                       Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                          WP No.188/2015
+20.10.2015
+                     Shri RL Jain, learned Sr. Counsel with Ms. Veena
+
+               Mandlik, learned counsel for the petitioner.
+
+                     Shri Sumit Nema, learned counsel for the respondent.
+
+                     It appears that by mistake, office has listed the matter
+                for admission whereas, the writ petition has already been
+
+               admitted for final hearing vide order dated 09.01.2015.
+
+
+
+                (P.K. Jaiswal)                           (Alok Verma)
+                    Judge                                    Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      CONC No.173/2014
+20.10.2015
+                    Shri MA Mansoori, learned counsel for the petitioner.
+
+                    Ms. Vibha Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent
+
+               No.2.
+
+                    Shri Piyush Shrivastav, learned counsel for the
+
+               respondents No.4 to 7.
+
+                    None for respondents No.1 and 3.
+
+                    As per the service report, notice has been duly served to
+
+               the respondent No.3.
+
+                    Let fresh notice be issued to the respondents No.1 on
+                her correct address on payment of PF within a week,
+
+               returnable within four weeks.
+
+
+
+                (P.K. Jaiswal)                        (Alok Verma)
+                   Judge                                  Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    WP No.2503/2011
+20.10.2015
+                    As prayed by Shri Govind Purohit, Advocate, appearing
+
+               on behalf of Shri GS Patwardhan, Advocate, the case is
+
+               adjourned.
+
+                    List after a week, as prayed.
+
+
+
+                (P.K. Jaiswal)                        (Alok Verma)
+                   Judge                                  Judge
+   Kratika/-
+                                         WP No.6841/2014
+20.10.2015
+                    Parties through their counsel.
+
+                    Smt. Meena Chaphekar, learned counsel for the
+
+               respondent No.3 prays for and is granted three weeks' time to
+
+               file additional reply.
+
+                    List alongwith WP No.2693/2014.
+
+
+
+                (P.K. Jaiswal)                            (Alok Verma)
+                    Judge                                     Judge
+   Kratika/-
+                                         WP No.2693/2014
+20.10.2015
+                    Parties through their counsel.
+
+                    Smt. Meena Chaphekar, learned counsel for the
+
+               respondent No.4 prays for and is granted three weeks' time to
+
+               file additional reply.
+
+                    List alongwith WP No.6841/2014.
+
+
+
+                (P.K. Jaiswal)                            (Alok Verma)
+                    Judge                                     Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                        WP No.6695/2014
+20.10.2015
+                    Shri Sumit Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner.
+
+                    Shri RL Jain, learned Sr. Counsel with Ms. Veena
+
+               Mandlik, learned counsel for the respondent.
+                     List on 28.10.2015, as prayed.
+
+
+
+                (P.K. Jaiswal)                             (Alok Verma)
+                   Judge                                       Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                        WA No.214/2015
+20.10.2015
+                    Shri LC Patne, learned counsel for the petitioner.
+
+                    Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned counsel for the
+
+               respondent No.1/State.
+
+                    Let fresh notice be issued to the respondents No.2, 3
+
+               and 4 on both counts on payment of PF within a week,
+
+               returnable within four weeks.
+
+                    Interim relief to continue till the next date of hearing.
+
+                    C.c as per rules.
+
+
+
+                (P.K. Jaiswal)                             (Alok Verma)
+                   Judge                                       Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    WP No.553/2015
+20.10.2015
+                   Shri Ambar Pare, learned counsel for the petitioner.
+
+                   As prayed, list after two weeks alongwith WP
+
+               No.546/2015.
+
+
+
+                (P.K. Jaiswal)                          (Alok Verma)
+                   Judge                                    Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    WP No.546/2015
+20.10.2015
+                   Shri Ambar Pare, learned counsel for the petitioner.
+
+                   As prayed, list after two weeks.
+
+
+
+                (P.K. Jaiswal)                          (Alok Verma)
+                     Judge                                       Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      WP No.629/2015
+20.10.2015
+                    Shri PR Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
+
+                    Smt. Rashmi Pandit, learned counsel for the respondent
+
+               No.1.
+
+                    Heard.
+
+                    Counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that there is
+
+               no provision to provide copy of the answer sheet. She
+
+               submits that the main result was declared on 12.06.2014. The
+
+               petitioner applied for revaluation and the result of revaluation
+
+               was declared on 18.11.2014. Thereafter, he filed an
+
+               application under the RTI Act, 2005 on 21.10.2014 but till
+
+               today, the same has not been provided after the period of
+
+               more than one year though, the writ petition was filed on
+
+               27.01.2015. After a period of one year when there is no order
+ under the RTI Act, 2005, copies of the answer sheet of the
+
+subject cannot be provided to the petitioner. She further
+
+submits that if the petitioner apply for the answer sheet by
+
+filing a fresh application under the RTI Act, 2005, the
+
+respondent will provide them copy of the answer sheet.
+
+     Considering the aforesaid, without commenting on the
+
+merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to file an
+
+appropriate application before the concerned respondent
+
+under the RTI Act, 2005, seeking copy of the answer sheet.
+
+     If such an application is filed by the petitioner, the
+
+needful be done by the concerned respondent from the date
+
+of receipt of certified copy of this order.
+
+     In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands
+
+disposed of.
+
+     C.c as per rules.
+
+
+
+ (P.K. Jaiswal)                               (Alok Verma)
+                     Judge                                     Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     W.P. No.7259/2015
+20.10.2015
+                    Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar, learned counsel for the
+
+               petitioner.
+
+                    Heard on the question of admission.
+
+                    Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within
+
+               a week, returnable within four weeks. In addition, the
+
+               petitioner is at liberty to serve by hamdast notice on payment
+
+               of usual charges as per rules.
+
+                    List in the week commencing 02.11.2015 alongwith
+
+               other connected matters.
+
+
+
+                (P.K. Jaiswal)                            (Alok Verma)
+                    Judge                                     Judge
+   Kratika/-
+                                     CRA No.1220/2015
+20.10.2015
+                    Smt. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
+
+                    Shri   Deepak    Rawal,    learned   counsel   for      the
+
+               respondent/State.
+
+                    Learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for and
+
+               is granted ten days' further time to file reply of I.A.
+
+               No.6791/2015.
+
+                    List in the week commencing 02.11.2015.
+
+
+
+                (P.K. Jaiswal)                           (Alok Verma)
+                   Judge                                     Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    CRA No.1450/2015
+20.10.2015
+                    Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
+
+                    Shri   Deepak    Rawal,    learned   counsel   for      the
+                respondent/State on advance notice.
+
+                    Heard on the question of admission.
+
+                    The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
+
+                    Let record of the trial Court be called for.
+
+                    Shri Deepak Rawal, learned counsel accepts notice on
+
+               behalf of respondent/State, therefore, no notice is required to
+
+               be sent.
+
+                    List for final hearing in due course.
+
+
+
+                (P.K. Jaiswal)                              (Alok Verma)
+                    Judge                                       Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    CRR No.1047/2015
+19.10.2015
+                    Shri Ajay Mishra, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                    Shri RS Bais, counsel for the respondent.
+      Heard on I.A. No.6306/2015, which is an application
+
+filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of
+
+delay of 262 days in filing of this revision. However, as per
+
+office report, the revision is filed with delay of 272 days.
+
+     The reason stated in the application is that present
+
+applicant was not informed by concerning counsel that his
+
+conviction was maintained by appellate Court and also that
+
+he was suffering from various diseases. The application is
+
+supported by an affidavit of Shri Pawan Khandelwal, son-in-
+
+law of the present applicant, as he was in jail at the time of
+
+filing of this revision and application.
+
+     Counsel for the respondent opposed the application on
+
+the ground that no cogent reason has been stated in the
+
+application.
+
+     Taking into consideration the ground stated in the
+
+application and by accepting the same, application is
+
+allowed. The delay of 272 days in filing of this revision is
+                hereby, condoned.
+
+                     Record of the lower court is available.
+
+                     Heard on the question of admission.
+
+                     The revision is admitted for final hearing.
+
+                     List it for final hearing in due course.
+
+
+
+                                                                    (Alok Verma)
+                                                                       Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                        CRA No.1149/2015
+19.10.2015
+                     Shri Anupam Chouhan, counsel for the appellant.
+
+                     Smt. Mamta Shandilya, counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+                     Heard on I.A. No.6407/2015, which is an application filed
+
+               under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in
+
+               filing the present appeal.
+
+                     The ground stated in the application is that family of the present
+
+               appellant is not in financial position to file the appeal. After arranging
+                necessary fund for filing of this appeal, which is according to the
+
+               office report, is filed with the delay of 410 days.
+
+                     After due consideration of the ground stated in the application,
+
+               which is supported by affidavit, the application is allowed. The delay
+
+               of 410 days in filing of this appeal is condoned.
+
+                     Let record of the lower court be called for.
+
+                     List for consideration of I.A. No.6406/2015 after two weeks.
+
+
+
+                                                              (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                        CRR No.1304/2015
+19.10.2015
+                     None for the applicant.
+
+                     Let the default pointed out by the office be removed
+
+               within a week.
+
+                                                              (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+   Kratika/-
+                                    CRA No.1307/2015
+19.10.2015
+                    None for the appellant.
+
+                    Let the default pointed out by the office be removed
+
+               within a week.
+
+                                                   (Alok Verma)
+                                                     Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                   CRR No.1324/2015
+19.10.2015
+                    None for the applicant.
+
+                    Let the default pointed out by the office be removed
+
+               within a week.
+
+                                                   (Alok Verma)
+                                                     Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                   CRR No.1342/2015
+ 19.10.2015
+                    Smt Archana Kher, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                    Smt.     Mamta      Shandilya,     counsel     for    the
+
+               respondent/State.
+
+                    Heard on I.A. No.8011/2015, which is an application
+
+               for dispensing with filing of certified copy of the impugned
+
+               order.
+
+                    After due consideration, the application is allowed. The
+
+               applicant is directed to file the certified copy soon after
+
+               getting it from the concerning court.
+
+                    List for consideration of I.A. No.7967/2015 in the week
+
+               commencing 26.10.2015.
+
+                                                       (Alok Verma)
+                                                         Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    CRA No.1388/2015
+19.10.2015
+                    Smt. M. Shandilya, counsel for the appellant/State.
+                     She prays for and is granted two weeks' time to remove
+
+               the default pointed out by the office.
+
+                    List after two weeks.
+
+                                                        (Alok Verma)
+                                                          Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     MA No.1433/2015
+19.10.2015
+                    Shri Jeevraj Paliwal, counsel for the appellant.
+
+                    He prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file
+
+               appropriate application for dispensing with service of notice
+
+               on respondents No.1 and 2.
+
+                    List after two weeks.
+
+                                                        (Alok Verma)
+                                                          Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                     MA No.1837/2015
+19.10.2015
+                    Shri Mehul Negi, counsel for the appellant/insurance
+                company.
+
+                    Issue notice on I.A. Nos.7547/2015, 7548/2015 and
+
+               memo of appeal to the respondents on payment of PF within
+
+               a week, returnable within four weeks.
+
+                    Meanwhile,     counsel    for   the     appellant/insurance
+
+               company is directed to deposit 50% of the amount of award
+
+               as ordered by the learned Tribunal below.
+
+                    List after service of notice on the respondents.
+
+
+
+                                                          (Alok Verma)
+                                                            Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                   MCRC No.3260/2015
+19.10.2015
+                    Smt. Sudha Shrivastav, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                    Shri Mohd. Iqbal Anwar, counsel for the respondent.
+
+                    Counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the
+
+               matter.
+                     Meanwhile,     interim   relief   passed   in    MCRC
+
+               No.3260/2015 shall continue in MCRC Nos.3261/2015,
+
+               3263/2015 and 3264/2015.
+
+                    List in the week commencing 02.11.2015.
+
+                    C.c as per rules.
+
+                                                      (Alok Verma)
+                                                        Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                   MCRC No.3261/2015
+19.10.2015
+                    Smt. Sudha Shrivastav, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                    Shri Mohd. Iqbal Anwar, counsel for the respondent.
+
+                    Counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the
+
+               matter.
+
+                    Meanwhile,     interim   relief   passed   in    MCRC
+
+               No.3260/2015 shall continue in MCRC Nos.3261/2015,
+
+               3263/2015 and 3264/2015.
+
+                    List in the week commencing 02.11.2015.
+                     C.c as per rules.
+
+                                                      (Alok Verma)
+                                                        Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                   MCRC No.3264/2015
+19.10.2015
+                    Smt. Sudha Shrivastav, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                    Shri Mohd. Iqbal Anwar, counsel for the respondent.
+
+                    Counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the
+
+               matter.
+
+                    Meanwhile,     interim   relief   passed   in    MCRC
+
+               No.3260/2015 shall continue in MCRC Nos.3261/2015,
+
+               3263/2015 and 3264/2015.
+
+                    List in the week commencing 02.11.2015.
+
+                    C.c as per rules.
+
+                                                      (Alok Verma)
+                                                        Judge
+   Kratika/-
+                                    MCRC No.3263/2015
+19.10.2015
+                    Smt. Sudha Shrivastav, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                    Shri Mohd. Iqbal Anwar, counsel for the respondent.
+
+                    Counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the
+
+               matter.
+
+                    Meanwhile,     interim   relief   passed   in    MCRC
+
+               No.3260/2015 shall continue in MCRC Nos.3261/2015,
+
+               3263/2015 and 3264/2015.
+
+                    List in the week commencing 02.11.2015.
+
+                    C.c as per rules.
+
+                                                      (Alok Verma)
+                                                        Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                   MCRC No.6796/2015
+19.10.2015
+                    Shri Govind Purohit, counsel for the applicant/E.O.W.
+
+                    He prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file
+             Process Fee.
+
+                 List after two weeks.
+
+                                         (Alok Verma)
+                                           Judge
+Kratika/-
+                                      MCRC No.8332/2015
+19.10.2015
+                    Shri Yashpal Rathore, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                    He prays for and is granted a week's time to remove the
+
+               default pointed out by the office.
+
+                    List after a week.
+
+                                                         (Alok Verma)
+                                                           Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                    MCRC No.9216/2015
+19.10.2015
+                    Shri Virendra Khadav, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                    Counsel for the applicant is directed to file fresh certified
+
+               copy of the impugned order in which case number is properly
+
+               mentioned. He is also directed to remove the defect pointed out
+
+               by the office at Serial No.2 within a week.
+
+                    List after two weeks.
+
+                                                         (Alok Verma)
+                                                           Judge
+   Kratika/-
+                                     MA No.1659/2015
+19.10.2015
+                    Shri Himanshu Paliwal, counsel for the appellant.
+
+                    Heard on the question of admission.
+
+                    The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
+
+                    Let record of the Claims Tribunal be called for.
+
+                    Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within
+
+               a week, returnable within four weeks.
+
+
+
+                                                       (Alok Verma)
+                                                         Judge
+   Kratika/-
+                                      MA No.1813/2015
+19.10.2015
+                    Shri Mehul Negi, counsel for the appellant/Insurance
+
+               Company.
+
+                    Issue notice of I.A. No.7466/2015 as well as memo of
+
+               appeal to respondents No.1 to 6 on payment of PF within a
+
+               week, returnable within four weeks. Notices on respondents
+
+               No.3 and 4 be served through their mother, respondent No.2
+
+               - Smt. Totli Bai W/o Dayaram.
+
+                    Meanwhile, counsel for the appellant / Insurance
+
+               Company is directed to deposit 50% of the amount of award
+
+               as ordered by the learned Tribunal below.
+
+                    C.c. as per rules.
+
+                                                      (Alok Verma)
+                                                        Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                     CRR No.893/2015
+19.10.2015
+                    None for the applicant.
+                     Smt. Mamta Shandilya, counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+                    List after two weeks.
+
+
+
+                                                       (Alok Verma)
+                                                         Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                      CRR No.13/2014
+19.10.2015
+                    Shri Yashraj Dube, Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri
+
+               AK Nalwaya, Advocate submits that Shri Nalwaya is not
+
+               available today and seeks time.
+
+                    List after two weeks, as prayed.
+
+
+
+                                                       (Alok Verma)
+                                                         Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     CRR No.1020/2015
+19.10.2015
+                    Shri Yashraj Dube, Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri
+                AK Nalwaya, Advocate submits that Shri Nalwaya is not
+
+               available today and seeks time.
+
+                    List after two weeks, as prayed.
+
+
+
+                                                         (Alok Verma)
+                                                           Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     Cr.R. No.1136/2015
+19.10.2015
+                    Shri A. Dubey, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                    Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+                    This matter was heard finally and reserved for order.
+
+               However, while writing the final order, I find that the applicant
+
+               has not filed certified copy of the impugned order by which
+
+               charges were framed. Only copy of the charges is filed, therefore,
+
+               the matter is released with direction to the applicant to file
+
+               certified copy of the impugned order.
+
+                    List after two weeks.
+                                                         (Alok Verma)
+                                                          Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+                                   Cr.R. No.1136/2015
+07.10.2015
+                  Shri A. Dubey, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                  Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+                  Heard finally.
+
+                  Reserved for order.
+
+                                                        (Alok Verma)
+                                                          Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                               MCRC No.8540/2015 and
+                                MCRC No.9117/2015
+16.10.2015
+                   Shri Rahim Khan, learned counsel for the applicant in
+
+               MCRC No.8540/2015.
+
+                   Shri Ashutosh Surana, learned counsel for the applicant
+
+               in MCRC No.9117/2015.
+
+                   Shri   Mukesh    Parwal,   learned    counsel   for   the
+  respondent/State.
+
+      Case diary is available.
+
+      This common order shall govern disposal of MCRC
+
+ Nos.8540/2015 and 9117/2015.
+
+      The applicant namely - Sameer @ Raja Barik in MCRC
+
+ No.8540/2015, according to the prosecution story, was
+
+ driving the motorcycle while the applicant namely - Asjad
+
+ Khan in MCRC No.9117/2015, was the main conspirator of
+
+ crime.
+
+      The accused/applicants were arrested by the Police
+
+ Station - Station Road, District - Ratlam in Crime
+
+ No.339/2013 under section 307/34 of IPC and under
+
+ section 25, 27 of Arms Act.
+
+     According to the prosecution story on 29.07.2013,
+
+complainant Rajesh Katariya was chased by two persons on
+
+motorcycle and they also fired gunshots on him, due to
+
+which, he sustained some injuries. Subsequently, present
+ applicant was arrested on the information given by co-
+
+accused under section 27 of the Evidence Act. On his
+
+memorandum under section 27 of the Evidence Act, two live
+
+cartridges were seized.
+
+     Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.
+
+     Arguments heard, case diary perused.
+
+     Learned     counsel   for   the    applicant   in   MCRC
+
+No.8540/2015 submits that the applicant was arrested after
+
+two years of the incident. He further submits that he has
+
+falsely been implicated in this case.
+
+     Learned     counsel   for   the    applicant   in   MCRC
+
+No.9117/2015 submits that the applicant has falsely been
+
+implicated in this case merely because he had filed Writ
+
+Petition No.2807/2015 before this Court in which it was
+
+alleged that the police wrongfully put lock on his shop. The
+
+Court ordered opening of the shop and due to this reason, the
+
+police was keeping grudge against him. He has filed relevant
+ papers and orders of the writ petition filed by him.
+
+     Taking all the facts and circumstance of the case into
+
+consideration, without commenting on the merits of the
+
+case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.
+
+The application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is
+
+allowed.
+
+     It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail
+
+on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
+
+Thousand only) and one solvent surety each of the like
+
+amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for
+
+their appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be
+
+directed in this regard during trial.
+
+     They are further directed that on being so released on
+
+bail, they would comply with the conditions enumerated
+
+under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
+
+       Certified copy as per rules.
+
+                                              (Alok Verma)
+                                                                  Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    MCRC No.8320/2015
+16.10.2015
+                     Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Shri     Mukesh   Parwal,   learned   counsel   for   the
+
+                respondent/State.
+
+                     Case diary is available.
+
+                     This is second bail application filed by the applicant
+
+                under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
+
+                grant of bail. His first application was dismissed as
+
+                withdrawn in MCRC No.6544/2015 vide order dated
+
+                30.07.2015.
+
+                     Now this second application is filed on two grounds.
+
+                One being that co-accused Hukum Singh was granted bail by
+
+                this Court in MCRC No.6072/2015 vide order dated
+
+                23.07.2015 and according to counsel for the applicant same
+
+                charges were framed by the trial Court under sections 366,
+ 363 and 376/34 of IPC.
+
+      The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police
+
+Station-Susner, District-Agar in Crime No.71/2015 under
+
+sections 363, 366 and 376/34 of IPC.
+
+      According to prosecution story, Shankar Singh is
+
+husband of prosecutrix. It is alleged that he alongwith present
+
+applicant Hukum Singh and another co-accused Gopal took
+
+her, removed her silver jwellery then she was beaten and
+
+handed over to Gopal, who took her to various places and
+
+committed rape on her. According to statement under section
+
+164 of Cr.P.C. of prosecutrix, she also involved her husband,
+
+the present applicant in commission of crime.
+
+      Learned counsel for the objector submits that the
+
+prosecutrix has entered into compromise with the present
+
+applicant. She has received a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- by way of
+
+final settlement and for this purpose, copy of the affidavit
+
+executed by the prosecutrix is filed with the application. He
+
+further submits that the prosecutrix has no objection if bail is
+ granted to the present applicant.
+
+      Learned counsel for the State opposed the application
+
+on the ground that case of the present applicant is different
+
+than that of the co-accused Hukum Singh, who was granted
+
+bail by this Court. Present applicant is husband of the
+
+prosecutrix, who took her and himself handed her over to the
+
+co-accused Gopal, who committed rape on her.
+
+      Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
+
+prosecutrix remained in company of the co-accused Gopal
+
+and never complained to anybody. She was infact a
+
+consenting party and the only dispute was that he did not pay
+
+her money and married again to other woman. He further
+
+submits that there is no progress in trial and he has submitted
+
+certified copy of the order-sheet of the trial Court.
+
+      Arguments heard. Case diary perused.
+
+      After going through the case diary, taking into
+
+consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and
+
+the documents produced by counsel for the objector, without
+                 commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it
+
+                is a fit case for grant of bail. The application filed under
+
+                section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
+
+                      It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail
+
+                on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
+
+                (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) and one surety of the like amount
+
+                to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his
+
+                appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in
+
+                this regard during trial.
+
+                      He is further directed that on being so released on bail,
+
+                he would comply with the conditions enumerated under
+
+                section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
+
+                      Certified copy as per rules.
+
+                                                                (Alok Verma)
+                                                                    Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      Cr.R. No.1176/2015
+16.10.2015
+                      Shri SK Meena, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+                     Heard finally.
+
+                     Reserved for order.
+
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                             Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      Cr.R. No.1269/2015
+16.10.2015
+                     Shri Neeraj Gaur, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+                     Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two
+
+               weeks' time to file entire copies of the charge-sheet.
+
+                     List after two weeks, as prayed.
+
+
+
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                             Judge
+   Kratika/-
+                                          Cr.R. No.1301/2015
+16.10.2015
+                     Shri Sapnesh Jain, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+                     Counsel for the applicant submits that the arguing counsel
+
+               is outsider, prays for time.
+
+                     List after two weeks on any Wednesday, as prayed.
+
+
+
+                                                          (Alok Verma)
+                                                            Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.2077/2015
+16.10.2015
+                     None for the applicant.
+
+                     Shri Vismit Panot, counsel for the respondent.
+
+                     In absence of counsel for the applicant, hearing in the
+
+               matter is not possible.
+
+                     List after two weeks.
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                             Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      M.Cr.C. No.5585/2015
+16.10.2015
+                     Smt Sharmila Sharma, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+                     Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a week's
+
+               time to file entire copies of the charge-sheet.
+
+                     List after a week, as prayed.
+
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                             Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      M.Cr.C. No.6010/2015
+16.10.2015
+                     Shri Vikas Rathi, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+                     Heard finally.
+                      Reserved for order.
+
+                                                          (Alok Verma)
+                                                            Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.6208/2015
+16.10.2015
+                     Shri Hemendra Jain, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Counsel for the applicant submits that the arguing counsel
+
+               is not available today and seeks time.
+
+                     List after two weeks.
+
+                                                          (Alok Verma)
+                                                            Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.6428/2015
+16.10.2015
+                     Shri Nilesh Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Shri A. Saraswat, counsel for the respondent.
+
+                     Counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter,
+                as he has not received copies of the necessary documents.
+
+                    Counsel for the applicant is directed to supply copies
+
+               within three days.
+
+                    List after two weeks.
+
+                                                        (Alok Verma)
+                                                          Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.6868/2015
+16.10.2015
+                    Shri OP Sharma, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                    Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+                    Heard finally.
+
+                    Reserved for order.
+
+                                                        (Alok Verma)
+                                                          Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.7154/2015
+16.10.2015
+                    Shri A Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                     Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent no.1/State.
+
+                    Issue notice to the respondent no.2 on payment of PF
+
+               within a week, returnable within four weeks.
+
+
+
+                                                              (Alok Verma)
+                                                                 Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.7237/2015
+16.10.2015
+                    Shri Nilesh Dave, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                    Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+                    Heard finally.
+
+                    Reserved for order.
+
+                                                        (Alok Verma)
+                                                          Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.7595/2015
+16.10.2015
+                Shri Lokendra Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+               Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+               List alongwith MCRC No.7445/2015.
+
+
+
+                                                   (Alok Verma)
+                                                     Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                M.Cr.C. No.7717/2015
+16.10.2015
+               Shri SA Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+               Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+               Heard finally.
+
+               Reserved for order.
+
+                                                   (Alok Verma)
+                                                     Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                M.Cr.C. No.7936/2015
+16.10.2015
+                        Shri Nilesh Manore, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                       Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+                       Counsel for the applicant seeks time to file additional
+
+               documents in the matter.
+
+                       List after two weeks.
+
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                             Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      M.Cr.C. No.8095/2015
+16.10.2015
+                       Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                       Heard on I.A. No.6888/2015, which is an application for
+
+               stay.
+
+                       Issue notice of this application as well as main application
+
+               filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to the respondents by hamdast
+
+               mode on payment of PF within three days, returnable within two
+
+               weeks.
+
+                       List immediately after service of notice on the respondents.
+                      Let record of the lower court be called for.
+
+
+
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                             Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.8560/2015
+16.10.2015
+                     Shri A. Saraswat, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Shri Mukesh Parwal, counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+                     Case diary is available.
+
+                     This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C filed
+
+               on behalf of the present applicant for grant of bail.
+
+                     The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
+
+               Station Road, District - Ratlam in Crime No.148/15 for the
+
+               offence punishable under section 379 of IPC for theft of
+
+               motorcycle. It is alleged that several vehicles were recovered on
+
+               the information given by the present applicant. Four cases of theft
+
+               under section 379 of IPC were made against the present
+ applicant.
+
+      Arguments heard. Case diary perused.
+
+      Counsel for the State opposed the bail application.
+
+      Counsel for the applicant submits that two other co-accused
+
+were granted bail by the lower court. However, bail of present
+
+applicant was dismissed.
+
+      After perusing the case-diary and taking into consideration
+
+all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting
+
+on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.
+
+      It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his
+
+furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.Thirty Thousand)
+
+and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
+
+the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of
+
+hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
+
+      The applicant is further directed that on being so released
+
+on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under
+
+section 437 (3) Cr.P.C meticulously.
+
+      C.c. as per rules.
+                                                               (Alok Verma)
+                                                                 Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.8580/2015
+16.10.2015
+                     Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Shri   Mukesh      Parwal,    learned    counsel      for   the
+
+               respondent/State.
+
+                     Counsel for the State submits that case diary is available,
+
+               however, criminal antecedents of the present applicant are not
+
+               available and seeks time to positively call for the same.
+
+                     List in the week commencing 26.10.2015.
+
+
+
+                                                          (Alok Verma)
+                                                            Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.8623/2015
+16.10.2015
+                     Shri A. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                      Shri   Mukesh        Parwal,   learned    counsel     for   the
+
+               respondent/State.
+
+                     Counsel for the applicant seeks to withdraw the application
+
+               with liberty to file afresh application after recording of statements
+
+               of material prosecution witnesses.
+
+                     Prayer is allowed.
+
+                     With the aforesaid liberty, the application is dismissed, as
+
+               withdrawn.
+
+                     Certified copy as per rules.
+
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                             Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.8706/2015
+16.10.2015
+                     Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Shri   Mukesh        Parwal,   learned    counsel     for   the
+
+               respondent/State.
+
+                     Case diary is available.
+       This is second bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C for
+
+grant of temporary bail for two months.
+
+      This second application is filed on the ground that mother
+
+of the present applicant is suffering from Cancer. The applicant
+
+also filed various medical papers which were verified through
+
+Police Station - Maksi, District - Shajapur. According to
+
+verification report, mother of the present applicant is suffering
+
+from Cancer. They are two brothers Lachhu and Sanju and both
+
+of them are in jail in connection with case pending under section
+
+302 of IPC. No other adult male person is available in the family.
+
+      I have heard counsel for the parties.
+
+      After taking into consideration the report, the application
+
+for grant of temporary bail is allowed.
+
+      It is directed that applicant shall be released on temporary
+
+bail for the period of Sixty days from the date of his release on
+
+his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
+
+Thousand) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the
+
+satisfaction of the trial Judge. The trial Judge is directed to fix a
+                date for his surrender before the Court depending upon his
+
+               release from jail.
+
+                     With the aforesaid         observation    and direction, the
+
+               application stands disposed of.
+
+                     Certified copy as per rules.
+
+                                                              (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.8794/2015
+16.10.2015
+                     Case diary is available.
+
+                     Counsel for the applicant seeks time.
+
+                     List in the week commencing 26.10.2015.
+
+
+
+                                                                (Alok Verma)
+                                                                   Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.8860/2015
+ 16.10.2015
+                    Shri Vikas Jain, counsel for the applicant.
+
+                    Shri Mukesh Parwal, counsel for the respondent/State.
+
+                    This is second application filed under section 439 of
+
+               Cr.P.C. for grant of temporary bail on the ground that wife of the
+
+               present applicant is advised to undergo Hysterectomy operation
+
+               by the doctors at Ratlam.
+
+                    Counsel for the State is directed to verify the medical
+
+               papers and submit report on the next date of hearing.
+
+                    List in the week commencing 02.11.2015.
+
+
+
+                                                             (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.8894/2015
+16.10.2015
+                    Case diary is not available.
+
+                    List in the week commencing 26.10.2015.
+                                                              (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                   M.Cr.C. No.8997/2015
+16.10.2015
+                    Case diary is not available.
+
+                    List in the week commencing 26.10.2015.
+
+
+
+                                                             (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                   M.Cr.C. No.9083/2015
+16.10.2015
+                    Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                    Shri    Mukesh     Parwal,     learned   counsel   for   the
+
+               respondent/State.
+
+                    Case diary is available.
+       This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C filed
+
+on behalf of the present applicant for grant of bail.
+
+      The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
+
+Kukshi, District - Dhar in Crime No.446/15 for the offence
+
+punishable under sections 454 and 354 of IPC and under section
+
+7/8 and 8, 9(n)/10 of Protection of Children from Sexual
+
+Offences Act.
+
+      According to the prosecution story, parents of the
+
+prosecutrix went out to earn livelihood as labourer. The
+
+prosecutrix was alone at her residence. When the prosecutrix was
+
+cleaning utensils in her residence, it is alleged present applicant
+
+entered into the house of the prosecutrix and tried to outrage her
+
+modesty and he also torned her clothes. Age of the prosecutrix as
+
+per the school record is 17 years and 7 months.
+
+      Arguments heard. Case diary perused.
+
+      Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application.
+
+      After perusing the case-diary and taking into consideration
+
+all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting
+               on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.
+
+                    It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his
+
+              furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.Thirty Thousand)
+
+              and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
+
+              the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of
+
+              hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
+
+                    The applicant is further directed that on being so released
+
+              on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under
+
+              section 437 (3) Cr.P.C meticulously.
+
+                    C.c. as per rules.
+
+                                                             (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                   M.Cr.C. No.9159/2015
+16.10.2015
+
+
+                    Case diary is not available.
+                    List in the next week.
+
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                  M.Cr.C. No.8832/2015
+15.10.2015
+                   Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                   Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the
+              respondent/State.
+                   Case diary is available.
+                   This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C
+              filed on behalf of the present applicant for grant of bail.
+                   The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
+              Kannod, District - Dewas in Crime No.225/15 for the offence
+              punishable under sections 294, 366, 354, 323 and 506 of IPC
+              and under sections 3(2)(5), 3(1)(12) of SC/ST (Prevention of
+              Atrocities) Act.
+                   According to the prosecution story, it is alleged that
+              present applicant used to tease the prosecutrix and he used
+              obscene language against her. On 21.05.2015, when the
+              prosecutrix was going to market, present applicant forcibly
+              got her seated on his motorcycle. She jumped from the
+              motorcycle and then, it is alleged that he used obscene
+              language against her caste and also slapped her and torned
+ her clothes.
+      Arguments heard. Case diary perused.
+      Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
+application.
+      Counsel for the applicant submits that charge-sheet has
+been filed. His presence is not required for investigation. This
+apart, the prosecutrix did not support the prosecution story
+in her statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C fully.
+      After     perusing   the   case-diary   and   taking   into
+consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case,
+without commenting on the merits of the case, the
+application is allowed.
+      It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on
+his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty
+Thousand) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the
+satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance
+on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard
+during trial.
+      The applicant is further directed that on being so
+released on bail, he would comply with the conditions
+enumerated under section 437 (3) Cr.P.C meticulously.
+      C.c. as per rules.
+                                                       (Alok Verma)
+                                                         Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                M.Cr.C. No.8845/2015
+15.10.2015
+                   Shri Rohit Shinde, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                   Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the
+              respondent/State.
+                   Case diary is available.
+                   Counsel for the applicant submits that the arguing
+              counsel is not available today and prays for time.
+                   List in the week commencing 02.11.2015, as
+              prayed.
+
+
+                                                      (Alok Verma)
+                                                         Judge
+  Kratika/-
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.8847/2015
+15.10.2015
+                   Shri CL Yadav, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Neeraj Gaur,
+             learned counsel for the applicant.
+                   Smt.    Mamta     Shandilya,    learned    counsel    for   the
+             respondent/State.
+                   Case diary is available.
+                   This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C filed on
+             behalf of the present applicant for grant of bail.
+                   The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
+             Kannod, District - Dewas in Crime No.281/15 for the offence
+             punishable under sections 302 and 201/34 of IPC.
+                   According to the prosecution story, it is alleged that present
+             applicant alongwith co-accused Manohar committed murder of
+             Mukesh. So far as the present applicant is concerned, his own
+             motorcycle was seized from his possession that is as per the
+             discloser memo of co-accused Manohar, was used in commission
+             of crime. However, no other evidence is available against present
+             applicant to connect him with commission of crime.
+                   Arguments heard. Case diary perused.
+                   Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application
+             on the ground that blood stained clothes and pieces of Sim Card
+               were seized from field of the present applicant. However, the
+              same were seized on the discloser memo given by the co-accused
+              and not by this applicant.
+                    Counsel for the applicant submits that he is falsely
+              implicated in the case. There is no motive so far as the present
+              applicant is concerned.
+                    After perusing the case-diary and taking into consideration
+              all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting
+              on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.
+                    It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his
+              furnishing a personal bond of Rs.75,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five
+              Thousand) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the
+              satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all
+              the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
+                    The applicant is further directed that on being so released
+              on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under
+              section 437 (3) Cr.P.C meticulously.
+                    C.c. as per rules.
+                                                             (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.8868/2015
+15.10.2015
+                    Shri Jagdish Dangi, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                    Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the
+              respondent/State.
+                   After arguing the matter for some time, counsel for
+              the applicant seeks to withdraw the application with
+              liberty to file afresh application at appropriate stage.
+                   Prayer is allowed.
+                   The application is accordingly, dismissed, as
+              withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
+                   C.c as per rules.
+                                                       (Alok Verma)
+                                                          Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                 M.Cr.C. No.8882/2015
+15.10.2015
+                   Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the
+              applicant.
+                   Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the
+              respondent/State.
+                   Case diary is not available.
+                   List in the week commencing 26.10.2015, as
+              prayed.
+                                                         (Alok Verma)
+                                                           Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                 M.Cr.C. No.8906/2015
+15.10.2015
+                   Shri Hidayatulla Khan, learned counsel for the
+              applicant.
+                   Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the
+              respondent/State.
+                   Case diary is available.
+                   This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C
+              filed on behalf of the present applicant for grant of bail.
+                   The present applicant was arrested by Police
+              Station- MG Road, District - Indore in Crime No.272/15
+              for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468
+              and 471 of IPC.
+                   According     to   the     prosecution   story,   present
+              applicant used photocopy of the original Rin Pustika for
+              standing surety against many persons. When it was
+              detected by the concerning court, the matter was
+ reported to the police station and inquiry was conducted
+by Tehsildar. After that, applicant was arrested.
+        Arguments heard. Case diary perused.
+        Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
+application on the ground that it is a serious matter and
+the offence is against the administration of justice, which
+should be taken seriously.
+        Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
+is sole male member of the family. He undertakes that
+present applicant will not appear in the Court except to
+attend the court on the date of hearing in this particular
+case.
+        After   perusing    the   case-diary,    taking   into
+consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case
+and on considering the undertaking given by counsel for
+the applicant, which shall form condition of this bail
+order, the application is allowed.
+        Subject to the aforesaid condition, it is directed that
+applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a
+personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) and
+one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
+                the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the
+               dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during
+               trial.
+                        The applicant is further directed that on being so
+               released on bail, he would comply with the conditions
+               enumerated under section 437 (3) Cr.P.C meticulously.
+                        Let a copy of this order be sent to the President of
+               Hatod Bar Association with direction that if he is found
+               present applicant present in the court, the matter should
+               immediately be reported to the concerning court.
+                        C.c. as per rules.
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                              Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                        CRR No.1036/2014
+15.10.2015
+                        As prayed by counsel for the applicant, the case is
+
+               adjourned.
+
+                        List on 28.10.2015, as prayed.
+
+                                                             (Alok Verma)
+                                                                 Judge
+ Kratika/-
+                                      E.P. No.23/2014
+20.10.2015
+                  Shri AM Mathur, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Abhinav
+
+             Dhanodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
+
+                  Shri CL Yadav, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri OP Solanki,
+
+             learned counsel for the respondent.
+
+                  A question was raised before both the Counsels by this
+
+             Court and their respective views were sought on the following
+
+             question:-
+
+             2.   "At what stage of trial, notices are to be issued to the
+
+             persons, who have been proved at the trial guilty of any corrupt
+
+             practice and who are to be named under section 99 (1) (a) (II) of
+
+             the Representation of People Act, 1951".
+
+             3.   Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
+
+             referred judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
+
+             Dwarka Prasad Mishra Vs. Kamal Narayan Sharma and
+
+             another reported in 1970 MPLJ 872. In this case, for
+
+             Shyamacharan Shukla, who was then printer, proprietor,
+
+             publisher and keeper of the Mahakoshal Press, a Hindi daily was
+ sought to be named under section 99 of the Representation of the
+
+People Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Hon'ble the
+
+Supreme Court made following observations in paragraphs 36 to
+
+38 of the judgment:-
+
+          36. It is however necessary, before we finally
+          decide this appeal, to deal with the application
+          which is made by the respondents who were on
+          their own application impleaded in this appeal
+          Mr. Chagla counsel for those respondents
+          contends that the Court was bound to name
+          Shyamacharan Shukla, printer, publisher,
+          proprietor and keeper of Mahakoshal Press-a
+          Hindi daily-under section 99 of the
+          Representation of the People Act, 1951. Section
+          99 (1) of the Act, as it then stood, provided:
+          (1) At the time of making an order under
+          section 98 the Tribunal shall also make an
+          order--
+               (a) where any charge is made in the
+               petition of any corrupt practice having
+               been committed at the election,
+               recording--
+               (i) a finding whether any corrupt
+               practice has or has not been proved to
+               have been committed by, or with the
+               consent of, any candidate or his agent
+     at the election, and the nature of that
+    corrupt practice; and
+     (ii) the names of all persons, if
+    any,who have been proved at the trial
+    to have been guilty of any corrupt
+    practice and the                    nature of that
+    practice; and
+    (b)................................
+    Provided that a person who is not a
+    party to the petition shall not be
+    named in the order under sub-
+    clause,(ii)of clause (a) unless-
+    (a) he has been given notice to appear
+    before the Tribunal and to show cause
+    why he should not be so named; and
+    (b) if he appears in pursuance of the
+    notice he             has         been given an
+    opportunity of cross-examining any
+    witness who has already been
+    examined by the Tribunal and has
+    given evidence against him, of calling
+    evidence in his defence and of being
+    heard."
+
+The High Court recorded in paragraph 199 (4)
+& (5) of their judgment their conclusion as
+follows :
+      "(4) It is proved that the
+     Mahakoshal a Hindi daily, published
+     from Raipur, and Shyamacharan
+    Shukla, who was its proprietor,
+    publisher, printer and keeper of the
+    Press, were both agents of the
+    respondent within the meaning of
+    section 123 of the Act.
+    (5) It is proved that three false
+    statements (Annexures 1, 11, 111)
+    were published in the Mahakoshal,
+    issues of the 12th and 26th April and
+    4th May, 1963, in relation to-the
+    personal character and conduct of the
+    petitioner; that all the three were false;
+    and that the respondent did not
+    believe any of them to be true. It is
+    held that they were statements of the
+    fact and that they were reasonably
+    calculated to prejudice the election
+    prospects of the petitioner.
+
+At the hearing an application was made before
+the High Court that a proceeding should be
+drawn up under S. 99 of the Act against
+Shyamacharan, Shukla and a notice should be
+issued to him why he should not be named as
+having committed corrupt practice under s.
+123 (4) of the Act. The High Court observed
+that the three statements (Annexures I, II & III)
+were published in the Mahakoshal of which
+ Shyamacharan Shukla was the proprietor,
+publisher, printer and keeper. The High Court
+further observed that Shyamacharan Shukla was
+the agent of Mishra within the meaning of
+section 123 (4) but Shyamacharan Shukla was
+not and could not be made a party to the
+election petition. But the High Court was of the
+view that when the appeal was placed for
+hearing in April 1968, Mishra had raised
+certain preliminary objections and Sharma had
+also urged those preliminary contentions all of
+which were decided by the order dated May 4,
+1968, and it was the, duty of Sharma on that
+occasion to satisfy the High Court, prima facie,
+that Shyamacharan Shukla had committed a
+corrupt practice under S. 123 (4) of the Act so
+that notice could be issued to him 'and
+opportunity to which he was entitled under
+section 99 of the Act may have been made
+available to him. But that was not done and in
+the opinion of the Court for avoiding further
+delay the application should be rejected.
+
+37. We are unable to agree with the view so
+propounded by the High Court. Under section
+99 of the Act the Court has no discretion in the
+matter, if the Court was of the view that any
+person who is proved at the trial to have been
+guilty of any corrupt practice, not to name that
+ person. It is true that preliminary objections
+were argued at an earlier stage, but Sharma
+could not before the appeal was heard ask the
+Court to issue a notice under section 99 of the
+Act on the footing that his case which was
+rejected by the Tribunal will be accepted. The
+duty under the Act is cast upon the Court or the
+Tribunal, and on the ground that the party has
+not applied for a notice, the High Court could
+not avoid the obligation imposed by statute to
+take proceeding under section 99, against the
+person proved at the trial to have been guilty
+of corrupt practice and to name him. We fail
+also to appreciate the ground on which the
+High Court has referred to delay been an
+"outweighing factor". Shyamacharan Shukla
+was however not a party to the proceeding
+and before he could be named a notice must
+go to him under section 99 of the Act.
+
+38. We direct that, the proceeding be remanded
+to the High Court and the High Court do give
+notice to Shyamacharan Shukla under section
+99 of the Representation of the People Act,
+1951 to appear and to show cause why he
+should not be named for committing corrupt
+practices. If Shyamacharan Shukla appears in
+pursuance of the show cause notice he will be
+entitled to an opportunity of cross-examining
+           witnesses who have already been examined by
+          the Tribunal and has given evidence against
+          him and he will be entitled to give evidence
+          in his defence and of being heard. The High
+          Court to report to this Court within three
+          months from the date on which the papers are
+          received by it.
+
+4.     Placing reliance on the observations made by Hon'ble
+
+the Supreme Court, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
+
+submits that in para 37 of the judgment, the words used are
+
+'who is proved at the trial to have been guilty of any corrupt
+
+practice' implies that first finding has to be given by the
+
+Court that the person to be named is guilty of any corrupt
+
+practice and thereafter, notice to be issued to him and after
+
+giving him opportunity to cross examine the witness, who
+
+deposed against him and also adducing necessary evidence
+
+on his behalf, final finding about him should be given.
+
+5.     Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent
+
+however, disagrees with the submissions made by learned
+ Senior Counsel for the petitioner. He placed reliance on the
+
+judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
+
+Mahohar Joshi Vs. Nitin Bhaurao Patil and another
+
+reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 796. In this case,
+
+Hon'ble the Supreme Court dealt with the effect of non-
+
+compliance of section 99 of the Act. From paragraphs 49 to
+
+58, Hon'ble the Supreme Court laid down the principles
+
+governing procedure under section 99 of the Act. The
+
+relevant paragraphs of the judgment be reproduced here as
+
+under:-
+
+                  49. Before we take up for consideration
+          the corrupt practice attributed to the appellant
+          himself in para 30 of the election petition based
+          on his own speech on 24.2.1990, it would be
+          appropriate at this stage to refer to the argument
+          based on Section 99 of the R.P. Act. Non-
+          compliance of Section 99 of the R.P. Act.
+                 50. Admittedly, no notice was given to
+          Bal Thackeray, Pramod Mahajan or any other
+          person against whom allegation was made of
+          commission of corrupt practice in the election
+          petition, even though the High Court has held
+ those corrupt practices to be proved for the
+purpose of declaring the appellant's election to
+be void on the ground contained in Section
+100(1)(b) of the R.P. Act. We would now
+indicate the effect of the combined reading of
+Sections 98 and 99 of the R.P. Act and the
+requirement of notice under section 99 to all
+such persons before decision of the election
+petition by making an order under Section 98 of
+the R.P. Act.
+      51. The combined effect of Sections 98
+and 99 of the R.P. Act may now be seen. These
+provisions are as under:-
+"98. Decision of the High Court.- At the
+conclusion of the trial of an election petition the
+High Court shall make an order -
+
+      (a) dismissing the election petition; or
+
+      (b) declaring the election of all or any of
+the returned candidates to be void; or
+
+       (c) declaring the election of all or any of
+the returned candidates to be void and the
+petitioner or any other candidate to have been
+duly elected.
+
+99. Other orders to be made by the High Court. -
+(1) At the time of making an order under section
+ 98 the High Court shall also make an order -
+
+(a) where any charge is made in the petition of
+any corrupt practice having been committed at
+the election, recording -
+
+(i) a finding whether any corrupt practice has or
+has not been proved to have been committed at
+the election, and the nature of that corrupt
+practice; and
+
+(ii) the names of all persons, if any, who have
+been proved at the trial to have been quality of
+any corrupt practice and the nature of that
+practice; and
+
+(b) fixing the total amount of costs payable and
+specifying the persons by and to whom costs
+shall be paid:
+
+Provided that a person who is not a party to the
+petition shall not be named in the order under
+sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) unless -
+
+(a) he has been given notice to appear before the
+High Court and to show cause why he should not
+be so named; and
+
+(b) if he appears in pursuance of the notice, he
+has been given an opportunity of cross-
+examining any witness who has already been
+ examined by the High Court and has given
+evidence against him, of calling evidence in his
+defence and of being heard.
+
+(2) In this section and in section 100, the
+expression "agent" has the same meaning as in
+section 123."
+
+52. The opening words in section 98 are "At the
+conclusion of the trial of an election petition the
+High Court shall make an order". There can be
+no doubt that section 98 contemplates the
+making of an order thereunder in the decision of
+the High Court rendered `at the conclusion of the
+trial of an election petition'. Declaration of the
+election of any returned candidate to be void in
+accordance with clause (b) is clearly to be made
+in the decision of the High Court rendered at the
+conclusion of the trial of an election petition and
+not at an intermediate state. Clauses (a), (b) and
+(c) in section 98 contemplate the different kinds
+of orders which can be made by the High Court
+in its decision at the conclusion of the trial which
+has the effect of disposing of the election
+petition in the High Court. There is nothing in
+section 98 to permit the High Court to decide the
+election petition piecemeal and to declare the
+election of any returned candidate to be void at
+an intermediate stage of the trial when any part
+ of the trial remains to be concluded.
+53. Sub-section (1) of section 99 begins with the
+words "At the time of making an order under
+section 98 the High Court shall also make an
+order" of the kind mentioned in clauses (a) and
+(b) therein. It is amply clear that the order which
+can be made under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-
+section (1) of section 99 is required to be made
+`at the time of making an order under section 98'.
+As earlier indicated, an order under section 98
+can be made only at the conclusion of the trial.
+There can be no doubt that the order which can
+be made under sub-section (1) of section 99 has,
+therefore, to be made only at the conclusion of
+the trial of an election petition in the decision of
+the High Court made by an order disposing of
+the election petition in one of the modes
+prescribed in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section
+98. This alone is sufficient to indicate that the
+requirement of section 99 is to be completed
+during the trial of the election petition and the
+final order under section 99 has to be made in
+the decision of the High Court rendered under
+section 98 at the conclusion of the trial of the
+election petition.
+54. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 99
+provides for the situation "where any charge is
+made in the petition of any corrupt practice
+ having been committed at the election". In that
+case, it requires that at the time of making an
+order under section 98, the High Court shall also
+make an order recording a finding whether any
+corrupt practice has or has not been proved to
+have been committed at the election and the
+nature of that corrupt practice; and the names of
+all persons, if any, who have been proved at the
+trial to have been quality of any corrupt practice
+and the nature of that corrupt practice. Clause (b)
+further requires the fixing of the total amount of
+costs payable and specifying the person by and
+to whom costs shall be paid. The net result is
+that where any charge is made in the petition of
+any corrupt practice having been committed at
+the election, the High Court shall `at the time of
+making an order under section 98' also make an
+order recording a finding whether any corrupt
+practice has or has not been proved to have been
+committed at the election and the nature of that
+corrupt practice; and where the charge of corrupt
+practice has been found proved, it must also
+record the names of all persons, if any, who have
+been proved at the trial to have been quality of
+any corrupt practice and the nature of that
+practice. thus the trial is only one at the end of
+which the order made by the High Court must
+record the names of all persons, if any, who have
+been proved at the trial to have been quality of
+ the corrupt practice and the nature of that
+practice.
+55. It follows that the High Court cannot make
+an order under section 98 recording a finding of
+proof of corrupt practice against the returned
+candidate alone and on that basis declare the
+election of the returned candidate to be void and
+then proceed to comply with the requirement of
+section 99 in the manner stated therein with a
+view to decide at a later stage whether any other
+person also is quality of that corrupt practice for
+the purpose of naming him then under Section
+99 of the R.P. Act. It is equally clear that the
+High Court has no option in the matter to decide
+whether it will proceed under section 99 against
+the other persons alleged to be quality of that
+corrupt practice along with the returned
+candidate inasmuch as the requirement of section
+99 is mandatory since the finding recorded by
+the High Court requires it to name all persons
+proved at the trial to have been quality of the
+corrupt practice. The expression "the names of
+all persons, if any, who have been proved at the
+trial to have been quality of any corrupt practice"
+in sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1)
+of section 99 clearly provides for such proof
+being required `at the trial' which means `the
+trial of an election petition' mentioned in section
+98, at the conclusion of which alone the order
+ contemplated under section 98 can be made.
+There is no room for taking the view that the
+trial of the election petition for declaring the
+election of the returned candidate to be void
+under section 98 can be concluded first and then
+the proceedings under section 99 commenced for
+the purpose of deciding whether any other
+person is also to be named as being quality of the
+corrupt practice of which the returned candidate
+has earlier been held quality leading to his
+election being declared void.
+56. The rationale is obvious. Where the returned
+candidate is alleged to be quality of a corrupt
+practice in the commission of which any other
+person has participated with him or the candidate
+is to be held vicariously liable for a corrupt
+practice committed by any other person with his
+consent, a final verdict on that question can be
+rendered only at the end of the trial, at one time,
+after the inquiry contemplated under section 99
+against the other person, after notice to him, has
+also been concluded. Particularly, in a case
+where liability is fastened on the candidate
+vicariously for the act of another person, unless
+that act is found proved against the doer of that
+act, the question of recording a finding on that
+basis against the returned candidate cannot arise.
+Viewed differently, if the final verdict has
+already been rendered against the returned
+ candidate in such a case, the opportunity
+contemplated by section 99 by an inquiry after
+notice to the other person is futile since the
+verdict has already been given. On the other
+hand, if the question is treated as open, a
+conflicting verdict after inquiry under section 99
+in favour of the notice would lead to an
+absurdity which could not be attributed to the
+legislature.
+57. The plain language of Section 98 and 99 of
+the R.P. Act indicates the construction thereof
+made by us and this is also supported by the
+likely outcome of a different construction which
+is an absurd result and must, therefore, be
+rejected. The High Court has overlooked the
+obvious position in law in taking a different
+view. No notice under section 99 was given by
+the High Court before making the final order
+under Section 98 of the R.P. Act declaring the
+election to be void. This is a fatal defect.
+58.This alone is sufficient to indicate that apart
+from the reasons given earlier, the election of the
+appellant in the present case could not be
+declared void by making an order under section
+98 on the ground contained in Section 100(1)(b)
+of the R.P. Act without prior compliance of
+section 99. Absence of notice under Section 99
+of the R.P. Act vitiates the final order made
+            under Section 98 by the High Court declaring the
+           election to be void.
+
+
+6.   Further, he relies on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme
+
+Court in the case of Pramod Mahajan Vs. Smt. Celine D'Silva
+
+and another reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 826. In
+
+paragraph 12 of this judgment, Hon'ble the Supreme Court
+
+explained the view taken in the case of Dwarka Prasad Mishra
+
+(supra) and observed thus:-
+
+            The High Court appears to have misread the
+            decision of this Court in D.P. Mishra vs. Kamal
+            Narayan Sharma and Anr., 1971 (1) SCR 8, to
+            form the opinion that the course adopted by it
+            was permissible under Section 99 of the R.P.
+            Act. The question in that case was of the failure
+            to issue notice under Section 99 of the R.P. Act
+            to a person alleged to have committed the
+            corrupt practice for which the returned
+            candidate also was guilty. The High Court, in
+            the appeal, did not comply with the requirement
+            of section 99 for avoiding further delay. This
+            Court rejected that view as incorrect and held
+            as under :
+            "We are unable to agree with the view so
+            propounded by the High Court. Under section
+ 99 of the Act the Court has no discretion in the
+matter, if the Court was of the view that any
+person who is proved at the trial to have been
+guilty of any corrupt practice, not to name that
+person. It is true that preliminary objections
+were argued at an earlier stage, but Sharma
+could not before the appeal was heard ask the
+Court to issue a notice under section 99 of the
+Act on the footing that his case which was
+rejected by the Tribunal will be accepted. The
+duty under the Act is cast upon the Court or the
+Tribunal, and on the ground that the party has
+not applied for a notice, the High Court could
+not avoid the obligation imposed by statute to
+take proceeding under section 99 against the
+person proved at the trial to have been guilty of
+corrupt practice and to name him. We fail also
+to appreciate the ground on which the High
+Court has referred to delay being an
+"outweighing factor". Shyamacharan Shukla
+was however not a party to the proceeding and
+before he could be named a notice must go to
+him under section 99 of the Act.
+
+We direct that the proceeding be remanded to
+the High Court and the High Court do give
+notice to Shyamacharan Shukla under section
+99 of the Representation of the People Act,
+1951, to appear and to show cause why he
+            should not be named for committing corrupt
+           practices. If Shyamacharan Shukla appears in
+           pursuance of the show cause notice he will be
+           entitled to an opportunity of cross- examining
+           witnesses who have already been examined by
+           the Tribunal and has given evidence against
+           him and he will be entitled to give evidence in
+           his defence and of being heard....."
+
+           There is nothing in this decision to support the
+           view taken by the High Court that it could
+           decide the election petition and make an order
+           under Section 98 declaring the election of the
+           returned candidate to be void and then proceed
+           under Section 99 of the R.P. Act against the
+           other persons.
+
+
+7.   Accordingly, as observed by by Hon'ble the Supreme Court
+
+in the case of Pramod Mahajan (supra), notices are to be issued
+
+during trial and not at conclusion of the trial as submitted by
+
+learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. In this view of the
+
+matter, the question is answered that notices are to be issued
+
+during trial and when a particular witness is examined, who
+
+deposes against a particular person involving him in commission
+ of corrupt practice then, the person should be given an
+
+opportunity to cross examine the witness. After petitioner and
+
+respondent close their evidence, these persons called the notices'
+
+should be given an opportunity to adduce their evidence in
+
+defence and finally while passing final order under section 98 of
+
+the Act though persons, who proved to be guilty of corrupt
+
+practice should be named under section 99 of the Act. In the
+
+present case, following persons are named in the petition and,
+
+therefore, they should be given notice:-
+
+      (i) Gajendra Singh Baghel
+
+      (ii) Vikram Verma
+
+      (iii) Ashok Jain
+
+      (iv) Sanjay Vaishnav
+
+      (v) Devendra Patel
+
+      (vi) Anku Agrawal
+
+      (vii) Vinod Soni
+
+8.    Petitioner is directed to supply necessary details and pay PF
+
+for issuance of notices to these persons within a week under
+             section 99 of the Act. Alongwith the notice relevant portion of
+
+            the petition where allegations are made against the above
+
+            persons, should also be enclosed. Petitioner is directed to supply
+
+            copies of the relevant portion for service of notice.
+
+            9.    This apart, the petitioner is directed to name any other
+
+            person to whom notice is to be issued. It is further observed that
+
+            apart from these persons if name of any other person would evolve
+
+            during recording of the evidence he will also be given notice
+
+            immediately after recording of evidence of that particular witness.
+
+            10.   The question is answered, accordingly.
+
+            11.   On 08.10.2015, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
+
+            petitioner submits that he would file an application under Order 18
+
+            Rule 3(a) of CPC.
+
+            12.   Office is directed to list the matter on 29.10.2015 for
+
+            consideration of the application filed by the petitioner under Order
+
+            18 Rule 3(a) of CPC.
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+Kratika/-
+                            MCRC No.8660/2015
+14.10.2015
+             Shri I. Anwar, learned counsel for the applicant.
+         Shri   Mukesh     Parwal,   learned   counsel   for   the
+
+respondent/State.
+
+        Case diary is available.
+
+        This is first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C.
+
+filed on behalf of present applicant for grant of anticipatory
+
+bail.
+
+        The applicant apprehends his arrest by Police Station -
+
+Dhamnod, District - Dhar in Crime No.399/2015 under
+
+sections 363, 344, 376 (2) (N) and 506 of IPC.
+
+        According to the prosecution story, on 10.07.2015, the
+
+prosecutrix went behind her residence to answer call of
+
+nature. There, it is alleged that co-accused Rama came and he
+
+placed his hand on her mouth and threatened her that if she
+
+raised cry, he would kill her. Thereafter, he took her to the
+
+nearby jungle and to some other places and committed rape
+
+on her. Husband of the prosecutrix lodged complaint of
+
+missing person on 22.06.2015. On 02.08.2015, she appeared
+ in the police station and she was medically examined and
+
+also her statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded.
+
+In her statement given on 02.08.2015, there was no mention
+
+of rape committed by the present applicant. However, on
+
+04.08.2015, her statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. was
+
+recorded, there she stated that co-accused Rama had physical
+
+relationship with her by consent. However so far as the
+
+present applicant is concerned, she further stated that when
+
+she was taken to the house of the present applicant by co-
+
+accused Rama, present applicant gave money to Rama to
+
+bring liquor and meat and thereafter, present applicant and
+
+also Amar Singh committed rape on her.
+
+     Counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant
+
+is falsely implicated in the case due to political rivalry by the
+
+MLA of the area. He was also similarly falsely implicated in
+
+many other cases by the MLA and he filed various paper
+
+cuttings to substantiate his arguments. He further submits that
+ the prosecutrix was working as a Maid in the house of the
+
+MLA and on his behest, she changed her statement on
+
+04.08.2015 under section 164 of Cr.P.C.
+
+      Counsel for the State opposed the application on the
+
+ground that there are allegation of rape against the present
+
+applicant. The crime is serious and against the society at
+
+large and, therefore, anticipatory bail should not be granted to
+
+present applicant.
+
+      I have gone through the case diary and heard both the
+
+parties.
+
+      It is true that there is improvement in her statement
+
+recorded on 02.08.2015 and 04.08.2015. However, the effect
+
+of improvement in her statements cannot be seen at this
+
+stage, as they are not substantiative evidence and
+
+accordingly, no benefit can be given to the present applicant.
+
+      Taking    into   consideration    all   the   facts   and
+
+circumstances of the case, I find that no case is made out for
+                 grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant.
+
+                      The application is accordingly, dismissed.
+
+                      Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                                     (Alok Verma)
+                                                                         Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.8303/2015
+14.10.2015
+                      Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                      Shri    Mukesh     Parwal,     learned    counsel     for   the
+                respondent/State.
+                      Case diary is available.
+                      This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C filed on
+                behalf of the present applicant for grant of bail.
+                      The present applicant was arrested by Police Station- City
+                Kotwali, District - Mandsaur in Crime No.993/15 for the offence
+                punishable under section 394 of IPC.
+                      According to the prosecution story, the incident took place
+                on 14.12.2014 when the complainant and his girlfriend Yashika
+                Tekwani went to worship Nalchha Mata Temple. They were
+                talking near a culvert and there, it is alleged that two persons
+ came on the motorcycle and committed loot on them. They also
+inflicted injuries on the complainant and his girlfriend by lathi. A
+golden chain weighing 15 gms was snatched from the neck of
+Yashika Tekwani and also photo camera, purse etc were looted.
+Present applicant was arrested on the information given by the
+co-accused Iqbal and subsequently, on his own memorandum
+under section 27 of the Evidence Act, some property including
+chain was recovered ant this chain was identified by Yashika
+Tekwani.
+      Counsel for the applicant submits that complainant is a
+Press Photographer. He took advantage of being associated with
+news media and influenced the police. He further submits that
+while seizure memo was prepared, he accompanied the police
+personnel and it appears from the photograph submitted by the
+police alongwith the charge-sheet. He further submits that
+charge-sheet has been filed in this case. There are no criminal
+antecedents of the present applicant.
+      Counsel for the State opposed the application.
+      I have heard counsel for the parties.
+      Whether, the complainant had any influence over the police
+during investigation, can only be asserted after recording of
+evidence. At this stage, no adverse inference can be drawn.
+Further, the chain seized on memorandum given by the present
+applicant was identified by Yashika Tekwani. It is not alleged that
+               she also accompanied the complainant.
+                    After going through the case diary and taking into
+              consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I find
+              that no case is made out for grant of bail to the present applicant.
+                    The application is accordingly, dismissed.
+                    C.c. as per rules.
+                                                             (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     Cr.R. No.1061/2015
+14.10.2015
+                    Shri Manish Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the
+              applicant.
+                    Shri Vaibhav Bhagwat, learned counsel for the
+              respondent.
+                    Counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the
+              matter, as the arguing counsel is not available today.
+                    List in the week commencing 02.11.2015, as prayed.
+                    Let record of the lower court be called for.
+                    I.R. to continue.
+                    C.c. as per rules.
+                                                             (Alok Verma)
+             Judge
+Kratika/-
+                                     Cr.A. No.1109/2015
+14.10.2015
+                   Shri Arun Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant.
+                   Shri    Romesh       Dave,   learned   counsel   for   the
+              respondent/State.
+                   Heard on I.A. No.7012/2015.
+                   Counsel for the appellant seeks to withdraw the
+              application with liberty to file fresh application alongwith
+              additional grounds.
+                   Prayer is allowed.
+                   The application is accordingly, dismissed, as withdrawn
+              with the aforesaid liberty.
+                   Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                          (Alok Verma)
+                                                             Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    Cr.A. No.1338/2015
+14.10.2015
+                   Shri Banne Shah, learned counsel for the appellant.
+                   Shri    Romesh       Dave,   learned   counsel   for   the
+              respondent/State.
+                   Heard on the question of admission.
+                   The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
+       Let record of the lower court be called for.
+      Also heard on I.A. No.7498/2015, which is an
+application under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of
+jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of present
+appellant namely - Vishnu S/o Rajmal Mewada.
+      The appellant suffered conviction and sentence as
+under:-
+CONVICTION           SENTENCE
+Section and Act      Imprisonment   Fine if deposited, Imprisonment
+                                    details            in lieu of fine
+354, 354-A, 354-C of 1 year         Rs.1000/-          3 months
+IPC
+3(1)(11) of SC/ST 6 months          Rs.500/-           1 month
+(Prevention     of
+Atrocities) Act
+
+
+       Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
+ Vishnu is in jail, as he could not furnish bail and bond as
+ directed by the Court and he was not in financial position
+ to deposit the amount which he subsequently deposited.
+       Taking into consideration all the facts and
+ circumstances of the case, without commenting on the
+ merit of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed
+ that if, the present appellant furnishes personal bond of
+ Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) and a solvent
+                surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
+               court, subject to payment of fine, the remaining portion of
+               the jail sentence of the appellant shall be suspended and
+               he be released on bail for his appearance before the
+               Registry of this Court on 12.01.2016 and thereafter on all
+               subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this
+               behalf.
+                   Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                         (Alok Verma)
+                                                            Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                  Cr.A. No.1372/2015
+14.10.2015
+                   Shri Bhimsen Soni, learned counsel for the appellant.
+                   Shri   Romesh     Dave,    learned    counsel   for     the
+              respondent/State.
+                   Heard on the question of admission.
+                   The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
+                   Let record of the lower court be called for.
+                   Also heard on I.A. No.7645/2015, which is an
+              application under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of
+ jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of present
+appellant namely - Ramkaran S/o Dhansingh Rajput.
+      The appellant suffered conviction and sentence as
+under:-
+CONVICTION           SENTENCE
+Section and Act      Imprisonment   Fine if deposited, Imprisonment
+                                    details            in lieu of fine
+294 of IPC and 6 months RI          Rs.1000/-          15 months RI
+section 3(1-r&S) of
+SC/ST (Prevention
+of Atrocities) Act
+341 and 323 of IPC                  Rs.500-500/-       7-7     days
+                                                       imprisonment
+
+
+       Counsel for the appellant submits that jail sentence
+ of the appellant is suspended by the trial Court till
+ 26.10.2015 and fine amount has been deposited.
+       Taking into consideration all the facts and
+ circumstances of the case, without commenting on the
+ merit of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed
+ that if, the present appellant furnishes personal bond of
+ Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) and a solvent
+ surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
+ court, subject to payment of fine, the remaining portion of
+ the jail sentence of the appellant shall be suspended and
+ he be released on bail for his appearance before the
+                Registry of this Court on 12.01.2016 and thereafter on all
+               subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this
+               behalf.
+                    Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                              Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                   Cr.A. No.1396/2015
+14.10.2015
+                    Shri Manish Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
+                    Shri   Romesh     Dave,    learned     counsel      for   the
+              respondent/State.
+                    Heard on the question of admission.
+                    The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
+                    Let record of the lower court be called for.
+                    Also heard on I.A. No.7740/2015, which is an
+              application under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of
+              jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of present
+              appellant namely - Lal Singh S/o Puttulal.
+                    The appellant suffered conviction and sentence as
+              under:-
+              CONVICTION                SENTENCE
+              Section      Act          Imprisonmen Fine           if Imprisonmen
+                           t            deposited,   t in lieu of fine
+                                       details
+420          IPC          2 years RI   Rs.500/-     6 months RI
+467          IPC          3 years RI   Rs.500/-     9 months RI
+468          IPC          3 years RI   Rs.500/-     9 months RI
+483          IPC          2 years RI   Rs.500/-     6 months RI
+
+
+       Counsel for the appellant submits that jail sentence
+of the appellant has been suspended by the trial Court till
+30.10.2015 and fine amount has been deposited.
+       Taking into consideration all the facts and
+circumstances of the case, without commenting on the
+merit of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed
+that if, the present appellant furnishes personal bond of
+Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) and a solvent
+surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
+court, subject to payment of fine, the remaining portion of
+the jail sentence of the appellant shall be suspended and
+he be released on bail for his appearance before the
+Registry of this Court on 12.01.2016 and thereafter on all
+subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this
+behalf.
+      Certified copy as per rules.
+                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                              Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+                                   Cr.A. No.267/2005
+14.10.2015
+                   Appellant No.2 - Kailash S/o Mangilal is not present
+              before this Court today. He is not represented by any counsel.
+                   Issue bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.20,000/- against
+              the appellant No.2 - Kailash S/o Mangilal, returnable for
+              12.01.2016.
+
+
+                                                         (Alok Verma)
+                                                            Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                   Cr.R. No.339/2010
+14.10.2015
+                   Shri Rajendra Samdani, learned counsel for the
+              applicant.
+                   Shri Vaibhav Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent.
+                   Heard on I.A. No.8029/2012, which is an application
+              for conversion of this criminal revision into criminal appeal.
+                   After due consideration, the application is allowed.
+                   Office is directed to register this revision as MCRC for
+              grant of leave to appeal.
+                                                          (Alok Verma)
+                                                            Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                  Cr.A. No.1196/2010
+14.10.2015
+                   Report on perpetual warrant issued as well as notice
+              issued to the surety Sajida Bee have not been received as yet.
+                   Issue fresh non-bailable warrant and show cause notice
+              to the surety, returnable on 13.01.2016.
+
+
+                                                         (Alok Verma)
+                                                            Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+                                   Cr.R. No.124/2012
+14.10.2015
+
+
+                   Applicant Pappu S/o Umrao Bagri is not present before
+              the Court. None appeared on his behalf.
+                   Issue bailable warrant against the applicant Pappu S/o
+              Umrao Bagri in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, returnable for
+              14.01.2016.
+                                                         (Alok Verma)
+                                                            Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      Cr.A. No.457/2012
+14.10.2015
+                   Shri Tarun Kushwah, learned counsel for the appellant.
+                   Shri      Romesh     Dave,   learned   counsel   for   the
+              respondent/State.
+                   Appellant -Saeed S/o Jamil is not present before the
+              Court today.
+                   Counsel appearing on his behalf submits that inspite of
+              informing the appellant, he is not present before the Court
+              today.
+                   Issue bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.20,000/- against
+              the appellant - Saeed S/o Jamil, returnable for 14.01.2016.
+
+
+                                                          (Alok Verma)
+                                                             Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                  Cr.A. No.1188/2012
+14.10.2015
+                   None for the appellant.
+                   Let the default pointed out by the office be removed
+              within a week.
+                     List after a week.
+                                                         (Alok Verma)
+                                                            Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                   Cr.R. No.1370/2014
+14.10.2015
+
+
+                    Shri Ikram Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                    Heard on I.A. No.7712/2015, which is an application
+              for condonation of non-appearance of the present applicant -
+              Poonamchand S/o Rameshchand on 10.09.2015 before the
+              registry of this Court.
+                    The applicant is present today before this Court. He has
+              been identified by the counsel.
+                    After due consideration, the application is allowed. His
+              non-appearance on 10.09.2015 before the registry of this
+              Court is hereby condoned. He is directed to appear before the
+              registry of this Court on 06.01.2016 and thereafter on all
+              subsequent dates as may be fixed by the registry in this
+              behalf.
+                                                         (Alok Verma)
+                                                            Judge
+  Kratika/-
+                                   Cr.A. No.1490/2014
+14.10.2015
+                   Shri   Romesh      Dave,   learned    counsel    for   the
+              appellant/State.
+                   Issue fresh bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.20,000/-
+              against the respondent, returnable on 14.01.2016.
+
+
+                                                         (Alok Verma)
+                                                            Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                  Cr.A. No.1531/2014
+14.10.2015
+                   Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.
+                   Shri   Romesh      Dave,   learned    counsel    for   the
+              respondent/State.
+                   Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
+              Rajesh S/o Mangilal Damor Bhil is not present today before
+              the Court, as his sister-in-law has expired and seeks a fix date
+              for his appearance before the Court.
+                   He is directed to keep the appellant present before the
+              Court on 29.10.2015.
+                                                         (Alok Verma)
+                                                             Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                  Cr.A. No.1694/2014
+14.10.2015
+                   Shri Pankaj Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant.
+                   Shri   Romesh      Dave,   learned    counsel    for   the
+              respondent/State.
+                   Appellant Lokesh S/o Ranchhod is present today before
+              this Court. He has been identified by the counsel.
+                   Counsel for the appellant also filed an application (I.A.
+              No.7940/2015) for condonation of his earlier non-
+              appearance on 10.09.2015.
+                   After due consideration, the application is allowed. His
+              earlier non-appearance before the registry of this Court on
+              10.09.2015 is condoned. He is directed to appear before the
+              registry of this Court on 07.01.2016 and thereafter on all
+              subsequent dates as may be fixed by the registry in this
+              behalf.
+                                                         (Alok Verma)
+                                                            Judge
+  Kratika/-
+                                    Cr.A. No.1876/2014
+14.10.2015
+                   Shri    Romesh      Dave,    learned   counsel   for   the
+              appellant/State.
+                   As per the report received on bailable warrant issued
+              against the respondent, bailable warrant is duly served. Bail
+              paper has been received by the registry. However,
+              respondent is not present today.
+                   Counsel appearing on his behalf submits that he would
+              appear before the registry of this Court on the next date given
+              by the Court.
+                   Counsel for the respondent is directed to keep the
+              respondent present before the registry of this Court on
+              19.11.2015 and thereafter, on all subsequent dates as may
+              be fixed by the registry in this behalf.
+
+
+                                                          (Alok Verma)
+                                                             Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                   Cr.A. No.1895/2014
+14.10.2015
+                   Shri Vaibhav Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant.
+                   Shri    Romesh      Dave,    learned   counsel   for   the
+               respondent/State.
+                   Counsel for the appellant submits that as per his
+              instruction and information, the appellant is in jail at
+              Rajasthan. He does not have complete details as to in which
+              jail the appellant has been lodged and seeks time to verify.
+                   List after two weeks.
+                                                         (Alok Verma)
+                                                            Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+                                  Cr.A. No.1920/2014
+14.10.2015
+                   Shri   Romesh      Dave,    learned   counsel    for      the
+              appellant/State.
+                   None for the respondents.
+                   Heard on I.A. No.6376/2015, which is an application
+              for deleting name of respondent No.2 - Haji Usman Gani, as
+              he has died on 31.03.2015. Copy of death certificate is also
+              enclosed with the application.
+                   Counsel for the appellant/State submits that factum of
+              death of respondent No.2- Haji Usman Gani has been verified.
+                   Accordingly, the application is allowed.
+                   It is directed that name of respondent No.2 - Haji
+              Usman Gani be deleted from the cause title of the appeal. Let
+               necessary amendment in this regard be incorporated within
+              two weeks.
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.7301/2014
+14.10.2015
+                      None for the applicants.
+                      Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the respondent
+              No.1/State.
+                      Ms. Megha Jain, learned counsel for the respondent
+              No.2.
+                      Counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that no
+              compromise has been taken place between the parties.
+                      List in the week commencing 02.11.2015.
+
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.8106/2015
+14.10.2015
+                      Shri Sanjay Saini, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                      Shri   Mukesh     Parwal,   learned   counsel    for    the
+              respondent/State.
+                      Case diary is available.
+                  This is 2nd bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C filed
+            on behalf of the present applicant for grant of bail.
+                 After rejection of his first application, there is no change
+            in circumstances. Hence, this second application is not
+            tenable.
+                 The application is accordingly, dismissed.
+                 C.c. as per rules.
+                                                        (Alok Verma)
+                                                           Judge
+Kratika/-
+                                  M.Cr.C. No.8488/2015
+14.10.2015
+                   Shri Abhay Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                   Shri     Mukesh   Parwal,    learned    counsel   for   the
+             respondent/State.
+                   Case diary is available.
+                   This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C
+             filed on behalf of the present applicant for grant of bail.
+                   The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
+             Bhavgarh, District - Mandsaur in Crime No.258/15 for the
+             offence punishable under sections 394, 395 and 397 of IPC.
+                   According to the prosecution story, the incident took
+             place on 11.06.2015 when the complainant Manoharlal Jain
+             was coming in a vehicle bearing registration No.MP-44-GA-
+             0199 which belongs to Rajendra Singh after selling his wheat,
+             gram and Soyabean. He was having Rs.1.5 lacs in his
+             possession. There, it is alleged that their vehicle was stopped
+             by two three persons, who were hiding their face with cloth,
+             threw chilly powder on them and then committed loot of
+             Rs.1.5 lacs.
+                   Present applicant was arrested on the memorandum of
+             co-accused Lakhan in which it is stated that Rs.15,000/- fell
+             in share of the present applicant. However, after arrest, his
+ memorandum under section 27 of the Evidence Act was
+prepared and only Rs.1500/- were recovered from his
+possession.
+     Arguments heard. Case-diary perused.
+     Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
+application.
+     Counsel for the applicant submits that charge-sheet has
+been filed. Only Rs.1500/- were recovered. One motorcycle
+which was alleged to have been used in commission of crime
+was also seized from the present applicant. However,
+registration number of this motorcycle was not mentioned in
+the FIR.
+     After     perusing   the   case-diary   and   taking   into
+consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case,
+without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the
+view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application is
+allowed.
+     It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on
+his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
+Thousand) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the
+satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance
+on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard
+               during trial.
+                    The applicant is further directed that on being so
+              released on bail, he would comply with the conditions
+              enumerated under section 437 (3) Cr.P.C meticulously.
+                    C.c. as per rules.
+                                                             (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                   M.Cr.C. No.8708/2015
+14.10.2015
+                    Shri Shankar Lalwani, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                    Shri      Mukesh     Parwal,   learned   counsel   for   the
+              respondent/State.
+                    Case diary is not available.
+                    List in the week commencing 26.10.2015.
+
+
+                                                             (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                   M.Cr.C. No.8736/2015
+14.10.2015
+                    Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                    Shri      Mukesh     Parwal,   learned   counsel   for   the
+ respondent/State.
+     Case diary is available.
+     This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C
+filed on behalf of the present applicant for grant of bail.
+     The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
+Barwani, District - Barwani in Crime No.81/15 for the offence
+punishable under sections 376 and 506 of IPC.
+     According to the prosecution story, the incident took
+place on 10.04.2015 at about 10:00 am when the prosecutrix
+was alone in her residence. She was washing utensils outside
+her residence. It is alleged that present applicant came there,
+placed his hand on her mouth, dragged her towards Durga
+Mata Temple and there, he committed rape on her. He also
+slapped her and gave blows by lathi.
+     Arguments heard. Case-diary perused.
+     Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
+application.
+     Counsel for the applicant submits that there is no
+definite opinion given by the doctor regarding rape. All the
+injuries found on her body are simple in nature. No injury
+was found on her private part.
+     After     perusing   the   case-diary   and    taking    into
+                consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case,
+               without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the
+               view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application is
+               allowed.
+                     It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on
+               his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
+               Thousand) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the
+               satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance
+               on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard
+               during trial.
+                     The applicant is further directed that on being so
+               released on bail, he would comply with the conditions
+               enumerated under section 437 (3) Cr.P.C meticulously.
+                     C.c. as per rules.
+                                                          (Alok Verma)
+                                                             Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     MCRC No.8716/2015
+13.10.2015
+                    Shri Dharmendra Khanchandani, learned counsel for
+ the applicants.
+
+        Shri   Mukesh     Parwal,   learned   counsel   for   the
+
+respondent/State.
+
+        Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned counsel for the
+
+complainant.
+
+        Case diary is available.
+
+        This is first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C.
+
+filed on behalf of present applicant for grant of anticipatory
+
+bail.
+
+        The applicant apprehends his arrest by Police Station -
+
+Barud, District - Khargone in Crime No.146/2015 under
+
+sections 307, 120-B of IPC and 25, 27 of Arms Act.
+
+        According to the prosecution story,     in the night of
+
+02.09.2015 at about 2:00 am, complainant Kamal was
+
+attacked by some unknown persons by firing over him
+
+gunshot by 12 bore gun. The crime was registered. During
+
+investigation, on source information, co-accused Dhekaliya
+ and Deva were arrested. From their possession, 12 bore gun
+
+and some live cartridges were recovered. In their, discloser
+
+memo prepared under section 27 of the Evidence Act, they
+
+disclosed that they attacked on the complainant, as they were
+
+paid Rs.50,000/- by the present applicant Shyam Patidar.
+
+Thus, they were acting as hire assassin and attacked on the
+
+complainant.
+
+     Arguments heard. Case diary perused.
+
+     Counsel for the State and complainant opposed the
+
+application on the ground that it is a case under section 307
+
+of IPC. Custodial interrogation is required against the present
+
+applicant.
+
+     Counsel for the applicant submits that apart from the
+
+discloser memo given by the co-accused under section 27 of
+
+the Evidence Act, no other evidence is available against the
+
+present applicant. Also, the complainant in this case filed an
+
+affidavit in support of present applicant stating therein that
+ present applicant is suffering from mental ailment. He has no
+
+dispute with the present applicant.
+
+     While dismissing the application, the 4th Additional
+
+Sessions Judge observed that this affidavit cannot be taken in
+
+to consideration at this stage.
+
+     In the considered opinion of this Court, this affidavit
+
+cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. However,
+
+looking to the evidence available against the present
+
+applicant and also taking into consideration that he is
+
+suffering from mental ailment, this application is allowed.
+
+     It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant
+
+shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a
+
+personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) and
+
+a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
+
+concerning Magistrate or Arresting Officer as the case may
+
+be, with the following conditions:-
+
+(i) that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a
+                 police officer as and when required.
+
+                (ii) that he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
+
+                inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
+
+                the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
+
+                such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
+
+                (iii) that he would comply with the conditions enumerated
+
+                under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
+
+                     Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                               (Alok Verma)
+                                                                   Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    MCRC No.8770/2015
+13.10.2015
+                     Shri Anand Soni, learned counsel for the applicant.
+         Shri   Mukesh    Parwal,   learned   counsel   for   the
+
+respondent/State.
+
+        This is first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C.
+
+filed on behalf of present applicant for grant of anticipatory
+
+bail.
+
+        The applicant apprehends his arrest by Police Station -
+
+Depalpur, District - Indore in Crime No.330/2015 under
+
+section 34(2) of MP Excise Act.
+
+        According to the prosecution story, on source
+
+information, motorcycle bearing registration No.MP-10-BA-
+
+2598 was intercepted by the police. The motorcycle was
+
+being driven by Sabir Kha and in the gunny bags loaded on
+
+the motorcycle, total 54 bulk liters of contraband country
+
+liquor was found in his possession.
+
+        During investigation, on his discloser memo prepared
+
+under section 27 of the Evidence Act, he informed the police
+
+that he brought the contraband country liquor from the
+ present applicant. However, no legal evidence is available
+
+against him at present.
+
+     Arguments heard. Case diary perused.
+
+     Counsel for the State opposes the application on the
+
+ground that his custody shall be required, as it has to be
+
+asserted from where he obtains the contraband country liquor
+
+and supplies to various persons.
+
+     Counsel for the applicant submits that in the similar
+
+case arising from the similar Police Station - Depalpur, he
+
+was granted anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of
+
+this Court in MCRC No.8771/2015 vide order dated
+
+05.10.2015.
+
+     However, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
+
+order of granting bail is based on the facts which do not have
+
+value of precedence and, therefore, present case has to be
+
+evaluated on merit. So far as the present case is concerned, it
+
+is true that his custodial interrogation may be required for
+                 asserting the source of the contraband country liquor.
+
+                     As such, I find that no case is made out for grant of
+
+                anticipatory bail to the present applicant.
+
+                     The application is accordingly, dismissed.
+
+                     Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                                (Alok Verma)
+                                                                    Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      M.A. No.2452/2014
+13.10.2015
+                     Shri VS Chouhan, counsel for the appellant.
+                     Shri Mayank Upadhyay, counsel for the respondent
+                No.3/Insurance Company.
+                     Heard finally.
+                     Reserved for order.
+
+
+                                                              (Alok Verma)
+                                                                 Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+                                      M.A. No.1371/2015
+13.10.2015
+                     Shri VS Chouhan, counsel for the appellant.
+                    Shri    RJ   Pandit,    counsel   for    the    respondent
+              No.3/Insurance Company.
+                   Heard finally.
+                   Reserved for order.
+
+
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                              Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.9130/2015
+13.10.2015
+                   Shri LS Chandiramani, counsel for the applicant.
+                   Shri Mukesh Parwal, counsel for the respondent/State.
+                   Shri Vikas Jain, counsel for the complainant.
+                   Counsel for the complainant prays for and is granted a
+              week's time to file criminal antecedents of the present
+              applicant.
+                   List alongwith MCRC No.9078/2015 on 19.10.2015, as
+              prayed.
+
+
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                              Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.9078/2015
+13.10.2015
+                    Shri LS Chandiramani, counsel for the applicant.
+                   Shri Mukesh Parwal, counsel for the respondent/State.
+                   Shri Vikas Jain, counsel for the complainant.
+                   Counsel for the complainant prays for and is granted a
+              week's time to file criminal antecedents of the present
+              applicant.
+                   List on 19.10.2015, as prayed.
+
+
+                                                        (Alok Verma)
+                                                           Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                  Cr.A. No.1275/2014
+13.10.2015
+                   Shri Vivek Singh, counsel for the applicant.
+                   Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the
+              matter.
+                   List after a week, as prayed.
+
+
+                                                        (Alok Verma)
+                                                           Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+                                 M.Cr.C. No.9608/2013
+13.10.2015
+                    Shri AS Garg, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Sapnesh Jain,
+              counsel for the applicant.
+                   Counsel for the applicant submits that the matter may
+              be heard finally and disposed of at this stage.
+                   Let the matter be listed in the week commencing
+              26.10.2015 for final disposal.
+
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                  M.Cr.C. No.7770/2015
+13.10.2015
+                   Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the
+              applicants.
+                   Shri     Mukesh      Parwal,   learned   counsel   for    the
+              respondent/State.
+                   Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the complainant
+              Lal Singh, eye witness.
+                   Case diary is available.
+                   This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C
+              filed on behalf of the present applicants for grant of bail.
+                   The present applicants were arrested by Police Station-
+ Bhagwanpura, District - Khargone in Crime No.196/15 for the
+offence punishable under sections 326, 325, 147, 149, 294,
+341, 323 and 506-B of IPC.
+        According to the prosecution story, the incident took
+place on 08.06.2015 at about 8:00 pm. It is alleged that
+present applicants alongwith other two co-accused Bhiyaram
+and Bhairam armed with lathi, hockey stick and iron rod etc
+inflicted grievous injuries on Kailash, Tikhla and Mahendra. It
+is further alleged that accused Prakash inflicted injuries on
+the right leg of Kailash by iron rod due to which, he suffered
+fracture of femur bone.
+        Counsel for the applicants objects and submits that
+objection cannot be filed on behalf of eye witness, who is
+neither complainant nor he suffered injuries in the present
+case.
+        The objection is accepted. Counsel for the objector is
+disallowed to participate in the proceedings.
+        Arguments heard. Case-diary perused.
+        Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
+application.
+        Counsel for the applicants submits that apart from the
+accused Prakash, all other persons were not armed with
+               lethal weapons. The injured has been admitted in the hospital
+              and discharged after treatment.
+                   After   perusing     the   case-diary   and   taking   into
+              consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case,
+              without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the
+              view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application is
+              allowed.
+                   It is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on
+              their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty
+              Thousand) each and one solvent surety each of the like
+              amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for
+              their appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be
+              directed in this regard during trial.
+                   The applicants are further directed that on being so
+              released on bail, they would comply with the conditions
+              enumerated under section 437 (3) Cr.P.C meticulously.
+                   C.c. as per rules.
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                              Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                  M.Cr.C. No.7849/2015
+13.10.2015
+                    Shri BL Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                   Shri    Mukesh      Parwal,   learned    counsel   for   the
+              respondent/State.
+                   Counsel for the State is directed to call for the FSL
+              report in this case.
+                   List in the week commencing 26.10.2015, as prayed.
+
+
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                              Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.8766/2015
+13.10.2015
+                   Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                   Shri    Mukesh      Parwal,   learned    counsel   for   the
+              respondent/State.
+                   Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a
+              week's time to file details of criminal cases pending against
+              the present applicant.
+                   List in the week commencing 26.10.2015.
+
+
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                              Judge
+  Kratika/-
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.8773/2015
+ 13.10.2015
+                     Shri Sandeep Billore, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                     Shri    Mukesh    Parwal,   learned   counsel   for   the
+                respondent/State.
+                     Counsel for the State prays for and is granted a week's
+                time to call for the criminal antecedents of the present
+                applicant.
+                     List in the week commencing 26.10.2015.
+
+
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                              Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.8854/2015
+13.10.2015
+                     Shri KC Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                     Shri    Mukesh    Parwal,   learned   counsel   for   the
+                respondent/State.
+                     Case diary is available.
+                     This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C
+ filed on behalf of the present applicant for grant of bail.
+     The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
+Dahi, District - Dhar in Crime No.88/15 for the offence
+punishable under section 354 and 354-A of IPC and under
+section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act.
+     Arguments heard. Case-diary perused.
+     According to the prosecution story, the prosecutrix,
+who was 14 years of age, was going to his maternal uncle's
+place on 29.09.2015 when the present applicant caught hold
+of her both hands, dragged her to one side of the road and
+thereby tried to outrage her modesty.
+     Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
+application.
+     Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there
+was no intention of present applicant to do anything wrong
+with the prosecutrix. He further submits that the prosecutrix
+was also not of 14 years of age. Her age is more than that.
+     After     perusing   the   case-diary   and    taking    into
+consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case,
+without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the
+view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application is
+allowed.
+                       It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on
+                his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty
+                Thousand) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the
+                satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance
+                on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard
+                during trial.
+                      The applicant is further directed that on being so
+                released on bail, he would comply with the conditions
+                enumerated under section 437 (3) Cr.P.C meticulously.
+                      C.c. as per rules.
+                                                               (Alok Verma)
+                                                                  Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.8969/2015
+13.10.2015
+                      Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the
+                applicant.
+                      Shri      Mukesh     Parwal,   learned   counsel   for   the
+                respondent/State.
+                      Case diary is not available.
+                      List in the week commencing 26.10.2015.
+
+
+                                                               (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                  M.Cr.C. No.9031/2015
+13.10.2015
+                   Shri Arun Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the
+              applicants.
+                   Shri      Mukesh   Parwal,    learned    counsel   for   the
+              respondent/State.
+                   Case diary is available.
+                   This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C
+              filed on behalf of the present applicant for grant of bail.
+                   The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
+              Shahar Kotwali, District - Mandsaur in Crime No.512/15 for
+              the offence punishable under section 34(2) of MP Excise Act
+              for keeping in his possession 81 bulk liters of contraband
+              country liquor.
+                   Arguments heard. Case-diary perused.
+                   Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
+              application.
+                   Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is
+              no criminal antecedents of the present applicant. He is falsely
+              implicated in the present case.
+                       After     perusing   the     case-diary   and   taking      into
+                consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case,
+                without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the
+                view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application is
+                allowed.
+                      It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on
+                his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty
+                Thousand) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the
+                satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance
+                on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard
+                during trial.
+                      The applicant is further directed that on being so
+                released on bail, he would comply with the conditions
+                enumerated under section 437 (3) Cr.P.C meticulously.
+                      C.c. as per rules.
+                                                                (Alok Verma)
+                                                                   Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.8270/2015
+09.10.2015
+                      Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                      Shri      Romesh     Dave,    learned     counsel     for   the
+                respondent/State.
+       This application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed against
+the order passed by learned Special Judge under NDPS Act,
+District - Neemuch in Special Sessions Trial No.01/2014 dated
+14.07.2015.
+      The brief facts relevant for disposal of this case are that the
+applicant filed an application before this Court under section 482
+of Cr.P.C. in which the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order
+dated 03.11.2014 issued following directions:-
+                    Present petitioner is permitted to
+              withdraw the petition with a direction to the
+              trial Court to consider the averments and
+              points raised in the petition at the time of
+              framing of charge alongwith the averments
+              of charge-sheet.
+
+      Learned Special Judge passed the impugned order on
+04.12.2014 apparently one month after the order passed by this
+Court by which, learned Magistrate framed charges against the
+present applicant, however, as directed by this Court, the
+averments and points raised in the petition were not taken into
+consideration. Thereafter, the applicant again filed an application
+before learned Special Judge which was disposed of by order
+dated 11.12.2014 stating therein that a criminal court had no
+jurisdiction to review on its own order and, therefore, giving
+liberty that the order may be challenged in the revision, the
+application was dismissed.
+       Aggrieved by this order, the applicant again approached this
+Court in the second round of litigation under section 482 of Cr.P.C.
+which was disposed of by this Court in MCRC No.54/2015 vide
+order dated 25.06.2015. In this order, following directions were
+issued:-
+                 In view of this observation and in the
+           light of the direction issued by this Court
+           earlier, this application is allowed. The
+           impugned order dated 04.12.2014 is set
+           aside. The matter is remanded back to the
+           concerning Court with the direction that
+           learned Special Judge should reconsider the
+           matter and decide it in the light of the
+           direction issued by this Court earlier in
+           MCRC No.7577/2014.
+
+      After passing of this order, learned Special Judge passed the
+impugned order on 14.07.2015 in which, he again opined that the
+point raised by the respondent cannot be taken into consideration
+at the stage of filing of charge-sheet and without taking them into
+consideration, the impugned order was passed.
+      It is apparent that learned Special Judge has not taken into
+consideration the averments and points raised by the applicant
+and without taking into consideration the direction of this Court,
+the order was passed and, therefore, it appears proper to set aside
+the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Special
+Court for reconsideration and pass suitable order as per the
+                 direction issued by this Court.
+                      Accordingly, this application is allowed. The impugned
+                order is set aside. Learned Special Judge is directed to consider
+                the averments and points raised by the present applicant and
+                pass a suitable and detailed order this time.
+                      In case, direction issued by this Court is not followed by the
+                Special Judge, the matter may be taken as contempt of Court and
+                necessary proceedings shall be initiated.
+                      With the direction and observation as aforesaid, the
+                application stands disposed of.
+                      Let copy of this order be placed before the Hon'ble portfolio
+                Judge and also be sent to the Sessions Judge, Neemuch, for
+                consideration while writing Confidential Report of the concerning
+                officer.
+                      C.c. as per rules.
+                                                                (Alok Verma)
+                                                                   Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      M.Cr.C. No.8110/2015
+09.10.2015
+                      Shri Mahendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the
+                applicants.
+                      Shri    Mukesh       Parwal,   learned    counsel   for   the
+ respondent/State.
+      Case diary is available.
+      This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C for
+grant of bail.
+      The present applicant was arrested by Police Station-
+Dewas Gate, District - Ujjain in Crime No.30/2015 for the
+offence punishable under sections 364, 365, 302 and 201/34
+of IPC and under section 3 (2) (5) of SC/ST (Prevention of
+Atrocities) Act.
+      According to the prosecution story, in the intervening
+night of 18th and 19th February, 2015 at about 01:00 am,
+present applicant alongwith other co-accused committed
+murder of deceased Sanjay @ Sanju Jhanjhot. Subsequently,
+they threw the dead body of the deceased under the culvert
+of Kalisindh river and also discharged mobile phone and
+other items of the deceased after pouring petrol on it.
+      So far as the present applicant is concerned, it is alleged
+that he was also with the co-accused persons during
+commission of crime.
+      Arguments heard. Case-diary perused.
+      Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
+application.
+      Learned counsel for the applicants submits that initially,
+his name was not included in the accused persons, however,
+on memorandum of co-accused, present applicant was
+arrested and then, on 10.05.2015, statement of Manish Rai
+was recorded in which, he stated that he saw present
+applicant also with the other co-accused, while they were
+committing the murder. He further submits that no
+justification was given why statement of this witness was not
+recorded on 10.05.2015. He further submits that similarly,
+statement of Anil Thakur was recorded on 13.03.2015 and in
+his statement also, no explanation was given why his
+statement was not recorded immediately after the incident.
+     I have gone through the case diary.
+     There are two witnesses, who confirmed presence of
+the present applicant with the co-accused persons. Merely
+because, there statements were recorded with some delay, at
+this stage, no benefit can be given to the present applicant.
+This apart, blood stained clothes were also recovered on his
+discloser memo. In the considered opinion of this Court, no
+case is made out for grant of bail to the present applicant.
+     The application is accordingly, dismissed.
+     C.c. as per rules.
+                                                             (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+  Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                   M.Cr.C. No.8827/2015
+09.10.2015
+                    Shri    Mukesh   Sinjonia,    learned   counsel   for   the
+              applicants.
+                    Shri    Romesh     Dave,     learned    counsel   for   the
+              respondent/State.
+                    Shri Navneet Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the
+              objector.
+                    Case diary is available.
+                    This is third bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C
+              for grant of bail.
+                    Their first application was dismissed, as withdrawn in
+              MCRC No.6100/2015 vide order dated 23.07.2015 after
+              arguing the matter for some time. Their second application
+              was dismissed in MCRC No.6145/2015 vide order dated
+              21.08.2015. Their second application was dismissed, as it was
+              filed only after five days of withdrawing the first application,
+              which was not found proper and liberty was granted to the
+              present applicants to file afresh application to be considered
+ on merit after filing of the charge-sheet. Accordingly, this
+third application is filed availing the liberty granted by this
+Court to the applicant after filing of the charge-sheet.
+     Counsel for the Objector raised preliminary objection
+that once the application is dismissed, second application is
+not maintainable, unless there should be a substantial change
+in the circumstances and not cosmetic change. For this, he
+cites judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
+State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao
+reported in SCC-1989-SUPP2-605. But the principle laid
+down in the aforesaid case is not applicable in the present
+case. In that case, three consecutive applications were
+dismissed on merit and, therefore, Hon'ble the Supreme
+Court laid down the above principle.
+     However, in this case, earlier two applications were not
+considered on merit and also, while dismissing the second
+application, liberty was granted to the applicants to file
+afresh application after charge-sheet is filed. In this view of
+the matter, I find that this third application is maintainable.
+     The present applicants were arrested by Police Station-
+Kalapipal, District - Shajapur in Crime No.250/15 for the
+offence punishable under sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 294,
+ 323 and 325 of IPC.
+     According to the prosecution story, the incident took
+place on 26.06.2015 at about 11:00 pm. The dispute arose on
+the way between two fields. The co-accused Mansingh
+challenged complainant to come on his land and they were
+waiting for him. Thereafter, accused persons went and
+started started using abusive language against him. When
+Leeladhar came to intervene, he was given blow by Farsi on
+his head.
+     Arguments heard. Case-diary perused.
+     Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
+application.
+     Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is
+a counter case also registered. He further submits that
+charge-sheet has been filed and present applicants are not
+required for investigation.
+     Counsel for the objector, however, submits that two
+persons suffered more than ten injuries in this case and there
+is a dispute between two sections of same village and if bail is
+granted to the present applicants, the dispute may again take
+place.
+     After     perusing   the   case-diary   and   taking   into
+                 consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case,
+                without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the
+                view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application is
+                allowed.
+                     It is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on
+                their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
+                Thousand) each and one solvent surety each of the like
+                amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for
+                their appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be
+                directed in this regard during trial.
+                     The applicants are further directed that on being so
+                released on bail, they would comply with the conditions
+                enumerated under section 437 (3) Cr.P.C meticulously.
+                     C.c. as per rules.
+                                                           (Alok Verma)
+                                                              Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    CRR No.1162/2015
+09.10.2015
+
+
+                       Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                       Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
+                  respondent/State.
+                       Heard finally.
+                       Reserved for order.
+
+
+                                                                 (Alok Verma)
+                                                                    Judge
+     Kratika/-
+
+
+                                    MCRC No.6633/2015
+09.10.2015
+
+
+                       Shri Hemant Purohit, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                       This application is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for
+                 modification in the order passed in MCRC No.3399/2015 dated
+                 19.06.2015 by which, it was ordered that the applicant should
+                 surrender before the concerning court within fifteen days from
+                 getting certified copy of this order and subject to applicant's
+                 surrender, the Criminal Revision No.673/2013 was restored to
+                 its original number.
+                       Now by this application, it is sought that the condition
+                 imposed in the earlier order be suitably amended and the
+                 revision be restored without surrender by the present applicant.
+                       I have heard counsel for the applicant.
+                       After due consideration, no case is made out for
+                 modification in the aforesaid order. The application is
+                 accordingly, dismissed.
+                        The applicant is given a liberty to surrender before the
+                 concerning court in next fifteen days after receipt of certified
+                 copy of this order.
+                       Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                               (Alok Verma)
+                                                                  Judge
+     Kratika/-
+
+
+                                       MCRC No.7176/2015
+09.10.2015
+
+
+                       Shri Kushal Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                       Issue notice to the respondent(s) on payment of PF
+                 within a week, returnable within four weeks.
+
+
+                                                               (Alok Verma)
+                                                                  Judge
+     Kratika/-
+
+
+                                       MCRC No.7677/2015
+09.10.2015
+
+
+                       Shri Ashish Sharma, learned counsel for the
+                 applicant.
+                       Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
+                 respondent/State.
+                       As directed by the Court vide order dated
+             18.09.2015, case diary of Crime Nos.866/2015 and
+            867/2014 registered at Police Station - Sanyogitaganj,
+            District - Indore, are not available today.
+                 Shri Mitesh Jain, learned counsel submits that he
+            would file power on behalf of Dr. DK Sharma, who is
+            complainant in this case.
+                 Learned counsel for the State is directed to call for
+            both the case diaries positively on the next date of
+            hearing.
+                 At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants
+            prays that the proceedings in Sessions Trial No.103/2015
+            pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Indore,
+            be stayed.
+                 On due consideration, prayer is allowed.
+                 It is directed that till the next date of hearing, the
+            proceedings in Sessions Trial No.103/2015 shall remain
+            stayed.
+                 List in the week commencing 26.10.2015.
+                 Certified copy as per rules.
+
+
+                                                          (Alok Verma)
+                                                             Judge
+Kratika/-
+                                  MCRC No.7762/2015
+09.10.2015
+
+
+                      Shri Harish Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the
+                 applicant.
+                      Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted
+                 two weeks' time to argue the matter.
+                      List after two weeks, as prayed.
+
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+     Kratika/-
+
+
+                                 MCRC No.8068/2015
+09.10.2015
+
+
+                      Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                      Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted
+                 two weeks' time to argue the matter.
+                      List after two weeks, as prayed.
+
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                               Judge
+     Kratika/-
+
+
+                                  MCRC No.8157/2015
+ 09.10.2015
+
+
+                       Smt. Sudha Shrivastav, learned counsel for the
+                 applicant.
+                       Issue notice to the respondents No.A to E on
+                 payment of PF within a week, returnable within four
+                 weeks.
+                       Meanwhile, the proceedings in Criminal Case
+                 No.227/2013 pending before learned JMFC, Hatod,
+                 District - Indore, shall remain stayed till the next date of
+                 hearing.
+                       Certified copy as per rules.
+
+
+                                                                  (Alok Verma)
+                                                                     Judge
+     Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    MCRC No.8284/2015
+09.10.2015
+
+
+                       Shri AS Garg, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Piyush
+                 Shrivastav, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                       Shri   Romesh     Dave,   learned    counsel    for   the
+                 respondent/State.
+                        Counsel for the applicant submits that he would
+                implead the complainant as respondent No.2 in this case.
+                        Prayer is allowed.
+                        He is directed to file an appropriate application within a
+                week.
+                        List after a week.
+
+
+                                                                 (Alok Verma)
+                                                                    Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     MCRC No.8286/2015
+09.10.2015
+                        Shri Mitesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
+                        Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the respondent
+                No.2/State.
+                        Issue notice to the respondent No.1 on payment of PF
+                within a week, returnable within four weeks.
+
+
+                                                                 (Alok Verma)
+                                                                    Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+                                      MCRC No.8697/2015
+09.10.2015
+                   Shri A. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                  Shri    Mukesh      Parwal,     learned     counsel   for   the
+
+            respondent/State.
+
+                  This is third application under section 439 of Cr.P.C.
+
+                   The main ground taken by counsel for the applicant is that
+
+            present applicant is under custody for the last one year and still,
+
+            there is no progress in trial, as other co-accused are not arrested
+
+            so far. He further submits that other co-accused granted bail under
+
+            section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and the present applicant remains in
+
+            custody though, he is not the main accused in the case.
+
+                  Let a report be called from the Sessions Judge, Indore. He
+
+            may be requested to go through the record of the case and submit
+
+            his report alongwith the reasons for delay in the present case. He
+
+            may further be requested to submit his comments as to time frame
+
+            within which, trial in this case shall be over.
+
+                  List in the next week.
+
+                                                                (Alok Verma)
+                                                                    Judge
+Kratika/-
+                                      CRR No.381/2015
+09.10.2015
+                     Shri KP Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
+
+                respondent/State.
+
+                     Report of the Probation Officer has not been
+
+                received as yet. On 23.09.2015 also, last opportunity was
+
+                granted to counsel for the State to call for the report of
+
+                Probation Officer.
+
+                     List int the next week with clear understanding that
+
+                if report of the Probation Officer is not produced before
+
+                the Court, the matter shall be decided on merit.
+
+
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     CRA No.1293/2015
+ 09.10.2015
+                  Shri Pankaj Sohani, learned counsel for the
+
+             applicant.
+
+                  Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
+
+             respondent/State.
+
+                  In this case, trial court has suspended jail sentence
+
+             of the appellant upto 25.09.2015 after which, it was not
+
+             clear whether the accused had surrender before the trial
+
+             court.
+
+                  Today, counsel for the appellant submits order-
+
+             sheet of the lower court dated 05.10.2015, according to
+
+             which, the appellant surrendered before the trial court and
+
+             he was taken into custody and sent to the jail for
+
+             undergoing the remaining sentence awarded to him.
+
+                  Accordingly, the application for suspension of jail
+
+             sentence and grant of bail is now considered.
+
+                  Heard on I.A. No.7263/2015.
+           This is first application under section 389(1) of
+
+ Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant - Rambabu for
+
+ suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.
+
+          The appellant suffered conviction and sentence as
+
+ under:-
+CONVICTION                SENTENCE
+
+Section        Act        Imprisonment Fine         Imprisonment
+                                                    in lieu of fine
+341            IPC        Nil           Rs.500/-    15 days
+354-A          IPC        6 months RI   Rs.5000/-   3 months
+
+
+
+          Taking into consideration all the facts and
+
+ circumstances of the case, without commenting on the
+
+ merit of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed
+
+ that if, the present appellant furnishes personal bond of
+
+ Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) and a solvent
+
+ surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
+
+ court, subject to payment of fine, the remaining portion
+
+ of the jail sentence of the appellant shall be suspended
+                  and he be released on bail for his appearance before the
+
+                 Registry of this Court on 11.01.2016 and thereafter on all
+
+                 subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this
+
+                 behalf.
+
+                       Certified copy as per rules.
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    MCRC No.9029/2015
+09.10.2015
+                     Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants.
+
+                     Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the
+
+                respondent/State.
+
+                     This is first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C.
+
+                filed on behalf of present applicant for grant of anticipatory
+ bail.
+
+        The applicants apprehend their arrest by Police Station
+
+- Chhapiheda, Tehsil - Biaora, District - Rajgarh in Crime
+
+No.172/2014 under sections 294, 323, 506/34 and 436 of
+
+IPC.
+
+        According to the prosecution story, present applicants
+
+were earlier arrested in the same crime number under
+
+sections 294, 323 and 506/34 of IPC. They were granted bail
+
+by the Magistrate. However, subsequently, section 436 of
+
+IPC was added and now, present applicants apprehend their
+
+arrest as trial under section 436 is sessions trial and the
+
+Magistrate does not have power to grant bail under this
+
+section.
+
+        Arguments heard. Case diary perused.
+
+        Counsel for the State opposes the application.
+
+        Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into
+
+consideration, without commenting on the merits of the case,
+ I find that it is fit case where the benefit of provision under
+
+section 438 of Cr.P.C. may be extended to the present
+
+applicants. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
+
+     It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants
+
+shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a
+
+personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only)
+
+each and a solvent surety each of the like amount to the
+
+satisfaction of the concerning Magistrate or Arresting Officer
+
+as the case may be, with the following conditions:-
+
+(i) that they shall make themselves available for interrogation
+
+by a police officer as and when required.
+
+(ii) that they shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
+
+inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
+
+the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
+
+such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
+
+(iii) that they would comply with the conditions enumerated
+
+under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
+                      Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                               (Alok Verma)
+                                                                   Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.8569/2015
+08.10.2015
+                      Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                      Shri   Mukesh    Parwal,      learned   counsel   for   the
+
+                respondent/State.
+
+                      Case diary is available.
+
+                      This is third bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C
+
+                for grant of bail.
+
+                      His first application was dismissed on merit in MCRC
+
+                No.128/2015 vide order dated 13.03.2015 on medical ground
+
+                and also on the ground that daughter of the present applicant
+
+                died recently. His second application for grant of temporary
+
+                bail was dismissed in MCRC No.3516/2015 vide order dated
+ 25.06.2015. In the second application, it was directed that if
+
+the present applicant wishes to get himself operated in a
+
+private hospital and if he deposits necessary amount with the
+
+jail authorities as per the estimate given by the concerning
+
+hospital, he may be admitted in the hospital under the
+
+security and necessary operation may be performed on him.
+
+     Now, this third application is filed on the ground that
+
+when the hospital authorities, where the present applicant
+
+wants to get himself operated, were contacted by the family
+
+members of the present applicant, they informed that they
+
+could not give any estimate unless the patient is examined.
+
+Therefore, counsel for the applicant prays that present
+
+applicant be released on temporary bail for fifteen days so
+
+that he may get himself examined and necessary estimate be
+
+prepared.
+
+     Counsel for the CBN submits that for the examination,
+
+he may be taken to the hospital under security and after
+                examination, necessary estimate can be prepared.
+
+                     After taking into consideration rival contentions
+
+               putforth by both the counsels, it is directed that the present
+
+               applicant be taken to a private hospital, where he wants to get
+
+               himself operated under proper security and after his
+
+               examination by the doctors, he be re-lodged in jail. It is
+
+               further directed that after estimate is prepared, directions
+
+               issued in the earlier order would operate.
+
+                     C.c. as per rules.
+
+                                                        (Alok Verma)
+                                                          Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.8324/2015
+08.10.2015
+                     Shri Anshuman Shrivastav, learned counsel for the
+
+               applicant.
+
+                     Smt    Mamta     Shandilya,   learned   counsel   for   the
+
+               respondent/State.
+       Case diary is available.
+
+      This is second bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C for
+
+grant of temporary bail.
+
+      This second application is filed on the ground that son of
+
+the present applicant is suffering from rare disease known as
+
+"Krabbe disease". It is advised by the doctor that child should be
+
+taken to Mumbai or Delhi and should be treated by the specialist
+
+doctors, who are not available at Indore. Counsel for the
+
+applicant has filed medical papers of the child with the
+
+application, which were duly verified. As per the report, the child
+
+is suffering from serious disease of brain and he is advised by the
+
+doctors to be taken to Mumbai for further treatment.
+
+      I have heard counsel for the parties.
+
+      After taking into consideration all the facts and
+
+circumstances of the case and the medical condition of the child
+
+of present applicant, the application for grant of temporary bail is
+
+allowed.
+
+      It is directed that applicant shall be released on temporary
+                bail for the period of thirty days from the date of his release on
+
+               his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
+
+               Thousand) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the
+
+               satisfaction of the trial Judge. The trial Judge is directed to fix a
+
+               date for his surrender before the Court depending upon his
+
+               release from jail.
+
+                     With the aforesaid         observation    and direction, the
+
+               application stands disposed of.
+
+                     Certified copy as per rules.
+
+                                                              (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.8552/2015
+08.10.2015
+                     Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Shri    Mukesh     Parwal,     learned     counsel   for   the
+
+               respondent/State.
+
+                     Case diary is available.
+
+                     This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C for
+ grant of bail.
+
+      The present applicant was arrested by Police Station- City
+
+Kotwali, District - Mandsaur in Crime No.502/15 for the offence
+
+punishable under sections 323, 344, 365, 347, 384, 386 and 506
+
+of IPC.
+
+      According to the prosecution story, on 26.07.2015 abductee
+
+Tarachand Gandhi went to a Tea Stall for having tea. There, it is
+
+alleged that present applicant alongwith co-accused Mahesh and
+
+his maternal uncle came in Bolero vehicle and they forcibly took
+
+abductee Tarachand Gandhi to village Khanderiyamaru and kept
+
+him there tied. By threatening him, they pressurized him to
+
+execute power of attorney for transfer of his revenue land and a
+
+house. For making his voter I.D. Card, they took him to
+
+Mandsaur Court and there, they completed formalities for making
+
+of Voter I.D. Card. They also got sale deed executed in favour of
+
+Maya W/o Mukesh Pawar. It is further alleged that prior to the
+
+incident also, they took Rs.40,000/- from abductee Tarachand
+
+Gandhi on the promise that they would sale him Nano Car but the
+ Car was not given to him.
+
+      Arguments heard. Case-diary perused.
+
+      Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application
+
+on the ground that present applicant took law into his hand and
+
+then forcibly got the sale deed of the land executed in favour of
+
+Maya W/o Mukesh Pawar.
+
+      Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it was a civil
+
+dispute. Present applicant and said Tarachand Gandhi had some
+
+financial dealings with each other and some money was due with
+
+Tarachand Gandhi. Due to this reason, he was falsely implicated
+
+in the case. According to him, he voluntarily executed the sale
+
+deed in favour of Maya W/o Mukesh Pawar.
+
+      After perusing the case-diary and taking into consideration
+
+all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting
+
+on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for
+
+grant of bail. The application is allowed.
+
+      It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his
+
+furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand)
+                  and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
+
+                 the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of
+
+                 hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
+
+                       The applicant is further directed that on being so released
+
+                 on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under
+
+                 section 437 (3) Cr.P.C meticulously.
+
+                       C.c. as per rules.
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                              Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+                                       MCRC No.8837/2015
+08.10.2015
+                        Shri Rohit Shindey, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                        Case diary is available.
+
+                        Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter
+
+                  as the arguing counsel is not available today.
+
+                        List in the next week, as prayed.
+
+                                                                   (Alok Verma)
+                                                                       Judge
+     Kratika/-
+                                     MCRC No.8858/2015
+08.10.2015
+                     Shri Vinay Saraf, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Smt. Mamta Shandily, learned counsel for the
+
+                respondent/State.
+
+                     Case diary is not available.
+
+                     List on 13.10.2015.
+
+                                                             (Alok Verma)
+                                                                 Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     CRR No.731/2015
+08.10.2015
+                     Shri KC Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Service report on notice sent to the respondent has
+
+                not been received as yet.
+
+                     List after a week alongwith service report.
+
+
+
+                                                             (Alok Verma)
+                                                                 Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+                                    CRR No.732/2015
+08.10.2015
+                     Shri KC Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Service report on notice sent to the respondent has
+
+                not been received as yet.
+
+                     List after a week alongwith service report.
+
+
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+    Kratika/-
+                                        CRR No.1276/2015
+08.10.2015
+                       Shri SK Meena, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                       Smt.   Mamta     Shandilya,      learned   counsel     for    the
+
+              respondent/State.
+
+                       Heard on the question of admission.
+
+                       The revision is admitted for final hearing.
+
+                       Let record of the lower court be called for.
+
+                       Also heard on I.A. No.7593/2015, which is an application
+
+              under section 397(1) read with Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for
+
+              suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of
+
+              present applicant namely - Montu S/o Heeralal.
+
+                       The applicant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-
+
+
+
+             CONVICTION                     SENTENCE
+
+             Section          Act           Imprisonment Fine               Imprisonment
+                                                                            in lieu of fine
+             457 and 380      IPC           1 year RI      Rs.300/-            -
+                     Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in
+
+            jail.
+
+                    Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of
+
+            the case, without commenting on the merit of the case, the
+
+            application is allowed. It is directed that if, the present applicant
+
+            furnishes personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty
+
+            Thousand) and a solvent surety of the like amount to the
+
+            satisfaction of the trial court, subject to payment of fine, the
+
+            remaining portion of the jail sentence of the applicant shall be
+
+            suspended and he be released on bail for his appearance before
+
+            the Registry of this Court on 07.01.2016 and thereafter on all
+
+            subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.
+
+                    Certified copy as per rules.
+
+                                                               (Alok Verma)
+                                                                   Judge
+Kratika/-
+                                   CRR No.914/2011
+08.10.2015
+                  Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicants.
+
+                  Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the
+
+             respondent/State.
+
+                  Heard on I.A. No.6716/2015, which is an application
+
+             filed under section 320 read with section 482 of Cr.P.C.
+
+                  It is submitted that parties have entered into
+
+             compromise. All the five applicants and the injured persons
+ namely - Brajmohan S/o Banshilal, Vikram Singh S/o
+
+Banshilal and Jamna Bai W/o Banshilal are present today
+
+before this Court. On asking, they submit that they have
+
+entered into compromise without any coercion or duress.
+
+     The applicants have been convicted for the offence
+
+punishable under sections 325/34 and 324/34 of IPC and
+
+have been sentenced to undergo RI for two years each.
+
+Section 324 is compoundable before 31.12.2010. In this case,
+
+the incident took place on 06.02.2008, therefore, at the time
+
+of incident, offence was compoundable.
+
+     Taking    into   consideration   all   the   facts   and
+
+circumstances of the case, the application is allowed. The
+
+applicants are discharged from the charges under sections
+
+325/34 and 324/34 of IPC. Their bail and bonds also stand
+
+discharged. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the
+
+applicants be returned to them.
+
+     Certified copy as per rules.
+                                             (Alok Verma)
+                                                 Judge
+     Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     MCRC No.8924/2015
+08.10.2015
+                        Shri Praveen Newalkar, learned counsel for the
+
+                applicants.
+
+                        Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the
+
+                respondent/State.
+
+                        This is first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C.
+
+                filed on behalf of present applicant for grant of anticipatory
+
+                bail.
+
+                        The applicant apprehend his arrest by Police Station -
+
+                Kukshi, District - Dhar under sections 366, 506 and 376 of IPC.
+
+                        According to the prosecution story, the incident took
+
+                place on 01.09.2014 when the prosecutrix and her brother was
+
+                going in a Magic Vehicle, about 22 persons came there in
+ another vehicle and it is alleged that they forcibly took the
+
+prosecutrix with them and co-accused Raju Chouhan, who was
+
+handicapped and to whom, the prosecutrix got married under
+
+Arya Samaj customs, committed rape on her.
+
+        So far as the present applicant is concerned, it is alleged
+
+that co-accused Raju Chouhan and the prosecutrix stayed in the
+
+house of the present applicant for some time.
+
+        Arguments heard. Case diary perused.
+
+        Counsel for the State opposes the application.
+
+        Counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused Raju
+
+Chouhan has already granted bail by the Court below. He
+
+further submits tha present applicant is a government servant
+
+and the only allegation against him is that co-accused Raju
+
+Chouhan and the prosecutrix stayed in his house for some
+
+time.
+
+        Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into
+
+consideration, without commenting on the merits of the case,
+
+I find that it is fit case where the benefit of provision under
+ section 438 of Cr.P.C. may be extended to the present
+
+applicants. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
+
+      It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant
+
+shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a
+
+personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) and
+
+a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
+
+concerning Magistrate or Arresting Officer as the case may
+
+be, with the following conditions:-
+
+(i) that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a
+
+police officer as and when required.
+
+(ii) that he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
+
+inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
+
+the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
+
+such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
+
+(iii) that he would comply with the conditions enumerated
+
+under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.
+
+      Certified copy as per rules.
+                                                (Alok Verma)
+                                                                 Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    MCRC No.8946/2015
+08.10.2015
+                      Case diary is not available.
+
+                      List in the next week.
+
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.8852/2015
+07.10.2015
+                     Shri L.R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicants.
+
+                     Shri   Mukesh    Parwal,    learned   counsel   for   the
+
+                respondent/State.
+
+                     Shri Ali Hussain, learned counsel for the objector.
+
+                     Case diary is available.
+       This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C
+
+for grant of bail.
+
+      The present applicants were arrested by Police Station-
+
+Nalkheda, District - Agar in Crime No.185/15 for the offence
+
+punishable under sections 307, 147, 148, 149 & 506 IPC.
+
+      According to the prosecution story, the incident took
+
+place on 14.07.2015. The dispute arose due to passing
+
+through the fields of complainant and then it is alleged that
+
+present applicants have inflicted injury to Shahrukh Khan,
+
+Rajjak Khan and Babu Khan by lathi. Babu Khan sustained
+
+injury on his head with corresponding fracture of skull bone.
+
+      Arguments heard. Case-diary perused.
+
+      Learned counsel for the State and Objector opposed the
+
+bail application. Learned counsel for the Objector submits
+
+that on being released from jail, accused persons will
+
+threaten them. They used abusive language against them.
+
+They further said that as soon as their brothers come out of
+ the jail, they will drive them away from the village. They
+
+apprehend that they are going to commit serious offence
+
+against them.
+
+     Learned counsel for the applicants submits that charge
+
+sheet has been filed in this case and injured has been
+
+discharged from hospital. Present applicants are not required
+
+by the Police for investigation. He further submits that a
+
+cross case is also registered at Crime No.186/15 against the
+
+complainant party. He further submits that co-accused
+
+persons granted bail in MCRC Nos.7951/2015 and
+
+8253/2015 vide order dated 09.09.2015 and 28.09.2015
+
+respectively. The case of the present applicants is not
+
+different than that of co-accused, who were granted bail,
+
+therefore, on the principle of parity, he prays that bail should
+
+be granted to the present applicants. He further submits that
+
+apprehension of the objector is baseless. No case was
+
+registered by the police and only to keep the applicants in
+ jail, a false complaint was lodged by the complainant.
+
+     After    perusing    the   case-diary   and   taking   into
+
+consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case,
+
+without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the
+
+view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The application is
+
+allowed.
+
+     It is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on
+
+their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
+
+Thousand) each and one solvent surety each of the like
+
+amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for
+
+their appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be
+
+directed in this regard during trial.
+
+     The applicants are further directed that on being so
+
+released on bail, they would comply with the conditions
+
+enumerated under section 437 (3) Cr.P.C meticulously.
+
+     C.c. as per rules.
+                                                            (Alok Verma)
+                                                             Judge
+   Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      M.Cr.C. No.7768/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                      Shri Shahid Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                      Shri   Mukesh     Parwal,   learned    counsel   for   the
+
+                respondent/State.
+
+                      Case diary and case file are not available with counsel
+
+                for the State.
+
+                      List in the next week, as prayed.
+
+                                                              ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                  Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                       Cr.A. No.929/2009
+
+07.10.2015
+                      The appellant is not produced before the Court today.
+                      Issue fresh production warrant for his appearance
+
+                before the Court on 27.11.2015.
+
+                                                          ( Alok Verma)
+                                                              Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                   M.Cr.C. No.6615/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                     Shri Aniruddh Gokhle, learned counsel for the
+
+                applicant.
+
+                     None for the respondent.
+
+                     As prayed, list in the week commencing 26.10.2015.
+
+
+
+                                                          ( Alok Verma)
+                                                              Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                   M.Cr.C. No.6681/2015
+ 07.10.2015
+                     Shri VS Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Heard on application filed under section 378(4) of
+
+                Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal.
+
+                      Perused the impugned judgment.
+
+                     After due consideration, the application is allowed.
+
+                Leave to appeal is granted.
+
+                     Office is directed to register this as regular criminal
+
+                appeal and proceed.
+
+                     C.c as per rules.
+
+                                                             ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                 Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      M.Cr.C. No.6911/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                     Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     List alongwith MCRC No.6910/2015.
+                                                             ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.6938/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                     None for the applicant.
+
+                     List after three weeks.
+
+                                                            ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.7511/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                     Shri Sanjay Saini, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Heard on application filed under section 378(4) of
+
+                Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal.
+
+                      Perused the impugned judgment.
+                      After due consideration, the application is allowed.
+
+                Leave to appeal is granted.
+
+                     Office is directed to register this as regular criminal
+
+                appeal and proceed.
+
+                     C.c as per rules.
+
+                                                             ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                 Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      M.Cr.C. No.7655/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                     Shri MK Khokar, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     He seeks time to file some additional documents.
+
+                     List after two weeks, as prayed.
+
+                                                             ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                 Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      M.Cr.C. No.7733/2015
+ 07.10.2015
+                     Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the
+
+                applicant.
+
+                     Heard on application filed under section 378(4) of
+
+                Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal.
+
+                      Perused the impugned judgment.
+
+                     After due consideration, the application is allowed.
+
+                Leave to appeal is granted.
+
+                     Office is directed to register this as regular criminal
+
+                appeal and proceed.
+
+                     C.c as per rules.
+
+                                                             ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                 Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      M.Cr.C. No.7822/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                     Shri A. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Heard on the question of admission.
+      This application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is
+
+directed against the judgment passed by learned 3rd
+
+Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas in 01/2015 dated
+
+10.07.2015 by which learned Additional Sessions judge
+
+dismissed the appeal filed by the present applicant under
+
+section 372 of Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment passed by
+
+learned   JMFC    in     Criminal   Case   No.96/2012   dated
+
+13.11.2014 acquitting the respondents.
+
+     I have gone through the impugned judgment passed in
+
+appeal as well as the judgment of learned Magistrate.
+
+     Both the courts below concurrently reached to the same
+
+conclusion and acquitted the accused persons. At this stage,
+
+no case is made out against the respondents using extra
+
+ordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court under section
+
+482 of Cr.P.C. The application is accordingly, dismissed.
+
+     C.c as per rules.
+
+                                            ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                   Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.7837/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                     Shri Vijay Assudani, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Heard on the question of admission as well as I.A.
+
+                No.6643/2015, an application for stay.
+
+                     On payment of PF within a week, issue notice against
+
+                admission as well as of aforesaid I.A. to the non-applicants
+
+                by registered post as well as by ordinary mode.
+
+                     Meanwhile, further proceedings pending before the trial
+
+                Court in Criminal Case No.41/2005 shall remain stayed till
+
+                the next date of hearing.
+
+                     Let the matter be fixed after four weeks alongwith
+
+                MCRC Nos.7739/2015, 7744/2015, 7835/2015, 7905/2015
+
+                7893/2015 and 7892/2015 for analogous hearing.
+
+                     C.c as per rules.
+                                                             ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                     M.Cr.C. No.7966/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                     Shri Vijay Assudani, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                     Heard on the question of admission as well as I.A.
+
+                No.6757/2015, an application for stay.
+
+                     On payment of PF within a week, issue notice against
+
+                admission as well as of aforesaid I.A. to the non-applicants
+
+                by registered post as well as by ordinary mode.
+
+                     Meanwhile, further proceedings pending before the trial
+
+                Court in Criminal Case No.42/2005 shall remain stayed till
+
+                the next date of hearing.
+
+                     Let the matter be fixed after four weeks alongwith
+
+                MCRC      Nos.7739/2015,     7744/2015,     7893/2015    and
+
+                7892/2015 for analogous hearing.
+
+                     C.c as per rules.
+                                                             ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+                                    M.Cr.C. No.7882/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                      Shri Ashish Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                      Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the respondent
+
+                /State.
+
+                      Counsel for the applicant submits that other two co-
+
+                accused persons, who are arraigned as accused in the same
+
+                crime number, the FIR was quashed by the Coordinate
+
+                Bench of this Court in MCRC No.6151/2015 and prays that
+
+                matter be listed before the Bench which passed the earlier
+
+                order.
+
+                      Office is directed to examine the matter and list it
+
+                before the appropriate Bench.
+
+                                                            ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                Judge
+    Kratika/-
+                                       M.Cr.C. No.7894/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                      As prayed by counsel for the applicant, list in the next
+
+                week.
+
+                                                             ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                 Judge
+    Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                      M.Cr.C. No.7914/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                      Shri KK Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
+
+                      Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the respondent
+
+                /State.
+
+                          Let record of Criminal Case No.490/2005 disposed of
+
+                by learned JMFC, Shajapur dated 22.09.2006 under section
+
+                325 of IPC be called for.
+
+                      List under the same category alongwith the record of
+
+                the lower court.
+
+                                                             ( Alok Verma)
+                                                                 Judge
+     Kratika/-
+
+
+
+
+                                  M.Cr.C. No.2526/2015
+
+07.10.2015
+                     Shri Sudeep Bhargav, learned counsel for the
+
+                respondent.
+
+                     This is an enquiry under section 340 of Cr.P.C. The
+ facts which necessitated this enquiry are that Professor
+
+Chintaman    Malviya     (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the
+
+'respondent') is returned candidate from Lok Sabha
+
+Constituency No.2, Ujjain (M.P.) in general election of Lok
+
+Sabha held in the month of March-April, 2014. An Election
+
+Petition was filed against the respondent challenging his
+
+election to Lok Sabha which was registered as Election
+
+Petition No.33/2014. In this petition, notice was issued to the
+
+respondent bearing No.1762 dated 12.08.2014. Notice was
+
+sent to the District Judge, Ujjain, for service upon the
+
+respondent. The notice was served by process server Shri
+
+Arun Bhalerao on 16.08.2014 personally on the respondent.
+
+2.   However, respondent remained absent before the
+
+Election Judge and, therefore, Election Petition filed against
+
+him proceeded ex-parte. Subsequent to this, he filed an
+
+application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC for setting aside the
+
+ex-parte order passed against him. In support of the
+ application, he filed an affidavit stating therein that the notice
+
+was served on his staff while he was busy in the ongoing
+
+session of the Parliament. When he came back to Ujjain, he
+
+came to know about the notice when it was placed before
+
+him and thereafter, immediately, he proceeded to take
+
+necessary action for setting aside of the ex-parte order. When
+
+this application is filed by respondent, the applicant filed I.A.
+
+No.1303/2015 under section 340 of Cr.P.C. stating therein
+
+that respondent made false statement in the affidavit and
+
+thereby he committed offence under section 193 of IPC and
+
+he further prayed that suitable action be taken against the
+
+respondent.
+
+3.   The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to which the
+
+Election Petition was assigned, passed an order dated
+
+24.03.2015 on the application. In para 8 and 9 of the order,
+
+the Co-ordinate Bench observed as under:-
+              (8) So far as the application of petitioner is
+              concerned, prima facie it seems that the
+            respondent No.1 himself has received the notice
+           of this petition on 16.08.2014 whereas, on oath
+           he stated that he received the notice of this
+           petition on 25.01.2015 through his employee.
+           This controversy can be resolved only after the
+           enquiry, therefore, the Principal Registrar of this
+           Bench is directed to register a Misc. Criminal
+           Case under section 340 of the Cr.P.C. against the
+           respondent No.1and initiate the enquiry and after
+           making due enquiry if he finds that respondent
+           NO.1 has filed a false affidavit in support of I.A.
+           No.927/2015 then file a private complaint against
+           respondent No.1 before the competent
+           Magistrate. Thus, the application (I.A.
+           No.1303/2015) is allowed.
+           (9) Reader is directed to send the photocopy of
+           this order alongwith the original second copy of
+           notice of respondent No.1 and service report of
+           process server in a sealed envelope for
+           compliance of the order to Principal Registrar of
+           this Bench. Whereas, the photocopy of the notice
+           and service report of process server be kept with
+           this record.
+4.   The enquiry was assigned to the Principal Registrar of
+
+this Bench of High Court. However, it was pointed out by the
+
+registry that under section 340 of Cr.P.C., enquiry should
+
+have been conducted by the Court itself and, therefore, by
+ order dated 30.06.2015, this Court modified earlier order
+
+passed by the Co-ordinate Bench and directed the registry to
+
+place the matter before the Court for conducting enquiry.
+
+5.   During the enquiry, statements of process server Arun
+
+Bhalerao was recorded on 09.09.2015. He confirmed that he
+
+served notice bearing No.1762 dated 12.08.2014 on the
+
+respondent personally and also respondent signed it before
+
+him. He was also cross examined by counsel for the
+
+respondent. In his statement, he also stated that on that day,
+
+another process server of Ujjain District Court, Bharat Singh
+
+Chouhan was also on beat on that particular day and he was
+
+with him when notice was served. He witnessed that notice
+
+was served personally on the respondent. Subsequently,
+
+statement of Bharat Singh Chouhan was also recorded and he
+
+confirmed in his statement that notice was served personally
+
+on the respondent.
+
+6.   After recording the statements and taking into
+ consideration the served notice bearing No.1762 dated
+
+12.08.2014 and enclosed hukmnama, it is apparent that
+
+notice was served personally on the respondent while in the
+
+affidavit, he mentioned that notice was served on his staff.
+
+7.   Counsel for the respondent cited judgment of Hon'ble
+
+the Supreme Court in the case of Chhaju Ram Vs. Radhey
+
+Shyam reported in 1971 Law Suit (SC) 204. In para 7 of the
+
+Judgment, Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed here as
+
+under:-
+           (6)--------------------------------------------------------
+           (7) The prosecution for perjury should be
+           sanctioned by courts only in those cases where
+           the perjury appears to be deliberate and
+           conscious and the conviction is reasonably
+           probable or likely. No doubt giving of false
+           evidence and filing false affidavit is an evil
+           which must be effectively curbed with a strong
+           hand but to start prosecution for perjury too
+           readily and too frequently with,out due care and
+           caution and on inconclusive and doubtful
+           material defeats its very purpose. Prosecution
+           should be ordered when it is considered
+           expedient in the interests of justice to punish the
+            delinquent and not merely because there is some
+           inaccuracy in the statement which may be
+           innocent or immaterial. There must be prima
+           facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of
+           substance and the court should be satisfied that
+           there is reasonable foundation for the charge.
+           -----------------------------------------------------------
+

8. It is to be seen whether, it is in the interest of justice to + +punish the respondent whether, such lapses on his part are + +immaterial and innocent. +

+

9. Counsel for the respondent argues that it was + +unintentional mistake on the part of the respondent and, + +therefore, no action should be taken against him. + +

10. In my considered opinion, however, more cautious and + +responsible approach was expected from the respondent + +being representative of people and professor himself. He is + +expected to understand the consequences of not appearing + +before the Court of law and specially before the High Court. + +Therefore, in this case, lenient and sympathetic view is not + +called for. In this view of the matter, I find that prosecution + for perjury should be initiated against the respondent. + +

11. The Principal Registrar of this Court is authorised + + under section 195 (1)(b)(i) to file complaint in the concerning + + court of Magistrate. The Principal Registrar is directed to + + draft the complaint and place it before the Court for approval. + + +

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika/- +

+

+ + + MCRC No.7616/2015 + +06.10.2015 + Shri Sanjay Sharma, counsel for the applicant. + + Shri Mukesh Parwal, counsel for the + + respondent/State. +

+

Case diary is available. +

+

This is second bail application filed by the applicant + under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for + +grant of bail. +

+

The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police + +Station - Industrial Area, Jaora, District - Ratlam in Crime + +No.153/2015 under sections 307, 394, 341 and 506 of IPC. + +

According to the prosecution, present applicant + +alongwith other co-accused committed loot on the + +complainant Brajmohan and Babu. They also fired gunshot + +due to which, the complainant sustained some injuries. The + +present applicant alongwith the other co-accused, it is + +alleged, fled away from the spot. The matter was reported to + +the police station - Industrial Area, Jaora, District - Ratlam + +on which Crime No.152/2015 was registered. Thereafter, the + +Station Incharge of police station alongwith Constable + +Deepak Bhuria accompanied by complainant Brajmohan, + +Babu and Mohammad Anwar went out in search of the + +miscreants. They were told that three motorcycles went + +towards village Barkhedi and when they were going towards + village Barkhedi, they saw four persons on three motorcycles. + +Present applicant was also there. When they were challenged + +by the police party, they opened gun fire on them. Nobody + +from the police party sustained any injury, however, in + +return, the police party also opened fire on them due to + +which, present applicant sustained injuries on his both thighs. + +Subsequently, present applicant and another co-accused Sunil + +were arrested. +

+

This second application is filed on the ground that + nd +

(i) co-accused Sunil was granted bail by 2 Additional + +Sessions Judge on the ground that in the earlier part of + +prosecution story, in which present applicant allegedly + +committed loot on the complainant, co-accused Sunil was not + +identified by the complainant. (ii) There were four accused + +persons according to the prosecution story. However, during + +investigation, two accused persons fled away. The police did + +not take any action to trace the persons, who fled away from + +the spot and (iii) The prosecution witnesses Ghanshyam @ + Kalu, Babulal and Mohd. Anwar gave affidavits in which + +they denied that any incident took place with them. + +

In this case, the incident took place in two parts. In the + +first part, loot was committed on the complainant and his + +companion Babu. In the second part, when the matter was + +reported to the police, the police tried to chase accused + +persons and then, it is said that present applicant fired + +gunshot which did not hit any of the police man but when the + +police fired in reply, present applicant sustained gunshot + +injuries. Two separate First Information Reports were + +prepared for Crime Nos.152/2015 and 153/2015. + +

Counsel for the applicant submits that as case of the co- + +accused Sunil is similar to the present applicant, present + +applicant should also be granted bail. +

nd + I have gone through the orders passed by learned 2 + +Additional Sessions Judge. +

+

It is unfortunate that learned Additional Sessions Judge + +did not consider whether, case of the co-accused was similar + to present applicant while bail application of the present + +applicant was dismissed by this Court on merits. There was + +no occasion for learned Additional Sessions Judge to grant + +bail to the co-accused, who was similarly placed. This apart, + +taking the affidavits filed by certain prosecution witnesses + +into consideration, is also not called for at this stage. + +

On merits, it is admitted that present applicant suffered + +gunshot injuries during the incident which shows his + +presence on the spot. The other co-accused, who was granted + +bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, was named in the + +FIR and was identified by witnesses. The police, who went in + +search of the culprits, was an eye witness and even if some + +prosecution witnesses turned hostile, statements of the police + +in this case, cannot be disbelieved merely because they are + +police personnels. When the police personnels are eye + +witnesses, their statements must be examined like that of + +interested witnesses. But they are competent witnesses and + +their statements cannot be rejected on the face of it. +

In this view of the matter, I find no change in the + + circumstances. This second application is not tenable, liable + + to be dismissed and is hereby, dismissed. + +

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Registrar cum + + P.P.S. to Hon'ble the Chief Justice with a request to place the + + same before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for necessary + + directions and suitable action. +

+

Certified copy as per rules. +

+

(Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika/- +

+

+ + + M.Cr.C. No.7959/2015 + +06.10.2015 + Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant. + + Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the respondent + + /State. +

+

This is first application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. + + Counsel for the applicant fairly submits that in this + case, quantity of the contraband involved is commercial + +quantity, therefore, bar created by section 37 of NDPS Act + +shall operate. He further submits that looking to the period of + +custody of present applicant, which is about 2 years and 7 + +months, direction be issued to the trial Judge for expeditious + +conclusion of the trial. +

+

Prayer is allowed. +

+

The application is accordingly, dispose of with + +direction to the trial Judge to decide the case, as + +expeditiously as possible and in any case, not later than six + +months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this + +order. If trial is not concluded within the period specified, + +present applicant shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for + +grant of bail. +

+

With the aforesaid direction and liberty, the application + +stands disposed of. +

+

Certified copy as per rules. +

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika/- +

+

+ + M.Cr.C. No.7987/2015 +06.10.2015 + + + Shri AK Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. + + Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the respondent + + /State. +

+

Case diary is available. +

+

This is 1st application filed by the applicant under + + section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of + + bail. +

+

The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police + + Station - Raoji Bazar, District - Indore in Crime + + No.249/2015 under section 34 of MP Excise Act for keeping + + in her possession 57.6 bulk liters of contraband country + + liquor. +

+

Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail + application on the ground that as per the report received from + +the concerning police station, present applicant is a habitual + +offender and dealing with in contraband country liquor + +though, there is no crime registered against her apart from the + +present case. +

+

Arguments heard, case diary perused. + + Learned counsel for the applicant submits that present + +applicant is a lady and falsely implicated in the case. + +

Taking into consideration all the facts and + +circumstances of the case, without commenting on the + +merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for + +grant of bail. The application filed under section 439 of + +the Cr.P.C. is allowed on the condition that after being + +released on bail, she will not indulge in any kind of + +criminal activities whatsoever. + +

It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail + +subject to the aforesaid condition and on her furnishing a + personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) + + and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction + + of the concerned Magistrate for her appearance on all the + + dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial. + +

She is further directed that on being so released on bail, + + she would comply with the conditions enumerated under + + section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously. + +

In case of breach of the aforesaid condition of this bail + + order, the bail order shall be deemed to have been cancelled + + without reference to this Court. +

+

Certified copy as per rules. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika/- +

+

+ + + M.Cr.C. No.8038/2015 + +06.10.2015 + + + Shri Lokendra Gangarekar, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the respondent /State. + + This is second application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. The + + first application was dismissed as withdrawn in MCRC No.5090/2015 + + vide order dated 07.08.2015. +

+

After arguing the matter for some time, counsel for the + + applicant seeks to withdraw the application and prays that direction + + be issued to the trial Court to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as + + possible. +

+

Prayer is allowed. +

+

The application is dismissed, as withdrawn with direction to the + + trial Judge to dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible and + + not later than six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of + + this order. +

+

Certified copy as per rules. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge +Kratika/- +

M.Cr.C. No.8041/2015

+ +06.10.2015 + Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. + + Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the respondent + + /State. +

+

Case diary is available. +

+

This is first bail application under section 439 of the Code + + of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail filed by the applicant. + +

The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police Station - + + Ingoriya, District - Ujjain in Crime No.312/2015 under sections + + 341, 294, 323, 506/34 and 376 (D)/34 of IPC. + +

According to the prosecution story, the incident took place + + on 21.06.2015 when the prosecutrix went to attend call of nature + + at about 08.30 in the night. It is alleged that present applicant + + alongwith two other co-accused caught hold of her and + + committed gang rape on her. Thereafter, they also threatened her + + that if she disclose the incident to anybody, they would kill her. + +

When the matter was reported on 21.06.2015, there was no + + mention of committing rape with her in the FIR. In her statement + recorded on 22.06.2015 also, there was no such allegation of + +rape. However, her statement was again recorded on 24.06.2015 + +then, she added the incident of rape. She was medically examined + +in which some bruises on both her thighs and no other injury was + +found. In her statement made under section 164 of Cr.P.C. also + +which was recorded on 24.06.2015, she narrated the whole + +incident, as she narrated under section 161 of Cr.P.C. + +

Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. + + Arguments heard, case diary perused. + + Learned counsel for the applicant submits that only one + +accused Govind was named in the FIR. However, in her + +statements made under section 164 of Cr.P.C., she stated that she + +knew all the accused persons. +

+

Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances + +of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, I + +am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The + +application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. + +

It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on + his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty + + Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the + + satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all + + the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial. + +

He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he + + would comply with the conditions enumerated under section + + 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously. +

+

Certified copy as per rules. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika/- +

+

+ + + M.Cr.C. No.8144/2015 + +06.10.2015 + Shri Anupam Chouhan, counsel for the applicant. + + Shri Mukesh Parwal, counsel for the respondent/State. + + Counsel for the State seeks time to argue the matter, as + statement of prosecutrix under section 164 of Cr.P.C. is not + + available in the case diary. +

+

List in the next week. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika/- +

+

+ + + M.Cr.C. No.8188/2015 + +06.10.2015 + Case diary is not available. +

+

List in the next week. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika/- +

+

+ + + M.Cr.C. No.8219/2015 + +06.10.2015 + + + Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant. + Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the respondent + +/State. +

+

Case diary is available. +

+

This is first bail application under section 439 of the + +Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail filed by the + +applicant. +

+

The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police + +Station - Lalghati, District - Shajapur in Crime No.02/2015 + +under sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(n) of IPC and under + +section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence + +Act. +

+

According to the prosecution story, the prosecutrix, + +who was aged about 17 years and 7 months at the time of + +incident, went missing. Subsequently, she was recovered + +from possession of the present applicant. In her statement + +made under section 164 of Cr.P.C., she did not support case + +of the prosecution and stated that she was married to the + present applicant and went with him with her own free will. + + Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. + + Arguments heard, case diary perused. + + Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the + +Ossification Test, age of the prosecutrix was assessed to be + +18 to 19 years. He further submits that she was major at the + +time of the incident. She went with the present applicant with + +her own consent, therefore, no case is made out against the + +present applicant. +

+

Taking into consideration all the facts and + +circumstances of the case, without commenting on the + +merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for + +grant of bail. The application filed under section 439 of + +the Cr.P.C. is allowed. +

+

It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail + +on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty + +Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to + the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his + + appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in + + this regard during trial. +

+

He is further directed that on being so released on bail, + + he would comply with the conditions enumerated under + + section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously. + +

Certified copy as per rules. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika/- +

+

+ + + MCRC No.6967/2015 +05.10.2015 + Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the + + applicants. +

+

Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the + respondent/State. +

+

This is second application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. + +filed on behalf of present applicants for grant of anticipatory + +bail. Their first application was dismissed, as withdrawn in + +MCRC No.4922/2015 vide order dated 22.06.2015. A liberty + +was granted to the present applicants to surrender before the + +trial Court and direction was given to the trial Court to decide + +the application of regular bail, as expeditiously as possible. + +

This second application is filed on the ground that there is + +subsequent change in the circumstances. The present applicants + +found in possession of Compact Disk in which brother of the + +deceased Dheeraj gave statement to the TV Channel that the + +deceased committed suicide when the police came in search of + +him, as complaint was lodged against him by one Pinky Sen. + +However, such statements given to a news channel or news + +published in the news paper do not form any change in the + +circumstances. Instead of availing the liberty granted by this + +Court, this second application is filed. +

Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this Court, no + + case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the present + + applicants. The application is not maintainable, deserves to be + + dismissed and is hereby, dismissed. + +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika/- +

+

+ + + MCRC No.8184/2015 +05.10.2015 + Shri Manish Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the + + applicants. +

+

Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the + respondent no.1/State. +

+

This is first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. + +filed on behalf of present applicants for grant of anticipatory + +bail. +

+

The applicants apprehend their arrest in Criminal + +Complaint No.586/2015 pending before learned JMFC, + +Shujalpur under section 467, 468, 420 and 120-B of IPC. + +

As per the allegations made in the complaint, present + +applicants sold the land in joint ownership of the complainant + +and the present applicants and conspiring with the accused + +No.1- Ramesh. They also got the land mutated in their names. + +

Respondent No.2 was served notice of this application but + +he failed to appear before the Court. + +

Counsel for the applicants submits that initially learned + +JMFC refused to take cognizance on the ground that it is purely + +a civil matter, however the complainant filed revision of the + +order and on the direction of the revisional court, cognizance + +was taken. According to them, it is a case based on the + documentary evidence. There is no chance of the present + +applicants' absconding, therefore, bail may be granted to the + +present applicants. +

+

Arguments heard. Case diary perused. + + Counsel for the State opposes the application. + + Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into + +consideration, without commenting on the merits of the case, + +I find that it is fit case where the benefit of provision under + +section 438 of Cr.P.C. may be extended to the present + +applicants. Accordingly, the application is allowed. + +

It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants + +shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a + +personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) + +each and a solvent surety each of the like amount to the + +satisfaction of the concerning Magistrate or Arresting Officer + +as the case may be, with the following conditions:- + +

(i) that they shall make themselves available for interrogation + +by a police officer as and when required. +
(ii) that they shall not, directly or indirectly, make any + + inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with + + the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing + + such facts to the Court or to any police officer. + +
(iii) that they would comply with the conditions enumerated + + under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously. + +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika/- +

+

+ + + MCRC No.8565/2015 +05.10.2015 + Shri Girish Desai, learned counsel for the + + applicants. +

+

Shri Govind Purohit, learned counsel for the + respondent/EOW. +

+

This is first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. + +filed on behalf of present applicants for grant of + +anticipatory bail. +

+

The applicants apprehend their arrest by Police + +Station - Economic Offences Wing, District - Indore in + +Crime No.35/2012 under sections 420, 406, 409 and 120-B + +of IPC. +

+

According to the prosecution story, present applicants + +were office bearers of the Co-operative Housing Society. + +They purchased some agricultural land in the year 1987. + +According to the prosecution, they purchased land by the + +Cooperative Society in contravention of Nagar Bhoomi + +(Seema Evam Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1976. Subsequently, + +about 2 and half acre of the land was sold by the society + +and the society earned profit of Rs.7,00,000/-. According to + +the prosecution, profit earned by the society was not + distributed by the office bearer to members of the society + +and they also did not alloted the land which remained in + +possession of the society. +

+

According to the applicants, charge-sheet was filed + +under sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC, however, taking + +the present applicants are agents of the members of the + +society, the Magistrate took cognizance under section 409 + +of IPC. +

+

Arguments heard. Case diary perused. + + Counsel for the State opposes the application. + + Counsel for the applicants submits that the matter + +began in the year 1987 when the land was purchased. + +There is no likelihood of the present applicants' + +absconding, as they are not habitual offenders and they + +are reputed persons of the society. The matter is based on + +the record and their presence is not required for + +investigation or for custodial interrogation. +

Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case + +into consideration, without commenting on the merits of + +the case, I find that it is fit case where the benefit of + +provision under section 438 of Cr.P.C. may be extended + +to the present applicants. Accordingly, the application is + +allowed. +

+

It is directed that in the event of arrest, the + +applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail on their + +furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty + +Thousand only) each and a solvent surety each of the + +like amount to the satisfaction of the concerning + +Magistrate or Arresting Officer as the case may be, with + +the following conditions:- +

+
(i) that they shall make themselves available for + +interrogation by a police officer as and when required. + +
(ii) that they shall not, directly or indirectly, make any + +inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted + with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from + + disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. + +
(iii) that they would comply with the conditions + + enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously. + +

Certified copy as per rules. +

(Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika/- +

+

+ + + M.Cr.C. No.5771/2015 + +05.10.2015 + + + Shri AK Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant. + + Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the respondent + /State. +

+

Case diary is available. +

+

This is first bail application under section 439 of the Code + +of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail filed by the applicant. + +

The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police Station - + +Jawad, District - Neemuch in Crime No.488/2014 under sections + +8/18 (B), 29 of NDPS Act. +

+

According to the prosecution story, present applicant was + +travelling in car which belongs to co-accused, who was driving + +the car. From the gates of the car, inside the panels, there were + +secret chambers from which total 15 kg of the contraband Opium + +was recovered. +

+

Counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant is a + +handicapped person. He has filed necessary documents to show + +that he is handicapped. +

+

However, verification could not be done by counsel for the + +State. Still, he fairly admits that present applicant is handicapped + +person. However, counsel for the State submits that his defence + that he only took lift in the car, from which the contraband was + +recovered, cannot be seen at this stage. He further submits that as + +per the source information received by the police, name of the + +present applicant was informed, therefore, he seriously opposed + +the bail application. +

+

Counsel for the applicant submits that there is joint memo + +prepared under section 50 of the NDPS Act. He cites judgment of + +Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. + +Parmanand and another reported in 2014 Cr.L.R. (SC) 290 in + +which it was held that joint communication of the right under + +section 50 would result in diluting the right. Accused must + +always be individually informed. + +

However, at this stage, when we are considering bail, the + +effect of such joint memo cannot be seen. The main criteria can + +be seen whether the joint memo caused any prejudice to the + +defence of the present applicant, which can only be seen at the + +time of final hearing. At this stage, it cannot be said that merely + +because joint memo was prepared, the present applicant is + entitled for bail. +

+

So far as his defence is concerned that he took lift in the car + + without knowing that the contraband was being transported in the + + car and also that the contraband was in the door of the car, which + + was not in the knowledge of the present applicant, this fact can + + only be determined at the final stage after recording of the + + evidence. At this stage, no inference can be drawn. Looking to + + the quantity of the contraband, no case for grant of bail to the + + present applicant is made out. +

+

The application is accordingly, dismissed. + + Certified copy as per rules. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika/- +

+

+ + + Con.C. No.1023/2014 + +05.10.2015 + + + None for the applicant. +

+

Ms. Mini Ravindran, counsel for the respondent. + Shri RS Sisodiya - respondent No.3 is present in person + + before the court. He submits that he has furnished bail in the + + concerning police station. +

+

Counsel for the respondent submits that she has already + + filed reply on behalf of the respondent, therefore, she prays + + that personal appearance of this respondent be exempted. + +

Prayer is allowed. +

+

Respondent No.3 - Shri RS Sisodiya is exempted from + + his personal appearance. +

+

List after two weeks. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika/- +

+

+ + + M.Cr.C. No.8790/2015 + +05.10.2015 + + + Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the + + applicant. +

Smt Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the + +respondent /State. +

+

Case diary is available. +

+

This is first bail application under section 439 of the + +Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail filed by the + +applicant. +

+

The accused/applicant was arrested by the Police + +Station - Khargone, District - Khargone in Crime + +No.276/2015 under sections 364-A of IPC and under section + +66 of Information Technology Act, 2000. + +

According to the prosecution story, report was lodged + +on 26.05.2015 by brother of the prosecutrix stating therein + +that at about 3 pm in the afternoon, she left her home saying + +that she was going to her friend's house and thereafter, she + +did not come back. On 01.06.2015, a message was received + +on the mobile phone asking for ransom of Rs.2,00,000/-, + +which she was using prior to going out from her home. + Subsequently, it was found that the mobile phone, from + +which the message was given, was registered in the name of + +the present applicant and in further investigation it was found + +that the mobile phone was being used by one Shanu, who + +was cousin of the present applicant and the co-accused. + +

Learned counsel for the State opposes the application + +on the ground that the prosecutrix is still untraceable. + +

Arguments heard, case diary perused. + + Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the + +prosecutrix was 21 years of age when she left her home. She + +is living with one Waseem to whom she is married now. He + +has filed affidavit of the prosecutrix and Waseem + + Taking into consideration all the facts and + +circumstances of the case and also the role assigned to the + +present applicant, without commenting on the merits of + +the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of + +bail. The application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. +

is allowed. +

+

It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail + + on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty + + Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to + + the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his + + appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in + + this regard during trial. +

+

He is further directed that on being so released on bail, + + he would comply with the conditions enumerated under + + section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously. + +

Certified copy as per rules. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika/- +

+

+ + + M.Cr.C. No.8794/2015 + +05.10.2015 + Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, counsel for the applicant. + Smt. Mamta Shandiya, counsel for the respondent/State. + + Case diary is available. +

+

Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the + + matter. +

+

List in the next week, as prayed. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + M.Cr.C. No.8799/2015 + +05.10.2015 + + + Case diary is not available. +

+

List in the next week. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + CRR No.1288/2014 + +01.10.2015 + Shri Mohanlal Patidar, counsel for the applicant. + + Shri Aniruddh Gokhle, counsel for the respondent. + + Counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the + + matter, as the arguing counsel is not available today. + +

Meanwhile, record of the lower court be called for. + + List after a week alongwith the record of the lower + + court. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika/- +

+

+ + + CRA No.1364/2014 + +01.10.2015 + + + Accused/appellant - Nagendra Singh is not present + + today before this Court. +

+

None appears on his behalf. +

+

Issue bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.20,000/- against + the appellant/accused - Nagendra Singh, returnable on + + 11.12.2015. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + M.A. No.1692/2014 + +01.10.2015 + + + Shri Vishwesh Palsikar, counsel for the appellant. + + All parties are duly served. No further orders are + + required on the point of service. +

+

None appeared on behalf of the respondents. + + List for consideration of I.A. No.7400/2014, an + + application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for + + condonation of delay after a week. + +

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + M.A. No.2144/2014 + +01.10.2015 + + + Service report of respondents No.1 and 2 is awaited. + + List after two weeks alongwith the service report of + + respondents No.1 and 2. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + M.A. No.79/2015 + +01.10.2015 + + + Respondent No.3 is served and power has been filed on + + his behalf. All other parties are duly served. No further + + orders are required on the point of service. + +

Let record of the lower court be called for. + + List for admission in due course. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + M.A. No.644/2015 + +01.10.2015 + + + Service report of respondents No.1 to 3 is awaited. + + List after two weeks alongwith the service report of + + respondents No.1 to 3. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + CRR No.681/2015 + +01.10.2015 + + + Shri Anil Ojha, counsel for the applicant. + + Shri KK Tiwari, counsel for the respondent. + + Counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the + + matter. +

+

List in the next week for final disposal, as prayed. +

(Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + M.A. No.1165/2015 + +01.10.2015 + + + Shri Himanshu Paliwal, counsel for the appellant. + + Shri Sadashiv Joshi, counsel for the respondent + + No.4/Insurance Company. +

+

On payment of fresh PF and correct details within two + + weeks, let notice be issued to the respondents No.1 to 3, + + returnable within four weeks. +

+

(Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + CRR No.1184/2015 + +01.10.2015 + + + Shri Nilesh Dave, counsel for the applicant. + Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the respondent/State. + + Counsel for the applicant submits that the defect + + pointed out by the office has already been cured. He further + + submits that he has filed I.A. No.7591/2015, which is an + + application for condonation of delay. + +

Office to verify and list for consideration of I.A. + + No.7591/2015 in the next week. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + M.A. No.1380/2015 + +01.10.2015 + + + Shri Subodh Choudhary, counsel for the appellant. + + Respondent's Advocate comes from outside. + + List on 07.10.2015. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + M.A. No.1395/2015 + +01.10.2015 + + + Shri Romesh Dave, counsel for the appellant/State. + + On payment of fresh PF, issue notice to the respondents + + as directed by the Court vide order dated 23.07.2015. + + + +

(Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + M.A. No.1680/2015 + +01.10.2015 + + + Shri Shahid Sheikh, counsel for the appellant. + + As per the office note, the defect has been cured. + + Issue notice to the respondent(s) on payment of PF + + within a week, returnable within four week. + +

Let record of the lower court be called for. +

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + M.A. No.1759/2015 + +01.10.2015 + + + Shri GK Neema, counsel for the appellant. + + Heard on I.A. No.7220/2015, which is an application + + under section 149 read with section 151 of CPC for grant of + + time for payment of Court fees. +

+

After due consideration, the application is allowed. + + Eight weeks' time is granted to the appellant for payment of + + Court fees. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + M.Cr.C. No.4019/2015 + +01.10.2015 + Shri Jitendra Mandloi, learned counsel for the + +applicant. +

+

Shri Ramesh Gangare, learned counsel for the + +respondents. +

+

Counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant + +is a very poor person. He works as labourer and earns + +Rs.100/- per day. He further submits that he has deposited + +Rs.26,000/-. +

+

Counsel for the respondent submits that the total + +amount due is Rs.1,26,000/- and he has not deposited 50% of + +the amount. +

+

This Court ordered on 17.07.2015 for deposition of + +50% of the amount of arrears within four weeks, which order + +has not been complied by the applicant. + +

Looking to his financial condition, further six weeks' + +time is granted for payment of 50% of amount of arrears. +

After lapse of this period, the respondent is free to take legal + + action for recovery of the amount against the present + + applicant. +

+

List in the week commencing 26.10.2015. + + + +

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + M.Cr.C. No.6407/2015 + +01.10.2015 + + + Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the + + applicant/State. +

+

Heard on I.A. No.5391/2015. +

+

Issue notice of I.A. No.5391/2015 as well as main + + application filed under section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. to the + + respondents on payment of PF within a week, returnable + within four weeks. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika + + + + + M.Cr.C. No.7855/2015 + +01.10.2015 + + + Shri Shashank Shrivastav, learned counsel for the + + applicant. +

+

Counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a + + week's time to cure the defect pointed out by the office. + +

List after a week, as prayed. +

+

( Alok Verma) + Judge + Kratika +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_7330729.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_7330729.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..08fa81a39e558dcab667a7e95e84eebc2b280837 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_7330729.html @@ -0,0 +1,383 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ravindra Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 26 July, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
II. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
III. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
+ +
+ +
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. +
+
(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. +
+
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 19 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S.-Faridpur, District-Bareilly with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. +
+
It has been contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that a First Information Report in Case Crime No.16 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B, 435, 504 and 34 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S.-Faridpur, District-Bareilly was lodged by one Khahanchi Lal Sharma against 18 named accused and 10-15 unknown persons and in the aforesaid incident, Sardar Devendra Singh, Sardar Parmendra Singh and one more person died and Sardar Surendra Singh received serious injuries. As a counter blast, an F.I.R. was lodged on 15.1.2023 in Case Crime No.19 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S.-Faridpur, District-Bareilly. In the counter version also the date of incident is 11.01.2023 and along with applicant Khajanchi Lal Sharma, informant in Case Crime No.16 of 2023 and six named accused namely Dharm Singh, Ravindra Yadav, Vikal, Devendra Singh, Parmendra Singh, Surendra Singh and 7-8 unknown persons were implicated. It has been alleged in the FIR that one Gul Mohammad has died in the aforesaid incident. After investigation, Police has submitted charge-sheet in both the cases. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_73545809.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_73545809.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..319f49046742be39ef166faeeb14dcec74fe4d1f --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_73545809.html @@ -0,0 +1,372 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + State vs Sudesh Gulati & Ors. on 14 January, 2015 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

57. In my considered opinion, the trial court has committed a + manifest error and there is nothing on record to suggest that any + dowry was demanded from Rajbala by the appellants or that she + was ever subjected to harassment in connection with the demand + of dowry, or even otherwise. Having given a careful + consideration to the above-stated submissions made by the + learned Counsel for the parties and in the backdrop of the + evidence discussed hereinabove and tested in the light of the + principles of law, I am of the firm view that the evaluation of the + findings recorded by the trial Court suffer from an improper + appreciation of the evidence on record. For the reasons stated + above, CrL. A. No. 280/2001 is allowed and I find that no case is + made out against appellants, Phool Singh and Kanta Devi under + Section 498-A, IPC. Accordingly the judgment and order on + sentence passed against them by the trial Court is set aside. + Further, CrL. A. No. 333/2001 is also allowed and I find that no + case is made out against appellants Smt. Dropadi; Sh. Sohan + Lal; and Sh. Jai Prakash under Section 304-B, IPC as well as + Section 498-A, IPC. Bail bonds be cancelled. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_73870930.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_73870930.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b60dbab0d2bc7bbf76146b6f83a11ccdf989e6a7 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_73870930.html @@ -0,0 +1,452 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Hussain Rasulsab Shaikh vs Ravi S/O. Narayan Gaikwad And Others on 12 December, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. Criminal Application No.3690 of 2018 is not on board. The + + same is taken on board. The applicant has filed this application + + seeking permission to assist the APP in Criminal Writ Petition + + No.1371 of 2018. Application is allowed. Permission is granted. + + + +

2. Heard Shri C.C.Deshpande, learned Counsel for the + + petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the order passed + + below Exh.1 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.7 of 2018, + + by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedpur on 18.09.2018. The + + + + + + {3} 932 CR.WP 1371 OF 2018 + + + aforesaid application was filed under Section 439 (2) of the Code + + of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for + + cancellation of bail of the present petitioners in connection with + + Crime No.174 of 2018 registered at Ahmedpur Police Station for + + the offence punishable under Sections 306, 354-D, 504 and 506 + + of the Indian Penal Code. The material on record shows that the + + present petitioners were being prosecuted in aforesaid Crime + + No.174 of 2018 initially for the offences punishable under Section + + 354-D, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners + + were released on bail in the said crime on 26.05.2018 by the + + learned JMFC. +

+
+ +
+

12. In the case of Mool Chand alias Murli and another V. Station + + House Officer, Police Station Renewal, Jaipur [2009 Cri.L.J. 3158] , the + + charge-sheet was filed against the accused in the said case + + under Sections 341, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Since + + all the aforesaid offences were bailable, the accused were + + released on bail. Subsequently, the injured in the case suffered + + + + + + {10} 932 CR.WP 1371 OF 2018 + + + death due to septicemia as a result of ante-mortem injuries. + + The offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was + + therefore, added against the accused. Thereafter, application for + + cancellation of bail was preferred by the prosecution before the + + Sessions Court and the same was allowed by the Session Court. +The said order was challenged by the accused before the High + + Court and the High Court turned down the objection so raised + + relying on the Judgment in the case of Prahlad Singh Bhati + + (supra). In the said case also, initially an application under + + Section 437(5) of the Code was filed before the learned + + Magistrate concerned, who dismissed the said application as not + + maintainable. Subsequently, the prosecution had filed an + + application under Section 439(2) of the Code before the Sessions + + Court and the Sessions Court had allowed the said application + + and thereby cancelled the bail earlier granted to the accused for + + the bailable offences changed against them. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_7403169.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_7403169.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d2d1b872d86df64b286354e582b0044c7d588723 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_7403169.html @@ -0,0 +1,374 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Parwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 August, 2022 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up +before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail. +

+

2. In paragraph 9 of the bail application, the accused declares the following criminal +antecedents: +

+
 Sr. No.   FIR No.          Date         Offences             Police             Status
+                                                              Station
+ 1         224              27.12.2017 341, 323, 506, 34 IPC Dhuri               On bail
+                                                              District
+                                                              Sangrur
+ 2.        232              31.12.2018 353, 186 IPC; 136 of Dhuri                On bail
+                                       RP Act, 1951 and 124 District
+                                       of     Punjab    State Sangrur
+                                       Election Commission
+                                       Act
+ 3.        20               17.01.2022 279, 353, 186 IPC and Amargarh            Not yet
+                                       Section 61, 78, 1, 14                     arrested
+                                       of Punjab Excise Act
+
+
+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_74317404.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_74317404.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e493871e769a4a098562401bba6b5f634e72a8f1 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_74317404.html @@ -0,0 +1,375 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Shiv Shankar Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 February, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

23. In Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. (2014)16 SCC 508, this Court had granted bail to accused for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 394, 411, 454, 506, 120B and 34 IPC on the ground of parity as another accused Ashok was already enlarged on bail. The wife of deceased filed appeal for setting aside order of bail granted by this Court. Court considered various earlier authorities and said in para 13 of judgment as under : +

+
"...It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail and have not been taken note of bail or it is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the Court does not dwell upon the violation of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the Court." +
+
+ +
+ +

24. Thereafter, referring to 15 cases registered again accused showing that he was a history-sheeter and mostly under Section 302 IPC, order of bail was set aside. Court observed that there has to be a balance between personal liberty of an individual and peace and harmony of Society. No individual interest can be allowed to create a concavity in the stem of social stream otherwise it would bring chaos and anarchy in the Society. Relevant observations made in this regard are reproduced as under : +

+
+ +
+ +

29. In X vs. The State of Telangana and Ors. (2018)16 SCC 511, accused, a Film Producer, based in Mumbai, was charged of offences under Sections 376, 342, 493, 506, 354(C) of IPC. Accused got anticipatory bail from Sessions Judge on 13.01.2017 and had advantage of that order for about eight months. The said order was cancelled by Sessions Judge on the ground that accused has not disclosed that he was also accused in 2G Spectrum case. This cancellation order was affirmed by High Court and also by Supreme Court. Thereafter accused moved a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by High Court and accused was released on bail. This order was challenged in appeal before Supreme Court. Upholding the said order, Court said that bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case, based on supervening event has been made out. +

+
+ +
+ +

30. In Seema Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. (2018) 16 SCC 10 bail granted to accused by High Court in the case registered under Sections 498-A, 302, 120-B IPC was challenged in appeal before Supreme Court. Court noticed that accused-2's bail application was rejected by Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ghaziabad and thereafter bail was granted by High Court. Court said that gravity of offence is a relevant factor but not the sole ground to deny bail if there are other overwhelming circumstances justifying grant of bail. Noticing special feature, Court upheld order of High Court granting bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_74345485.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_74345485.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef0de03272370746bfc63044083e2e079328b56f --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_74345485.html @@ -0,0 +1,429 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Jayanti Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 November, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Order + +05/11/2020 + All the above mentioned bail applications shall stand decided + +by this common order as they arise out of same FIR. + +

The present bail applications have been filed under Section + +439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners who are in custody in + +connection with F.I.R. No.252/2020, Police Station Dovada, District + +Dungarpur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, + +394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B of I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12431/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 436, 394, + +384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of + +the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.11515/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, + +384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B of the I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.11861/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 384, + +284, 269, 270, 283 & 336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of + +P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11865/2020), + +under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 436, 394, 284, 269, 270, 283, + +336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11867/2020), under Sections + + (5 of 7) [CRLMB-12431/2020 + a/w connected nmatters] + + +147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, 384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336, + +120-B of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12205/2020), under Sections + +147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B + +of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. + +Bail Application No.12207/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, + +341, 394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 383, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and + +under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail + +Application No.12210/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, + +394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12433/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, + +284, 269, 270, 283, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 + +of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12436/2020). +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_74687719.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_74687719.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3e1896209bfd095d5859726a7bf6098bc15f2210 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_74687719.html @@ -0,0 +1,365 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Soundararajan vs State Through The Inspector Of Police on 12 August, 2015 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

42.2 As the compromise has now been accepted, it would have the effect +of acquittal of the accused persons from the charge under Section 324 IPC. +

+

43.In the result, the Criminal Revision Petitions stand allowed, and +the accused 1, 2 and 4 are acquitted of the levelled charges under Sections +341, 148 and 307 IPC; the accused 3 and 7 are acquitted of the levelled +charges under Sections 341, 148 and 307 r/w 149 IPC, the fifth accused is +acquitted of the levelled charges under Sections 341, 147 and 307 r/w 149 IPC +and the sixth accused is acquitted of the levelled charges under Sections +341, 342, 147 and 307 r/w 149 IPC. Bail bonds if any, executed by the accused +persons, stands discharged. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_74728552.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_74728552.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5523172ecb9e50b60e8793de0c15576ed3fe0a12 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_74728552.html @@ -0,0 +1,455 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Manish Kumar (Cicl Y) vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The petitioner is in custody for about 4 years. + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 665 of 2023 + + The instant Revision is filed by CICL himself, + + challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order, + + dated 9th of August, 2023, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2023 + + by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum- + + Children's Court, Banka. The CICL was arrested in connection + + with Banduwa Kurawa P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023, corresponding + + to G.R. No. 1202 of 2023, for the offences punishable under + + Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 + + of the Arms Act. However, later on, Sections 34 of the IPC and + + Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section + + 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes + + (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added. Prayer for + + bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Appeal in + + exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Juvenile + + Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter + + referred to as 'said Act') vide order, dated 15th of June, 2023. + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 687 of 2023 + + The petitioner/CICL was arrested in connection + + with Fesar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, + + 325, 307, 34, 504, 506 and 379 of the IPC along with his father + + and uncle. The petitioner prayed for regular bail before the JJB, + + Aurangabad. In JJB Case No. 932 of 2023, prayer for bail was + + rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 41 + + of 2023 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children's Court, + + Aurangabad. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal + + and affirmed the order of the JJB. The petitioner has assailed the + + said order of the Appellate Court on various grounds, specially + + on the ground that the father and uncle of the petitioner have + + already been granted bail for the same offence. + +
+
+ +
+

Reg. Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2024 + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + The petitioner was booked along with other major + + accused persons in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 237 of + + 2022, dated 13th of August, 2022, under Section 302 and 34 of + + the IPC. The petitioner being a CICL prayed for bail before the + + Juvenile Justice Board, but his prayer for bail was rejected. He + + preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the said Act before the + + learned Special Judge, Children's Court and the said appeal was + + also dismissed and the order of rejection of bail passed by the + + JJB was affirmed. It is stated by the petitioner that the accused + + persons who are major, namely, Sushil Kumar Yadav and Anil + + Yadav were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on + + 26th of April, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 4091 of 2023. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_74768646.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_74768646.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..53a53f2fea2fef662f67e62859134ff88dee6ceb --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_74768646.html @@ -0,0 +1,419 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sirajbhai Yusufbhai Daulti vs State Of Gujarat on 26 November, 2019 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ 
+
+
+Ashraf Siraj Daulti- Applicant No.2
+
+ No.      F.I.R. No.                      Offences                              Status
+  1      I-109 / 2016    Under section 323, 404, 506(2), 435, 114 of Quashed and set-aside by
+

the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(5- this Hon'ble Court on + A) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act. 24.10.2019 + 2 II-25/2010 Under section 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Released on bail by the + the Indian Penal Code. Trial Court in the year + 2010. +

+
+ +
+ +

Sarfaraz Siraj Daulti - Applicant No.3 + + No. F.I.R. No. Offences Status + + + + + + R/CR.MA/20485/2019 ORDER + + + + 1 I-109 / 2016 Under section 323, 404, 506(2), 435, 114 of Quashed and set-aside by + the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(5- this Hon'ble Court on + A) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act. 24.10.2019 + 2 II-25 / 2010 Under section 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Released on bail by the + the Indian Penal Code Trial Court in the year 2010 + 3 I-96 / 2015 Under Section 379 and 114 etc. of the Released on bail by the + Indian Penal Code Trial Court in the year + 2015. +

+
+ +
+

4 I-56 / 2017 Under Section 379 and 114 etc. of the Released on bail by the + Indian Penal Code Trial Court in the year + 2017. +

5 II-137/2009 Under section 323, 506(2) and 114 of the Released on bail in the year + Indian Penal Code 2009 by Trial Court. In the + meantime, the Complainant + has passed away.

+
+ +
+ 
+
+
+Irfan Siraj Daulti - Applicant No.4
+
+ No.      F.I.R. No.                     Offences                             Status
+  1      I-109 / 2016    Under section 323, 404, 506(2), 435, 114 of Quashed and set-aside by
+

the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(5- this Hon'ble Court on + A) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act. 24.10.2019 + 2 II-25 / 2010 Under section 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Released on bail by the + the Indian Penal Code Trial Court in the year 2010 + 3 II-137/2009 Under section 323, 506(2) and 114 of the Released on bail in the year + Indian Penal Code 2009 by Trial Court. In the + meantime, the Complainant + has passed away. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_74982440.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_74982440.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5a9200d6915227e5f5b3175176cecf004a0ca680 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_74982440.html @@ -0,0 +1,585 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Zahur Haidar Zaidi vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 19 January, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

under Sections 120B, 302, 330, 331, 348, 323 and 326 IPC, as + + such, there is no occasion to keep the bail petitioner in custody + + + + + + for indefinite period. Learned Senior counsel further contended + + that the bail petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case + + and he has no role to play, if any, in the custodial death of + + + + + + Suraj, who allegedly died in the police custody. While inviting + + attention of this Court to order dated 10.7.2017 issued by + + Director-General of Police constituting Special Investigation + + Team to investigate FIR No. 97 of 2017 registered under + + Sections 302 and 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, dated + + + 6.7.2017, learned senior counsel contended that SIT consisting + + of three officers namely Bhajan Dev Negi, Additional + + + + + Superintendent of Police (Rural), Shimla, Manoj Joshi, Sub + + + + + + Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Theog, District Shimla and SI + + Rajender Singh, SHO Police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla + + + + + + was constituted, and as such, it can not be said that bail + + petitioner was part of SIT constituted by Director-General to + + investigate FIR detailed herein above. Learned Senior counsel + + while inviting attention of this Court to statements of various + + prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC, + + contended that at no point of time, bail petitioner was directly + + + + + + + + + + involved in the investigation conducted by the members of SIT. +

+
+ +
+ +

8. Learned Senior counsel further contended that it is + + + + + also apparent from the record that FIR No. 101 of 2017 had + + + + + + already come into existence prior to visit of bail petitioner as + + such, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said /concluded + + + + + + that bail petitioner entered into criminal conspiracy to register + + false FIR against accused Rajinder alias Raju. Learned Senior + + counsel further contended that there is no evidence on record to + + substantiate the charge of CBI that in furtherance of criminal + + conspiracy, bail petitioner alongwith other SIT members, + + dishonestly and fraudulently fabricated evidence and registered + + + + + + + + + + FIR No. 101 of 2017 at Police Station, Kotkhai on false/ + + concocted facts against Rajinder alias Raju under Section 302 + + IPC and as such, no case, if any, is made out against bail + + + + + . +

+
+ +
+ +

petitioner under Sections 120B and 302 IPC. Lastly Mr. + + Cheema, learned senior counsel, contended that though there is + + + + + + no evidence at all against bail petitioner, suggestive of the fact + + that he was involved in the crime alleged to have been + + committed by him but even if for the sake of arguments, it is + + + + + + admitted that he was also involved in the case, offence under + + Sections 201 and 218 IPC is made out against him, which is a + + bailable offence. +

+

9. Learned Senior counsel, while placing reliance + + upon judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh + + + Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 (Paras 4 and 27), + + Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat, (2016) 1 SCC + + + + + 152 (paras 21 and 22), Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC + + + + + + 40 (paras 14, 25 and 26), Sidhharam S. Mhetre v. State of + + Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, forcibly contended that it is + + + + + + well settled by now that gravity alone can not be a decisive + + ground to deny bail, rather, competing factors are required to + + be balanced by Court while exercising its discretion. Learned + + Senior counsel further argued that it has been repeatedly held + + by Hon'ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure + + appearance of accused at the time of trial by reasonable amount + + + + + + + + + + of bail and object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. +

+
+ +
+ +

Similarly, affidavit filed by Director-General of Police in the + + proceedings pending before Division Bench further suggests + + that he was informed by bail petitioner on 19.7.2017 that FIR + + No. 101 of 2017 under Section 302 IPC has been registered at + + Police Station Kotkhai meaning thereby that bail petitioner + + + made an endeavour to justify FIR lodged by SHO Rajender + + Singh (FIR No. 101 of 2017), which, as per record of prosecution + + + + + was registered on wrong facts falsely implicating Rajinder alias + + + + + + Raju, who was arrested in FIR No. 97 of 2017. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_751866.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_751866.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f5cc8a98ce1d0e775d679ea0f1c1a34cc9b338c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_751866.html @@ -0,0 +1,365 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Dilip Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 July, 2006 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

19. For these reasons, we dispose of instant appeals in the following terms: +

+
(i) We dismiss the appeal of appellants Dilip Singh and Dasrath Singh and instead of Sections 302 and 302/149 we convict them under Section 302/34 IPC and sentence each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 3000/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. We however acquit them of the charge under Section 148 IPC. The bail granted to appellant Dasrath Singh stands cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) We dismiss the appeal of appellant Mahaveer Singh and instead of Section 302/149 we convict him under Section 302/34 IPC and sentence him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 3000/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. We however acquit him of the charge under Section 147 IPC. The bail granted to appellant Mahaveer Singh stands cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence. +
+
(iii) We allow the appeal of appellants Rajveer Singh, Sudepal, Damodar, Ravindra Singh, Diwan Singh and Khem Singh and acquit them of the charges under Sections 302/149 and 147 IPC. They are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_75327306.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_75327306.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0d0573c8b8abb3e82c90805a74667c6ca2403400 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_75327306.html @@ -0,0 +1,452 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Yallappa S/O Siddappa Gisaningavvagol vs State Of Karnataka on 19 June, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

2. Case of the prosecution is that the victim lady is + +working as Aaya in Gurubasav School at Beeranagaddi. + +She is married and having two children. She used to go to + +Gokak for purchasing articles and she met one Basavarj + +Khilari - accused No. 6 and he took her saying that he will + +get her job. About two months ago, the victim lady and + +one Smt. Sharada had gone to Ghataprabha and after + +work they were waiting for bus. At that time one motor + +cyclist introduced himself as Vinod Talawar - a teacher in + +Harugeri and he took the phone number of the victim lady + +and they were in touch. On 05.09.2023, i.e., on teachers' + +day the victim lady had gone to Gokak and at that time + +she received a phone call from Vinod Talawar (C.W.16) + +and both of them had tea in a hotel. At that time, they + +met accused No. 6 - Basavaraj Khilari and he requested + +both of them to come to his room and have tea and all the + + NC: 2024:KHC-D:8204 + + C/W CRL.P No. 101347 of 2024, CRL.P No. + 101541 of 2024 + + +three of them went to Basavaraj Khilari's room. Accused + +No. 6 locked victim lady and Vinod Talawar in the room. At + +about 02.30 - 03.00 pm, 4 to 5 people came and asked + +them as to why they were staying in their room and + +assaulted them, took Rs.2,000/-, purse, ATM and mobile + +from Vinod Talawar and they assaulted the victim lady and + +took Rs.2,000/-, earrings, purse and mobile. They also + +demanded Rs.2,00,000/- to leave them. Later they made + +Vinod Talawar and victim lady to stand and took photos, + +video graphed, showed knife to her and removed her + +saree and raped one after another. At that time it was + +about 05.30 pm and Vinod Talawar ran away. The accused + +were talking to each other and their names were Ramesh + +Khilari, Durappa, Yallappa, Ramasidda and Krishna and + +they threatened them with dire consequences. Said + +complaint filed by the victim lady came to be registered in + +crime No. 132/2023 of Gokak Town Police Station for + +offence punishable under Sections 341, 342, 376D, 384 + +and 506 read with Section 149 IPC. During investigation + + NC: 2024:KHC-D:8204 + + C/W CRL.P No. 101347 of 2024, CRL.P No. + 101541 of 2024 + + +accused Nos. 1 and 6 came to be arrested. The Police after + +completing investigation filed charge sheet against the + +accused for offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, + +376-D, 384, 395, 397, 120-B, 506 read with Section 149 + +of IPC. Bail petitions filed by accused Nos.1 and 6 came to + +be rejected. Anticipatory bail petition filed by accused No. + +3 came to be rejected by the Sessions Court. Therefore, + +petitioners are before this Court seeking bail/anticipatory + +bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_75391777.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_75391777.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d403de86f6d8e441bb35d6a074751ee1cce3f6a9 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_75391777.html @@ -0,0 +1,2184 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sanjukta Samanta & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 30, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

+

Sanjukta Samanta & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2025

+ +
                                        1
+
+                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
+                   CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
+                            APPELLATE SIDE
+
+
+Present:
+
+The Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
+
+                              W.P.A. 15260 of 2024
+
+                             Sanjukta Samanta & Anr.
+                                       -Vs-
+                               Union of India & Ors.
+
+
+Petitioner No. 1 in person           : Mrs. Sanjukta Samanta
+
+Petitioner No. 2 in person           : Mr. Romit Dutta
+
+For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2        : Mr. Rajdeep Majumdar
+                                       Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Chakraborty
+
+For the State                        : Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury
+                                       Mr. Manas Kumar Sadhu
+                                       Ms. Subhasree Patel
+
+For the Respondent No. 13            : Mr. Neeraj Sekhar
+                                       Ms. Malabika Saha
+
+Heard on                             : 13.03.2025, 28.03.2025,
+                                       25.06.2025, 11.07.2025
+
+Judgment on                          : 26.09.2025
+
+Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-
+
+1. The instant writ petition had been assigned to this Court by the Hon'ble the
+
+  Chief Justice, High Court at Calcutta, after the instant writ petition had
+
+  been released by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court presiding over in
+
+  Court No.14 vide its Order dated 05.08.2024 replicated as follows:-
+
+            "Live streaming of Court proceeding has been paused.
+                                          2
+
+              Heard submission of the petitioner no.2 and the learned advocate
+          representing the respondent no.13.
+              The petitioner no.1 behaves in an extremely unruly manner before
+          the Court. She is highly agitated. The Court is not inclined to hear the
+          matter.
+              Let this matter be released from the list of this Bench and be placed
+          before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for necessary order."
+
+2. The instant writ petition had been filed, inter alia, praying for following
+
+  reliefs:-
+
+          "........
+          B. Writ of an/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+          respondents to declare the impugned proceedings of Chatterjeehat
+          Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 under sections
+          341/365/468/420/506/34         IPC   is   illegal,   void   ab   initio   and
+          unconstitutional;
+
+          C. Writ in nature of mandamus to quash the entire proceedings in
+          connection with Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated
+          04.05.2024 under sections 341/365/468/420/506/34 IPC pending
+          before Learned CJM at Howrah and being investigated by state
+          respondents;
+
+          D. Writ in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondents
+          and its men, subordinates, assignees to unconditionally forthwith
+          withdraw, recall, rescind all steps taken in pursuance of the
+          Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 under
+          sections 341/365/468/420/506/34 IPC;
+
+          E. Writ of an/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+          respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates and each one
+          of them to quash/set aside the impugned Notification issued by the
+          office of Respondent 6 vide Org No.618/CS dated 06.05.2024 through
+                                3
+
+which the investigation of Chatterjeehat Police Station Case no.78 of
+2023 dated 04.05.2023 was taken up by respondent no.7;
+
+F. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents to render appropriate protection to life, liberty and
+possession to the writ petitioner no.1 by the respondents 1, 2;
+
+G. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates and each one
+of them to hand over the Case Diary of Chatterjeehat Police Station
+Case no.78 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 to the office of Respondent no.4
+forthwith;
+
+H. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates to stay the
+investigation of impugned FIR Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 86 of
+2024 dated 04.05.2024 under sections 341/365/468/420/506/34
+IPC by respondent no.9 with immediate effect;
+
+I. Writ of an/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates not to take any
+coercive steps against the petitioners in connection with Chatterjeehat
+Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 under sections
+341/365/468/420/506/34 IPC;
+
+J. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates not to take any
+coercive steps against the petitioners in connection with any frivolous
+FIRs against the Writ Petitioners by the accused respondent 13 and his
+associates;
+
+K. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates to stay the
+impugned further investigation of Chatterjeehat Police Station Case
+no.78 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 by State CID respondents;
+                                           4
+
+         L. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+         respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates not to register
+         any false FIR against the Writ Petitioners by the instant accused
+         respondents and his associates without any preliminary inquiry as
+         well as without leave of this Hon'ble Court;
+
+         M. A writ of and/or in nature of certiorari directing the concerned
+         respondents being respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 thereof to transmit
+         and/or produce all relevant records lying with them to this Hon'ble
+         Court so that conscionable justice may be done after hearing the
+         respective parties to this writ petition;
+
+         N. A writ of and/or in nature of Mandamus commanding the
+         respondent authorities 1, 2 to render appropriate protection to protect
+         life and possession of the petitioner;
+         ......."
+3. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 contended to be the Learned Advocates practising
+
+  in the High Court at Calcutta as well as the Supreme Court of India. The
+
+  petitioners, on invitation by the respondent No.13, visited his house at
+
+  Tamilnadu to hold a conference with the father of respondent No.13
+
+  concerning the filing of affidavit-of-assets and liabilities in connection with a
+
+  dispute regarding domestic violence instituted against the respondent No.13
+
+  pending at the District Court of South 24-Parganas at Alipore.
+
+4. Petitioner No.1 learnt of certain false information presented through an
+
+  affidavit-on-oath before the Court of Learned 6 th Judicial Magistrate at
+
+  Alipore, South 24-Parganas concerning the occupation of respondent No.13
+
+  and confronted the same. The respondent No.13 consequently insulted the
+
+  petitioner, indignifying her with threats, defamation and dire consequences.
+
+  Subsequently, the petitioner No.1 was threatened by an associate of
+                                         5
+
+  respondent no.13 as narrated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the writ petition. The
+
+  petitioners, thereafter, forwarded a complaint through e-mail to the
+
+  respondent no.8 being the Commissioner of Police, Howrah and Kolkata
+
+  Police on 23rd of April, 2023 at 21:44 hours.
+
+5. On 29th of April, 2023 at about 08:30 P.M., the respondent no.13
+
+  accompanied by his associate forcefully entering the chamber of petitioner
+
+  no.1, physically molested and harassed her as stated in paragraph 8 of the
+
+  writ petition. Meanwhile, the unknown associate vandalized the chamber of
+
+  the petitioner and escaped therefrom along with a mobile of model Vivo -
+
+  Y100 and a sum of Rs.65,000/- in cash.
+
+6. The petitioners initially refrained to proceed against the criminal acts of
+
+  respondent no.13, however, ultimately lodged a complaint against the
+
+  aforesaid respondents at the office of respondent no.8 and 9, i.e., Officer-in-
+
+  Charge of Chatterjeehat Police Station at Howrah on 03.05.2023 at 20:21
+
+  hours and the complaint was registered as Chatterjeehat Police Station Case
+
+  No.78      of      2023       dated       04.05.2023      under       Sections
+
+  420/406/448/341/323/354B/307/376/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal
+
+  Code. The respondent no.13 was, thereafter, arrested by the office of the
+
+  respondent no.9 who later on obtained an order of bail from the Hon'ble
+
+  Court.
+
+7. The petitioners had filed a complaint registered by the police being Howrah
+
+  P.S. Case No.262 of 2023 dated 27.07.2023 under Sections 195A/506/34 of
+
+  the Indian Penal Code against the associates of respondent no.13 for being
+
+  threatened as mentioned in paragraph 15 of the writ petition.
+                                          6
+
+8. The petitioners contended to have been insinuated through various means
+
+  as stated in paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the writ petition. The
+
+  predicaments of the petitioners had been vividly described in paragraphs 25,
+
+  26, 27, 28, and 29 of the writ petition. The petitioner no.1 claimed herself to
+
+  be a member of a political party, who had dealt with a Public Interest
+
+  Litigation in person addressing the grievances in connection with an incident
+
+  which occurred at Sandeshkhali in West Bengal through a writ petition
+
+  being No.WPA(P) 78 of 2024 before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and
+
+  SLP(C ) No.9462/9465 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
+
+  The petitioner no.1's combat and opposition against injustice towards
+
+  general women through the aforesaid writ petition rendered her aged senior
+
+  citizen parents to suffer from trauma and threats at the behest of her
+
+  competitive political party. The petitioner no.1 narrated the conduct of the
+
+  Learned Public Prosecutor of the State of West Bengal in paragraphs 35 and
+
+  36 of the writ petition.
+
+9. The petitioners in the instant writ petition further stated as follows:-
+
+       (i) The State respondents in collusion and conspiracy with the accused
+
+          respondent no. 13 had registered the said FIR being Chatterjeehat PS
+
+          Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 against the petitioner no.1 and
+
+          petitioner no.2, who was prime witness of the heinous crime
+
+          happened to her in the form of Chatterjeehat PS Case No.78 of 2023
+
+          dated 04.05.2023 to achieve their ulterior motive to put the instant
+
+          petitioner no.1 and 2, behind the bar for restraining the petitioner
+
+          no.1 from representing herself for the sexual assault victims of
+                                    7
+
+   Sandeshkhali, West Bengal as in person PIL Writ petitioner therein
+
+   before Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in WPA (P) 78 of 2024.
+
+(ii) The instant false and fabricated FIR being Chatterjeehat PS Case
+
+   No.86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 was the delayed counterblast of the
+
+   Chargesheeted Case being Chatterjeehat Police Station Case no 78 of
+
+   2023 dated 04.05.2023, Howrah PS Case 262 of 2023 dated
+
+   27.07.2023 and Chatterjeehat PS Case 23 of 2024 dated 05.02.2024.
+
+(iii) The instant false FIR against Writ Petitioners was lodged by complete
+
+   misusing the liberty granted by Hon'ble High Court in WPA 23711 of
+
+   2023 while the Hon'ble High Court while disposing WPA 23711 of
+
+   2023 vide order dated 16.04.2024 never granted liberty to the
+
+   accused respondent 13 to lodge a fresh /de novo complaint before
+
+   police against petitioners with inordinate delay for registration of FIR.
+
+(iv) The accused respondent no.13 in collusion and conspiracy with the
+
+   State police had misused and abused the Hon'ble High Court given
+
+   liberty to fabricate instant petitioners into a false, fabricated FIR.
+
+(v) The respondent no.3, being clubbed up with the state respondents
+
+   had been actively involved in terrorizing the victim writ petitioner and
+
+   prime eye witness her husband of the case being Chatterjeehat PS
+
+   Case No.78 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 by way of taking up
+
+   investigation of the case by CID in completely mala fide manner
+
+   totally contradictory as mandated by law as well as by way of filing
+
+   such false and fabricated FIR against the petitioner and her husband.
+                                  8
+
+(vi) After coming out of judicial custody and police custody for
+
+   commission of crime of sexual violence against petitioner in
+
+   connection with Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 78 of 2923 dated
+
+   04.05.2023, to wreak personal vengeance the prime               accused
+
+   respondent 13 had created a false, fabricated story of his alleged
+
+   abduction of himself at same time while he committed crime and had
+
+   lodged FIR against writ petitioner after one year of inordinate delay.
+
+(vii) She, being the de-facto complainant of Chatterjeehat PS Case 78 of
+
+   2023 dated 04.05.2023, was not being able to return at her home city
+
+   Calcutta as well as she had not been able to represent the sexual
+
+   assault victims of Sandeshkhali, West Bengal in the PIL WPA(P) 78 of
+
+   2024 (physically , which was the PIL filed by her as in person at first
+
+   instance for protection of Vulnerable victims therein) before the
+
+   Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and before this Hon'ble Supreme
+
+   Court as SLP (C) No. 9462-9465 of 2024 .
+
+ (viii) Due to registration of said false FIR being Chatterjeehat PS Case
+
+   86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 upon a deviated version of original
+
+   crime incident happened to the writ petitioner no. 1, she would not be
+
+   able to represent herself as in person petitioner de-facto complainant
+
+   before the Learned Trial Courts and before Hon'ble High Court in
+
+   several proceedings under severe threat of her and her husband's
+
+   arrest by the State police machineries upon said false FIR registered
+
+   against the Writ Petitioner and her husband.
+                                         9
+
+       (ix) The petitioner stated that the FIR being Chatterjeehat PS Case 86 of
+
+          2024 dated 04.05.2024 was registered to wreak personal vengeance
+
+          against the writ petitioner and her husband by the state police
+
+          respondents in collusion and conspiracy with the accused respondent
+
+          no.13.
+
+10. The investigation in Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.78 of 2023 dated
+
+   04.05.2023 was entrusted upon respondent no.6 C.I.D., West Bengal at the
+
+   instance of the Learned Public Prosecutor, State of West Bengal unilaterally
+
+   without an order passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta to the
+
+   astonishment of the petitioners which, according to the petitioners, had been
+
+   biased and politically motivated.
+
+11. The petitioners are of the firm conviction to be betrayed with right to fair
+
+   investigation and fair trial to their utter detriment and prejudice. The
+
+   petitioners, being intimidated by the action on the part of the State agencies,
+
+   further sought for personal protection as she had been constantly threatened
+
+   by the police offices, CID officials etc. The petitioners, as would appear from
+
+   the order-sheets of the instant writ petition, appeared before this Court in
+
+   person and agitated their trauma and agony to have been continuously
+
+   threatened by the respondents and other State officials resulting in their
+
+   apprehension of life and property to be in extreme danger and peril.
+
+12. The petitioner no.1 claimed to have been physically molested by the
+
+   respondent no.13 and the State agencies constantly threatened and
+
+   harassed her preventing her to pursue her profession as a lawyer and to
+
+   fight for the cause demanding protection of women's life, right and dignity.
+                                          10
+
+   Petitioners appearing in person submitted the Learned Public Prosecutor on
+
+   his own accord had transferred the investigation to the CID agencies without
+
+   an order of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta to investigate the
+
+   Chatterjeehat Police Station Case being No.78 of 2023 as aforesaid to wreak
+
+   vengeance against them.
+
+13. The order dated 23.08.2024 passed by this Court is replicated hereinbelow:-
+
+             "The learned advocates for the respondent nos.3 to 11 and the
+
+          respondent no.13 are present.
+
+             The petitioner no.1 appeared online prior to the recess expressing
+          her extreme urgency for listing the matter for hearing. Accordingly, a
+          supplementary list was prepared fixing the matter at 2.00 p.m.
+             The petitioner no.1 did not appear before the Court either in-person
+          or online at the time of hearing though the petitioner no.2 appeared
+          online and submitted due to medical emergency, the petitioner no.1
+          could not appear before the Court.
+             It was further submitted by the petitioner no.2 that the Union of
+          India being the respondent no.1 and the Central Industrial Security
+          Force being the respondent no.2, should be providing proper security to
+          the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and their presence was required for
+          adjudication of the instant writ petition at the time of hearing.
+             The petitioner nos.1 and 2 are directed to serve a notice upon the
+          learned advocate for the respondent nos.1 and 2 intimating the next
+          date of hearing on 3rd September, 2024 and to file an affidavit of
+          service to that effect.
+             Next date be fixed on 3rd September, 2024 at 2.00 p.m. for further
+
+          hearing."
+
+14. Subsequently, on 03.09.2024 the petitioner no.1 and 2 appeared in person
+
+   and submitted the arbitrary action on the part of the Learned Public
+                                          11
+
+   Prosecutor to have initiated the investigation through CID, West Bengal
+
+   without the direction obtained from the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
+
+   Howrah based on a communication addressed to the same and referred to an
+
+   order dated 08th April, 2024 passed by an Hon'ble Co-Ordinate Bench of this
+
+   Court in CRR 1023 of 2024.
+
+15. Considering the submissions of the petitioners in person, this Court passed
+
+   an order dated 03.09.2024 as replicated hereinbelow:-
+
+             "The supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner no.1-in-person
+          be kept on record. Copies of the same have been served upon the
+          leaned advocates appearing for the other respective respondents.
+             The petitioners-in-person referred to the order dated 8 th April, 2024
+          passed by a Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of Court in CRR 1023 of 2024
+          as well as to the communication addressed to the learned Chief
+          Judicial Magistrate, Howrah Court, marked as "annexure P-10" to the
+          writ petition. The petitioners as aforesaid further submitted that the
+          communication to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah Court
+          referring to CID investigation was not directed through an order of this
+          Court, as aforesaid.
+             The learned advocate for the State refers to the Police Regulation
+          Bengal, 1943 whereby the CID can on its own take up the
+          investigation. The learned advocate for the State is requested to inform
+          the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Debasis Ray to be present before
+          this Court on the next date of hearing to explain as to what prompted
+          him to submit before the Coordinate Bench that the investigations were
+          to be conducted up by the CID, West Bengal.
+             The learned advocate for the respondents are to file respective reply
+          to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners-in-person before
+          the Court on the next date with regard to the possibility of security to
+          be provided to the petitioner no.1 as claimed in the instant writ petition.
+                                         12
+
+             Heard the submission of the learned advocate representing the
+          respondent no.13.
+             The status report filed by the learned advocate for the State be kept
+          on record. A copy of the same has been served upon the petitioner
+          nos.1 and 2 in Court.
+             Next date be fixed on 17th September, 2024."
+16. Vide order dated 17.09.2024, this Court had appointed Learned Senior
+
+   Advocate Mr. Milon Mukherjee, the Learned Advocate Mr. Souvik Mitter and
+
+   Learned Advocate Ms. Sutapa Sanyal to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae in
+
+   order to dispose of the instant writ petition which was accepted by the
+
+   aforesaid Learned Advocates. The order dated 17.09.2024 passed by this
+
+   Court replicated as follows:-
+
+             "The learned senior advocate Mr. Milon Mukherjee, the learned
+          advocate Mr. Souvik Mitter and the learned advocate Ms. Sutapa
+          Sanyal have been requested to assist the Court as amicus curiae in
+          order to dispose of the instant writ petition and the same has been
+          accepted by the aforesaid learned advocates.
+             The learned advocate representing the respondent no.13 submits to
+          serve a copy of the writ petition along with the annexed documents and
+          the orders to the learned advocates appointed as amicus curiae in this
+          matter.
+             The learned advocate representing respondent nos.1 and 2 are
+          present and submitted the opinion of the Union of India with regard to
+          the provision of safety and security, generally accorded to specific
+          individuals subject to certain circumstances.
+             It is further submitted that the Ministry of Home Affairs is the
+          appropriate authority to provide safety and security to an individual
+          considering the threat perception after thorough assessment of the
+          facts and circumstances of a distinct case.
+                                          13
+
+                Heard the submissions of the learned advocates appointed as
+          amicus curiae and also the submissions of the petitioner no.1 and 2
+          appearing in-person.
+                The learned advocate representing the respondent no.13 seeks time
+          to file an affidavit-in-opposition to the supplementary affidavit filed by
+          the petitioner nos.1 and 2 appearing in-person after the processes for
+          filing the same gets endorsed through the concerned authority
+          pertaining to Bangladesh and the same is allowed.
+                Next date be fixed on 4th October, 2024 at 2.00 p.m. for further
+          hearing."
+17. On 04th October, 2024, the petitioner no.2 appeared online and submitted to
+
+   have preferred an appeal before the Division Bench presided over by the
+
+   Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court at Calcutta and sought for time on
+
+   that ground. PW-1 did not appear before the Court. Petitioner no.1 and
+
+   petitioner no.2 were directed to file an affidavit preferring an appeal as
+
+   aforesaid.
+
+18. On 18th November, 2024, petitioner no.1 did not appear before this Court
+
+   either in person or online. Petitioner no.2 appeared online and filed a
+
+   supplementary affidavit through is concerned Learned Advocate Mr. Arkadeb
+
+   Nag in open Court which, inter alia, stated the grievance of the petitioners
+
+   against the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by this Court in WPA 15260 of
+
+   2024 for seeking assistance of the Learned Advocates of this Court to act as
+
+   Amicus Curiae as aforesaid.
+
+19. The appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Division Bench presided over by
+
+   the Hon'ble the Chief Justice being MAT 2051 of 2024 on 6 th of November,
+
+   2024. Moreover, the fate of the said appeal had not been communicated to
+
+   this Court, if at all the hearing had been conducted. On 18 th November,
+                                            14
+
+   2024, the Learned Public Prosecutor appeared before this Court in
+
+   compliance with the order dated 03.09.2024 whereby this Court had sought
+
+   for an explanation as to what prompted him to submit before the Co-
+
+   ordinate Bench that the investigation of the Chatterjeehat Police Station
+
+   Case Nos.86 of 2024, 78 of 2023 and 23 of 2024 was to be conducted by the
+
+   CID, West Bengal.
+
+20. The Learned Public Prosecutor submitted several complaints and allegations
+
+   against two Hon'ble Judges of this Court and the officials of the
+
+   Chatterjeehat Police Station by the petitioners compelled him to ensure the
+
+   investigation to be carried out by an agency not comprising of the said
+
+   officials   of   the   Chatterjeehat   Police   Station   and   to   obliterate   the
+
+   apprehension of partial and biased investigation, the same was asked to be
+
+   conducted by the CID, State of West Bengal.
+
+21. On 19th of December, 2024, the Learned Public Prosecutor in compliance
+
+   with the order dated 18th November, 2024 filed a report stating the status of
+
+   investigation concerning the aforesaid police station cases. On 19 th
+
+   December, 2024, the Learned Public Prosecutor filed the report as aforesaid
+
+   along with an explanation as sought for. The petitioner no.1 was neither
+
+   present before the Court nor appeared online. Petitioner no.2 appeared
+
+   online and stated the appeal filed before the Division Bench was appearing
+
+   in the Daily List to be called for hearing. The petitioner no.1 and 2 had been
+
+   time and again asked by this Court to produce the details of the complaint or
+
+   G.D. Entry number which they claimed to have filed in the concerned police
+
+   station on several occasions for being threatened, physically manhandled,
+                                             15
+
+   molested and harassed. The petitioners did not produce any reference to that
+
+   effect before this Court.
+
+22. An order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in
+
+   WPA 23711 of 2023 is replicated as follows:-
+
+               "The respondent no. 12 appears in-person and tries to out shout
+             others. In spite of request made by the Court to calm down, she does
+             not relent and continues with her belligerent demeanour.
+               In view of this, I am not inclined to take up this matter.
+               Accordingly, the matter is released from my list."
+23. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners and the respondent no.13 who
+
+   had been the erstwhile client of the petitioners who sought for legal
+
+   assistance of the petitioners engaging them to be his advocates had filed writ
+
+   petitions being No.WPA 23711 of 2023 and WPA 21868 of 2023 wherein
+
+   several complaints had been filed against each other. Vide an order dated
+
+   16.04.2024, a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following
+
+   order:-
+
+               "Both these writ petitions are taken up for hearing together. It
+             appears that the petitioners in both the cases have filed several
+             complaints against each other.
+                                In Re: W.P.A. No.23711 of 2023
+               The petitioners in WPA No.23711 of 2023 lodged several complaints
+             against the petitioner in WPA No.21868 of 2023 before the Criminal
+             Investigation Department, West Bengal. In this writ petition, some of
+             the complaints have been annexed at annexure P/15. The petitioners
+             allege that no case has been registered or investigation has been
+             initiated following the said complaints.
+               I am of the view that the petitioners should lodge complaint before
+             the concerned police station at the first instance.
+                               16
+
+  Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty upon the
+petitioners to lodge complaint before the concerned police station. If the
+complaint discloses any cognizable offence, the relevant police station
+shall take steps to register F.I.R. and investigate the matter in
+accordance with law.
+  Accordingly,    W.P.A.    No.23711      of    2023     and    connected
+applications, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024 and CAN 2 of 2024 are
+disposed of.
+                   In Re: W.P.A. No.21868 of 2023
+  The petitioner in this case is a lady advocate. It appears that she
+also filed several complaints against the petitioners in WPA No.23711
+of 2023.
+  Following the complaints, the Investigating Agency has filed
+Chatterjeehat P.S. charge sheet no.191/23 dated 31.10.2022 under
+Sections 420/406/448/341/ 323/307/379/354B/376/506/34 of the
+Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Howrah P.S. charge sheet no.277/23
+dated 30.09.2023 under Sections 195A/506/34 of the 3 Indian Penal
+Code, 1860, before the jurisdictional Court. The trials have not yet
+commenced.
+  It is the grievance of the petitioner that while attending the Courts in
+connection with the aforesaid criminal cases, she is being harassed
+and even attacked by the petitioners in WPA No.23711 of 2023. These
+allegations have been vehemently denied by the petitioners in WPA
+No.23711 of 2023.
+  This Court is not in a position to appreciate the factual disputes. It is
+only expected that if the petitioner approaches the learned Trial Court
+seeking her protection, to ensure a free and fair trial, her prayer shall
+be considered by the Court below by passing necessary order.
+  Accordingly,    W.P.A.    No.21868      of    2023     and    connected
+applications, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2023 and CAN 2 of 2024 are
+disposed of."
+                                           17
+
+24. The present petitioners in the instant writ petition had filed an appeal
+
+   against the order dated 16.04.2024 passed in WPA 23711 of 2023 and WPA
+
+   21868 of 2023 before the Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble the
+
+   Chief Justice of this Court. By a judgment dated 21.05.2024 in MAT 831 of
+
+   2024, the Hon'ble Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice
+
+   of this Court had passed a judgment replicated as follows:-
+
+          "1. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties.
+          2. The appellant no.2, who is appearing online and he had sent a
+          message in the chat box praying that the live streaming of the
+          proceedings be paused. Acceding to the request made by the appellant
+          no.2, live streaming of the proceeding was paused.
+          3. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order passed in
+          W.P.A. No.23711 of 2023. The said writ petition was filed by the
+          respondent herein stating that several complaints have been lodged
+          against the respondents before the Criminal Investigation Department,
+          West Bengal and some of the complaints were annexed to the writ
+          petition. Further, the writ petitioners allege that no case has been
+          registered or investigated based on the complaints lodged by the
+          respondents/writ petitioners.
+          4. The learned Single Bench did not go into the merits of the matter but
+          disposed of the writ petition by the impugned order observing that the
+          writ petitioners, if aggrieved, should lodge complaint before the
+          concerned police station, at the first instance. Accordingly, the writ
+          petition was disposed of granting liberty to the writ petitioners to lodge
+          complaint before the concerned police station with an observation that
+          if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the relevant police
+          station shall take steps to register F.I.R. and investigate the matter in
+          accordance with law.
+          5. We failed to understand as to how the appellants before us, whose
+          names have been masked at their request, are aggrieved by the order
+                                          18
+
+          passed in the writ petition as the learned Writ Court has not gone into
+          the merits of the matter and left it open to the writ petitioners to work
+          out their remedy before the concerned police station.
+          6. The appellant no.2, who is appearing online, submitted that several
+          cases have been registered against them and there is a threat of
+          arrest. If that be so, it is well open to the appellants to invoke the
+          provisions of law available to them and approach the competent forum
+          for necessary relief.
+          7. Thus, we find no ground has been made out to interfere with the
+          order passed in the writ petition.
+          8. With the above observations/directions, appeal as well as the
+          connected application (IA No. CAN 1 of 2024) stand dismissed.
+          9. No costs.
+          10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
+          furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal
+          formalities."
+25. Subsequent to the aforesaid orders passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench and
+
+   the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner no.1 and 2 failed to
+
+   place any document of complaint filed by them before the concerned police
+
+   authorities claiming threat to their personal life and property and of any
+
+   action restricting their liberty to pursue their profession with dignity.
+
+26. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.1 and 2 submitted the
+
+   opinion of the Union of India specifically the Ministry of Home Affairs to be
+
+   the appropriate authority to provide safety and security to an individual
+
+   considering the threat perception after thorough assessment of the facts and
+
+   circumstances of a distinct case. It was further urged neither the police
+
+   authorities concerned nor this Court can assess whether the petitioners
+
+   required to be provided safety and security on the basis of personal claim of
+                                            19
+
+   a threat perception since it was within the absolute domain of the Ministry of
+
+   Home Affairs to ascertain and decide the seriousness and gravity of the
+
+   situation to provide safety and security to any individual.
+
+27. The Learned Advocate representing the State-respondents submitted despite
+
+   the order of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioners did not co-
+
+   operate with the investigation and suspected the investigating agency of
+
+   biasedness, arbitrariness and to wreck vengeance against the petitioners for
+
+   having dealt with a Public Interest Litigation against the State authorities
+
+   concerning an incident at Sandeshkhali. The petitioners were of the opinion
+
+   to be prejudicially prevented and impartial hearing and failed a transfer
+
+   petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India being Transfer Petitions
+
+   Criminal Nos.701/702 of 2024 which was dismissed as the Hon'ble Supreme
+
+   Court observed no case for transfer to have been made out vide its order
+
+   dated September 2, 2024.
+
+28. The petitioners had also filed writ petition criminal No.236 of 2024 before the
+
+   Supreme Court of India which was withdrawn by the petitioners. The
+
+   petitioners had accused the police personnels and other officials and had
+
+   impleaded them in the instant writ petition without plausible reasons and
+
+   did   not   deliberately   co-operate    with   the   investigation   citing   their
+
+   dissatisfaction as the same had been conducted by the CID, West Bengal
+
+   further stating to the Investigating Officer that the investigation should be
+
+   conducted by the CBI.
+
+29. The Learned Advocate representing the State further submitted it would not
+
+   be possible for the Writ Court to quash the proceedings since the complaint
+                                         20
+
+   as well as the FIR delineated commission of cognizable offences and the
+
+   charge-sheet had been submitted with further prayer on the part of the
+
+   Investigating Officer to file a supplementary charge-sheet. The Writ Court in
+
+   case of the offences being cognizable and the conundrum between the
+
+   parties should be decided through trial by the competent court. The Writ
+
+   Court should not exercise its jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.
+
+30. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 submitted the
+
+   petitioners to have instituted false and malicious complaints against the
+
+   respondent no.13 with an intention to incriminate him in serious offences of
+
+   rape, theft etc. The father of the respondent no.13 being a nonagenarian
+
+   person had been dragged mercilessly into humiliation, despair, agony and
+
+   trauma. The petitioners on being asked to be relieved of their professional
+
+   responsibility to represent the respondent no.13 and to withdraw the cases
+
+   on account of reconciliation between the respondent no.13 and his wife
+
+   infuriated the petitioners to lodge frivolous and baseless complaints against
+
+   the respondent no.13 whereby the same being a professional oncologist
+
+   practising in Bangladesh had been arrested and was released on bail. It was
+
+   further submitted the respondent no.13 to have been kidnapped by the
+
+   petitioners, physically assaulted and captivated.
+
+31. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 submitted that the
+
+   petitioner no.1 had instituted complaint cases against her and the same had
+
+   not been taken cognizance of by the CMM vide order dated 13.07.2023
+
+   passed in CS/71375/2023.
+                                         21
+
+32. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 further submitted
+
+   to have been repeatedly threatened and abused by the petitioners on the
+
+   corridor of this Court along with her junior who happened to be a practising
+
+   advocate in this Court. Against complaints registered as FIR, criminal
+
+   revisional applications have been pending before the respective Co-Ordinate
+
+   Bench of this Court.
+
+33. The petitioners were trying to frustrate the proceedings by delaying the
+
+   hearing of the same on several pretexts to the predicament of the respondent
+
+   no.13. Moreover, since the investigation had proceeded to a considerable
+
+   extent, the writ petition should not be entertained.
+
+34. The relationship between the petitioners and the respondent no.13
+
+   apparently had been cordial at the inception whereby the petitioners
+
+   accorded legal assistance to respondent no.13 to defend him in several cases
+
+   instituted against him in the Court of law, which gradually might have
+
+   evolved to be trustworthy and amicable to the extent the petitioners
+
+   accompanied the respondent no.13 to his parents' house at Tamil Nadu to
+
+   assist the respondent no.13 and his father in property related issues and its
+
+   assessment thereof. In course of time, the professional and congenial
+
+   relationship seemingly transformed into resentment and hostility.
+
+35. The petitioner no.1 subsequently on 28.04.2023 was asked to withdraw the
+
+   following cases pending before the respective Courts as stated below:-
+
+          "(i) Divorce Case 1647 of 2022 pending at 13 th ADJ, Alipore
+          (ii) Objection in Restitution Case 1535 of 2022 pending at 6 th ADJ,
+          Alipore
+                                              22
+
+             (iii) All my objection petitions and non maintainability petitions filed by
+             me in Maintenance Case 613 of 2021 pending at 6 th JM, Alipore
+             (iv) Non-maintainability petition in DV Case 561 of 2023 pending at 6 th
+             JM, Alipore"
+36. Respondent no.13 asked the petitioner no.1 through a communication dated
+
+   03.05.2023 for relieving her to take any further steps in the following legal
+
+   matters pending before the various Courts alleging the petitioner no.1 and 2,
+
+   inter alia, to have failed to maintain their professional ethics and discipline
+
+   as mentioned therein:-
+
+             "(i) 613/2021 - 6th JM, Alipore
+             (ii) 1535/2022 - 6th ADJ, Alipore
+             (iii) 1647/2022 - 13th ADJ, Alipore
+             (iv) 561/2023 - 6th JM, Alipore
+             (v) 38867/2023 - 14th Metropolitan Magistrate, Bankshall Court"
+
+37. The relationship between the disputants worsened with lapse of time and the
+
+   petitioner filed complaints against the respondent no.13 and his associates.
+
+38. Based on the complaint filed by the petitioner herein Chatterjeehat Police
+
+   Station     Case    No.23    of    2024     dated   05.02.2024    under    Sections
+
+   341/323/325/326B/354A/354B/509/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code
+
+   anticipatory bail was granted in favour of the accused therein vide order
+
+   dated 13.03.2024 passed by this Court in CRM(A) 880 of 2024.
+
+39. Based on the complaint of the petitioner herein Chatterjeehat Police Station
+
+   Case       No.78      of    2023      dated     04.05.2023       under     Sections
+
+   420/406/448/341/323/307/379/354B/376/506(2)/34 of the Indian Penal
+
+   Code had been instituted against the accused persons mentioned therein.
+                                            23
+
+40. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 submitted the
+
+   complaint filed by the respondent no.13 dated 28 th April, 2024 accused the
+
+   petitioners of abduction, extortion, physical assault, threat to murder,
+
+   defamation, confiscation of passport, ATM card and other official documents
+
+   perjury, forgery implicating in false and fabricated criminal cases to extort
+
+   money.
+
+41. Records further reveal an FIR to have been instituted by the Sathuvachari
+
+   Police Station, Vellore, on the basis of the complaint received from one Dr.
+
+   Debidas Rai who alleged that his son was missing referring to the present
+
+   petitioners to have visited his house claiming for further money to defend his
+
+   sons petitioners' case.
+
+42. The respondent no.13 who had been an accused in Chatterjeehat Police
+
+   Station       Case     No.78      of         2023   filed   under    Sections
+
+   420/406/448/341/323/379/354B/307/376/506/34 of the Indian Penal
+
+   Code was granted bail vide order dated 03.08.2023 passed by this Court in
+
+   CRM (DB) 3080 of 2023.
+
+43. The Learned Public Prosecutor had submitted the status report prepared by
+
+   the concerned Investigating Officer:-
+
+             "1. Case No. and date of registration: Chatterjeehat (Howrah Police
+             Commissionerate) PS Case No 78/2023 dt 04/05/2023
+             2. Sections of law: U/S 420/ 406/ 448/ 341/ 323/ 379/ 354B/
+             307/376/506/34 IPC.
+             3. Control order No. & Date: The case was assumed by CID W.B.
+             Vide Org No 618/CS. Dt. 06/08/24.
+                               24
+
+4. Name and rank of investigating officer: (i) SI Sudipta Kar of
+Chatterjeehat (Howrah Police Commissionerate) PS (ii) Inspector
+Swapna Ghosh O/C, POWC Cell, CID, WB.
+5. Gist of FIR: On 04/05/2023 at 17.25 hrs to the Officer In-Charge of
+Chatterjeehat PS received a written complaint from the complainant
+and perused the complaint properly. On the basis of a written
+complaint of the Victim Lady against one Deepak Shankar Ray and
+others to the effect that she was appointed as an advocate by the
+alleged person since month of December, 2021. The accused person
+was very reluctant to pay her professional fees as per norms of several
+Vakalatnamas executed by him in several cases. Till date the
+complainant owes Rs 1000000/- to the alleged person as her
+professional fees. But in spite of several reminders, he refused to pay
+her the same and threatened her with dire consequences. Thereafter
+on 29.04.2023 at around 20.30 hrs the alleged person came at the
+chamber of the complainant situated at 93 Abinash Banerjee Lane, PS-
+Chatterjeehat, Howrah and forcefully entered in to the chamber and
+committed theft in respect of some cash and mobile phone, then on
+being protest the alleged person outrage her female modesty and also
+trying to kill her by grabbing her throat. Then while the complainant
+felt down on the floor, the alleged person kicked in her lower private
+part and also forcibly inserted one of his left-hand finger at her lower
+private part. Over the complaint of the complainant Chatterjeehat PS
+Case No. 78/23 dated 04.05.2023 u/s 420/406/448/341/323/379
+3548/307/376/506/34 IPC has been started.
+6. Details of FIR named accused: (i) Deepak Shankar Ray(53yrs),
+S/O Debidas Ray of S-3, 2nd street, Sathuvachari, CMC Colony, Vellore,
+Tamil
+Nadu- 632009 and Flat No - 303, Sailagreen, 1137 Kalikapur,
+Purbalok, PS Purba Jadavpur, Kolkatta- 700099 (ii) Kanad Saha- S/O
+Lt Kunal Saha of Block - D2, Flat No - 402, Kendriya Vihar, Phase - II,
+PO- Birati, Dist North 24 Prgns, Kolkata - 700051. (iii) Debidas Ray
+                              25
+
+s/o of Lt. Nagendranath Ray of S-3, 2nd street, Sathuvachari, CMC
+Colony, Vellore, Tamil Nadu- 632009.
+7. Details of arrest: (i) Deepak Shankar Ray(53yrs), s/o Debidas Ray
+of S-3, 2nd street, Sathuvachari, CMC Colony, Vellore, Tamil Nadu-
+632009 and Flat No - 303, Sailagreen, 1137 Kalikapur, Purbalok, PS
+Purba Jadavpur, Kolkatta- 700099, was arrested on 11.07.2023 and
+forwarded before Ld. CJM, Howrah Sadar Court on 12.07.2023. (ii)
+Kanad Saha - S/O Lt Kunal Saha of Block - D2, Flat No - 402,
+Kendriya Vihar, Phase - II, PO- Birati, Dist North 24 Prgns, Kolkata -
+700051 was released on bail by Hon'ble High Court Calcutta on
+21.08.2023 and Ld. CJM, Howrah Sadar Court on 25.09.23. (iii)
+Debidas Ray s/o of Lt. Nagendranath Ray of S-3, 2nd street,
+Sathuvachari, CMC Colony, Vellore, Tamil Nadu- 632009 was granted
+anticipatory Bail by Hon'ble High Court Calcutta on 25.09.2023.
+8. Steps Taken During Investigation by the District Police:
+During investigation of the case I Sudipta Kar of Chatterjeehat PS
+visited the place of Occurrence and prepared a details index of the PO
+and prepared a rough sketch map. The IO examined the complainant
+and others available witnesses and recorded their statement U/S 161
+Cr.P.C. Medico legal examination of Victim Lady was performed by the
+Dr. Debhina Ghosal of Howrah District Hospital. He also arranged to
+record the Judicial Statement of the victim lady with the help of LSI
+Nitu Biswas of Howrah Women PS and produced the victim lady before
+the Ld Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 4th Court, Howrah, recorded her
+statement judicially U/S 164 Cr.P.C and also collected the copy of
+judicial statement from Ld Court, Howrah District.
+Previous IO collected the medico legal report along with one sealed
+envelope containing one glass tube & one glass slide containing the
+swab/ spermatozoa from Howrah District Hospital. IO sent prayer to
+ACP DD, HPC for providing the CDR of the accused person's mobile
+number which was provided by the VG to trace them out and also
+prayed for IMEI searching of the complainant's mobile phone which
+                                26
+
+was taken away by the accused from the PO. In course of
+investigation, IO seized the wearing apparels of the victim lady which
+were worn by her at the time of incident and also seized the bill of the
+alleged mobile which was taken away by the accused and one
+prescription of Dr Souvik Roy who examined the victim lady after the
+incident. In course of investigation, IO held several raids under Purba
+Jadavpur PS area & Naihati PS area to arrest the accused persons but
+no fruitful result achieved. Then IO collected the Passport details and
+prayed to the concerned authority after following all legal procedures
+for issuing Look Out Circular' against the principal accused namely
+Deepak Shankar Ray on 01.07.2023 LOC was initiated by the
+concerned authority against the accused person. On 11.07.2023
+received information that in the immigration Centre of Haridaspur
+under Petrapole PS, North 24 Pgs, said accused person was detained
+as LOC subject. IO along with force went to Haridaspur Immigration
+Centre and with the assistance of Petrapole PS police team, arrested
+the FIR named principle accused person namely Deepak Shankar Ray
+and brought him to PS and forwarded him before Ld. Court and took
+him into Police Custody for 02 days as per kind order of Ld. CJM,
+Howrah. During PC period after obtaining necessary orders from Ld.
+Court,   IO   produced   the   arrested   accused   person   before   the
+Superintendent of Howrah District Hospital for his medico legal
+examination. Dr. Chitta Ranjan Bhattacharya of Howrah District
+Hospital, has done the medico legal examination of the accused
+Deepak Shankar Ray and collected one sealed envelope containing one
+glass tube & one glass slide containing Urethral Swab/smears of said
+accused person. IO along with force and PC accused held raid to
+recover the alleged stolen articles and to arrest the other co accused
+persons, but no fruitful result was achieved. On 19.07.2023 IO sent the
+exhibits before Ld. C.JM. Howrah Sadar Court and collected CMR No.
+vide CMR No. 427/2023 dated 19.07.2023. On 31.08.2023 IO sent the
+exhibits to FSL Kolkata for examination and Expert Opinion. IO further
+                                 27
+
+contacted with the FSL authority over phone regarding the expert
+opinion but informed that the expert opinion is not ready yet. IO
+submitted Charge Sheet vide Chatterjehat PS C.S. No- 191/23 dated-
+31/10/2023 u/s 420/406/448/341/323/379/354B /307/376/506
+IPC against the Principal accused person namely Deepak Shankar Ray,
+53 yrs s/o Debidas Ray and u/s 509/506/34 IPC against the other 2
+FIR named accused persons namely (1) Kanad Saha - S/O Lt Kunal
+Saha (2) Debidas Ray s/o of Lt. Nagendranath Ray and IO also
+submitted prayer before the Ld. Court for allowing to submit
+Supplementary Charge Sheet after receiving the FSL report.
+  9. Steps Taken During Investigation by CID W.B:
+The investigation of the said case was taken up by CID W.B. as per
+order of Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta vide order CRR 1023 of
+2024, dt 08.04.2024 in compliance of the Order passed by Hon'ble
+High Court is "Quote" "Mr. Debasish Roy, learned Public Prosecutor
+appearing for the State submits that State would take up all the
+investigations for being investigated by the CID, West Bengal.
+However, it is the prerogative of the State at this stage as the de facto
+complainant has expressed her apprehension as she has complained
+to different dignitaries in respect of this Court.
+Targeting the Courts are a soft option as has been settled in several
+judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Article 219 of the
+Constitution of India states that court of law is supposed to act without
+any fear or favour. A professional having claimed herself to be a victim
+of sexual assault has raised issues not only in respect of this Court but
+also in respect of four other senior Judges of this Court. There cannot
+be any issue regarding the Court to proceed with the present case as
+the only issue which was expressed is that all the cases of
+Chatterjeehat Police Station in between the self same parties are to be
+transmitted to the CID or any Women Grievance Cell connected with
+the CID so that under the same umbrella investigation and in respect of
+different cases could be conducted.
+                                 28
+
+However, having regard to the attitude and approach of the de facto
+complainant and for preserving the sobriety of the judicial system, I
+intend to leave the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court for
+deciding the issue.
+Let the matter go out of the list and be placed before the Hon'ble Chief
+Justice for assignment.
+All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded
+from the official website of this Court.
+In respect of the said order CID WB has assumed investigation of the
+case vide Org No 618/CS. Dt. 06/08/24. I Inspector Swapna Ghosh,
+OC, POWC Cell was detailed as the Investigating officer.
+During investigation, I submitted a prayer and collected the Case
+Docket from learned CJM, Court, Howrah on 7/05/2024. I perused the
+case diary and learnt that the previous I/0 had submitted charge sheet
+with provision for submitting Supplementary Charge sheet on receipt of
+the FSL report. I submitted a prayer to FSL Kolkata vide memo no-
+79/POWC/CID WB on 14/05/2024 to hand over the FSL report and
+exhibits to me for the interest of investigation.
+On 22/05/2024 I received the exhibits and report from FSL Kolkata
+vide report no- BIO/5783/2023/3606/FSL dated 22/05/2024 and the
+opinion of the examination is "Quote" "No semen (no spermatozoon), no
+Gonococcus could be detected on the contents of the items marked A
+(vaginal swab & vaginal smears) and B (urethral swab & smears).
+"Unquote.
+Hon'ble High Court Calcutta vide order dated 08.04.2024 in CRR 1023
+OF 2024 had directed that all FIR's lodged against the complainants
+and accused persons at Chatterjeehat Police Station be investigated by
+CID, WB.
+O/C Chatterjeehat Police Station informed that along with the current
+case, there are 2 (two) more cases that have been lodged against both
+complainant and accused i.e Chatterjeehat PS case no- 23/2024
+dated-05/02/2024 u/S 341/ 323/ 325/ 326B/ 354A/ 354B/ 354/
+                                29
+
+509/ 506/34 IPC against (i) Dr. Deepak Shankar Roy s/o Dr. Debidas
+Roy (ii) Kanad Saha s/o Late Kunal Saha and (2) Chatterjeehat PS
+case no 86/2024 dated- 04/05/2024 u/s 341/363/468/420/506 IPC
+against Sanjukta Samanta w/o Romit Dutta.
+I had sent message to the complainant through Chatterjeehat PS for
+meeting her in c/w the investigation of the case, this refers to org no
+70/ POWC/CID WB dated 20/05/2024 and org no 73/ POWC/CID
+WB dated 25/05/2024 • However no response was received her till
+date. I also contacted with her over telephone and she told me that she
+don't want to meet investigation by CID, as rather she want CBI
+investigation.
+The complainant on 20/05/2024 had filed a WP (S) (Criminal) No (S)
+236/2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. But later the
+complainant withdrew her petition, this refers to Order dated
+03/06/2024 in WP (CL).
+Later, I came to learn from Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated
+1/07/2024 in c/w WPA Number 15260 of 2024 that "Quote" Let the
+case diary with the progress report of Chatterjeehat PS case no
+78/2023 be produced before this Court as because the petitioners
+apprehend arrest in c/w Chatterjeehat PS case no 86/2024.
+For the ends of justice the police is restrained from taking any coercive
+steps against the petitioner till 12th July, 2024 or until further order,
+which is earlier. "Unquote".
+Later, I came to learn from Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated
+30/07/2024 in c/w WPA Number 15260 of 2024 that "Quote"
+Petitioner No. 1 appears in-person and prays for release of the matter.
+Let this matter be released and placed before the Hon'ble the Chief
+Justice for appropriate assignment. "Unquote".
+In course of investigation, it is necessary to examine the complainant
+for which I have communicated with her over the telecommunication of
+CID West Bengal vide org no-144/ POWC dated 25/11/24.
+Reason for pending of investigation
+                                         30
+
+          Investigation is almost complete and will end in submission of
+          supplementary charge sheet.
+          The Investigation is pending as the complainant is not cooperating with
+          the investigation. During investigation several messages were sent to
+          the complainant but she did not respond. As per latest status dated
+          25/11/24 message was sent to the petitioner whose response was
+          recived by me vide Chatterjeehat PS org no - CHT/9033/24 which was
+          serviced dated 27/11/2024. Chatterjeehat PS. Received the following
+          response in writing against the above petition from the complainant
+          Quote "strongly objected to matter pending for challenging the
+          false FIR filed & counter case to harass me". Unquote.
+          This is submitted for your kind perusal."
+
+44. In compliance with the order dated 18.11.2024 of this Court, the report of
+
+   the Learned Public Prosecutor stated as follows:-
+
+             "The petitioner has initiated multiple proceedings before this Hon'ble
+          Court, asserting various grievances. Her claims are diverse, yet a
+          recurring theme is her assertion that the investigating agency has
+          failed to conduct its investigation impartially, thereby causing her
+          significant injustice. She has gone further to allege that the opposing
+          party is being supported by state machinery. According to her, the
+          advocates representing the state, acting in collusion, have sought to
+          suppress her voice and prevent her from receiving a fair hearing.
+             The petitioner's conduct has been noted on numerous occasions, and
+          there have been several instances where her matters have been
+          released by the Hon'ble Justices of this Court. In WPA 23711/2023, by
+          an order dated October 3, 2023, Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
+          observed the petitioner's belligerent demeanor and subsequently
+          released the matter. Similarly, in CRR 1023/2024, by an order dated
+          April 8, 2024, Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh reflected upon the
+          petitioner's attitude, noting her conduct as targeting the sanctity of the
+          judicial system, and consequently released the matter. This matter
+                                31
+
+was earlier released by Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh on April 4,
+2024.
+   In WPA 15260 of 2024, the petitioner herself sought the release of
+the matter before Hon'ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj, as indicated in
+the order dated July 30, 2024. Subsequently, by an order dated
+August 5, 2024, Hon'ble Justice Amrita Sinha released the same
+matter, attributing the decision to the petitioner's unruly behaviour
+during the proceedings. The petitioner has also alleged that during the
+hearing of the Sandeshkhali matter, WPA(P) 78/2024, she was
+subjected to abuse and threats by state advocates, which she claims
+were motivated by her political affiliations.
+   It is pertinent to mention herein that the aforesaid allegations have
+found place in the Special Leave Petition filed by the Writ Petitioner
+herein before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Writ Petition
+(Criminal) No 236/2024.
+   The petitioner has consistently expressed distrust in the police
+officials involved in the investigations of her matters. She alleges that
+these officials are influenced and biased, undermining her confidence
+in the fairness of the ongoing investigations.
+   Under such circumstances, I was constrained to direct the CID to
+take up the investigation of the cases filed by the instant writ petitioner
+as well as the case filed against her to ensure neutral investigation
+devoid of any blemish, as alleged by her.
+   The petitioner's allegations, demeanor, and conduct across various
+proceedings have drawn attention and have been noted by various
+benches this Hon'ble Court. These observations reflect a pattern of
+dissatisfaction on the part of the petitioner with the judicial and
+investigative processes, alongside allegations of undue influence and
+partiality.
+   It is however, necessary to bring to the notice of this Hon'ble Court
+that the Writ petitioner has consistently refrained from co operating
+with the CID to get her statement recorded or for any other purpose, as
+                                            32
+
+           required by the Investigating Agency thus rendering them incapable of
+           continuation and/or completion of the investigation of the cases
+           instituted by the instant writ petitioner.
+              This report has been prepared in pursuance to paragraph no. 5 of
+           the order dated November 18, 2024 passed by Her Ladyship Hon'ble
+           Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay."
+45. The petitioner no.1 appearing before the Court submitted her plight, agony
+
+   and helplessness being subjected to physical molestation, outrage of
+
+   modesty, theft of mobile and cash sum of Rs.65,000/- on the part of
+
+   respondent no.13 and his associates and non-payment of professional fees.
+
+   The petitioner no.1 submitted her associates. The petitioner no.1 submitted
+
+   her lawyer's chamber to have been impaired and damaged by the respondent
+
+   no.13 and his associates with continuous threat to both the petitioners and
+
+   their family members disrupting mental peace causing physical trauma and
+
+   being indignified with insinuations and ignominies. Both the petitioners
+
+   could not repose faith and trust on the investigating agencies whose actions
+
+   had been suspiciously frustrating to deliberately deprive the petitioners of
+
+   fair justice.
+
+46. The respondent no.13 filed a complaint dated 28 th April, 2024 accusing the
+
+   petitioners of abduction, extortion, physical assault, threat to murder,
+
+   defamation, confiscation of passport, ATM card and other official documents,
+
+   perjury, forgery implicating in false and fabricated criminal cases to extort
+
+   money etc. which had been serious allegations.
+
+47. The serious allegations by the petitioners the counter allegations resulting in
+
+   the institution of the aforementioned criminal cases being registered through
+
+   formal FIRs had been challenged through filing of Criminal Revisional
+                                              33
+
+   Applications pending before the co-ordinate bench of this Court for quashing
+
+   of the proceedings/FIRs being Nos. Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.86
+
+   of 2024 and No.78 of 2023.
+
+48. The allegations of the petitioner no.1 are indubitably grave and deprecated in
+
+   nature which can only be tested in terms of its veracity through trial to
+
+   inculpate the perpetrator. Contrarily the allegations of the respondent no.13
+
+   whether to have been genuine or a counterblast to the allegations of the
+
+   petitioners cannot be decided unless the investigation of the respective cases
+
+   are concluded and the process of trial being conducted by the court of
+
+   competent    jurisdiction   to   arrive    at   a   conclusive   determination   for
+
+   incrimination or exculpation.
+
+49. A web-search on the query as to who decides to provide security to private
+
+   individual in India and on what ground, the following answer has been
+
+   received by this Court:-
+
+
+           "The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), on the recommendation of
+           intelligence agencies, decides to provide security to private individuals
+           in India, based on perceived threats to life or injury from groups or
+           terrorists. While government officials typically receive security based
+           on their position, a call on security for private citizens is made by the
+           MHA using information from bodies like the Intelligence Bureau (IB)
+           and Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW). The Central Reserve Police
+           Force (CRPF) and other forces then provide this security.
+           The Process
+
+             1) Intelligence Gathering: Intelligence Agencies like the IB and R&AW
+                monitor potential threats and gather information from various
+                                           34
+
+               sources, including phone intercepts, human intelligence, and
+               threat analysis.
+             2) Threat   Assessment:      These   agencies   provide   a   subjective
+               assessment of the threat to an individual's life or safety from
+               potential attackers like terrorists or other groups.
+             3) Decision by the MHA: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) reviews
+               the intelligence inputs and decides whether a private individual
+               requires security cover.
+             4) Deployment of Forces: If security is granted, a central agency,
+               often the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), is tasked with
+               providing the security.
+50. The petitioners herein despite the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench of this
+
+   Court in WPA 23711 of 2023 and the Hon'ble Division Bench in MAT 831 of
+
+   2024 presiding over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court at Calcutta,
+
+   having directed to file complaints at the concerned police station for being
+
+   threatened as claimed by the petitioners reiterated by this Court during
+
+   consecutive hearings failed to provide the copy of the complaint or the G.D.
+
+   Entry number concerning such complaints claimed to have been lodged by
+
+   the petitioners.
+
+51. Considering the role of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the submissions of
+
+   the Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.1 and 2 Union of
+
+   India, the prayer of the petitioner for providing personal security on the
+
+   ground of their perception cannot be allowed. The petitioners could not
+
+   establish a case serious and strong enough to be granted protection as
+
+   sought for which otherwise had to be decided by the Ministry of Home Affairs
+
+   on the basis of imminent and persistent threat. The petitioners could not
+
+   justify inaction on the part of the police administration or the investigating
+                                           35
+
+   agency, however, claimed the same to be biased and revengetic in its attitude
+
+   towards the petitioners primarily petitioner no.1 for her active role against
+
+   the State administration defending injustice to women's rights concerning an
+
+   unfortunate event at Sandeshkhali through a Public Interest Litigation.
+
+52. The status report of the Learned Public Prosecutor as aforesaid explaining
+
+   the course of investigation did not endorse police inaction.
+
+53. Vide Order dated 08.07.2024, the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in WPA
+
+   15260 of 2024 observed as follows:-
+
+             "As per the request of the petitioners, the live streaming has been
+          paused.
+             Learned advocate representing the State respondents submits, upon
+          instruction that, the petitioners are not cooperating with the police in
+          the process of investigation.
+             From the documents handed over by the learned advocate
+          representing the State respondents it appears that, after protection
+          was granted to the petitioners vide the order passed by this Court on
+          1st July, 2024, no notice was served upon the petitioners directing their
+          appearance for investigation.
+             The respondents are directed to proceed with the investigation but
+          not take any coercive steps against the petitioners without the leave of
+          the Court.
+             The petitioners and all other parties are directed to cooperate with
+          the police for the sake of investigation.
+             List on 12th August, 2024.
+             Liberty to mention.
+             Report dated 08.07.2024 be kept with the records."
+54. The petitioners despite an order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this
+
+   Court to co-operate in the investigation refrained from participating in the
+
+   investigation as claimed by the Learned Advocate representing the State
+                                          36
+
+   respondents suspecting the Investigating Officers and accusing them of
+
+   arbitrary, biasedness being capricious and revengeful. The Co-Ordinate
+
+   Bench of this Court directed the investigating agency not to take any
+
+   coercive steps against the petitioners. Despite such an order, the petitioners
+
+   denied to co-operate with the investigating agency as had been stated in the
+
+   report filed by the Learned Public Prosecutor as aforesaid.
+
+55. The Learned Public Prosecutor on an explanation sought by this Court for
+
+   transferring the case of investigation to the CID, West Bengal anxiously
+
+   stated for the purpose of an impartial and unbiased investigation, the same
+
+   had been entrusted to the CID, West Bengal conforming to the police
+
+   regulations stated as follows:-
+
+          "II.- Control and assistance in enquiries and investigations.
+          ....
+

618. Method of assuming control. +

(a) The Deputy Inspector-General, Criminal Investigation. Department, + may assume control 0f an enquiry or investigation at any stage. On + assuming control he shall inform the Deputy Inspector-General of the + Range forthwith, sending a copy 0f his intimation direct to the + Superintendent Or Superintendents concerned. +
(b) In excise cases in which the investigation must extend to more than + one district, or in which there are intricacies which cannot be dealt with + without the aid of a specially skilled detective, the services of an officer + of the Criminal Investigation Department, shall be requisitioned by the + Commissioner of Excise. In emergencies such requisition may also be + made by an officer of lower rank. The Deputy Inspector-General, + Criminal Investigation Department, shall, if he thinks fit and if he has + an officer available, depute one and also decide whether the officer + deputed shall be placed at the disposal of the Commissioner of Excise + 37 + + or whether the control of the enquiry shall be taken over by the + Criminal Investigation Department." +

56. It was further submitted several Judges of this Hon'ble High Court had been + + accused along with the police officers and the Learned Public Prosecutor + + himself which compelled him to transfer the responsibilities of conducting + + investigation on the CID, State of West Bengal without any other alternative + + or option being third party to conduct the investigation independently + + without the involvement of the police officers of the concerned police station + + against whose conduct several objections had been raised by the petitioners. + +

57. The status report filed by the Learned Public Prosecutor as aforesaid did not + + reveal police inaction to the detriment of the petitioners' interest. The + + petitioners had filed a transfer petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + + India being Transfer Petitions Criminal No.701/702 of 2024 being Sanjukta + + Samanta vs. the State of West Bengal and Ors. etc. whereby the petitioners + + appeared in person. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated + + 02.09.2024 observed: "No case for transfer is made out. The transfer petitions + + are dismissed." +

+

58. The petitioners, therefore, cannot refuse to participate in the investigation + + violating the order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court on + + 08.07.2024 in WPA 15260 of 2024. Both the parties have filed criminal + + revisional applications before the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court, the + + criminal revisional applications being CRR 1023 of 2024 and CRR 3203 of + + 2023. The petitioners as well as the respondent no.13 have availed the + + jurisdiction to redress their grievances in an alternative form under Section + + 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner no.1 being a + 38 + + complainant in connection with Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.78 of + + 2023 filed under Sections + + 420/406/448/341/323/379/354B/307/376/506/34 sought for stay of the + + investigation in the said case further seeking the investigation to be + + conducted by the State respondent no.4 whose actions had been challenged + + by the petitioners to be against her interest intending to deprive her of fair + + trial and natural justice. +

+

59. In the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajanlal and Others 1, + + the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- +

+
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant + provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law + enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise + of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers + under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and + reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of + illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent + abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of + justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly + defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid + formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases + wherein such power should be exercised. +
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the + complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in + their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a + case against the accused. +
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other + materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable + offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section + + 1 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 + 39 + + 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the + purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. +

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint + and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the + commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. + (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable + offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is + permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as + contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. +

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd + and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can + ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for + proceeding against the accused. +

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the + provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal + proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the + proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or + the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the + aggrieved party. +

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide + and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior + motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite + him due to private and personal grudge." +

60. Since the contents of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet claimed to have + + been filed by the investigating agency as per the report filed by the Learned + + Public Prosecutor in Case No.78 of 2023 and the complaint as well as the + + FIR in Case No.86 of 2024 to have revealed allegations of cognizable offences + + in both the aforesaid cases, this Court is not inclined to stay the further + + proceedings in the aforesaid cases. +

40

+ +

61. The petitioners being young, responsible and bright advocates practising in + + this Hon'ble Court as well as in the Supreme Court, out of shock and + + displeasure probably by the turn of events cannot trust the investigating + + agencies at the moment perhaps due to mental agony. One has to confide in + + the prevailing justice delivery system to attain a finality to a dispute which + + definitely can be assailed at a Higher Forum statutorily. The petitioners did + + not appear before this Court on the dates fixed for hearing as reflected in the + + order-sheets of the instant writ petition and the case was reserved for + + judgment on 17.02.2025. Subsequently the petitioners filed several CAN + + applications in the Court and directly addressed the same in the name of the + + presiding judge of this Court as would be evident from the postal envelopes + + on record. Considering the context of the CAN applications, this Court + + thought it prudent to grant a further opportunity to the petitioners to + + address this Court for a final hearing and recalled the order dated + + 17.02.2025 on 16.05.2025, fixing the next date of hearing on 11.07.2025. + + The petitioner no.2 appeared online only to contradict the court proceedings + + without submissions on merits. Finally on 11.07.2025 the instant writ + + petition was reserved for pronouncing judgment. +

+

62. The contention of the petitioner no.1 to have been a victim of rape and her + + name and presence to be masked is contrary to the cause title of the instant + + writ petition where the name of the petitioner no.1 had been mentioned by + + herself conspicuously claiming the relief sought for revealing her identity for + + quashing of the aforesaid Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.86 of 2024 + + dated 04.05.2024 under Sections 341/365/468/420/506/34 of the Indian + 41 + + Penal Code. The petitioner no.1 appeared before the Hon'ble Supreme Court + + in person to move the Transfer Petition as aforesaid without seeking her + + presence to be masked as the same would not transpire from the order of the + + Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioners did not appear before the Court on + + the dates fixed for hearing and subsequently could not blame this Court for + + not granting them an opportunity of hearing. This Court did hear the + + submissions of the petitioners on earlier dates and recorded the same in the + + order-sheets as well as in the instant judgment. +

+

63. Moreover, the petitioners as well as the respondent no.13 have already + + sought for relief of quashing the proceedings of the criminal cases instituted + + against each other under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as + + stated above before the Co-Ordinate Benches of this Court. The allegations + + and counter-allegations in the complaints do not reveal the same to be prima + + facie frivolous which are in the facts and circumstances of the case serious + + in nature with grave implications and ramifications. + +

64. The Writ Court can quash the criminal proceedings if the same has been + + frivolously instituted, however, in the instant case, the gamut of allegations + + and counter-allegations are complex in terms of severity necessitating to + + unravel the authenticity and credibility of the same which in the facts and + + circumstances of the instant writ petition shall be subjected to the process of + + trial by the competent Court. +

+

65. In view of the above discussions, the instant writ petition being WPA + + No.15260 of 2024 along with its connected CAN applications stand + + dismissed. +

42

+ +

66. There is no order as to costs. +

+

67. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on + + priority basis on compliance of all formalities. +

+

+

(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.) +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_75636348.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_75636348.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..265f5f7373d9ec184da7bb937e868caf5984ff8b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_75636348.html @@ -0,0 +1,381 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Umashankar vs State Of U.P. on 15 December, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. +
+
(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. +
+
(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_75719997.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_75719997.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cbb28cbccb6579634f910d4cf9e4786e68508861 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_75719997.html @@ -0,0 +1,475 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + State Of Karnatrkaa vs Inayath @ Immu on 15 December, 2017 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

9. Per contra learned counsel for the + +respondent-accused made submission that the petition + +itself is not maintainable which is filed under Section + +439(2) of Cr.P.C seeking for cancellation of bail. Learned + +counsel made submission that even if it is contended by + +other side that there is a violation of the conditions of + +the bail order pertaining to offence under Section 307 of + +IPC but the petitioner is not seeking this Court for + + + + + +cancellation of earlier bail order. It is seeking + +cancellation of the subsequent bail order pertaining to + +offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. + + +

+
+ +
+ +

+

11. Learned counsel also made the submission + +that the bail order in the subsequent case was obtained + +at the hands of this Court after completion of + +investigation and filing of the charge sheet. Even in the + +charge sheet also statement of one Soubhagya, clearly + +goes to show that there is material so far as commission + +of the earlier case under Section 307 of IPC is + +concerned. On these grounds learned counsel submits + +that there is no suppression of material facts and the + +Court was not mislead while considering the bail + +petition for the offence punishable under Section 302 of + +IPC. +

+
+ +
+ 9

+

12. Learned counsel also made submission that + +there is no allegation made by the petitioner-State that + +the respondent-accused has violated any of the + +conditions of the bail order granted by this Court + +pertaining to the offence punishable under Sections 302 + +of IPC. Hence, he submits when conditions are not + +violated, the question of cancellation of bail does not + +arise at all. Even if there is an allegation that conditions + +in respect of earlier bail order pertaining to Section 307 + +of IPC is violated, this petition is not seeking + +cancellation of the earlier bail order. Hence, he + +submitted that there is no merit in this petition and + +same is to be rejected. +

+
+ +
+

16. Looking into these aspects of the matter this + +Court has already considered even the earlier offence + +under Section 307 of IPC before granting bail order. + +Therefore, learned counsel for the respondent-accused + +is justified in making the submission that there is no + +question of suppression of any material facts, + +misrepresentation or fraud etc and material goes to + +show that after considering the entire material on facts, + +learned Sessions Judge has granted the bail order. + + + + + +Apart from that, looking to the legal aspects in the + +decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case + +of Abdul Basit @ Raju and others V/s. Mohd.Abdul + +Kadir Chaudhary and another reported in 2014 10 + +SCC 754 at paragraph- 20, 21 and 26 reads as under; + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_76587972.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_76587972.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..421bee29af99f95319d2ef196ecf765682332a75 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_76587972.html @@ -0,0 +1,2184 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sanjukta Samanta & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 30, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

+

Sanjukta Samanta & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2025

+ +
                                        1
+
+                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
+                   CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
+                            APPELLATE SIDE
+
+
+Present:
+
+The Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
+
+                              W.P.A. 15260 of 2024
+
+                             Sanjukta Samanta & Anr.
+                                       -Vs-
+                               Union of India & Ors.
+
+
+Petitioner No. 1 in person           : Mrs. Sanjukta Samanta
+
+Petitioner No. 2 in person           : Mr. Romit Dutta
+
+For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2        : Mr. Rajdeep Majumdar
+                                       Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Chakraborty
+
+For the State                        : Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury
+                                       Mr. Manas Kumar Sadhu
+                                       Ms. Subhasree Patel
+
+For the Respondent No. 13            : Mr. Neeraj Sekhar
+                                       Ms. Malabika Saha
+
+Heard on                             : 13.03.2025, 28.03.2025,
+                                       25.06.2025, 11.07.2025
+
+Judgment on                          : 26.09.2025
+
+Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-
+
+1. The instant writ petition had been assigned to this Court by the Hon'ble the
+
+  Chief Justice, High Court at Calcutta, after the instant writ petition had
+
+  been released by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court presiding over in
+
+  Court No.14 vide its Order dated 05.08.2024 replicated as follows:-
+
+            "Live streaming of Court proceeding has been paused.
+                                          2
+
+              Heard submission of the petitioner no.2 and the learned advocate
+          representing the respondent no.13.
+              The petitioner no.1 behaves in an extremely unruly manner before
+          the Court. She is highly agitated. The Court is not inclined to hear the
+          matter.
+              Let this matter be released from the list of this Bench and be placed
+          before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for necessary order."
+
+2. The instant writ petition had been filed, inter alia, praying for following
+
+  reliefs:-
+
+          "........
+          B. Writ of an/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+          respondents to declare the impugned proceedings of Chatterjeehat
+          Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 under sections
+          341/365/468/420/506/34         IPC   is   illegal,   void   ab   initio   and
+          unconstitutional;
+
+          C. Writ in nature of mandamus to quash the entire proceedings in
+          connection with Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated
+          04.05.2024 under sections 341/365/468/420/506/34 IPC pending
+          before Learned CJM at Howrah and being investigated by state
+          respondents;
+
+          D. Writ in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondents
+          and its men, subordinates, assignees to unconditionally forthwith
+          withdraw, recall, rescind all steps taken in pursuance of the
+          Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 under
+          sections 341/365/468/420/506/34 IPC;
+
+          E. Writ of an/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+          respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates and each one
+          of them to quash/set aside the impugned Notification issued by the
+          office of Respondent 6 vide Org No.618/CS dated 06.05.2024 through
+                                3
+
+which the investigation of Chatterjeehat Police Station Case no.78 of
+2023 dated 04.05.2023 was taken up by respondent no.7;
+
+F. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents to render appropriate protection to life, liberty and
+possession to the writ petitioner no.1 by the respondents 1, 2;
+
+G. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates and each one
+of them to hand over the Case Diary of Chatterjeehat Police Station
+Case no.78 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 to the office of Respondent no.4
+forthwith;
+
+H. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates to stay the
+investigation of impugned FIR Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 86 of
+2024 dated 04.05.2024 under sections 341/365/468/420/506/34
+IPC by respondent no.9 with immediate effect;
+
+I. Writ of an/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates not to take any
+coercive steps against the petitioners in connection with Chatterjeehat
+Police Station Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 under sections
+341/365/468/420/506/34 IPC;
+
+J. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates not to take any
+coercive steps against the petitioners in connection with any frivolous
+FIRs against the Writ Petitioners by the accused respondent 13 and his
+associates;
+
+K. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates to stay the
+impugned further investigation of Chatterjeehat Police Station Case
+no.78 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 by State CID respondents;
+                                           4
+
+         L. Writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding the
+         respondents and of their men, agents and subordinates not to register
+         any false FIR against the Writ Petitioners by the instant accused
+         respondents and his associates without any preliminary inquiry as
+         well as without leave of this Hon'ble Court;
+
+         M. A writ of and/or in nature of certiorari directing the concerned
+         respondents being respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 thereof to transmit
+         and/or produce all relevant records lying with them to this Hon'ble
+         Court so that conscionable justice may be done after hearing the
+         respective parties to this writ petition;
+
+         N. A writ of and/or in nature of Mandamus commanding the
+         respondent authorities 1, 2 to render appropriate protection to protect
+         life and possession of the petitioner;
+         ......."
+3. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 contended to be the Learned Advocates practising
+
+  in the High Court at Calcutta as well as the Supreme Court of India. The
+
+  petitioners, on invitation by the respondent No.13, visited his house at
+
+  Tamilnadu to hold a conference with the father of respondent No.13
+
+  concerning the filing of affidavit-of-assets and liabilities in connection with a
+
+  dispute regarding domestic violence instituted against the respondent No.13
+
+  pending at the District Court of South 24-Parganas at Alipore.
+
+4. Petitioner No.1 learnt of certain false information presented through an
+
+  affidavit-on-oath before the Court of Learned 6 th Judicial Magistrate at
+
+  Alipore, South 24-Parganas concerning the occupation of respondent No.13
+
+  and confronted the same. The respondent No.13 consequently insulted the
+
+  petitioner, indignifying her with threats, defamation and dire consequences.
+
+  Subsequently, the petitioner No.1 was threatened by an associate of
+                                         5
+
+  respondent no.13 as narrated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the writ petition. The
+
+  petitioners, thereafter, forwarded a complaint through e-mail to the
+
+  respondent no.8 being the Commissioner of Police, Howrah and Kolkata
+
+  Police on 23rd of April, 2023 at 21:44 hours.
+
+5. On 29th of April, 2023 at about 08:30 P.M., the respondent no.13
+
+  accompanied by his associate forcefully entering the chamber of petitioner
+
+  no.1, physically molested and harassed her as stated in paragraph 8 of the
+
+  writ petition. Meanwhile, the unknown associate vandalized the chamber of
+
+  the petitioner and escaped therefrom along with a mobile of model Vivo -
+
+  Y100 and a sum of Rs.65,000/- in cash.
+
+6. The petitioners initially refrained to proceed against the criminal acts of
+
+  respondent no.13, however, ultimately lodged a complaint against the
+
+  aforesaid respondents at the office of respondent no.8 and 9, i.e., Officer-in-
+
+  Charge of Chatterjeehat Police Station at Howrah on 03.05.2023 at 20:21
+
+  hours and the complaint was registered as Chatterjeehat Police Station Case
+
+  No.78      of      2023       dated       04.05.2023      under       Sections
+
+  420/406/448/341/323/354B/307/376/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal
+
+  Code. The respondent no.13 was, thereafter, arrested by the office of the
+
+  respondent no.9 who later on obtained an order of bail from the Hon'ble
+
+  Court.
+
+7. The petitioners had filed a complaint registered by the police being Howrah
+
+  P.S. Case No.262 of 2023 dated 27.07.2023 under Sections 195A/506/34 of
+
+  the Indian Penal Code against the associates of respondent no.13 for being
+
+  threatened as mentioned in paragraph 15 of the writ petition.
+                                          6
+
+8. The petitioners contended to have been insinuated through various means
+
+  as stated in paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the writ petition. The
+
+  predicaments of the petitioners had been vividly described in paragraphs 25,
+
+  26, 27, 28, and 29 of the writ petition. The petitioner no.1 claimed herself to
+
+  be a member of a political party, who had dealt with a Public Interest
+
+  Litigation in person addressing the grievances in connection with an incident
+
+  which occurred at Sandeshkhali in West Bengal through a writ petition
+
+  being No.WPA(P) 78 of 2024 before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and
+
+  SLP(C ) No.9462/9465 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
+
+  The petitioner no.1's combat and opposition against injustice towards
+
+  general women through the aforesaid writ petition rendered her aged senior
+
+  citizen parents to suffer from trauma and threats at the behest of her
+
+  competitive political party. The petitioner no.1 narrated the conduct of the
+
+  Learned Public Prosecutor of the State of West Bengal in paragraphs 35 and
+
+  36 of the writ petition.
+
+9. The petitioners in the instant writ petition further stated as follows:-
+
+       (i) The State respondents in collusion and conspiracy with the accused
+
+          respondent no. 13 had registered the said FIR being Chatterjeehat PS
+
+          Case 86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 against the petitioner no.1 and
+
+          petitioner no.2, who was prime witness of the heinous crime
+
+          happened to her in the form of Chatterjeehat PS Case No.78 of 2023
+
+          dated 04.05.2023 to achieve their ulterior motive to put the instant
+
+          petitioner no.1 and 2, behind the bar for restraining the petitioner
+
+          no.1 from representing herself for the sexual assault victims of
+                                    7
+
+   Sandeshkhali, West Bengal as in person PIL Writ petitioner therein
+
+   before Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in WPA (P) 78 of 2024.
+
+(ii) The instant false and fabricated FIR being Chatterjeehat PS Case
+
+   No.86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 was the delayed counterblast of the
+
+   Chargesheeted Case being Chatterjeehat Police Station Case no 78 of
+
+   2023 dated 04.05.2023, Howrah PS Case 262 of 2023 dated
+
+   27.07.2023 and Chatterjeehat PS Case 23 of 2024 dated 05.02.2024.
+
+(iii) The instant false FIR against Writ Petitioners was lodged by complete
+
+   misusing the liberty granted by Hon'ble High Court in WPA 23711 of
+
+   2023 while the Hon'ble High Court while disposing WPA 23711 of
+
+   2023 vide order dated 16.04.2024 never granted liberty to the
+
+   accused respondent 13 to lodge a fresh /de novo complaint before
+
+   police against petitioners with inordinate delay for registration of FIR.
+
+(iv) The accused respondent no.13 in collusion and conspiracy with the
+
+   State police had misused and abused the Hon'ble High Court given
+
+   liberty to fabricate instant petitioners into a false, fabricated FIR.
+
+(v) The respondent no.3, being clubbed up with the state respondents
+
+   had been actively involved in terrorizing the victim writ petitioner and
+
+   prime eye witness her husband of the case being Chatterjeehat PS
+
+   Case No.78 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023 by way of taking up
+
+   investigation of the case by CID in completely mala fide manner
+
+   totally contradictory as mandated by law as well as by way of filing
+
+   such false and fabricated FIR against the petitioner and her husband.
+                                  8
+
+(vi) After coming out of judicial custody and police custody for
+
+   commission of crime of sexual violence against petitioner in
+
+   connection with Chatterjeehat Police Station Case 78 of 2923 dated
+
+   04.05.2023, to wreak personal vengeance the prime               accused
+
+   respondent 13 had created a false, fabricated story of his alleged
+
+   abduction of himself at same time while he committed crime and had
+
+   lodged FIR against writ petitioner after one year of inordinate delay.
+
+(vii) She, being the de-facto complainant of Chatterjeehat PS Case 78 of
+
+   2023 dated 04.05.2023, was not being able to return at her home city
+
+   Calcutta as well as she had not been able to represent the sexual
+
+   assault victims of Sandeshkhali, West Bengal in the PIL WPA(P) 78 of
+
+   2024 (physically , which was the PIL filed by her as in person at first
+
+   instance for protection of Vulnerable victims therein) before the
+
+   Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and before this Hon'ble Supreme
+
+   Court as SLP (C) No. 9462-9465 of 2024 .
+
+ (viii) Due to registration of said false FIR being Chatterjeehat PS Case
+
+   86 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 upon a deviated version of original
+
+   crime incident happened to the writ petitioner no. 1, she would not be
+
+   able to represent herself as in person petitioner de-facto complainant
+
+   before the Learned Trial Courts and before Hon'ble High Court in
+
+   several proceedings under severe threat of her and her husband's
+
+   arrest by the State police machineries upon said false FIR registered
+
+   against the Writ Petitioner and her husband.
+                                         9
+
+       (ix) The petitioner stated that the FIR being Chatterjeehat PS Case 86 of
+
+          2024 dated 04.05.2024 was registered to wreak personal vengeance
+
+          against the writ petitioner and her husband by the state police
+
+          respondents in collusion and conspiracy with the accused respondent
+
+          no.13.
+
+10. The investigation in Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.78 of 2023 dated
+
+   04.05.2023 was entrusted upon respondent no.6 C.I.D., West Bengal at the
+
+   instance of the Learned Public Prosecutor, State of West Bengal unilaterally
+
+   without an order passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta to the
+
+   astonishment of the petitioners which, according to the petitioners, had been
+
+   biased and politically motivated.
+
+11. The petitioners are of the firm conviction to be betrayed with right to fair
+
+   investigation and fair trial to their utter detriment and prejudice. The
+
+   petitioners, being intimidated by the action on the part of the State agencies,
+
+   further sought for personal protection as she had been constantly threatened
+
+   by the police offices, CID officials etc. The petitioners, as would appear from
+
+   the order-sheets of the instant writ petition, appeared before this Court in
+
+   person and agitated their trauma and agony to have been continuously
+
+   threatened by the respondents and other State officials resulting in their
+
+   apprehension of life and property to be in extreme danger and peril.
+
+12. The petitioner no.1 claimed to have been physically molested by the
+
+   respondent no.13 and the State agencies constantly threatened and
+
+   harassed her preventing her to pursue her profession as a lawyer and to
+
+   fight for the cause demanding protection of women's life, right and dignity.
+                                          10
+
+   Petitioners appearing in person submitted the Learned Public Prosecutor on
+
+   his own accord had transferred the investigation to the CID agencies without
+
+   an order of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta to investigate the
+
+   Chatterjeehat Police Station Case being No.78 of 2023 as aforesaid to wreak
+
+   vengeance against them.
+
+13. The order dated 23.08.2024 passed by this Court is replicated hereinbelow:-
+
+             "The learned advocates for the respondent nos.3 to 11 and the
+
+          respondent no.13 are present.
+
+             The petitioner no.1 appeared online prior to the recess expressing
+          her extreme urgency for listing the matter for hearing. Accordingly, a
+          supplementary list was prepared fixing the matter at 2.00 p.m.
+             The petitioner no.1 did not appear before the Court either in-person
+          or online at the time of hearing though the petitioner no.2 appeared
+          online and submitted due to medical emergency, the petitioner no.1
+          could not appear before the Court.
+             It was further submitted by the petitioner no.2 that the Union of
+          India being the respondent no.1 and the Central Industrial Security
+          Force being the respondent no.2, should be providing proper security to
+          the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and their presence was required for
+          adjudication of the instant writ petition at the time of hearing.
+             The petitioner nos.1 and 2 are directed to serve a notice upon the
+          learned advocate for the respondent nos.1 and 2 intimating the next
+          date of hearing on 3rd September, 2024 and to file an affidavit of
+          service to that effect.
+             Next date be fixed on 3rd September, 2024 at 2.00 p.m. for further
+
+          hearing."
+
+14. Subsequently, on 03.09.2024 the petitioner no.1 and 2 appeared in person
+
+   and submitted the arbitrary action on the part of the Learned Public
+                                          11
+
+   Prosecutor to have initiated the investigation through CID, West Bengal
+
+   without the direction obtained from the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
+
+   Howrah based on a communication addressed to the same and referred to an
+
+   order dated 08th April, 2024 passed by an Hon'ble Co-Ordinate Bench of this
+
+   Court in CRR 1023 of 2024.
+
+15. Considering the submissions of the petitioners in person, this Court passed
+
+   an order dated 03.09.2024 as replicated hereinbelow:-
+
+             "The supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner no.1-in-person
+          be kept on record. Copies of the same have been served upon the
+          leaned advocates appearing for the other respective respondents.
+             The petitioners-in-person referred to the order dated 8 th April, 2024
+          passed by a Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of Court in CRR 1023 of 2024
+          as well as to the communication addressed to the learned Chief
+          Judicial Magistrate, Howrah Court, marked as "annexure P-10" to the
+          writ petition. The petitioners as aforesaid further submitted that the
+          communication to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah Court
+          referring to CID investigation was not directed through an order of this
+          Court, as aforesaid.
+             The learned advocate for the State refers to the Police Regulation
+          Bengal, 1943 whereby the CID can on its own take up the
+          investigation. The learned advocate for the State is requested to inform
+          the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Debasis Ray to be present before
+          this Court on the next date of hearing to explain as to what prompted
+          him to submit before the Coordinate Bench that the investigations were
+          to be conducted up by the CID, West Bengal.
+             The learned advocate for the respondents are to file respective reply
+          to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners-in-person before
+          the Court on the next date with regard to the possibility of security to
+          be provided to the petitioner no.1 as claimed in the instant writ petition.
+                                         12
+
+             Heard the submission of the learned advocate representing the
+          respondent no.13.
+             The status report filed by the learned advocate for the State be kept
+          on record. A copy of the same has been served upon the petitioner
+          nos.1 and 2 in Court.
+             Next date be fixed on 17th September, 2024."
+16. Vide order dated 17.09.2024, this Court had appointed Learned Senior
+
+   Advocate Mr. Milon Mukherjee, the Learned Advocate Mr. Souvik Mitter and
+
+   Learned Advocate Ms. Sutapa Sanyal to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae in
+
+   order to dispose of the instant writ petition which was accepted by the
+
+   aforesaid Learned Advocates. The order dated 17.09.2024 passed by this
+
+   Court replicated as follows:-
+
+             "The learned senior advocate Mr. Milon Mukherjee, the learned
+          advocate Mr. Souvik Mitter and the learned advocate Ms. Sutapa
+          Sanyal have been requested to assist the Court as amicus curiae in
+          order to dispose of the instant writ petition and the same has been
+          accepted by the aforesaid learned advocates.
+             The learned advocate representing the respondent no.13 submits to
+          serve a copy of the writ petition along with the annexed documents and
+          the orders to the learned advocates appointed as amicus curiae in this
+          matter.
+             The learned advocate representing respondent nos.1 and 2 are
+          present and submitted the opinion of the Union of India with regard to
+          the provision of safety and security, generally accorded to specific
+          individuals subject to certain circumstances.
+             It is further submitted that the Ministry of Home Affairs is the
+          appropriate authority to provide safety and security to an individual
+          considering the threat perception after thorough assessment of the
+          facts and circumstances of a distinct case.
+                                          13
+
+                Heard the submissions of the learned advocates appointed as
+          amicus curiae and also the submissions of the petitioner no.1 and 2
+          appearing in-person.
+                The learned advocate representing the respondent no.13 seeks time
+          to file an affidavit-in-opposition to the supplementary affidavit filed by
+          the petitioner nos.1 and 2 appearing in-person after the processes for
+          filing the same gets endorsed through the concerned authority
+          pertaining to Bangladesh and the same is allowed.
+                Next date be fixed on 4th October, 2024 at 2.00 p.m. for further
+          hearing."
+17. On 04th October, 2024, the petitioner no.2 appeared online and submitted to
+
+   have preferred an appeal before the Division Bench presided over by the
+
+   Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court at Calcutta and sought for time on
+
+   that ground. PW-1 did not appear before the Court. Petitioner no.1 and
+
+   petitioner no.2 were directed to file an affidavit preferring an appeal as
+
+   aforesaid.
+
+18. On 18th November, 2024, petitioner no.1 did not appear before this Court
+
+   either in person or online. Petitioner no.2 appeared online and filed a
+
+   supplementary affidavit through is concerned Learned Advocate Mr. Arkadeb
+
+   Nag in open Court which, inter alia, stated the grievance of the petitioners
+
+   against the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by this Court in WPA 15260 of
+
+   2024 for seeking assistance of the Learned Advocates of this Court to act as
+
+   Amicus Curiae as aforesaid.
+
+19. The appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Division Bench presided over by
+
+   the Hon'ble the Chief Justice being MAT 2051 of 2024 on 6 th of November,
+
+   2024. Moreover, the fate of the said appeal had not been communicated to
+
+   this Court, if at all the hearing had been conducted. On 18 th November,
+                                            14
+
+   2024, the Learned Public Prosecutor appeared before this Court in
+
+   compliance with the order dated 03.09.2024 whereby this Court had sought
+
+   for an explanation as to what prompted him to submit before the Co-
+
+   ordinate Bench that the investigation of the Chatterjeehat Police Station
+
+   Case Nos.86 of 2024, 78 of 2023 and 23 of 2024 was to be conducted by the
+
+   CID, West Bengal.
+
+20. The Learned Public Prosecutor submitted several complaints and allegations
+
+   against two Hon'ble Judges of this Court and the officials of the
+
+   Chatterjeehat Police Station by the petitioners compelled him to ensure the
+
+   investigation to be carried out by an agency not comprising of the said
+
+   officials   of   the   Chatterjeehat   Police   Station   and   to   obliterate   the
+
+   apprehension of partial and biased investigation, the same was asked to be
+
+   conducted by the CID, State of West Bengal.
+
+21. On 19th of December, 2024, the Learned Public Prosecutor in compliance
+
+   with the order dated 18th November, 2024 filed a report stating the status of
+
+   investigation concerning the aforesaid police station cases. On 19 th
+
+   December, 2024, the Learned Public Prosecutor filed the report as aforesaid
+
+   along with an explanation as sought for. The petitioner no.1 was neither
+
+   present before the Court nor appeared online. Petitioner no.2 appeared
+
+   online and stated the appeal filed before the Division Bench was appearing
+
+   in the Daily List to be called for hearing. The petitioner no.1 and 2 had been
+
+   time and again asked by this Court to produce the details of the complaint or
+
+   G.D. Entry number which they claimed to have filed in the concerned police
+
+   station on several occasions for being threatened, physically manhandled,
+                                             15
+
+   molested and harassed. The petitioners did not produce any reference to that
+
+   effect before this Court.
+
+22. An order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in
+
+   WPA 23711 of 2023 is replicated as follows:-
+
+               "The respondent no. 12 appears in-person and tries to out shout
+             others. In spite of request made by the Court to calm down, she does
+             not relent and continues with her belligerent demeanour.
+               In view of this, I am not inclined to take up this matter.
+               Accordingly, the matter is released from my list."
+23. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners and the respondent no.13 who
+
+   had been the erstwhile client of the petitioners who sought for legal
+
+   assistance of the petitioners engaging them to be his advocates had filed writ
+
+   petitions being No.WPA 23711 of 2023 and WPA 21868 of 2023 wherein
+
+   several complaints had been filed against each other. Vide an order dated
+
+   16.04.2024, a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following
+
+   order:-
+
+               "Both these writ petitions are taken up for hearing together. It
+             appears that the petitioners in both the cases have filed several
+             complaints against each other.
+                                In Re: W.P.A. No.23711 of 2023
+               The petitioners in WPA No.23711 of 2023 lodged several complaints
+             against the petitioner in WPA No.21868 of 2023 before the Criminal
+             Investigation Department, West Bengal. In this writ petition, some of
+             the complaints have been annexed at annexure P/15. The petitioners
+             allege that no case has been registered or investigation has been
+             initiated following the said complaints.
+               I am of the view that the petitioners should lodge complaint before
+             the concerned police station at the first instance.
+                               16
+
+  Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty upon the
+petitioners to lodge complaint before the concerned police station. If the
+complaint discloses any cognizable offence, the relevant police station
+shall take steps to register F.I.R. and investigate the matter in
+accordance with law.
+  Accordingly,    W.P.A.    No.23711      of    2023     and    connected
+applications, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024 and CAN 2 of 2024 are
+disposed of.
+                   In Re: W.P.A. No.21868 of 2023
+  The petitioner in this case is a lady advocate. It appears that she
+also filed several complaints against the petitioners in WPA No.23711
+of 2023.
+  Following the complaints, the Investigating Agency has filed
+Chatterjeehat P.S. charge sheet no.191/23 dated 31.10.2022 under
+Sections 420/406/448/341/ 323/307/379/354B/376/506/34 of the
+Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Howrah P.S. charge sheet no.277/23
+dated 30.09.2023 under Sections 195A/506/34 of the 3 Indian Penal
+Code, 1860, before the jurisdictional Court. The trials have not yet
+commenced.
+  It is the grievance of the petitioner that while attending the Courts in
+connection with the aforesaid criminal cases, she is being harassed
+and even attacked by the petitioners in WPA No.23711 of 2023. These
+allegations have been vehemently denied by the petitioners in WPA
+No.23711 of 2023.
+  This Court is not in a position to appreciate the factual disputes. It is
+only expected that if the petitioner approaches the learned Trial Court
+seeking her protection, to ensure a free and fair trial, her prayer shall
+be considered by the Court below by passing necessary order.
+  Accordingly,    W.P.A.    No.21868      of    2023     and    connected
+applications, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2023 and CAN 2 of 2024 are
+disposed of."
+                                           17
+
+24. The present petitioners in the instant writ petition had filed an appeal
+
+   against the order dated 16.04.2024 passed in WPA 23711 of 2023 and WPA
+
+   21868 of 2023 before the Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble the
+
+   Chief Justice of this Court. By a judgment dated 21.05.2024 in MAT 831 of
+
+   2024, the Hon'ble Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice
+
+   of this Court had passed a judgment replicated as follows:-
+
+          "1. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties.
+          2. The appellant no.2, who is appearing online and he had sent a
+          message in the chat box praying that the live streaming of the
+          proceedings be paused. Acceding to the request made by the appellant
+          no.2, live streaming of the proceeding was paused.
+          3. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order passed in
+          W.P.A. No.23711 of 2023. The said writ petition was filed by the
+          respondent herein stating that several complaints have been lodged
+          against the respondents before the Criminal Investigation Department,
+          West Bengal and some of the complaints were annexed to the writ
+          petition. Further, the writ petitioners allege that no case has been
+          registered or investigated based on the complaints lodged by the
+          respondents/writ petitioners.
+          4. The learned Single Bench did not go into the merits of the matter but
+          disposed of the writ petition by the impugned order observing that the
+          writ petitioners, if aggrieved, should lodge complaint before the
+          concerned police station, at the first instance. Accordingly, the writ
+          petition was disposed of granting liberty to the writ petitioners to lodge
+          complaint before the concerned police station with an observation that
+          if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the relevant police
+          station shall take steps to register F.I.R. and investigate the matter in
+          accordance with law.
+          5. We failed to understand as to how the appellants before us, whose
+          names have been masked at their request, are aggrieved by the order
+                                          18
+
+          passed in the writ petition as the learned Writ Court has not gone into
+          the merits of the matter and left it open to the writ petitioners to work
+          out their remedy before the concerned police station.
+          6. The appellant no.2, who is appearing online, submitted that several
+          cases have been registered against them and there is a threat of
+          arrest. If that be so, it is well open to the appellants to invoke the
+          provisions of law available to them and approach the competent forum
+          for necessary relief.
+          7. Thus, we find no ground has been made out to interfere with the
+          order passed in the writ petition.
+          8. With the above observations/directions, appeal as well as the
+          connected application (IA No. CAN 1 of 2024) stand dismissed.
+          9. No costs.
+          10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
+          furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal
+          formalities."
+25. Subsequent to the aforesaid orders passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench and
+
+   the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner no.1 and 2 failed to
+
+   place any document of complaint filed by them before the concerned police
+
+   authorities claiming threat to their personal life and property and of any
+
+   action restricting their liberty to pursue their profession with dignity.
+
+26. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.1 and 2 submitted the
+
+   opinion of the Union of India specifically the Ministry of Home Affairs to be
+
+   the appropriate authority to provide safety and security to an individual
+
+   considering the threat perception after thorough assessment of the facts and
+
+   circumstances of a distinct case. It was further urged neither the police
+
+   authorities concerned nor this Court can assess whether the petitioners
+
+   required to be provided safety and security on the basis of personal claim of
+                                            19
+
+   a threat perception since it was within the absolute domain of the Ministry of
+
+   Home Affairs to ascertain and decide the seriousness and gravity of the
+
+   situation to provide safety and security to any individual.
+
+27. The Learned Advocate representing the State-respondents submitted despite
+
+   the order of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioners did not co-
+
+   operate with the investigation and suspected the investigating agency of
+
+   biasedness, arbitrariness and to wreck vengeance against the petitioners for
+
+   having dealt with a Public Interest Litigation against the State authorities
+
+   concerning an incident at Sandeshkhali. The petitioners were of the opinion
+
+   to be prejudicially prevented and impartial hearing and failed a transfer
+
+   petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India being Transfer Petitions
+
+   Criminal Nos.701/702 of 2024 which was dismissed as the Hon'ble Supreme
+
+   Court observed no case for transfer to have been made out vide its order
+
+   dated September 2, 2024.
+
+28. The petitioners had also filed writ petition criminal No.236 of 2024 before the
+
+   Supreme Court of India which was withdrawn by the petitioners. The
+
+   petitioners had accused the police personnels and other officials and had
+
+   impleaded them in the instant writ petition without plausible reasons and
+
+   did   not   deliberately   co-operate    with   the   investigation   citing   their
+
+   dissatisfaction as the same had been conducted by the CID, West Bengal
+
+   further stating to the Investigating Officer that the investigation should be
+
+   conducted by the CBI.
+
+29. The Learned Advocate representing the State further submitted it would not
+
+   be possible for the Writ Court to quash the proceedings since the complaint
+                                         20
+
+   as well as the FIR delineated commission of cognizable offences and the
+
+   charge-sheet had been submitted with further prayer on the part of the
+
+   Investigating Officer to file a supplementary charge-sheet. The Writ Court in
+
+   case of the offences being cognizable and the conundrum between the
+
+   parties should be decided through trial by the competent court. The Writ
+
+   Court should not exercise its jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.
+
+30. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 submitted the
+
+   petitioners to have instituted false and malicious complaints against the
+
+   respondent no.13 with an intention to incriminate him in serious offences of
+
+   rape, theft etc. The father of the respondent no.13 being a nonagenarian
+
+   person had been dragged mercilessly into humiliation, despair, agony and
+
+   trauma. The petitioners on being asked to be relieved of their professional
+
+   responsibility to represent the respondent no.13 and to withdraw the cases
+
+   on account of reconciliation between the respondent no.13 and his wife
+
+   infuriated the petitioners to lodge frivolous and baseless complaints against
+
+   the respondent no.13 whereby the same being a professional oncologist
+
+   practising in Bangladesh had been arrested and was released on bail. It was
+
+   further submitted the respondent no.13 to have been kidnapped by the
+
+   petitioners, physically assaulted and captivated.
+
+31. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 submitted that the
+
+   petitioner no.1 had instituted complaint cases against her and the same had
+
+   not been taken cognizance of by the CMM vide order dated 13.07.2023
+
+   passed in CS/71375/2023.
+                                         21
+
+32. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 further submitted
+
+   to have been repeatedly threatened and abused by the petitioners on the
+
+   corridor of this Court along with her junior who happened to be a practising
+
+   advocate in this Court. Against complaints registered as FIR, criminal
+
+   revisional applications have been pending before the respective Co-Ordinate
+
+   Bench of this Court.
+
+33. The petitioners were trying to frustrate the proceedings by delaying the
+
+   hearing of the same on several pretexts to the predicament of the respondent
+
+   no.13. Moreover, since the investigation had proceeded to a considerable
+
+   extent, the writ petition should not be entertained.
+
+34. The relationship between the petitioners and the respondent no.13
+
+   apparently had been cordial at the inception whereby the petitioners
+
+   accorded legal assistance to respondent no.13 to defend him in several cases
+
+   instituted against him in the Court of law, which gradually might have
+
+   evolved to be trustworthy and amicable to the extent the petitioners
+
+   accompanied the respondent no.13 to his parents' house at Tamil Nadu to
+
+   assist the respondent no.13 and his father in property related issues and its
+
+   assessment thereof. In course of time, the professional and congenial
+
+   relationship seemingly transformed into resentment and hostility.
+
+35. The petitioner no.1 subsequently on 28.04.2023 was asked to withdraw the
+
+   following cases pending before the respective Courts as stated below:-
+
+          "(i) Divorce Case 1647 of 2022 pending at 13 th ADJ, Alipore
+          (ii) Objection in Restitution Case 1535 of 2022 pending at 6 th ADJ,
+          Alipore
+                                              22
+
+             (iii) All my objection petitions and non maintainability petitions filed by
+             me in Maintenance Case 613 of 2021 pending at 6 th JM, Alipore
+             (iv) Non-maintainability petition in DV Case 561 of 2023 pending at 6 th
+             JM, Alipore"
+36. Respondent no.13 asked the petitioner no.1 through a communication dated
+
+   03.05.2023 for relieving her to take any further steps in the following legal
+
+   matters pending before the various Courts alleging the petitioner no.1 and 2,
+
+   inter alia, to have failed to maintain their professional ethics and discipline
+
+   as mentioned therein:-
+
+             "(i) 613/2021 - 6th JM, Alipore
+             (ii) 1535/2022 - 6th ADJ, Alipore
+             (iii) 1647/2022 - 13th ADJ, Alipore
+             (iv) 561/2023 - 6th JM, Alipore
+             (v) 38867/2023 - 14th Metropolitan Magistrate, Bankshall Court"
+
+37. The relationship between the disputants worsened with lapse of time and the
+
+   petitioner filed complaints against the respondent no.13 and his associates.
+
+38. Based on the complaint filed by the petitioner herein Chatterjeehat Police
+
+   Station     Case    No.23    of    2024     dated   05.02.2024    under    Sections
+
+   341/323/325/326B/354A/354B/509/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code
+
+   anticipatory bail was granted in favour of the accused therein vide order
+
+   dated 13.03.2024 passed by this Court in CRM(A) 880 of 2024.
+
+39. Based on the complaint of the petitioner herein Chatterjeehat Police Station
+
+   Case       No.78      of    2023      dated     04.05.2023       under     Sections
+
+   420/406/448/341/323/307/379/354B/376/506(2)/34 of the Indian Penal
+
+   Code had been instituted against the accused persons mentioned therein.
+                                            23
+
+40. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.13 submitted the
+
+   complaint filed by the respondent no.13 dated 28 th April, 2024 accused the
+
+   petitioners of abduction, extortion, physical assault, threat to murder,
+
+   defamation, confiscation of passport, ATM card and other official documents
+
+   perjury, forgery implicating in false and fabricated criminal cases to extort
+
+   money.
+
+41. Records further reveal an FIR to have been instituted by the Sathuvachari
+
+   Police Station, Vellore, on the basis of the complaint received from one Dr.
+
+   Debidas Rai who alleged that his son was missing referring to the present
+
+   petitioners to have visited his house claiming for further money to defend his
+
+   sons petitioners' case.
+
+42. The respondent no.13 who had been an accused in Chatterjeehat Police
+
+   Station       Case     No.78      of         2023   filed   under    Sections
+
+   420/406/448/341/323/379/354B/307/376/506/34 of the Indian Penal
+
+   Code was granted bail vide order dated 03.08.2023 passed by this Court in
+
+   CRM (DB) 3080 of 2023.
+
+43. The Learned Public Prosecutor had submitted the status report prepared by
+
+   the concerned Investigating Officer:-
+
+             "1. Case No. and date of registration: Chatterjeehat (Howrah Police
+             Commissionerate) PS Case No 78/2023 dt 04/05/2023
+             2. Sections of law: U/S 420/ 406/ 448/ 341/ 323/ 379/ 354B/
+             307/376/506/34 IPC.
+             3. Control order No. & Date: The case was assumed by CID W.B.
+             Vide Org No 618/CS. Dt. 06/08/24.
+                               24
+
+4. Name and rank of investigating officer: (i) SI Sudipta Kar of
+Chatterjeehat (Howrah Police Commissionerate) PS (ii) Inspector
+Swapna Ghosh O/C, POWC Cell, CID, WB.
+5. Gist of FIR: On 04/05/2023 at 17.25 hrs to the Officer In-Charge of
+Chatterjeehat PS received a written complaint from the complainant
+and perused the complaint properly. On the basis of a written
+complaint of the Victim Lady against one Deepak Shankar Ray and
+others to the effect that she was appointed as an advocate by the
+alleged person since month of December, 2021. The accused person
+was very reluctant to pay her professional fees as per norms of several
+Vakalatnamas executed by him in several cases. Till date the
+complainant owes Rs 1000000/- to the alleged person as her
+professional fees. But in spite of several reminders, he refused to pay
+her the same and threatened her with dire consequences. Thereafter
+on 29.04.2023 at around 20.30 hrs the alleged person came at the
+chamber of the complainant situated at 93 Abinash Banerjee Lane, PS-
+Chatterjeehat, Howrah and forcefully entered in to the chamber and
+committed theft in respect of some cash and mobile phone, then on
+being protest the alleged person outrage her female modesty and also
+trying to kill her by grabbing her throat. Then while the complainant
+felt down on the floor, the alleged person kicked in her lower private
+part and also forcibly inserted one of his left-hand finger at her lower
+private part. Over the complaint of the complainant Chatterjeehat PS
+Case No. 78/23 dated 04.05.2023 u/s 420/406/448/341/323/379
+3548/307/376/506/34 IPC has been started.
+6. Details of FIR named accused: (i) Deepak Shankar Ray(53yrs),
+S/O Debidas Ray of S-3, 2nd street, Sathuvachari, CMC Colony, Vellore,
+Tamil
+Nadu- 632009 and Flat No - 303, Sailagreen, 1137 Kalikapur,
+Purbalok, PS Purba Jadavpur, Kolkatta- 700099 (ii) Kanad Saha- S/O
+Lt Kunal Saha of Block - D2, Flat No - 402, Kendriya Vihar, Phase - II,
+PO- Birati, Dist North 24 Prgns, Kolkata - 700051. (iii) Debidas Ray
+                              25
+
+s/o of Lt. Nagendranath Ray of S-3, 2nd street, Sathuvachari, CMC
+Colony, Vellore, Tamil Nadu- 632009.
+7. Details of arrest: (i) Deepak Shankar Ray(53yrs), s/o Debidas Ray
+of S-3, 2nd street, Sathuvachari, CMC Colony, Vellore, Tamil Nadu-
+632009 and Flat No - 303, Sailagreen, 1137 Kalikapur, Purbalok, PS
+Purba Jadavpur, Kolkatta- 700099, was arrested on 11.07.2023 and
+forwarded before Ld. CJM, Howrah Sadar Court on 12.07.2023. (ii)
+Kanad Saha - S/O Lt Kunal Saha of Block - D2, Flat No - 402,
+Kendriya Vihar, Phase - II, PO- Birati, Dist North 24 Prgns, Kolkata -
+700051 was released on bail by Hon'ble High Court Calcutta on
+21.08.2023 and Ld. CJM, Howrah Sadar Court on 25.09.23. (iii)
+Debidas Ray s/o of Lt. Nagendranath Ray of S-3, 2nd street,
+Sathuvachari, CMC Colony, Vellore, Tamil Nadu- 632009 was granted
+anticipatory Bail by Hon'ble High Court Calcutta on 25.09.2023.
+8. Steps Taken During Investigation by the District Police:
+During investigation of the case I Sudipta Kar of Chatterjeehat PS
+visited the place of Occurrence and prepared a details index of the PO
+and prepared a rough sketch map. The IO examined the complainant
+and others available witnesses and recorded their statement U/S 161
+Cr.P.C. Medico legal examination of Victim Lady was performed by the
+Dr. Debhina Ghosal of Howrah District Hospital. He also arranged to
+record the Judicial Statement of the victim lady with the help of LSI
+Nitu Biswas of Howrah Women PS and produced the victim lady before
+the Ld Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 4th Court, Howrah, recorded her
+statement judicially U/S 164 Cr.P.C and also collected the copy of
+judicial statement from Ld Court, Howrah District.
+Previous IO collected the medico legal report along with one sealed
+envelope containing one glass tube & one glass slide containing the
+swab/ spermatozoa from Howrah District Hospital. IO sent prayer to
+ACP DD, HPC for providing the CDR of the accused person's mobile
+number which was provided by the VG to trace them out and also
+prayed for IMEI searching of the complainant's mobile phone which
+                                26
+
+was taken away by the accused from the PO. In course of
+investigation, IO seized the wearing apparels of the victim lady which
+were worn by her at the time of incident and also seized the bill of the
+alleged mobile which was taken away by the accused and one
+prescription of Dr Souvik Roy who examined the victim lady after the
+incident. In course of investigation, IO held several raids under Purba
+Jadavpur PS area & Naihati PS area to arrest the accused persons but
+no fruitful result achieved. Then IO collected the Passport details and
+prayed to the concerned authority after following all legal procedures
+for issuing Look Out Circular' against the principal accused namely
+Deepak Shankar Ray on 01.07.2023 LOC was initiated by the
+concerned authority against the accused person. On 11.07.2023
+received information that in the immigration Centre of Haridaspur
+under Petrapole PS, North 24 Pgs, said accused person was detained
+as LOC subject. IO along with force went to Haridaspur Immigration
+Centre and with the assistance of Petrapole PS police team, arrested
+the FIR named principle accused person namely Deepak Shankar Ray
+and brought him to PS and forwarded him before Ld. Court and took
+him into Police Custody for 02 days as per kind order of Ld. CJM,
+Howrah. During PC period after obtaining necessary orders from Ld.
+Court,   IO   produced   the   arrested   accused   person   before   the
+Superintendent of Howrah District Hospital for his medico legal
+examination. Dr. Chitta Ranjan Bhattacharya of Howrah District
+Hospital, has done the medico legal examination of the accused
+Deepak Shankar Ray and collected one sealed envelope containing one
+glass tube & one glass slide containing Urethral Swab/smears of said
+accused person. IO along with force and PC accused held raid to
+recover the alleged stolen articles and to arrest the other co accused
+persons, but no fruitful result was achieved. On 19.07.2023 IO sent the
+exhibits before Ld. C.JM. Howrah Sadar Court and collected CMR No.
+vide CMR No. 427/2023 dated 19.07.2023. On 31.08.2023 IO sent the
+exhibits to FSL Kolkata for examination and Expert Opinion. IO further
+                                 27
+
+contacted with the FSL authority over phone regarding the expert
+opinion but informed that the expert opinion is not ready yet. IO
+submitted Charge Sheet vide Chatterjehat PS C.S. No- 191/23 dated-
+31/10/2023 u/s 420/406/448/341/323/379/354B /307/376/506
+IPC against the Principal accused person namely Deepak Shankar Ray,
+53 yrs s/o Debidas Ray and u/s 509/506/34 IPC against the other 2
+FIR named accused persons namely (1) Kanad Saha - S/O Lt Kunal
+Saha (2) Debidas Ray s/o of Lt. Nagendranath Ray and IO also
+submitted prayer before the Ld. Court for allowing to submit
+Supplementary Charge Sheet after receiving the FSL report.
+  9. Steps Taken During Investigation by CID W.B:
+The investigation of the said case was taken up by CID W.B. as per
+order of Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta vide order CRR 1023 of
+2024, dt 08.04.2024 in compliance of the Order passed by Hon'ble
+High Court is "Quote" "Mr. Debasish Roy, learned Public Prosecutor
+appearing for the State submits that State would take up all the
+investigations for being investigated by the CID, West Bengal.
+However, it is the prerogative of the State at this stage as the de facto
+complainant has expressed her apprehension as she has complained
+to different dignitaries in respect of this Court.
+Targeting the Courts are a soft option as has been settled in several
+judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Article 219 of the
+Constitution of India states that court of law is supposed to act without
+any fear or favour. A professional having claimed herself to be a victim
+of sexual assault has raised issues not only in respect of this Court but
+also in respect of four other senior Judges of this Court. There cannot
+be any issue regarding the Court to proceed with the present case as
+the only issue which was expressed is that all the cases of
+Chatterjeehat Police Station in between the self same parties are to be
+transmitted to the CID or any Women Grievance Cell connected with
+the CID so that under the same umbrella investigation and in respect of
+different cases could be conducted.
+                                 28
+
+However, having regard to the attitude and approach of the de facto
+complainant and for preserving the sobriety of the judicial system, I
+intend to leave the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court for
+deciding the issue.
+Let the matter go out of the list and be placed before the Hon'ble Chief
+Justice for assignment.
+All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded
+from the official website of this Court.
+In respect of the said order CID WB has assumed investigation of the
+case vide Org No 618/CS. Dt. 06/08/24. I Inspector Swapna Ghosh,
+OC, POWC Cell was detailed as the Investigating officer.
+During investigation, I submitted a prayer and collected the Case
+Docket from learned CJM, Court, Howrah on 7/05/2024. I perused the
+case diary and learnt that the previous I/0 had submitted charge sheet
+with provision for submitting Supplementary Charge sheet on receipt of
+the FSL report. I submitted a prayer to FSL Kolkata vide memo no-
+79/POWC/CID WB on 14/05/2024 to hand over the FSL report and
+exhibits to me for the interest of investigation.
+On 22/05/2024 I received the exhibits and report from FSL Kolkata
+vide report no- BIO/5783/2023/3606/FSL dated 22/05/2024 and the
+opinion of the examination is "Quote" "No semen (no spermatozoon), no
+Gonococcus could be detected on the contents of the items marked A
+(vaginal swab & vaginal smears) and B (urethral swab & smears).
+"Unquote.
+Hon'ble High Court Calcutta vide order dated 08.04.2024 in CRR 1023
+OF 2024 had directed that all FIR's lodged against the complainants
+and accused persons at Chatterjeehat Police Station be investigated by
+CID, WB.
+O/C Chatterjeehat Police Station informed that along with the current
+case, there are 2 (two) more cases that have been lodged against both
+complainant and accused i.e Chatterjeehat PS case no- 23/2024
+dated-05/02/2024 u/S 341/ 323/ 325/ 326B/ 354A/ 354B/ 354/
+                                29
+
+509/ 506/34 IPC against (i) Dr. Deepak Shankar Roy s/o Dr. Debidas
+Roy (ii) Kanad Saha s/o Late Kunal Saha and (2) Chatterjeehat PS
+case no 86/2024 dated- 04/05/2024 u/s 341/363/468/420/506 IPC
+against Sanjukta Samanta w/o Romit Dutta.
+I had sent message to the complainant through Chatterjeehat PS for
+meeting her in c/w the investigation of the case, this refers to org no
+70/ POWC/CID WB dated 20/05/2024 and org no 73/ POWC/CID
+WB dated 25/05/2024 • However no response was received her till
+date. I also contacted with her over telephone and she told me that she
+don't want to meet investigation by CID, as rather she want CBI
+investigation.
+The complainant on 20/05/2024 had filed a WP (S) (Criminal) No (S)
+236/2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. But later the
+complainant withdrew her petition, this refers to Order dated
+03/06/2024 in WP (CL).
+Later, I came to learn from Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated
+1/07/2024 in c/w WPA Number 15260 of 2024 that "Quote" Let the
+case diary with the progress report of Chatterjeehat PS case no
+78/2023 be produced before this Court as because the petitioners
+apprehend arrest in c/w Chatterjeehat PS case no 86/2024.
+For the ends of justice the police is restrained from taking any coercive
+steps against the petitioner till 12th July, 2024 or until further order,
+which is earlier. "Unquote".
+Later, I came to learn from Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated
+30/07/2024 in c/w WPA Number 15260 of 2024 that "Quote"
+Petitioner No. 1 appears in-person and prays for release of the matter.
+Let this matter be released and placed before the Hon'ble the Chief
+Justice for appropriate assignment. "Unquote".
+In course of investigation, it is necessary to examine the complainant
+for which I have communicated with her over the telecommunication of
+CID West Bengal vide org no-144/ POWC dated 25/11/24.
+Reason for pending of investigation
+                                         30
+
+          Investigation is almost complete and will end in submission of
+          supplementary charge sheet.
+          The Investigation is pending as the complainant is not cooperating with
+          the investigation. During investigation several messages were sent to
+          the complainant but she did not respond. As per latest status dated
+          25/11/24 message was sent to the petitioner whose response was
+          recived by me vide Chatterjeehat PS org no - CHT/9033/24 which was
+          serviced dated 27/11/2024. Chatterjeehat PS. Received the following
+          response in writing against the above petition from the complainant
+          Quote "strongly objected to matter pending for challenging the
+          false FIR filed & counter case to harass me". Unquote.
+          This is submitted for your kind perusal."
+
+44. In compliance with the order dated 18.11.2024 of this Court, the report of
+
+   the Learned Public Prosecutor stated as follows:-
+
+             "The petitioner has initiated multiple proceedings before this Hon'ble
+          Court, asserting various grievances. Her claims are diverse, yet a
+          recurring theme is her assertion that the investigating agency has
+          failed to conduct its investigation impartially, thereby causing her
+          significant injustice. She has gone further to allege that the opposing
+          party is being supported by state machinery. According to her, the
+          advocates representing the state, acting in collusion, have sought to
+          suppress her voice and prevent her from receiving a fair hearing.
+             The petitioner's conduct has been noted on numerous occasions, and
+          there have been several instances where her matters have been
+          released by the Hon'ble Justices of this Court. In WPA 23711/2023, by
+          an order dated October 3, 2023, Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
+          observed the petitioner's belligerent demeanor and subsequently
+          released the matter. Similarly, in CRR 1023/2024, by an order dated
+          April 8, 2024, Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh reflected upon the
+          petitioner's attitude, noting her conduct as targeting the sanctity of the
+          judicial system, and consequently released the matter. This matter
+                                31
+
+was earlier released by Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh on April 4,
+2024.
+   In WPA 15260 of 2024, the petitioner herself sought the release of
+the matter before Hon'ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj, as indicated in
+the order dated July 30, 2024. Subsequently, by an order dated
+August 5, 2024, Hon'ble Justice Amrita Sinha released the same
+matter, attributing the decision to the petitioner's unruly behaviour
+during the proceedings. The petitioner has also alleged that during the
+hearing of the Sandeshkhali matter, WPA(P) 78/2024, she was
+subjected to abuse and threats by state advocates, which she claims
+were motivated by her political affiliations.
+   It is pertinent to mention herein that the aforesaid allegations have
+found place in the Special Leave Petition filed by the Writ Petitioner
+herein before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Writ Petition
+(Criminal) No 236/2024.
+   The petitioner has consistently expressed distrust in the police
+officials involved in the investigations of her matters. She alleges that
+these officials are influenced and biased, undermining her confidence
+in the fairness of the ongoing investigations.
+   Under such circumstances, I was constrained to direct the CID to
+take up the investigation of the cases filed by the instant writ petitioner
+as well as the case filed against her to ensure neutral investigation
+devoid of any blemish, as alleged by her.
+   The petitioner's allegations, demeanor, and conduct across various
+proceedings have drawn attention and have been noted by various
+benches this Hon'ble Court. These observations reflect a pattern of
+dissatisfaction on the part of the petitioner with the judicial and
+investigative processes, alongside allegations of undue influence and
+partiality.
+   It is however, necessary to bring to the notice of this Hon'ble Court
+that the Writ petitioner has consistently refrained from co operating
+with the CID to get her statement recorded or for any other purpose, as
+                                            32
+
+           required by the Investigating Agency thus rendering them incapable of
+           continuation and/or completion of the investigation of the cases
+           instituted by the instant writ petitioner.
+              This report has been prepared in pursuance to paragraph no. 5 of
+           the order dated November 18, 2024 passed by Her Ladyship Hon'ble
+           Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay."
+45. The petitioner no.1 appearing before the Court submitted her plight, agony
+
+   and helplessness being subjected to physical molestation, outrage of
+
+   modesty, theft of mobile and cash sum of Rs.65,000/- on the part of
+
+   respondent no.13 and his associates and non-payment of professional fees.
+
+   The petitioner no.1 submitted her associates. The petitioner no.1 submitted
+
+   her lawyer's chamber to have been impaired and damaged by the respondent
+
+   no.13 and his associates with continuous threat to both the petitioners and
+
+   their family members disrupting mental peace causing physical trauma and
+
+   being indignified with insinuations and ignominies. Both the petitioners
+
+   could not repose faith and trust on the investigating agencies whose actions
+
+   had been suspiciously frustrating to deliberately deprive the petitioners of
+
+   fair justice.
+
+46. The respondent no.13 filed a complaint dated 28 th April, 2024 accusing the
+
+   petitioners of abduction, extortion, physical assault, threat to murder,
+
+   defamation, confiscation of passport, ATM card and other official documents,
+
+   perjury, forgery implicating in false and fabricated criminal cases to extort
+
+   money etc. which had been serious allegations.
+
+47. The serious allegations by the petitioners the counter allegations resulting in
+
+   the institution of the aforementioned criminal cases being registered through
+
+   formal FIRs had been challenged through filing of Criminal Revisional
+                                              33
+
+   Applications pending before the co-ordinate bench of this Court for quashing
+
+   of the proceedings/FIRs being Nos. Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.86
+
+   of 2024 and No.78 of 2023.
+
+48. The allegations of the petitioner no.1 are indubitably grave and deprecated in
+
+   nature which can only be tested in terms of its veracity through trial to
+
+   inculpate the perpetrator. Contrarily the allegations of the respondent no.13
+
+   whether to have been genuine or a counterblast to the allegations of the
+
+   petitioners cannot be decided unless the investigation of the respective cases
+
+   are concluded and the process of trial being conducted by the court of
+
+   competent    jurisdiction   to   arrive    at   a   conclusive   determination   for
+
+   incrimination or exculpation.
+
+49. A web-search on the query as to who decides to provide security to private
+
+   individual in India and on what ground, the following answer has been
+
+   received by this Court:-
+
+
+           "The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), on the recommendation of
+           intelligence agencies, decides to provide security to private individuals
+           in India, based on perceived threats to life or injury from groups or
+           terrorists. While government officials typically receive security based
+           on their position, a call on security for private citizens is made by the
+           MHA using information from bodies like the Intelligence Bureau (IB)
+           and Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW). The Central Reserve Police
+           Force (CRPF) and other forces then provide this security.
+           The Process
+
+             1) Intelligence Gathering: Intelligence Agencies like the IB and R&AW
+                monitor potential threats and gather information from various
+                                           34
+
+               sources, including phone intercepts, human intelligence, and
+               threat analysis.
+             2) Threat   Assessment:      These   agencies   provide   a   subjective
+               assessment of the threat to an individual's life or safety from
+               potential attackers like terrorists or other groups.
+             3) Decision by the MHA: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) reviews
+               the intelligence inputs and decides whether a private individual
+               requires security cover.
+             4) Deployment of Forces: If security is granted, a central agency,
+               often the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), is tasked with
+               providing the security.
+50. The petitioners herein despite the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench of this
+
+   Court in WPA 23711 of 2023 and the Hon'ble Division Bench in MAT 831 of
+
+   2024 presiding over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court at Calcutta,
+
+   having directed to file complaints at the concerned police station for being
+
+   threatened as claimed by the petitioners reiterated by this Court during
+
+   consecutive hearings failed to provide the copy of the complaint or the G.D.
+
+   Entry number concerning such complaints claimed to have been lodged by
+
+   the petitioners.
+
+51. Considering the role of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the submissions of
+
+   the Learned Advocate representing the respondent no.1 and 2 Union of
+
+   India, the prayer of the petitioner for providing personal security on the
+
+   ground of their perception cannot be allowed. The petitioners could not
+
+   establish a case serious and strong enough to be granted protection as
+
+   sought for which otherwise had to be decided by the Ministry of Home Affairs
+
+   on the basis of imminent and persistent threat. The petitioners could not
+
+   justify inaction on the part of the police administration or the investigating
+                                           35
+
+   agency, however, claimed the same to be biased and revengetic in its attitude
+
+   towards the petitioners primarily petitioner no.1 for her active role against
+
+   the State administration defending injustice to women's rights concerning an
+
+   unfortunate event at Sandeshkhali through a Public Interest Litigation.
+
+52. The status report of the Learned Public Prosecutor as aforesaid explaining
+
+   the course of investigation did not endorse police inaction.
+
+53. Vide Order dated 08.07.2024, the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in WPA
+
+   15260 of 2024 observed as follows:-
+
+             "As per the request of the petitioners, the live streaming has been
+          paused.
+             Learned advocate representing the State respondents submits, upon
+          instruction that, the petitioners are not cooperating with the police in
+          the process of investigation.
+             From the documents handed over by the learned advocate
+          representing the State respondents it appears that, after protection
+          was granted to the petitioners vide the order passed by this Court on
+          1st July, 2024, no notice was served upon the petitioners directing their
+          appearance for investigation.
+             The respondents are directed to proceed with the investigation but
+          not take any coercive steps against the petitioners without the leave of
+          the Court.
+             The petitioners and all other parties are directed to cooperate with
+          the police for the sake of investigation.
+             List on 12th August, 2024.
+             Liberty to mention.
+             Report dated 08.07.2024 be kept with the records."
+54. The petitioners despite an order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this
+
+   Court to co-operate in the investigation refrained from participating in the
+
+   investigation as claimed by the Learned Advocate representing the State
+                                          36
+
+   respondents suspecting the Investigating Officers and accusing them of
+
+   arbitrary, biasedness being capricious and revengeful. The Co-Ordinate
+
+   Bench of this Court directed the investigating agency not to take any
+
+   coercive steps against the petitioners. Despite such an order, the petitioners
+
+   denied to co-operate with the investigating agency as had been stated in the
+
+   report filed by the Learned Public Prosecutor as aforesaid.
+
+55. The Learned Public Prosecutor on an explanation sought by this Court for
+
+   transferring the case of investigation to the CID, West Bengal anxiously
+
+   stated for the purpose of an impartial and unbiased investigation, the same
+
+   had been entrusted to the CID, West Bengal conforming to the police
+
+   regulations stated as follows:-
+
+          "II.- Control and assistance in enquiries and investigations.
+          ....
+

618. Method of assuming control. +

(a) The Deputy Inspector-General, Criminal Investigation. Department, + may assume control 0f an enquiry or investigation at any stage. On + assuming control he shall inform the Deputy Inspector-General of the + Range forthwith, sending a copy 0f his intimation direct to the + Superintendent Or Superintendents concerned. +
(b) In excise cases in which the investigation must extend to more than + one district, or in which there are intricacies which cannot be dealt with + without the aid of a specially skilled detective, the services of an officer + of the Criminal Investigation Department, shall be requisitioned by the + Commissioner of Excise. In emergencies such requisition may also be + made by an officer of lower rank. The Deputy Inspector-General, + Criminal Investigation Department, shall, if he thinks fit and if he has + an officer available, depute one and also decide whether the officer + deputed shall be placed at the disposal of the Commissioner of Excise + 37 + + or whether the control of the enquiry shall be taken over by the + Criminal Investigation Department." +

56. It was further submitted several Judges of this Hon'ble High Court had been + + accused along with the police officers and the Learned Public Prosecutor + + himself which compelled him to transfer the responsibilities of conducting + + investigation on the CID, State of West Bengal without any other alternative + + or option being third party to conduct the investigation independently + + without the involvement of the police officers of the concerned police station + + against whose conduct several objections had been raised by the petitioners. + +

57. The status report filed by the Learned Public Prosecutor as aforesaid did not + + reveal police inaction to the detriment of the petitioners' interest. The + + petitioners had filed a transfer petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + + India being Transfer Petitions Criminal No.701/702 of 2024 being Sanjukta + + Samanta vs. the State of West Bengal and Ors. etc. whereby the petitioners + + appeared in person. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated + + 02.09.2024 observed: "No case for transfer is made out. The transfer petitions + + are dismissed." +

+

58. The petitioners, therefore, cannot refuse to participate in the investigation + + violating the order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court on + + 08.07.2024 in WPA 15260 of 2024. Both the parties have filed criminal + + revisional applications before the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court, the + + criminal revisional applications being CRR 1023 of 2024 and CRR 3203 of + + 2023. The petitioners as well as the respondent no.13 have availed the + + jurisdiction to redress their grievances in an alternative form under Section + + 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner no.1 being a + 38 + + complainant in connection with Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.78 of + + 2023 filed under Sections + + 420/406/448/341/323/379/354B/307/376/506/34 sought for stay of the + + investigation in the said case further seeking the investigation to be + + conducted by the State respondent no.4 whose actions had been challenged + + by the petitioners to be against her interest intending to deprive her of fair + + trial and natural justice. +

+

59. In the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajanlal and Others 1, + + the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- +

+
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant + provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law + enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise + of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers + under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and + reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of + illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent + abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of + justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly + defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid + formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases + wherein such power should be exercised. +
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the + complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in + their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a + case against the accused. +
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other + materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable + offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section + + 1 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 + 39 + + 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the + purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. +

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint + and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the + commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. + (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable + offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is + permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as + contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. +

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd + and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can + ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for + proceeding against the accused. +

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the + provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal + proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the + proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or + the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the + aggrieved party. +

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide + and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior + motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite + him due to private and personal grudge." +

60. Since the contents of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet claimed to have + + been filed by the investigating agency as per the report filed by the Learned + + Public Prosecutor in Case No.78 of 2023 and the complaint as well as the + + FIR in Case No.86 of 2024 to have revealed allegations of cognizable offences + + in both the aforesaid cases, this Court is not inclined to stay the further + + proceedings in the aforesaid cases. +

40

+ +

61. The petitioners being young, responsible and bright advocates practising in + + this Hon'ble Court as well as in the Supreme Court, out of shock and + + displeasure probably by the turn of events cannot trust the investigating + + agencies at the moment perhaps due to mental agony. One has to confide in + + the prevailing justice delivery system to attain a finality to a dispute which + + definitely can be assailed at a Higher Forum statutorily. The petitioners did + + not appear before this Court on the dates fixed for hearing as reflected in the + + order-sheets of the instant writ petition and the case was reserved for + + judgment on 17.02.2025. Subsequently the petitioners filed several CAN + + applications in the Court and directly addressed the same in the name of the + + presiding judge of this Court as would be evident from the postal envelopes + + on record. Considering the context of the CAN applications, this Court + + thought it prudent to grant a further opportunity to the petitioners to + + address this Court for a final hearing and recalled the order dated + + 17.02.2025 on 16.05.2025, fixing the next date of hearing on 11.07.2025. + + The petitioner no.2 appeared online only to contradict the court proceedings + + without submissions on merits. Finally on 11.07.2025 the instant writ + + petition was reserved for pronouncing judgment. +

+

62. The contention of the petitioner no.1 to have been a victim of rape and her + + name and presence to be masked is contrary to the cause title of the instant + + writ petition where the name of the petitioner no.1 had been mentioned by + + herself conspicuously claiming the relief sought for revealing her identity for + + quashing of the aforesaid Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No.86 of 2024 + + dated 04.05.2024 under Sections 341/365/468/420/506/34 of the Indian + 41 + + Penal Code. The petitioner no.1 appeared before the Hon'ble Supreme Court + + in person to move the Transfer Petition as aforesaid without seeking her + + presence to be masked as the same would not transpire from the order of the + + Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioners did not appear before the Court on + + the dates fixed for hearing and subsequently could not blame this Court for + + not granting them an opportunity of hearing. This Court did hear the + + submissions of the petitioners on earlier dates and recorded the same in the + + order-sheets as well as in the instant judgment. +

+

63. Moreover, the petitioners as well as the respondent no.13 have already + + sought for relief of quashing the proceedings of the criminal cases instituted + + against each other under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as + + stated above before the Co-Ordinate Benches of this Court. The allegations + + and counter-allegations in the complaints do not reveal the same to be prima + + facie frivolous which are in the facts and circumstances of the case serious + + in nature with grave implications and ramifications. + +

64. The Writ Court can quash the criminal proceedings if the same has been + + frivolously instituted, however, in the instant case, the gamut of allegations + + and counter-allegations are complex in terms of severity necessitating to + + unravel the authenticity and credibility of the same which in the facts and + + circumstances of the instant writ petition shall be subjected to the process of + + trial by the competent Court. +

+

65. In view of the above discussions, the instant writ petition being WPA + + No.15260 of 2024 along with its connected CAN applications stand + + dismissed. +

42

+ +

66. There is no order as to costs. +

+

67. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on + + priority basis on compliance of all formalities. +

+

+

(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.) +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_7689167.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_7689167.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f9306c6fe81ec126027ddb01bf002c45d19f9720 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_7689167.html @@ -0,0 +1,361 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Dinesh Pandey vs State Of U.P. on 11 June, 2021 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

In this matter, as is evident from the record, applicant is not named in the F.I.R. Neither he is the Director, Office Bearer and Manager of the GIPL and its sister companies nor there is any evidence to show that the the applicant at any point of time induced or propagate to invest money in the Bike Boat Scheme launched by the GIPL. Entire money transaction took place between the GIPL and its sister companies and the applicant's company are banking transaction. Thus, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case and comparing the same with the ingredients of offence under Sections 406, 420 and 409 IPC, the orders granting bail to co-accused Ajeet Kumar Urf Adesh Bhati and Satinder Singh Bhasin and also taking into consideration the settled principles of law for granting bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail applications are allowed. +

+
+ +
+ +

Let the applicant Dinesh Pandey involved in Case Crime No. 369 of 2019, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15691 of 2019, Case Crime No. 440 of 2019 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15738 of 2021, Case Crime No. 361 of 2019, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15740 of 2021, Case Crime No. 586 of 2019 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15742 of 2021, Case Crime No. 389 of 2019, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15745 of 2021, Case Crime No. 386 of 2019, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15747 of 2021, Case Crime No. 809 of 2019, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15750 of 2021, Case Crime No. 510 of 2019, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15796 of 2021, Case Crime No. 368 of 2019, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15797 of 2021, Case Crime No. 866 of 2019, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC,Section 58-B (4A) of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and Section 58-A of Companies Act, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15851 of 2021 be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two heavy sureties in each cases in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions : +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_76910988.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_76910988.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67d5e71f25c5ac9aa460b15dd5b8bc20a063c45a --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_76910988.html @@ -0,0 +1,375 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Smt. Prema Devi vs State Of U.P. And Others on 11 December, 2019 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

19. In Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. (2014)16 SCC 508, this Court had granted bail to accused for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 394, 411, 454, 506, 120B and 34 IPC on the ground of parity as another accused Ashok was already enlarged on bail. The wife of deceased filed appeal for setting aside order of bail granted by this Court. Court considered various earlier authorities and said in para 13 of judgment as under : +

+
"...It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail and have not been taken note of bail or it is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the Court does not dwell upon the violation of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the Court." +
+
+ +
+ +

20. Thereafter, referring to 15 cases registered against accused showing that he was a history-sheeter and mostly under Section 302 IPC, order of bail was set aside. Court observed that there has to be a balance between personal liberty of an individual and peace and harmony of Society. No individual interest can be allowed to create a concavity in the stem of social stream otherwise it would bring chaos and anarchy in the Society. Relevant observations made in this regard are reproduced as under : +

+
+ +
+ +

25. In X vs. The State of Telangana and Ors. (2018)16 SCC 511, accused, a Film Producer, based in Mumbai, was charged of offences under Sections 376, 342, 493, 506, 354(C) of IPC. Accused got anticipatory bail from Sessions Judge on 13.01.2017 and had advantage of that order for about eight months. The said order was cancelled by Sessions Judge on the ground that accused has not disclosed that he was also accused in 2G Spectrum case. This cancellation order was affirmed by High Court and also by Supreme Court. Thereafter accused moved a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by High Court and accused was released on bail. This order was challenged in appeal before Supreme Court. Upholding the said order, Court said that bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case, based on supervening event has been made out. +

+
+ +
+ +

26. In Seema Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. (2018) 16 SCC 10 bail granted to accused by High Court in the case registered under Sections 498-A, 302, 120-B IPC was challenged in appeal before Supreme Court. Court noticed that accused-2's bail application was rejected by Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ghaziabad and thereafter bail was granted by High Court. Court said that gravity of offence is a relevant factor but not the sole ground to deny bail if there are other overwhelming circumstances justifying grant of bail. Noticing special feature, Court upheld order of High Court granting bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_77162377.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_77162377.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..287ba8cd656292e2388d3109a5067e50f58e0501 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_77162377.html @@ -0,0 +1,516 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 24 May, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

- 15 - +

+

Section 307 IPC was inserted prior to it on 20.02.2024 + + and these bail applications were rejected by Learned + + Trial Court on 29.02.2024, on the ground, that the + + + + + . +

bail petitioners, have suppressed factum of insertion + + + + + + of Section 307 IPC in their bail applications ; coupled + + + + + + with the fact that the offence was grave/serious + + by deadly weapons and the fact that one of the + + + + + + weapon (Sword) has been recovered clearly points + + out, towards the intention of the bail petitioners to + + commit the offence and since the investigation was + + at nascent stage, therefore, grant of pre-arrest bail + + would have prejudiced the investigation, therefore, the + + + + Learned Trial Court dismissed the bail applications of + + the bail petitioners on 29.02.2024. +

+
+ +
+ +

ANALYSIS OF ORDER DATED 29.02.2024 + [Annexure P-2] PASSED BY LEARNED TRIAL + COURT-REJECTING BAIL APPLICATIONS: +

+

10. Though + + originally the FIR + + dated 20.1.2024 was registered under Sections 147, + + + 148, 149, 323 and 506 IPC, but keeping in view + + the medical opinion, gravity of offence, the nature of + + + injuries which were grievous in nature and dangerous + + to life, Section 307 IPC was inserted/added to the + + + + + aforesaid FIR on 20.02.2024, yet the bail petitioners + + + + + + filed the bail applications before Learned Trial Court + + + + + + i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, on 21.02.2024 + + without disclosing factum of Section 307 IPC having + + been inserted/added to the aforesaid FIR. All six bail + + application(s) were rejected by the Learned Trial Court + + + + + +

+
+ +
+
12 The most disturbing feature in this bail + + + + + application is that the bail applicant has + + + + + + misled this court while obtaining pre + arrest. Police report suggests that Section + 307 IPC had already been invoked against + + + + + + bail applicant and others on 20.02.2024 + and this application was admittedly + moved on 21.02.2024 and bail applicant + did not mention this fact in this application. + Thus, they are not entitled to relief from this + court on this count as well. +
+
+ +
+ +

19(ii). Mr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, Learned Senior + + Counsel, contends that another FIR No. 161 of 2022, + + dated 01.06.2022, was registered by one of the bail + + petitioners, namely, Satish Kumar, under Sections 341, + + + + 323 and 506 IPC, cannot be of any avail to the bail + + petitioners when, the aforesaid FIR, nowhere indicates + + + + + that the alleged offences were against or in the context + + + + + + of the complainant [Sandeep Kumar] and two friends, + + + + + + Neema and Kulbir, as in the instant case. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_77189492.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_77189492.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c1bec57681701e84a543cde671fed60f82ec3a98 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_77189492.html @@ -0,0 +1,439 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + R D Patil @ Rudragouda vs The State on 13 December, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Criminal Petition No.201625/2023 is filed by the + +petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.295/2023 registered by + +University Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 34, 37 of + +IPC and Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2008 + +(for short, hereinafter referred to as 'IT Act') + + +

2. Criminal Petition No.201627/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner who is accused No.1 under Section 438 of + +Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.267/2023 + +registered by Afzalpur Police Station, Kalaburagi District, for + +the offences punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, + +420, 34, 36, 37, 149 of IPC. +

+
+ +
+ +

+

3. Criminal Petition No.201738/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + + + + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.144/2023 registered by + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

4. Criminal Petition No.201736/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.145/2023 registered by + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

+
+ +
+

5. Criminal Petition No.201735/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.146/2023 registered by + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

6. Criminal Petition No.201734/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.147/2023 registered by + + + + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_77656932.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_77656932.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a579c3e94fcfc94a1fb0817660634d97033ac90d --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_77656932.html @@ -0,0 +1,455 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rahul Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The petitioner is in custody for about 4 years. + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 665 of 2023 + + The instant Revision is filed by CICL himself, + + challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order, + + dated 9th of August, 2023, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2023 + + by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum- + + Children's Court, Banka. The CICL was arrested in connection + + with Banduwa Kurawa P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023, corresponding + + to G.R. No. 1202 of 2023, for the offences punishable under + + Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 + + of the Arms Act. However, later on, Sections 34 of the IPC and + + Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section + + 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes + + (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added. Prayer for + + bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Appeal in + + exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Juvenile + + Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter + + referred to as 'said Act') vide order, dated 15th of June, 2023. + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 687 of 2023 + + The petitioner/CICL was arrested in connection + + with Fesar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, + + 325, 307, 34, 504, 506 and 379 of the IPC along with his father + + and uncle. The petitioner prayed for regular bail before the JJB, + + Aurangabad. In JJB Case No. 932 of 2023, prayer for bail was + + rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 41 + + of 2023 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children's Court, + + Aurangabad. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal + + and affirmed the order of the JJB. The petitioner has assailed the + + said order of the Appellate Court on various grounds, specially + + on the ground that the father and uncle of the petitioner have + + already been granted bail for the same offence. + +
+
+ +
+

Reg. Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2024 + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + The petitioner was booked along with other major + + accused persons in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 237 of + + 2022, dated 13th of August, 2022, under Section 302 and 34 of + + the IPC. The petitioner being a CICL prayed for bail before the + + Juvenile Justice Board, but his prayer for bail was rejected. He + + preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the said Act before the + + learned Special Judge, Children's Court and the said appeal was + + also dismissed and the order of rejection of bail passed by the + + JJB was affirmed. It is stated by the petitioner that the accused + + persons who are major, namely, Sushil Kumar Yadav and Anil + + Yadav were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on + + 26th of April, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 4091 of 2023. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_78044784.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_78044784.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ecbc903327ed5c7c14a334630c2d46b4863fde57 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_78044784.html @@ -0,0 +1,441 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Vijay Chaudhari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 July, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Record of the court below is available. + Heard on IA No.11610/2015, a application under Section +389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to +the appellant. +

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under +Sections 376, 506-II of IPC and sentenced to maximum period +of seven years' RI with total fine of Rs.1500/-. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant +was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty +granted to him. He has already deposited the fine amount before +the trial Court. The prosecutrix (PW-1) had alleged that she had +lodged an FIR when she was pregnant. Looking to her conduct, +she appears to be a consenting party. The documents relating to +assessment of her age were suppressed by the police, and therefore +Dr. DC Chourasiya (DW-1) was called in defence, who examined +the prosecutrix radiologically and found her above 19 years of age. +Hence the prosecutrix was certainly above 18 years of age at the +time of incident. There are fair chances of success of this appeal +and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal +may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution + + + + of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released + on bail. +

+
+ +
+

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under +Section 369 of IPC and sentenced to seven years' RI with fine of +Rs.1000/-. +

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant +was on bail during the trial and she did not misuse the liberty +granted to her. Though she is convicted under Section 369 of IPC, +but there is no evidence that the kidnapped child had any ornament +or any property, which could be taken by the appellant. Hence +prima facie no offence under Section 369 of IPC is made out +against the appellant. At the most offence under Section 363 of +IPC may constitute. The appellant has already remained for three +years and that would be the sufficient sentence for the offence +under Section 363 of IPC. Under these circumstances, if execution +of sentence is not suspended, then her appeal may turn +infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail +sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail. +

+
+ +
+

The appellants are convicted for commission of offence +punishable under Sections 307 or 307/34 and 325 of IPC and +sentenced with maximum period of seven years' RI with fine of +Rs. 4,000/-. +

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the +appellants are reputed citizen of the locality. They were on bail +during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty granted to +them. The charges of offence under Sections 307 and 325 of +IPC were framed for the victim Akhilesh, who appeared before +the Court on 4.3.2014 and applied for compromise and his +compromise application was accepted, and therefore the +appellants are acquitted from the charge of Section 325 of IPC. +In the light of the compromise, there is possibility that sentence +for the offence under Section 307 of IPC may be reduced to the +period for which they remained in the custody, whereas they +remained for six months. Under such circumstances, it is prayed +that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present +appellants be released on bail. +

+
+ +
+

The appellants are convicted for commission of offence +punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC and sentenced with +ten years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- each. +

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the +appellants are reputed citizen of the locality. They were on bail +during the trial. The prosecutrix was shown to be 17 years old +girl, whereas the incident took place on the date prior to the +amendment in IPC. The FIR was lodged with a delay of 3-4 +days and the names of present appellants were not mentioned in +the FIR. The prosecutrix has admitted that the appellants were +shown by the police in the police station prior to arrangement of +test identification parade. Under such circumstances, there are +fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of +sentence is not suspended, then their appeal may turn +infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail +sentence be suspended and present appellants be released on +bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_78301630.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_78301630.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e144f9b189d7014fe46092fa38194c3445ca3974 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_78301630.html @@ -0,0 +1,392 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Koppisetty Satya Sai, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 9 December, 2022 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

+

37. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted for the offences under Sections + +306 and 498-A of IPC. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and + +the fine amount paid is liable to be refunded to the accused. + + +

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. + + +

_____________________ + Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J + +December 09, 2022 +SS + Dr.GRR,J + + + + + + THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI + + + + + + + + + + December 09, 2022 + + + + +SS +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_79381319.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_79381319.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..79b015247c3c7f0d7b897f0810a1743ae143cd8c --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_79381319.html @@ -0,0 +1,396 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Kamlesh Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 15 July, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
2. These applications for bail have been filed by applicants, Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Kamlesh Kumar Yadav and Awadesh Yadav seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.55 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, Police Station Holagarh, District Allahabad, during the pendency of trial. +
+
3. Perused the record. +
+
4. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.50626 of 2021 (Pradeep Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P.) came up for orders on 24.02.2022 and this Court passed following order:- +
+
"Heard Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State. + +Perused the record. +
+
+ +
+ +
On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail. +
+
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. +
+
Let the applicant Sandeep Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 55 of 2017 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 325 I.P.C., P.S. Holagarh, District Allahabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (not less than rupees five lacs) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. +
+
+ +
+
2. These applications for bail have been filed by applicants, Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Kamlesh Kumar Yadav and Awadesh Yadav seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.55 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, Police Station Holagarh, District Allahabad, during the pendency of trial. + +
3. Perused the record. +
+
4. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.50626 of 2021 (Pradeep Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P.) came up for orders on 24.02.2022 and this Court passed following order:- + +"Heard Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State. + +Perused the record. +
+
+ +
+ +
On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail. +
+
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. +
+
Let the applicant Sandeep Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 55 of 2017 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 325 I.P.C., P.S. Holagarh, District Allahabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (not less than rupees five lacs) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_80364506.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_80364506.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e4d7a4497b9b39cdf4e479e3437fed3378c89097 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_80364506.html @@ -0,0 +1,8089 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Bijju @ Jaihind Singh Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 September, 2014 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 68, Cited by 16] + +
+ +

Madhya Pradesh High Court

+

Bijju @ Jaihind Singh Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 September, 2014

+ +
                            Criminal Appeal No.2135/2014                  
+
+  12
+     .09.2014:
+              
+                          Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate for the appellant.
+                          Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­
+

State. +

Heard   on  I.A.   No.15505/2014,   an   application   for  + suspension of  remaining  jail  sentence  and grant of bail  to  + appellant. +

The appellant has been convicted under Sections 452  + and   354   of   IPC,   Section   3   (1)   (xi)   of   SC/ST  (Prevention   of  + Atrocities)   Act,   and   Section   7/8   of   Protection   of   Children  + From   Sexual   Offences   Act,   2012     and   sentenced   as  + mentioned in the impugned judgment.  +

Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submits   that   the  + appellant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   matter.   It   is  + submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the  + prosecution   has   failed   to   prove   the   age   of   the   prosecutrix  + and there is no evidence that the present act is committed  + as   the   prosecutrix   belongs   to   SC/ST   caste.   There   are   so  + many   contradictions   and   omissions   in   the   deposition   of  + witnesses. The appellant was on bail during trial. He never  + misused the liberty grant to him. He also submits that there  + was  there  is   no  likelihood  of   coming  up  of  this  appeal  for  + final hearing in near future. +

Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer  + for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. +

On due consideration of the facts and circumstances  + of the case and the nature of allegation, this application is  + allowed.   Execution   of   remaining   jail   sentence   of   the  + appellant­ Bhajju @ Jaihind Singh Thakur  is suspended.  + He   is   directed   to   be   enlarged   on   bail   on   his   furnishing   a  + personal bond in the sum of  Rs.25,000/­ (Rupees Twenty  + Five Thousand Only) and a surety bond in the like amount  + to  the  satisfaction   of  trial  Court   for  his  appearance  before  + the  Registry  of  this  Court  on  7th  May, 2015  and on such  + other dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard. +

It is made clear that the sentence of fine amount is not  + suspended. +

List this case for final hearing in due course. + C.C. as per rules. +

+ +

          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                   JUDGE +taj/­ + Misc. Criminal Case No.13779/2014 +12.09.2014: +

Shri R.K. Samaiya, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Heard on admission.   +
Admit. +
Case diary is available. +
With   the   consent   of   the   parties   the   case   is   heard  + finally. +
This is the Third bail application filed by the applicant  + under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Earlier bail  + applications filed by the applicant was dismissed vide orders  + dated 02.04.2014 and 21.07.2014.   +
The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime  + No.4/2014,   registered   at   Police   Station   Digoda,   District  + Tikamgarh, for the offences punishable under Sections 304­ + B and 498­A read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of  + Dowry Prohibition Act.  +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that   all   the   three   important   witnesses   namely   Munnalal  + Ahirwar   (PW­1),   Kunwar   Bai   Ahirwar   (PW­2),   father   and  + mother of the deceased Geeta and Tulsidas   (PW­3) relative  + of the deceased have turned hostile and stated that due to  + abdominal   pain,   the   deceased   committed   suicide.   The  + applicant   is   a   young   person   and   is   in   custody   since  + 05.01.2014, having no past criminal antecedents. In view of  + the   aforesaid,   prayer   is   made   to   enlarge   the   applicant   on  + bail. +

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + has opposed the application for grant of bail. +

Looking   to   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,  + without   expressing   any   view   on   merits   of   the   case   and  + considering the averments made by learned counsel for the  + parties, the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. may be  + accepted. Consequently, it is hereby allowed. +

It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on  + furnishing   a   personal   bond   in   the   sum   of   Rs.35,000/­  + (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety  + in   the   like   amount   to   the   satisfaction   of   the   Committal  + Court/trial Court to appear before the concerned Court on  + the dates given by the concerned Court during trial.  +

C.C. as per rules. +

+ +

      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +

Criminal Appeal No.2135/2014                   + +  12 +    .09.2014: +

    +
Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate for the appellant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Heard   on  I.A.   No.15505/2014,   an   application   for  + suspension of  remaining  jail  sentence  and grant of bail  to  + appellant. +
The appellant has been convicted under Sections 452  + and   354   of   IPC,   Section   3   (1)   (xi)   of   SC/ST  (Prevention   of  + Atrocities)   Act,   and   Section   7/8   of   Protection   of   Children  + From   Sexual   Offences   Act,   2012     and   sentenced   as  + mentioned in the impugned judgment.  +
Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submits   that   the  + appellant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   matter.   It   is  + submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the  + prosecution   has   failed   to   prove   the   age   of   the   prosecutrix  + and there is no evidence that the present act is committed  + as   the   prosecutrix   belongs   to   SC/ST   caste.   There   are   so  + many   contradictions   and   omissions   in   the   deposition   of  + witnesses. The appellant was on bail during trial. He never  + misused the liberty grant to him. He also submits that there  + was  there  is   no  likelihood  of   coming  up  of  this  appeal  for  + final hearing in near future. +
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer  + for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. +
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances  + of the case and the nature of allegation, this application is  + allowed.   Execution   of   remaining   jail   sentence   of   the  + appellant­ Bhajju @ Jaihind Singh Thakur  is suspended.  + He   is   directed   to   be   enlarged   on   bail   on   his   furnishing   a  + personal bond in the sum of  Rs.25,000/­ (Rupees Twenty  + Five Thousand Only) and a surety bond in the like amount  + to  the  satisfaction   of  trial  Court   for  his  appearance  before  + the  Registry  of  this  Court  on  7th  May, 2015  and on such  + other dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard. +
It is made clear that the sentence of fine amount is not  + suspended. +
List this case for final hearing in due course. + C.C. as per rules. +
+ +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                   JUDGE +taj/­ + Criminal Revision No.1882/2014                   +  12 +    .09.2014: +
    +
Shri M.K. Tripathi, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Heard on admission.  +
Admit.  +
Record of the Courts below be called for.  + Also heard on I.A. No.17715/2014, an application for  + suspension of sentence and grant of bail to applicant. +
The applicants have been convicted under Section 25  + (1)   (A)   of   Arms   Act   and   sentenced   to   undergo   rigorous  + imprisonment   for   3   years   and   fine   of   Rs.1,000/­,   with  + default stipulation. +

Learned   counsel   for   the   applicants   submits   that   the  + applicants  have   been   falsely   implicated  in  the  matter.   The  + applicants were on bail during trial and never misused the  + liberty granted to them. He further submits that there is no  + likelihood of coming up of this revision for final hearing in  + near future. +

Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer  + for bail. +

On due consideration of the facts and circumstances  + of the case and the nature of allegation, this application is  + allowed.   Execution   of   jail   sentence   of   the  applicants   is  + suspended.   They   are   directed   to   be   enlarged   on   bail   on  + furnishing   a   personal   bond   in   the   sum   of  Rs.25,000/­  + (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only)  and a surety bond  + each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court for  + their   appearance   before   the   Registry   of   this   Court   on  7th  + May, 2015 and on such other dates as may be fixed by the  + Registry in this regard. +

It   is   made   clear   that   the   sentence   of   fine   is   not  + suspended.  +

List this case for final hearing in due course.  + C.C. as per rules.  +

+ +

          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                  JUDGE + +taj/­ + Misc. Criminal Case No.13784/2014 +12.09.2014: +

Ms. Pooja Gajra, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Heard on admission.   +
Admit. +
Case diary is available. +
With   the   consent   of   the   parties   the   case   is   heard  + finally. +
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant  + under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. +
The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime  + No.94/2014, registered at Police Station Grameen Navegaon,  + District Balaghat, for the offences punishable under Sections  + 363, 366 and 376 of IPC. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that during trial the statement of prosecutrix Rekha (PW­1),  + Sukhlal (PW­2), Pushpa Bai (PW­3), father and mother of the  + prosecutrix   and  other   villagers   namely   Smt.   Saraswati   bai  + (PW­4) and Smt. Fulwanta Bai (PW­5) have been record and  + these   witnesses   were   turned   hostile.   The   applicant   is   a  + young person and is in custody since 24.05.2014, having no  + past criminal antecedents. In view of the aforesaid, prayer is  + made to enlarge the applicant on bail. +
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + has opposed the application for grant of bail. +
Looking   to   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,  + without   expressing   any   view   on   merits   of   the   case   and  + considering the averments made by learned counsel for the  + parties, the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. may be  + accepted. Consequently, it is hereby allowed. +
It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on  + furnishing   a   personal   bond   in   the   sum   of   Rs.25,000/­  + (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety  + in   the   like   amount   to   the   satisfaction   of   the   Committal  + Court/trial Court to appear before the concerned Court on  + the dates given by the concerned Court during trial.  +
C.C. as per rules. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13795/2014 + 12.09.2014: +
None for the applicant. +
Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Perused the record. +
Admit. +
Case diary is not available. +
It is positively called for on the next date of hearing. + List the case in the next week. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13801/2014 + 12.09.2014: +
Shri Sanjay Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State. +
Heard on admission.   +
Admit. +
Case diary is not available. +
It is positively called for on the next date of hearing. + List the case in the next week. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1683/2014 + 12.09.2014: +
None for the applicant. +
This   revision   has   been   filed   by   the   applicant   under  + Section   397/401   of   Cr.P.C.   being   aggrieved   by   the   order  + dated   17.07.2014,   passed   in   Case   No.71/2014,   by   the  + learned Family Court, Katni, whereby the application filed by  + the applicant for rejection of application under Section 125,  + Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.  +
Since   no   one   appears   on   behalf   of   the   applicant,   it  + seems that the applicant has lost interest in prosecuting the  + case. +
Accordingly, this revision is hereby dismissed for want  + of prosecution However, the applicant is extended a liberty  + to file appropriate application for recalling of this order on  + admissible ground. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.288/2014 +12.09.2014: +
Smt. Alka Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the State. + This   revision   under   Section   397/401   of   Cr.P.C.   has  + been   filed   against   the   order   dated   30.12.2013,   passed   by  + learned   First   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   District   Sidhi,   In  + Sessions Trial No.277/10. framing the charges against the  + petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 294,  + 506­2, 323, 325, 324 and 326/34 of IPC. +
Brief facts of the case are that on 15.03.2010, at about  + 07:00   am   a   free   fight   had   taken   place   regarding   some  + construction over the land in dispute and in the said fight it  + is alleged that the petitioners assaulted the complainant and  + his father by kick, fist and Tangi. After filing of the charge­ + sheet case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Sidhi.  + After   committal   proceeding,   by   the   impugned   order   the  + aforesaid charges have been framed against the petitioners  + against which this revision has been filed. +
Smt.   Alka   Singh,   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the  + petitioners   submits   that   the   learned   trial   Court   has  + committed error in framing charge against the petitioners as  + no   injury   was   caused   to   the   complainant   by   sharp   edged  + weapon, only swelling and slight fracture due to falling was  + there   on   the   person   of   the   complainant.   The   FIR   and   the  + statement   of   complainant   is   full   of   contradictions   and  + exaggeration   just   to   make  out   the   gravity   in   the   mater.   A  + counter   case   has   also   been   registered   against   the  + complainant. On the aforesaid grounds, he prayed that the  + impugned order be quashed and petitioners be discharged . +
Learned   Panel   Lawyer   appearing   for   the   respondent­ + State supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal  + of this revision. +
After perusing the documents filed with the revision,  + particularly the charge­sheet prima facie well founded case is  + made   out   against   the   petitioners.     At   this   stage   it   is   not  + required   to   go   into   the  pros   and   cons  of   the   prosecution  + evidence   as  required  to   discuss   at  the  stage   of   passing   of  + judgment by the trial Court. +
In the above facts and circumstances, there is no need  + to sift and weigh or appreciate the prosecution evidence as  + well as defence available to the petitioners and come to the  + conclusion that no prima facie case is made out nor could be  + exercised   to   stifle   a   legitimate   prosecution.   It   is   a   settled  + legal   proposition   that   in   a   case   where   there   is   sufficient  + evidence   against   the   accused   which   may   establish   the  + charge against him/her, the proceeding cannot be quashed -  + S. Khushboo v Kanniammal (2010) 5 SCC 600.    +
Accordingly, I do not find any illegality or perversity in  + the   impugned   order   dated   30.12.2013   warranting  + interference by way of this Revision petition against framing  + of charge.  The Revision is dismissed summarily. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1590/2014 + 12.09.2014: +
Shri K.K. Gautam, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + Case diary is not available.  +
It   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing because it is the allegation of the applicant that the  + statement   of   Smt.   Savita   Devi   was   not   recorded   by   the  + Investigating Officer under the provisions of Section 161 of  + Cr.P.C. +
List the case after two weeks along with case diary. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1641/2014 + 12.09.2014: +
Ms. Jaya Laxmi Aiyar, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + Case diary is not available.  +
It   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing. +
List the case under the same head in the next week. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1665/2014                   + +  12 +    .09.2014: +
    +
None for the applicant. +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent no.5­ + State. +
List the case after four weeks under the same head as  + per convenience of the Registry.  +
+ + + +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                   JUDGE + taj/­ + Criminal Revision No.1671/2014                   + +  12 +    .09.2014: +
    +
Shri S.K. Dixit, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent no.1­ + State. +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List the case in the next week under the same head.  +
+ + + +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                   JUDGE + taj/­ + Criminal Revision No.2093/2011 + 12.09.2014: +
Shri Satyam Agrawal, Advocate for the applicants.  + Applicants Manu Bai and Vandna are personally present  + before   this   Court.   They   are   duly   identified   by   their   counsel.  + Their presence be marked.  +
Shri   D.K.   Parouha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   respondent­ + State. +
Heard on I.A. Nos.14651/2014 and 14652/2014,  which  + are the applications for condonation of non­appearance of the  + applicant no.2 on 07.10.2013 and applicant no.1 02.04.2014. +
For   the   reasons   stated   in   the   application,   the   same   is  + allowed. Non­appearance of the applicant no.2 on 07.10.2013  + and applicant no.1 on 02.04.2014 is condoned.  +
Also   heard   on   I.A.   No.8291/2012,   which   is   an  + application seeking exemption from personal appearance of the  + applicants in this Court. +
Looking to the averments made in the application,   the  + same is allowed. Applicants are now directed to appear before  + the CJM, Sehore on 06.05.2015 and on such other dates as  + may   be   given   to  them   in  this  behalf   during   pendency   of   the  + revision. The applicants shall submit in this Court the certified  + copy   of   the   order­sheet   of   first   appearance   before   the   trial  + Court within a week from their first appearance. +
This case has already been admitted.  + Record of the Courts below be called for. + List this case for final hearing in due course. + Cc as per rules.  +
(Subhash Kakade)  +           Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.2496/2013 + + 12.09.2014: +
+
Shri A.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for a fixed date  + to produce the applicant­ Badaru @ Badri in this Court. +
Prayer allowed. +
List   the   matter   on   06.10.2014   for   appearance   of  + aforesaid applicant.  +
+ +
(Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.4126/2014                   + +  12 +    .09.2014: +
    +
Shri Shashank Trivedi, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Case diary is available. +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List the case after two weeks under the same head.  + Case diary be also made available on the said date. +
+ + + +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                   JUDGE + taj/­ + Misc. Criminal Case No.7418/2014                   + +  12 +    .09.2014: +
    +
Shri Shashank Trivedi, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   prays   for   and   is  + granted   a   week's   time   to   comply   earlier   order   dated  + 05.09.2014. +

List the case on 19.09.2014.  +

+ +

          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                   JUDGE + taj/­ + Misc. Criminal Case No.11584/2014                   + +  12 +    .09.2014: +

    +
Shri Pushpendra Dubey, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
List this case along with record of Misc. Criminal Case  + No.13899/2014   in   the   next   week   because   case   diary   is  + produced in the said case. +
+ +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                   JUDGE + taj/­ + Misc. Criminal Case No.12253/2014                   + +  12 +    .09.2014: +
    +
Shri Varun Parsai, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Shri Pratyush Tripathi, Advocate for the objector.  + List   this   case   along   with   Misc.   Criminal   Case  + No.11584/2014. +
+ +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                   JUDGE + taj/­ + Criminal Appeal No.2574/2013 + 11.09.2014: +
Smt. Alka Singh, Advocate for the appellant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List the case after two months under the same head.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.2236/2014 + 11.09.2014: +
Shri K.S. Rajput, Advocate for the appellant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Shri Pradeep Singh, Advocate for the objector.  + As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List the case after three months under the same head.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.2934/2013 + 12.09.2014: +
Shri K.S. Rajput, Advocate for the appellants. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Heard on I.A. No.17547/2014, which is an application  + seeking   exemption   from   personal   appearance   of   the  + appellants in this Court. +
Looking to the averments made in the application,  the  + same   is   allowed.   Appellants   are   now   directed   to   appear  + before the CJM, Khandwa on 06.05.2014 and on such other  + dates   as   may   be   given   to   them   in   this   behalf   during  + pendency of the appeal. The appellants shall submit in this  + Court the certified copy of the order­sheet of first appearance  + before   the   trial   Court   within   a   week   from   their   first  + appearance. +
This case has already been admitted.  + Record is available. +
List this case for final hearing in due course. + Cc as per rules.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.2934/2014                   + +  12 +    .09.2014: +
    +
Shri K.S. Rajput, Advocate for the applicants. + Shr   D.K.   Parouha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   respondent­ + State. +
This case has already been admitted.  + Record is available.  +
List   this   case  along   with   Criminal   Revision  + Nos.1362/2014   and   1372/2014   and   Misc.   Criminal   Case  + No.12472/2014 for final hearing in due course. +
+ + + +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                   JUDGE + taj/­ + Criminal Revision No.2342/2013 + 12.09.2014: +
Shri U.S. Rawat, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri M. Amjad, Advocate for the CBI­ respondent.  + Case diary is not available.  +
It   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing. +
List the case under the same head in the next week. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1333/2014                   + +  12 +    .09.2014: +
    +
Shri Ajay Shukla, Advocate for the applicants. + Shr   D.K.   Parouha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   respondent­ + State. +
This case has already been admitted.  + Record is available.  +
List   this   case  along   with   Criminal   Revision  + Nos.1362/2014   and   1372/2014   and   Misc.   Criminal   Case  + No.12472/2014 for final hearing in due course. +
+ + + +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                   JUDGE + taj/­ + Criminal Revision No.1372/2014                   + +  12 +    .09.2014: +
    +
Shri Hamid Khan, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Shri B.R. Koshta, Advocate for the objector. + Heard on the question of admission.  + Admit.  +
Record is available.  +
List   this   case  along   with   Criminal   Revision  + Nos.1333/2014   and   1362/2014   and   Misc.   Criminal   Case  + No.12472/2014 for final hearing in due course. +
+ + + +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                   JUDGE + taj/­ + Criminal Revision No.1362/2014                   + +  12 +    .09.2014: +
    +
None for the applicant. +
This case has already been admitted.  + Record is available.  +
List this case for final hearing in due course along with  + Criminal Revision Nos.1333/2014 and 1372/2014 and Misc.  + Criminal Case No.12472/2014. +
+ + + +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                   JUDGE + taj/­ + Misc. Criminal Case No.12472/2014                   + +  12 +    .09.2014: +
    +
Shri B.R. Koshta, Advocate for the applicant. + List   this   case   along   with   Criminal   Revision  + Nos.1333/2014, 1362/2014 and 1372/2014. +
+ + + +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                   JUDGE + taj/­ + Criminal Appeal No.2314/2014                   + +  11 +    .09.2014: +
    +
Shri Rajmani Singraul, Advocate for the appellant. + Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal seems to be arguable, hence, admitted for final  + hearing.  +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer accepts notice on behalf  + of the respondent­State, hence, no notice is required.  +
Record of the trial Court be called for. + Also heard on I.A. No.17458/2014, an application for  + suspension of  remaining  jail  sentence  and grant of bail  to  + appellant. +
The appellant has been convicted under Sections 307  + of IPC and Section 27 (1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to  + undergo   rigorous   imprisonment   of   5   years   and   fine   of  + Rs.2,000/­ and 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/­ respectively,  + with default stipulation. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submits   that   the  + appellant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   matter.   It   is  + submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the  + appellant has served out more than 3½ years in custody. He  + also submits that there was there is no likelihood of coming  + up of this appeal for final hearing in near future. +
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer  + for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. +
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances  + of the case and the nature of allegation, this application is  + allowed.   Execution   of   remaining   jail   sentence   of   the  + appellant­ Pradeep Lodhi is suspended. He is directed to be  + enlarged  on  bail on  his furnishing a personal  bond in the  + sum of Rs.40,000/­ (Rupees Forty Thousand Only)  and a  + surety  bond   in  the  like   amount  to   the  satisfaction   of   trial  + Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on  + 15th May, 2015 and on such other dates as may be fixed by  + the Registry in this regard. +
It is made clear that the sentence of fine amount is not  + suspended. +
List   this   case   along   with   Criminal   Appeal  + No.2300/2014 for final hearing in due course. +
C.C. as per rules. +
+ +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                   JUDGE +taj/­ + Criminal Appeal No.2300/2014                   + +  11 +    .09.2014: +
    +
Shri Rajmani Singraul, Advocate for the appellant. + List   this   case   along   with   Criminal   Appeal  + No.2314/2014 for final hearing in due course. +
+ + + +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                   JUDGE + taj/­ + Criminal Appeal No.2303/2014                   + +  11 +    .09.2014: +
    +
Shri Y.K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. + Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal seems to be arguable, hence, admitted for final  + hearing.  +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer accepts notice on behalf  + of the respondent­State, hence, no notice is required.  +
Record of the trial Court be called for. + Also heard on I.A. No.16602/2014, an application for  + suspension of  remaining  jail  sentence  and grant of bail  to  + appellant. +
The appellant has been convicted under Section 392 of  + IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 5  + years and fine of Rs.1,000/­, with default stipulation. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submits   that   the  + appellant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   matter.   It   is  + submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there  + is   nothing   on   record   to   show   that   he   is   guilty   of   the  + aforementioned   offence   as   no   independent   witness   has  + supported   the   version   of   prosecution   case.   The   appellant  + was   on  bail  during   trial  and  he  never   misused   the   liberty  + grant   to   him.   He   also   submits   that  there   was   there   is   no  + likelihood   of   coming   up   of   this   appeal   for   final   hearing   in  + near future. +
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer  + for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. +
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances  + of the case and the nature of allegation, this application is  + allowed.   Execution   of   remaining   jail   sentence   of   the  + appellant­   Ramkrishna   Chadhar  is   suspended.   He   is  + directed to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal  + bond   in   the   sum   of  Rs.25,000/­   (Rupees   Twenty   Five  + Thousand Only) and a surety bond in the like amount to the  + satisfaction   of   trial   Court   for   his   appearance   before   the  + Registry of this Court on 15th May, 2015 and on such other  + dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard. +
It is made clear that the sentence of fine amount is not  + suspended. +
List this case for final hearing in due course. + C.C. as per rules. +
+ +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                   JUDGE +taj/­ + Criminal Revision No.1726/2011               +  11 +    .09.2014: +
    + + +
Shri Nitin Jain, Advocate for the applicant. + Heard on admission.  +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer accepts notice on behalf  + of the respondent no.2­State, hence, no notice is required.  +
Issue   show   cause   notice   against   admission   to   the  + respondent no.1 on payment of process fee within three days  + both by ordinary as well as registered A/D post.  +
Notice be made returnable within four weeks. + Also   heard   on  I.A.   No.17769/2014,   a   repeat  + application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to  + applicant. +
The applicant has been convicted under Section 6 (2)  + of   Dowry   Prohibition   Act,   1961   and   sentenced   to   undergo  + rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs.5,000/­,  + with default stipulation. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that   the  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   matter.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that   the   applicant   was   granted   bail   with   a   direction   to  + appear before the registry on each and every dates but on  + account of incorrect notice of the date he was not appeared  + before   the   Registry.   The   applicant   was   produced   after  + issuance of arrest warrant on 14.08.2014 and since then he  + is in jail. He further submits that there is no likelihood of  + coming up of this revision for final hearing in near future. +
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer  + for bail. +
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances  + of the case and the nature of allegation, this application is  + allowed. Execution of jail sentence of the applicant­Laxman  + Kolare is suspended. He is directed to be enlarged on bail on  + furnishing   a   personal   bond   in   the   sum   of  Rs.15,000/­  + (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) and a surety bond in the  + like   amount   to   the   satisfaction   of   trial   Court   for   his  + appearance   before   the   Registry   of   this   Court   on  5th  May,  + 2015  and   on   such   other   dates   as   may   be   fixed   by   the  + Registry in this regard. +
It   is   made   clear   that   the   sentence   of   fine   is   not  + suspended.  +
C.C. as per rules.  +
+ +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                    JUDGE + +taj/­ + Criminal Appeal No.1772/2014 +11.09.2014: +
Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate   for   the  + appellant­State. +
This appeal under Section 378 (1) of Code of Criminal  + Procedure has been filed by the State against the judgment  + of acquittal dated 05.09.2013 passed by the learned Special  + Judge,   SC/ST   (Prevention   of   Atrocities)   Act,   1989,   District  + Seoni,   in   Criminal   Case   No.27/2012,   whereby   the  + respondent   has   been   acquitted   of   the   charges   punishable  + under Sections 457, 354 and 506, IPC and Section 3 (1) (xi)  + of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +
The   case   of   the   prosecution   was   that,   on  + 15/16.03.2012 at 2 o'clock in the night prosecutrix Kumar  + Rajani with her younger brother Rawan Sarkar lived in the  + house   of   Suresh   Golhani.   The   prosecutrix   went   to   toilet  + behind   the   house   and   when   she   was   returning   in   room  + accused came there and caught the hand of the prosecutrix,  + slapped   her   and   taken   her   in   the   house.   Her   younger  + brother   saw   the   incident.   She   told   the   incident   to   her  + mother.   Thereafter   a   report   was   lodged   against   the  + respondent. +
It   is   submitted   by   the   learned   Government   Advocate  + for the appellant­State that the learned trial Judge without  + appreciating   the   oral   and   documentary   evidence   has  + acquitted   the   respondent,   which   is   illegal   and   contrary   to  + law. It is further submitted that the trial Court has erred in  + disbelieving   the   statement   of   complainant   and   other  + witnesses.  +
It is true that the charges punishable under Sections  + 457, 354 and 506 of I.P.C. is one which is very easy to make  + and is very difficult to rebut. +
The   learned   trial   Court   after   appreciation   of   the  + statement of witnesses adduced by the prosecution   found  + that   there   are   major   contradictions,   omissions   and  + exaggerations in their statement. In this circumstances, he  + has given benefit of doubt by acquitting the respondent.  +
The   learned   Government   Advocate   for   the   appellant­ + State could not point out any illegality or perversity in the  + impugned judgment.  It is a well­settled principle of law that  + unless   the   judgment   of   acquittal   is   palpably   wrong   and  + grossly unreasonable, interference is not called for. +
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed summarily. +
+ +
(Subhash Kakade)  +    Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.1836/2014 + 11.09.2014: +
Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate   for   the  + respondent­State. +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List the case after three weeks under the same head.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.1904/2014 + 11.09.2014: +
Shri A.D. Mishra, Advocate for the applicant.  + Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate   for   the  + respondent­State. +
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the  + order­sheet of the learned trial Court to apprise this Court  + the latest position of the trial as the Challan has been filed  + on 22.02.2013. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.2361/2014 + 11.09.2014: +
Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate   for   the  + respondent­State. +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List the case in the next week under the same head.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.2095/2014 + 11.09.2014: +
Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate   for   the  + respondent­State. +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List the case in the next week under the same head.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.2094/2014 + 11.09.2014: +
Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate   for   the  + respondent­State. +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List the case in the next week under the same head.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.2094/2014 + 11.09.2014: +
Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate   for   the  + respondent­State. +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List the case in the next week under the same head.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.2097/2014 + 11.09.2014: +
Shri   Narendranath   Tripathi,   Advocate   for   the  + appellant. +
Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate   for   the  + respondent­State. +
Heard   on   I.A.   No.15292/2014,   an   application   for  + exemption   from   filing   the   certified   copy   of   the   impugned  + order dated 20.11.2006.  +
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is  + allowed. Appellant is exempted from filing the certified copy  + of the order dated 20.11.2006.  +
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant  + that   the   record   is   tagged   with   the   Criminal   Appeal  + No.1814/2006.  +
List   this   case   along   with   record   of   Criminal   Appeal  + No.1814/2006 in the next week. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.185/2014 + 11.09.2014: +
None for the applicant. +
Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer    for   the  + respondent­State.  +
This   revision   has   been   filed   by   the   applicant   under  + Section   397/401   of   Cr.P.C.   being   aggrieved   by   the   order  + dated  27.12.2013,  passed  in  Special  Case   No.16/2010,   by  + the   learned   Special   Judge,   NDPS   Act,   Katni   whereby   the  + application   filed   by   the   applicant   under   Section   311   of  + Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.  +
Since   no   one   appears   on   behalf   of   the   applicant,   it  + seems that with the passage of time, the applicant has lost  + interest in prosecuting the case. +
Accordingly, this revision is hereby dismissed for want  + of prosecution However, the applicant is extended a liberty  + to file appropriate application for recalling of this order on  + admissible ground. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1331/2014 + 11.09.2014: +
None for the applicant. +
Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer   for the respondent­ + State.  +
This   revision   has   been   filed   by   the   applicant   under  + Section   397/401   of   Cr.P.C.   being   aggrieved   by   the   order  + dated 18.06.2014, passed in Sessions Trial No.78/2010, by  + the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal, whereby the application  + filed   by   the   respondent   under   Section   311   of   Cr.P.C.   has  + been allowed. +
Since   no   one   appears   on   behalf   of   the   applicant,   it  + seems that with the passage of time, the applicant has lost  + interest in prosecuting the case. +
Accordingly, this revision is hereby dismissed for want  + of prosecution However, the applicant is extended a liberty  + to file appropriate application for recalling of this order on  + admissible ground. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.1233/2014 + 11.09.2014: +
None for the applicant. +
Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer   for the respondent  + no.1­State.  +
This application has been filed by the applicant under  + Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the registration of  + the case and taking cognizance of the offence under Sections  + 307, 307/34 of IPC against the applicant by the order dated  + 09.10.2007.  +

Since   no   one   appears   on   behalf   of   the   applicant,   it  + seems that with the passage of time, the applicant has lost  + interest in prosecuting the case. +

Accordingly,   this   application   under   Section   482,  + Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution However,  + the   applicant   is   extended   a   liberty   to   file   appropriate  + application for recalling of this order on admissible ground. +

+ + + +

      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +

Criminal Revision No.1432/2014 + 11.09.2014: +

None for the applicant. +
Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Record of the Courts below be called for.  + List the case on 17.10.2014.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1309/2014 + 11.09.2014: +
Shri Deepak Pendharkar, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is not available.  +
It   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing. +
List the case on 15.09.2014.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1224/2014 + 11.09.2014: +
Shri   Pushpendra   Kumar   Verma,   Advocate   for   the  + applicant. +
Heard on the question of admission as well as on I.A.  + No.12187/2014,   an   application   for   stay   of   order   dated  + 27.05.2014   and   also   further   proceeding,   pending   in   the  + Court   of   Judicial   Magistrate   First   Class,   Kusami,   District  + Sidhi. +

Shri   D.K.   Parouha,   Panel   Lawyer   accepts   notice   on  + behalf   of   the   respondent   no.1­State,   hence,   no   notice   is  + required.  +

Issue show cause notice against admission as well as  + on the said I.A. to the respondents no.2 to 6 on payment of  + process   fee   within  three   days   both   by  ordinary   as   well   as  + registered A/D post.  +

Notice be made returnable within four weeks. + List this case in the week commencing 13th October,  + 2014. +

+ + + +

      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +

Misc. Criminal Case No.1229/2014 + 11.09.2014: +

Ms. Pooja Gajra, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is not available.  +
It   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing along with the report of the concerning Probationary  + Officer regarding character of the juvenile Sharad @ DJ. +
List the case  in the next week. + Typed  copy  of   this  order   be  supplied  to   the  office   of  + Advocate   General   during   the   course   of   the   day   for  + information and compliance.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.1155/2014 + 11.09.2014: +
Shri V.K. Pandey, Advocate for the applicant.  + Heard on I.A. No.6428/2014, which is an application  + for amendment in the cause title.  +
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is  + allowed. +
Necessary amendment be carried out within a week. + This   case   has   wrongly   been   listed   along   with   Misc.  + Criminal Case No.168/2014. It be delinked with the present  + case and list separately in the next week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.155/2014 + 11.09.2014: +
Shri R.P. Mishra, Advocate for the applicant.  + Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, Advocate for the respondent­ + State. +
List   this   case   along   with   Misc.   Criminal   Case  + No.168/2014 after three weeks.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.168/2014 + 11.09.2014: +
Shri R.P. Mishra, Advocate for the applicant.  + Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, Advocate for the respondent­ + State. +
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the  + order­sheet of the learned trial Court to apprise this Court  + the latest position of the trial as the order framing charge  + has been passed on 30.09.2013. +
This   case   has   wrongly   been   listed   along   with   Misc.  + Criminal   Case   No.1155/2014.   It   be   delinked   with   the  + present  case  and  list  separately  along with  Misc.  Criminal  + Case No.155/2014 after three weeks.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.168/2014 + 11.09.2014: +
Shri R.P. Mishra, Advocate for the applicant.  + Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, Advocate for the respondent­ + State. +
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the  + order­sheet of the learned trial Court to apprise this Court  + the latest position of the trial as the order framing charge  + has been passed on 30.09.2013. +
This   case   has   wrongly   been   listed   along   with   Misc.  + Criminal   Case   No.1155/2014.   It   be   delinked   with   the  + present case and list separately.  +
List this case after three weeks.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.50/2014 + 11.09.2014: +
Shri Sourabh Bhushan Shrivastava, Advocate for the  + applicants. +
Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List the case in the next week under the same head.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.70/2014 + 11.09.2014: +
Shri K.S. Jha, Advocate for the appellant.  + Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, Advocate for the respondent  + no.9­State. +
This is an application for restoration of Misc. Criminal  + Case No.10453/2010, dismissed for want of prosecution on  + 08.10.2013, by Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. +

Office to verify and list the case before the appropriate  + Bench. +

+ +

      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +

Criminal Appeal No.89/2014 +

11.09.2014: +

Shri Sourabh Bhushan Shrivastava, Advocate for the  + appellant.  +
Heard on the question of admission.  + Issue   show   cause   notice   against   admission   to   the  + respondent on payment of process fee within a week both by  + ordinary as well as registered A/D post.  +
Notice be made returnable within four weeks. + List the case in the week commencing 27.10.2014. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.158/2014 +
11.09.2014: +
Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.  + Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, Advocate for the respondent­ + State. +
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal  + of   I.A.   No.15004/2014,   an   application   for   suspension   of  + remaining jail sentence and grant of bail with liberty to file  + afresh after six months. +
Accordingly, the I.A. No.15004/2014 stands dismissed  + as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.207/2014 + 11.09.2014: +
Shri Anurag Shivhare, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Case diary is available. +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List the case after three weeks under the same head.  + Case diary be also made available on the said date. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.224/2014 + 11.09.2014: +
Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State. +
Case diary is available. +
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the  + order­sheet of the learned trial Court to apprise this Court  + the latest position of the trial as the order framing charge  + has been passed on 04.12.2013. +
List this case after three weeks.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.328/2014 + 11.09.2014: +
Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State. +
Case diary is available. +
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the  + order­sheet of the learned trial Court to apprise this Court  + the latest position of the trial as the order framing charge  + has been passed on 28.01.2014. +
List this case after three weeks.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.470/2014 + 11.09.2014: +
Shri A.L. Ahirwar, Advocate for the applicant.  + Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, Advocate for the respondent  + no.1­State. +
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal  + of this revision. +
Accordingly,   the   revision   stands   dismissed   as  + withdrawn. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.197/2007 +10.09.2014: +
None for the parties.  +
This   revision   under   Section   397/401   of   Cr.P.C.   has  + been filed against the order dated 05.12.2006, passed by the  + learned Family Court, Sagar, in Case No.100/2006, granting  + Rs.900/­per month maintenance to the respondent­wife.  +
This   revision   is   of   the   year   2007.     Since   none   is  + present   on  behalf   of   the   applicant,  it  seems   that  with  the  + passage   of   time,   the   applicant   has   lost   interest   in  + prosecuting the case. Hence, this application deserves to be  + dismissed in default. +
Memo of revision, order under challenge perused with  + the records. +
Learned  Family Court  rightly held,  after  appreciation  + of   evidence   that   the   respondent   is   legally   wedded   wife   of  + applicant. The Learned Family Court rightly found that the  + applicant   deserted   his   wife   without   any   reasonable   cause.  + The criminal proceedings is pending against the applicant on  + the   report   lodged   by   the   respondent   for   the   offence  + punishable   under   Section   498­A   of   IPC,   which   is   "just  + ground" for wife to live separately. +
It  is   the   obligation  of   the   husband   to  maintain  wife,  + father to maintain children and son to maintain parents.  It  + will, therefore, be for him to show that he has no sufficient  + means to discharge his obligation: Rajathi vs.  C. Ganesan  + (1999)   6   SCC   326.  Means   does   not   signify   only   visible  + means,   such   as   real   property   or   definite   employment:  +
Basanta vs.  Sarat 1982 CrLJ 485. An able­bodied person  + has   sufficient   means:  Kandaswami   vs.     Angammal   AIR  + 1960 Mad 348: 1960 CrLJ 1098. +
In this legal position learned Family Court rightly held  + that the applicant also having sufficient means of income to  + pay   maintenance   and,   therefore,   rightly   awarded   the  + maintenance amount.  +
Hence, on the merits also, this revision under Section  + 397/401 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed. +
Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed. + A copy of this order be sent to the Court below with  + record. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13792/2012 + 10.09.2014: +
Shri Shashank Upadhyaya, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is not available.  +
It   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing.  +
List the case  in the next week. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.14617/2012 + 10.09.2014: +
Shri Lalit Pandey, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is not available.  +
It   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing.  +
List the case after three weeks.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.14509/2012 + 10.09.2014: +
Shri Siddharth Seth, Advocate for the applicant. + As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List the case after two weeks under the same head.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1121/2007 +10.09.2014: +
None for the parties.  +
This   revision   under   Section   397/401   of   Cr.P.C.   has  + been filed against the order dated 30.05.2007, passed by the  + learned   Principal   Judge,   Family   Court,   Bhopal,   in   MJC  + No.62/2005, granting Rs.1,200/­per month maintenance to  + the respondent no.2­daughter.  +
This   revision   is   of   the   year   2007.     Since   none   is  + present   on  behalf   of   the   applicant,  it  seems   that  with  the  + passage   of   time,   the   applicant   has   lost   interest   in  + prosecuting the case. Hence, this application deserves to be  + dismissed in default. +
Memo of revision, order under challenge perused with  + the records. +
Learned  Family Court  rightly held,  after  appreciation  + of evidence that the respondents are legally wedded wife and  + daughter   of   applicant.   The   Learned   Family   Court   rightly  + found   that   the   applicant   deserted   his   wife   along   with  + daughter without any reasonable cause.  +
It  is   the   obligation  of   the   husband   to  maintain  wife,  + father to maintain children and son to maintain parents.  It  + will, therefore, be for him to show that he has no sufficient  + means to discharge his obligation: Rajathi vs.  C. Ganesan  + (1999)   6   SCC   326.  Means   does   not   signify   only   visible  + means,   such   as   real   property   or   definite   employment:  +
Basanta vs.  Sarat 1982 CrLJ 485. An able­bodied person  + has   sufficient   means:  Kandaswami   vs.     Angammal   AIR  + 1960 Mad 348: 1960 CrLJ 1098. +
In this legal position learned Family Court rightly held  + that the applicant also having sufficient means of income to  + pay   maintenance   and,   therefore,   rightly   awarded   the  + maintenance amount.  +
Hence, on the merits also, this revision under Section  + 397/401 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed. +
Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed. + A copy of this order be sent to the Court below with  + record. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1146/2007 +10.09.2014: +
None for the parties.  +
This   revision   under   Section   397/401   of   Cr.P.C.   has  + been filed against the order dated 27.04.2007, passed by the  + learned   Principal   Judge,   Family   Court,   Bhopal,   in   MJC  + No.634/2005,   granting   Rs.1,500/­per   month   maintenance  + to the respondent­son.  +
This   revision   is   of   the   year   2007.     Since   none   is  + present   on  behalf   of   the   applicant,  it  seems   that  with  the  + passage   of   time,   the   applicant   has   lost   interest   in  + prosecuting the case. Hence, this application deserves to be  + dismissed in default. +
Memo of revision, order under challenge perused with  + the records. +
Learned  Family Court  rightly held,  after  appreciation  + of evidence that the respondent Udit Prakash Baraiya is the  + son   born   out   of   the   wedlock   of   the   applicant   and   Mamta  + Baraiya.   The   Learned   Family   Court   rightly   found   that  + though Mamta Baraiya is having means for maintenance but  + looking   to   the   growing   age   of   Udit   it   is   also   duty   of   the  + applicant to provide maintenance @ 1,500/­ per month.  +
It  is   the   obligation  of   the   husband   to  maintain  wife,  + father to maintain children and son to maintain parents.  It  + will, therefore, be for him to show that he has no sufficient  + means to discharge his obligation: Rajathi vs.  C. Ganesan  + (1999) 6 SCC 326.  +

In this legal position learned Family Court rightly held  + that the applicant also having sufficient means of income to  + pay   maintenance   and,   therefore,   rightly   awarded   the  + maintenance amount.  +

Hence, on the merits also, this revision under Section  + 397/401 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed. +

Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed. + A copy of this order be sent to the Court below with  + record. +

+ +

      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +    taj. +

Misc. Criminal Case No.14617/2012 + 10.09.2014: +

Shri Lalit Pandey, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is not available.  +
It   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing.  +
List the case after three weeks.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Criminal Revision No.239/2007 + 10.09.2014: +
None for the parties. +
Since   no   one   appears   on   behalf   of   the   applicant,   it  + seems that with the passage of time, the applicant has lost  + interest in prosecuting the case. +
Accordingly,   this   revision   under   Section   397/401,  + Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution However,  + the   applicant   is   extended   a   liberty   to   file   appropriate  + application for recalling of this order on admissible ground. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.458/2007 + 10.09.2014: +
None for the applicant.  +
Shri   D.K.   Parouha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   respondent  + no.1­State. +
Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest in  + the  sum  of  Rs.5,000/­  against the  applicant to secure  his  + presence before this Court on the next date of hearing.  +
Case   be   listed   on   12.11.2014   for   appearance   of   the  + aforesaid applicant.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.2456/2014                   + +  10 +    .09.2014: +
    +
Ms. Dipti Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant. + Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal seems to be arguable, hence, admitted for final  + hearing.  +
Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, Panel Lawyer accepts notice  + on   behalf   of   the   respondent­State,   hence,   no   notice   is  + required.  +
Record of the trial Court be called for. + Also heard on I.A. No.17433/2014, an application for  + suspension   of   awarded   jail   sentence   and   grant   of   bail   to  + appellant. +
The appellant has been convicted under Sections 332,  + 294 and 506 Part­II of IPC and Section 3 (1­10) of SC/ST  + (Prevention   of   Atrocities)   Act   and   sentenced   to   undergo  + rigorous  imprisonment  of 1  year  and fine of  Rs.1,000/­, 1  + month and fine of Rs.500/­, 2 years and fine of Rs.1,000/­  + and 1 years and fine of Rs.1,000/­ respectively with default  + stipulation. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submits   that   the  + appellant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   matter.   It   is  + submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there  + are   contradictions,   omissions   and   big   improvement   in   the  + testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The appellant was  + on bail during trial and he never misused the liberty grant to  + him. His sentence have temporarily been suspended up to  + 04.10.2014.     He   also   submits   that   there   was   there   is   no  + likelihood   of   coming   up   of   this   appeal   for   final   hearing   in  + near future. +

Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer  + for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. +

On due consideration of the facts and circumstances  + of the case and the nature of allegation, this application is  + allowed.   Execution   of   awarded   jail   sentence   of   the  + appellants  is suspended. He is directed to be enlarged on  + bail   on   his   furnishing   a   personal   bond   in   the   sum   of  + Rs.10,000/­   (Rupees   Ten   Thousand   Only)  and   a   surety  + bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court for  + his   appearance   before   the   Registry   of   this   Court   on  20th  + April, 2015 and on such other dates as may be fixed by the  + registry in this regard. +

It is made clear that the sentence of fine amount is not  + suspended. +

List this case for final hearing in due course. + C.C. as per rules. +

+ +

          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                   JUDGE +taj/­ + Misc. Criminal Case No.13412/2014 + 10.09.2014: +

Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the  + order­sheet of the learned trial Court to apprise this Court  + the   latest   position   of   the   trial   as   the   challan   was   filed   on  + 28.12.2013. +

List this in the next week.  +

+ +

      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +

Misc. Criminal Case No.13617/2014 + 10.09.2014: +

Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State.  + Case diary is not available.  +
It   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing.  +
List the case in the next week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13618/2014 + 10.09.2014: +
Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State.  + Case diary is not available.  +
It   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing.  +
List the case after two weeks.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13679/2014 + 10.09.2014: +
Shri J.S. Parihar, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State.  + Case diary is not available.  +
It   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing.  +
List the case in the next week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.936/2013 +
10.09.2014: +
Shri Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant. + Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
It is apparent from the perusal of the record that co­ + accused Bhagwandas and Virendra were separately tried by  + the   Sessions   Court   because   at   the   time   of   their   trial   the  + present appellant was absconded.  +
In such premises office is directed to verify and list the  + case along with the appeals of the co­accused Bhagwandas  + and   Virendra,   in   Crime   No.120/2009,   Police   Station   GRP,  + Bina.   The   details   may   also   be   called   from   the   Sessions  + Judge, Sagar for convenience.  +
List  the  case   with  the  aforesaid  details     in  the  week  + commencing   6th   October,   2014   for   consideration   of   I.A.  + No.11814/2014.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.799/2014 +
10.09.2014: +
Shri   Anoop   Kumar   Shrivastava,   Advocate   for   the  + appellant. +
Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List the case after two months under the same head.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.1728/2014                   + +   10.09. +

   2014: +

    + +
Ms. Manjula Verma, Advocate for the appellant. + Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State. +
Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal seems to be arguable, hence, admitted for final  + hearing.  +
Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, Panel Lawyer accepts notice  + on   behalf   of   the   respondent­State,   hence,   no   notice   is  + required.  +
Also heard on I.A. No.12423/2014, an application for  + suspension   of   sentence   and   grant   of   bail   on   behalf   of   the  + appellant. +
The appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of  + IPC   and   Section   27   (1)   and   25   (1­B)   of   Arms   Act   and  + sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and  + fine of Rs.500/­, 3 years and fine of Rs.500/­ and 1 year and  + fine of Rs.500/­ respectively with default stipulation. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submits   that   the  + appellant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   matter.   The  + appellant was on bail during trial and has never misused the  + liberty   granted   to   him.   He   also   submits   that   there   is   no  + likelihood   of   coming   up   of   this   appeal   for   final   hearing   in  + near future. +
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the prayer  + for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. +
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances  + of the case and the nature of allegation, this application is  + allowed.   Execution   of   jail   sentence   of   the   appellant  + ­Surendra   @   Gudda  is   suspended.   He   is   directed   to     be  + enlarged on  bail on  furnishing a personal bond in the sum  + of  Rs.30,000/­   (Rupees   Thirty   Thousand   only)  and   a  + surety  bond   in  the  like   amount  to   the  satisfaction   of   trial  + Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on  + 9th April, 2015 and on such other dates as may be fixed by  + the Registry in this regard. +
It   is   made   clear   that   the   sentence   of   fine   is   not  + suspended.  +
List this case for final hearing in due course.  + C.C. as per rules.  +
+ +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                   JUDGE + +taj/- +
Criminal Appeal No.2487/2014 + + 10.09.2014: +
+
Shri Paritosh Trivedi, Advocate for the appellant. + Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal seems to be arguable, hence, admitted for final  + hearing.  +
Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, Panel Lawyer  accepts notice  + on   behalf   of   the   respondent­State,   hence,   no   notice   is  + required.  +
Let the record of the trial Court be called for. + List   thereafter   for   consideration   of   I.A.  + No.17707/2014,  an application  for suspension of  sentence  + and grant of bail in the week commencing 13.10.2014. +
+ + + +
(Subhash Kakade)  +           Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.10000/2014 +10.09.2014: +
Shri   Mahesh   Prasad   Shukla,   Advocate   for   the  + applicant. +
Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Heard on the question  of admission.  + Admit. +
Case diary is available. +
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant  + under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. +
The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime  + No.390/2013,   registered   at   Police   Station   Morba,   District  + Singrouli,  for  the offence  punishable under  Section  392 of  + IPC. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that the applicant is the only bread earner of his family and  + is   in   custody   since   05.02.2014,   having   no   past   criminal  + antecedents.   In   view   of   the   aforesaid,   prayer   is   made   to  + enlarge the applicants on bail. +
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + has vehemently opposed the application for grant of bail and  + submitted that the trial is going on and will be consluded  + within   short   time,   hence,   prays   for   dismissal   of   this  + application.     +
Detailed   examination   of   evidence   and   elaborate  + documentation   of   merits   is   not   desirable   and   should   be  + avoided  while  passing  orders on  bail  applications.  What is  + necessary is the satisfaction about prima facie case and not  + an exhaustive exploration of merits in the order itself. It is  + the duty of the parties as well as the Court to see that at the  + stage of deciding bail application, the Court is not dragged  + into   minutest   details   and   in   an   arena   of   conjectures   of  + hypotheses. +
Keeping   in   view   the   submissions   made   by   learned  + counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of  + the case the evidence collected by the prosecution there is  + indication  prima facie  that the applicant is alleged to have  + committed a crime. Looking to the nature and gravity of the  + accusation,   this   is   not   a   fit   case   for   grant   bail   to   the  + applicant. Consequently, his application under Section 439  + of the Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.1304/2007 + + 10.09.2014: +
+
Shri V.K. Garg, Advocate for the appellant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for a fixed date  + to produce the appellant­ Javed in this Court. +
Prayer allowed. +
List   the   matter   on   16.10.2014   for   appearance   of  + aforesaid appellant.  +
+ +
(Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1198/2009 + 10.09.2014: +
Shri   Himanshu   Chourasiya,   Advocate   for   the  + applicant. +
Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
This   revision   has   already   been   admitted   for   final  + hearing.  +
Record received.  +
List the case for final hearing in due course along with  + Criminal Revision No.1200/2009. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1200/2009 + 10.09.2014: +
None for the applicant. +
Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
List   the   case   along   with   Criminal   Revision  + No.1198/2009. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Criminal Revision No.2168/2011 + 10.09.2014: +
None for the applicant. +
Shri   Pratap   Narayan   Mishra,   Advocate   for   the  + respondent. +
In compliance of earlier order bailable warrant issued  + against the applicant is awaited. +
List the case on 30.09.2014.   +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.10301/2014 + 10.09.2014: +
Shri Neeraj Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is not available.  +
It   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing.  +
List the case after two weeks.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13752/2014 + 10.09.2014: +
Shri R.N. Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is available. +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List the case after two weeks under the same head.  + Case diary be also made available on the said date. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13889/2014 + 10.09.2014: +
Shri   Himanshu   Chourasiya,   Advocate   for   the  + applicant. +
Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is not available.  +
It   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing.  +
List the case in the next week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.9530/2014 + 10.09.2014: +
Shri Sanjay Gupta, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Case diary is available. +
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the  + statements   of   prosecutrix   and   other   witnesses,   who   were  + admittedly examined before the trial Court. +
List this case after two weeks.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.10228/2014 + 10.09.2014: +
Shri Varun Parsai, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is available. +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List the case in the next week under the same head.  + Case diary be also made available on the said date. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.10983/2014 + 10.09.2014: +
Shri K.S. Rajput, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is available. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   prays   for   and   is  + granted   two   weeks'   time   to   file   driving   licence   and   other  + related documents. +
List the case after two weeks under the same head.  + Case diary be also made available on the said date. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.1094/2014                   + +   09.09. +

   2014: +

    + +
Shri Vijay Nayak, Advocate for the appellant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
The appeal has already been admitted.  + Heard   on  I.A.   No.13943/2014,   a   second   repeat  + application   for   suspension   of   remaining   jail   sentence   and  + grant of bail on behalf of the appellant. +
The appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of  + IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5  + years and fine of Rs.3,000/­ with default stipulation. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submits   that   the  + appellant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   matter.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant  + that   the   injuries   received   by   the   complainant   is   simple   in  + nature.   The   FIR   is   antedated.   The   appellant   was   on   bail  + during trial and is in jail since 28.03.2014. He also submits  + that there is no likelihood of coming up of this appeal for  + final hearing in near future. +
Learned   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   State   vehemently  + opposes the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of  + bail. +
This   is   a   repeat   bail   application   for   suspension   of  + remaining   jail   sentence   and   grant   of   bail   on   behalf   of   the  + appellant,   his   earlier   application   has   been   dismissed   on  + 08.05.2014.   Ever   since   then,   there   is   no   change   in   the  + circumstances to take a different view. Still with a view to  + satisfy the judicial mind, once again I have gone through the  + record   of   the   trial.   After   considering   the   same,   no   case   is  + made out for grant of bail to the appellant. The application  + being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. +

Accordingly, the I.A. No.13943/2014 stands rejected.  +

  + + +

          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                   JUDGE + +taj/- +

Criminal Appeal No.2128/2014 + + 09.09.2014: +

+
Shri Brijesh Mishra, Advocate for the appellant. + Shri K.S. Patel, PanelLawyer for the respondent­State. + Let the record of the trial Court be called for. + List   thereafter   for   consideration   of   I.A.  + No.15433/2014,  an application  for suspension of  sentence  + and grant of bail in the week commencing 13.10.2014. +
+ +
(Subhash Kakade)  +           Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.2297/2014                   + +  09 +    .09.2014: +
    +
Shri Narendra Kumar, Advocate for the appellants. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + In   compliance   of   order   dated   27.08.2014,   learned  + counsel for the appellants filed the order­sheet. As per the  + order­sheet   dated   03.09.2014   of   10th   Additional   Sessions  + Judge, Bhopal it is apparent that on that date the appellants  + were   taken   into   custody   and   sent   to   the   Central   Jail   for  + serving their sentence. +
Heard   on  I.A.   No.2297/2014,   an   application   for  + suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellants. +
The   appellants   have   been   convicted   under   Section  + 332/34   of   IPC   and   sentenced   to   undergo   rigorous  + imprisonment of 6 months and fine of Rs.500/­ with default  + stipulation. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   submits   that   the  + appellants have been falsely implicated in the matter. It is  + submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the  + appellants   were   on   bail   during   trial.   Their   sentence   have  + temporarily   been   suspended   up   to   25.08.2014   and   after  + surrendering before the trial Court, prays for suspension of  + their   remaining   jail   sentence   and   grant   of   bail.   He   also  + submits that there was there is no likelihood of coming up of  + this appeal for final hearing in near future. +
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer  + for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. +
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances  + of the case and the nature of allegation, this application is  + allowed.   Execution   of   jail   sentence   of   the  appellants  is  + suspended. They are directed to be enlarged on bail on their  + furnishing   a   personal   bond   in   the   sum   of  Rs.20,000/­  + (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) and a surety bond each in  + the   like   amount   to   the   satisfaction   of   trial   Court   for   their  + appearance before the Registry of this Court on 15th March,  + 2015  and   on   such   other   dates   as   may   be   fixed   by   the  + registry in this regard. +
It is made clear that the sentence of fine amount is not  + suspended. +
List this case for final hearing in due course. + C.C. today.  +
+ +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                   JUDGE +taj/­ + Criminal Revision No.590/2006 +09.09.2014: +
Shri Lalji Kushwaha, Advocate for the applicant.  + None for the respondent. +
Heard finally.  +
This   revision   under   Section   397/401   of   Cr.P.C.   has  + been filed against the order dated 07.01.2006, passed by the  + learned Third Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sidhi,  + in Criminal Revision No.205/2005, reversing the order dated  + 21.09.2005, passed in Criminal Case No.151/2003, by the  + learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deosar and awarded  + maintenance   to   the   tune   of   Rs.500/­   per   month   to   the  + respondent. +

Shri   Kushwaha,   learned   counsel   for   the   applicant  + submits   that   the   learned   Revision   Court   ignored   the  + admission of the respondent wife in respect of adultery. It is  + further   submitted   that   the   learned   Revisional   Court   has  + completely   failed   to   appreciate   the   evidence   available   on  + record to observe that the respondent­wife has admitted in  + her   evidence   that   she   herself   has   left   the   house   of   her  + husband.  +

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and  + after   perusing   the   entire   record   I   am  of   the   view   that   the  + learned   Revisional  Court   rightly  held,   after   appreciation   of  + evidence   that   the   respondent   is   legally   wedded   wife   of  + applicant. The Learned Revisional Court rightly found that  + the applicant failed to prove charges of adultery against the  + respondent, which is "just ground" for wife to live separately.  + It  is   the   obligation  of   the   husband   to  maintain  wife,  + father to maintain children and son to maintain parents.  It  + will, therefore, be for him to show that he has no sufficient  + means to discharge his obligation: Rajathi vs.  C. Ganesan  + (1999)   6   SCC   326.  Means   does   not   signify   only   visible  + means,   such   as   real   property   or   definite   employment:  +

Basanta vs.  Sarat 1982 CrLJ 485. An able­bodied person  + has   sufficient   means:  Kandaswami   vs.     Angammal   AIR  + 1960 Mad 348: 1960 CrLJ 1098. +
In this legal position learned Revisional Court rightly  + held   that   the   applicant   also   having   sufficient   means   of  + income to pay maintenance and, therefore, rightly awarded  + the maintenance amount.  +
Hence,   on   the   merits   this   revision   under   Section  + 397/401 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed. +
Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed. + A copy of this order be sent to the Court below with  + record. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +    taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1294/2008 + 09.09.2014: +
None for the parties. +
Let   the  record  of  the  learned  Family Court  be  called  + for.  +
List  + + +       (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1094/2008 + 09.09.2014: +
None for the parties. +
Let the record of the Family Court be called for.  + List the case on 20.10.2014. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1302/2005 + 09.09.2014: +
None for the parties. +
Since no one is present on behalf of the applicant, let  + SPC be issued to the applicant for a date to be fixed by the  + office in the week commencing 24th November, 2014. +
List the case in the week commencing 24th November,  + 2014. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13648/2014 +09.09.2014: +
Shri K.K. Gautam, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State. +
Heard on admission.   +
Admit. +
Case diary is available. +
With   the   consent   of   the   parties   the   case   is   heard  + finally. +
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant  + under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. +
The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime  + No.180/2014,   registered   at   Police   Station   Ram   Nagar,  + District   Satna,   for   the   offences   punishable   under   Sections  + 34 (2) of Excise Act. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that   the   investigation   has   already   been   completed   and  + charge­sheet has been filed. The applicant is a young person  + of 18 years and is in custody since 15.06.2014, having no  + past criminal antecedents. In view of the aforesaid, prayer is  + made to enlarge the applicant on bail. +
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + has opposed the application for grant of bail. +
Looking   to   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,  + without   expressing   any   view   on   merits   of   the   case   and  + considering the averments made by learned counsel for the  + parties, the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. may be  + accepted. Consequently, it is hereby allowed. +
It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on  + furnishing   a   personal   bond   in   the   sum   of   Rs.25,000/­  + (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety  + in   the   like   amount   to   the   satisfaction   of   the   Committal  + Court/trial Court to appear before the concerned Court on  + the dates given by the concerned Court during trial.  +
C.C. as per rules. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13660/2014 + 09.09.2014: +
None for the applicant. +
Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Case diary is also not available. + As   none   appears   on   behalf   of   the   applicant,   list   the  + case after two weeks under the same head.  +
Case diary be also made available on the said date. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13685/2014 + 09.09.2014: +
Shri   Dilip   Kumar   Shrivastava,   Advocate   for   the  + applicant. +
Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Case diary is not available.  +
It   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing.  +
List the case after two weeks.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13687/2014 + 09.09.2014: +
None for the applicant. +
Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Case diary is available. +
As   none   appears   on   behalf   of   the   applicant,   list   the  + case after two weeks under the same head.  +
Case diary be also made available on the said date. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13698/2014 + 09.09.2014: +
Shri D.N. Shukla, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Case diary is not available.  +
It   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing.  +
List the case after two weeks.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13710/2014 + 09.09.2014: +
Shri Anurag Prajapati, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Case diary is available. +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List the case after two weeks under the same head.  + Case diary be also made available on the said date. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13729/2014 + 09.09.2014: +
Shri Surendra Patel, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is not available.  +
It   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing.  +
List the case after two weeks.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13740/2014 +09.09.2014: +
Shri P.S. Chouhan, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Heard   on   I.A.   No.17983/2014,   an   application   for  + taking documents on record.  +
For the reason mentioned in the application, the same  + is allowed. The documents is taken on record.  +
Also heard on admission.   +
Admit. +
Case diary is available. +
With   the   consent   of   the   parties   the   case   is   heard  + finally. +
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant  + under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. +
The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime  + No.245/2014, registered at Police Station Chidholi, District  + Betul, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366  + and   376  of   IPC   and   Section   3/4   of   Protection   of   Children  + From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that   there   is   a   delay   of   5   days   in   lodging   the   FIR.   The  + prosecutrix   is   a   consenting   party   as   there   is   a   love   affair  + between the applicant and the prosecutrix. The applicant is  + a   young   person   of   18   years   and   is   in   custody   since  + 19.08.2014, having no past criminal antecedents. In view of  + the   aforesaid,   prayer   is   made   to   enlarge   the   applicant   on  + bail. +

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + has opposed the application for grant of bail. +

Looking   to   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,  + without   expressing   any   view   on   merits   of   the   case   and  + considering the averments made by learned counsel for the  + parties, the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. may be  + accepted. Consequently, it is hereby allowed. +

It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on  + furnishing   a   personal   bond   in   the   sum   of   Rs.25,000/­  + (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety  + in   the   like   amount   to   the   satisfaction   of   the   Committal  + Court/trial Court to appear before the concerned Court on  + the dates given by the concerned Court during trial.  +

C.C. as per rules. +

+ +

      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +

Misc. Criminal Case No.13754/2014 + 09.09.2014: +

Shri B.J. Chourasiya, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Case diary is available. +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List in the on 17.09.2014 under the same head.  + Case diary be also made available on the said date. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12874/2014 +09.09.2014: +
Shri Aseem Dixit, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate   for   the  + respondent­State. +
Heard on the question  of admission.  + Admit. +
Case diary is available. +
This   is   the   repeat   bail   application   filed   by   the  + applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.  + Earlier   the   bail   application   filed   by   the   applicants,   which  + was rejected vide order dated 30.07.2014. +
The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime  + No.135/2014, registered at Police Station Bandari, District  + Sagar, for the offences punishable under Section 306/34.  +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that the applicants have not illtreated the deceased and also  + not   harassed   her.   The   applicants   are   ladies   and   are   in  + custody   since   10.06.2014,   having   no   past   criminal  + antecedents.   In   view   of   the   aforesaid,   prayer   is   made   to  + enlarge the applicant on bail. +
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + vehemently opposes the application and submits that as per  + the   dying   declaration   of   the   deceased­Rajkumari,   hence,  + prays for dismissal of this application.     +
Detailed   examination   of   evidence   and   elaborate  + documentation   of   merits   is   not   desirable   and   should   be  + avoided  while  passing  orders on  bail  applications.  What is  + necessary is the satisfaction about prima facie case and not  + an exhaustive exploration of merits in the order itself. It is  + the duty of the parties as well as the Court to see that at the  + stage of deciding bail application, the Court is not dragged  + into   minutest   details   and   in   an   arena   of   conjectures   of  + hypotheses. +
This is a repeat bail application of the applicants, their  + earlier application has been dismissed on 30.07.2014. Ever  + since then, there is no change in the circumstances to take a  + different view. Still with a view to satisfy the judicial mind,  + once again I have gone through all the documents filed by  + the applicant and also the case diary. After considering the  + same, no case is made out for grant of bail to the applicants.  + The application being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.  +
  + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12944/2014 + 08.09.2014: +
Shri Rahul Tripathi, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Case diary is not available.  +
It   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing.  +
List the case on 12.09.2014.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12972/2014 + 08.09.2014: +
Shri P.K. Singh, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Case diary is not available.  +
It   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing.  +
List the case after two weeks.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13001/2014 + 09.09.2014: +
Shri Mahesh Shukla, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List in the next week under the same head.  + Case diary be also made available on the said date. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12972/2014 + 08.09.2014: +
Shri P.K. Singh, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Case diary is not available.  +
It   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing.  +
List the case after two weeks.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13090/2014 + 09.09.2014: +
Shri B.K. Shukla, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Office   to   verify   and   list   the   case   with   the   record   of  + Misc.   Criminal   Case   No.12658/2014   before   appropriate  + Bench.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13109/2014 + 09.09.2014: +
Shri M.K. Tripathi, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
In compliance of order dated 05.09.2014 office to verify  + and   list   the   case   as   per   Clause­10   of   the   Roster   as   Misc.  + Criminal Case No.12420/2014 was decided on 9.08.2014 by  + another Bench of this Court.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13152/2014 + 09.09.2014: +
Shri Pradeep Naveriya, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List in the next week under the same head.  + Case diary be also made available on the said date. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13188/2014 + 09.09.2014: +
Shri Sourabh Bhushan Shrivastava, Advocate for the  + applicant. +
Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List in the next week under the same head.  + Case diary be also made available on the said date. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13232/2014 + 09.09.2014: +
Shri   Dhananjay   Chaturvedi,   Advocate   for   the  + applicant. +
Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List after two weeks under the same head.  + Case diary be also made available on the said date. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13690/2014 +09.09.2014: +
Shri P.L. Pandey, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Heard on the question  of admission.  + Admit. +
Case diary is available. +
With   the   consent   of   the   parties   the   case   is   heard  + finally. +
The   applicant   has   an   apprehension   of   his   arrest   in  + connection   with   Crime   No.11/2014,   registered   at   Police  + Station Sirmour, District Rewa, for the offences punishable  + under Sections 394, 323 and 506, IPC. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that   the   applicant   has   not   committed   any   loot   or   assault  + with the complainant. The applicant is a young person of 20  + years.   The   applicant   is   ready   to   cooperate   in   the  + investigation and trial. The applicant is a reputed citizen of  + the   locality,   having   no   past   criminal   antecedents,   in   the  + event of arrest, his reputation will be tarnished, therefore, he  + be released on anticipatory bail. +
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + opposes the application.     +
Keeping   in   view   the   submissions   made   by   learned  + counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of  + the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the  + case,   I   am   of   the   view   that   this   is   a   fit   case   for   grant   of  + anticipatory   bail   to   the   applicant.   Consequently,   his  + application   under   Section   438   of   the   Cr.P.C.   is   hereby  + allowed.  +
It   is   directed   that   in   the   event   of   arrest,   present  + applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal  + bond   in   the   sum   of  Rs.25,000/­   (Rupees   twenty   five  + thousand)  with a solvent surety in the like amount to the  + satisfaction of the Arresting Police Officer. +
The   applicant   shall   make   himself   available   for  + interrogation   by  a   police   officer   as   and  when   required.   He  + shall   further   abide   by   the   other   conditions   enumerated   in  + sub­Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. +
Certified copy as per rules. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13712/2014 +09.09.2014: +
Shri P.S. Chouhan, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Heard on the question  of admission.  + Admit. +
Case diary is available. +
With   the   consent   of   the   parties   the   case   is   heard  + finally. +
The   applicant   has   an   apprehension   of   his   arrest   in  + connection   with   Crime   No.75/2014,   registered   at   Police  + Station   Bharkachh,   District   Raisen,   for   the   offences  + punishable under Sections 363, 366, 120­B and 376 of IPC  + and   Section   3/4   of   Protection   of   Children   From   Sexual  + Offence Act, 2012.  +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that  the applicant is a married woman and is a house wife.  + There   is   old   enmity   between   the   parties.   The   applicant   is  + ready   to   cooperate   in   the   investigation   and   trial.   The  + applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, having no past  + criminal antecedents, in the event of arrest, her reputation  + will be tarnished, therefore, she be released on anticipatory  + bail. +
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + opposes the application.     +
Keeping   in   view   the   submissions   made   by   learned  + counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of  + the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the  + case,   I   am   of   the   view   that   this   is   a   fit   case   for   grant   of  + anticipatory   bail   to   the   applicant.   Consequently,   her  + application   under   Section   438   of   the   Cr.P.C.   is   hereby  + allowed.  +
It   is   directed   that   in   the   event   of   arrest,   present  + applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal  + bond in the sum of  Rs.30,000/­ (Rupees thirty thousand)  + with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of  + the Arresting Police Officer. +
The   applicant   shall   make   herself   available   for  + interrogation by a police officer as and when required. She  + shall   further   abide   by   the   other   conditions   enumerated   in  + sub­Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. +
Certified copy as per rules. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13728/2014 +09.09.2014: +
Shri Abhinav Dubey, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Heard on the question  of admission.  + Admit. +
Case diary is available. +
With   the   consent   of   the   parties   the   case   is   heard  + finally. +
The   applicant   has   an   apprehension   of   his   arrest   in  + connection   with   Crime   No.250/2014,   registered   at   Police  + Station   Babai,   District   Hoshangabad,   for   the   offences  + punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506/34 and 327, IPC. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that     the   applicant   is   the   wife   of   the   complainant.   The  + complainant   drunk   heavily   and   beaten   the   applicant   for  + money   to   consume   alcohol.   The   applicant   is   ready   to  + cooperate in the investigation and trial. The applicant is a  + reputed   citizen   of   the   locality,   having   no   past   criminal  + antecedents,   in   the   event   of   arrest,   her   reputation   will   be  + tarnished, therefore, she be released on anticipatory bail. +
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + opposes the application.     +
Keeping   in   view   the   submissions   made   by   learned  + counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of  + the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the  + case,   I   am   of   the   view   that   this   is   a   fit   case   for   grant   of  + anticipatory   bail   to   the   applicant.   Consequently,   her  + application   under   Section   438   of   the   Cr.P.C.   is   hereby  + allowed.  +
It   is   directed   that   in   the   event   of   arrest,   present  + applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal  + bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/­ (Rupees fifteen thousand)  + with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of  + the Arresting Police Officer. +
The   applicant   shall   make   herself   available   for  + interrogation by a police officer as and when required. She  + shall   further   abide   by   the   other   conditions   enumerated   in  + sub­Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. +
Certified copy as per rules. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13732/2014 + 08.09.2014: +
Shri Abhinav Dubey, Advocate for the applicant.  + Shri D.K. Parouha, Advocate for the respondent­State. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal  + of this application. +
Accordingly,   the   application   stands   dismissed   as  + withdrawn. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.3151/2014 + 09.09.2014: +
Ms. Savita Choudhary, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   prays   for   time   to  + comply the order dated 15.07.2014. +
List this case in the next week under the same head.  + Case diary be also made available on the said date. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.5898/2014 + 09.09.2014: +
Shri Anurag Sahu, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
Shri Arun Dixit, Advocate for the objector. + As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List after two weeks under the same head.  + Case diary be also made available on the said date. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.8211/2014 +09.09.2014: +
Shri Mahesh Acharya, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Heard on the question  of admission.  + Admit. +
Case diary is available. +
This is the first bail application filed by the applicants  + under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. +
The   applicants   are   in   custody   in   connection   with  + Crime   No.135/2014,   registered   at   Police   Station   Barela,  + Jabalpur,  for   the   offences   punishable   under   Sections   302,  + 304­B,  498­A   and  307/34,  IPC  and   Section   3/4  of   Dowry  + Prohibition Act. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicants   submits   that  + applicants   have   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants  + that the applicants no.1 to 3 are house wives, having their  + minor children and applicant no. 4 is aged about 70 years  + and   suffering   from   illness.   All   the   families   are   residing  + separately     and  there   was   no   interference   in   the  family  of  + each other. The applicants are in custody since 07.05.2014,  + having   no   past   criminal   antecedents.   In   view   of   the  + aforesaid, prayer is made to enlarge the applicants on bail. +
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + has vehemently opposed the application for grant of bail and  + submitted   that   as   per   dying   declaration   name   of   all   the  + applicants  were   stated   by   the   deceased   and  the  offence   is  + serious, hence, prays for dismissal of this application.     +
Detailed   examination   of   evidence   and   elaborate  + documentation   of   merits   is   not   desirable   and   should   be  + avoided  while  passing  orders on  bail  applications.  What is  + necessary is the satisfaction about prima facie case and not  + an exhaustive exploration of merits in the order itself. It is  + the duty of the parties as well as the Court to see that at the  + stage of deciding bail application, the Court is not dragged  + into   minutest   details   and   in   an   arena   of   conjectures   of  + hypotheses. +
Keeping   in   view   the   submissions   made   by   learned  + counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of  + the case the evidence collected by the prosecution there is  + indication prima facie that the applicants are alleged to have  + committed   a   heinous   crime.   Looking   to   the   nature   and  + gravity of the accusation, this is not a fit case for grant bail  + to   the   applicants.   Consequently,   his   application   under  + Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.8794/2014 + 09.09.2014: +
Ms. Savita Choudhary, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List after two weeks under the same head.  + Case diary be also made available on the said date. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.9410/2014 + 09.09.2014: +
Shri R.K. Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List after two weeks under the same head.  + Case diary be also made available on the said date. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.9794/2014 + 09.09.2014: +
Shri Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the  + order­sheet of the learned trial Court to apprise this Court  + the latest position of the trial. +
List this case after two weeks.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.9862/2014 + 09.09.2014: +
Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the  + order­sheet of the learned trial Court to apprise this Court  + the   latest   position   of   the   trial   as   the   challan   was   filed   on  + 29.01.2014. +

List this case after two weeks.  +

+ +

      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +

Misc. Criminal Case No.9827/2014 + 09.09.2014: +

Shri Pushpendra Dubey, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State.  + As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List after two weeks under the same head.  + Case diary be also made available on the said date. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.9862/2014 + 09.09.2014: +
Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the  + order­sheet of the learned trial Court to apprise this Court  + the   latest   position   of   the   trial   as   the   challan   was   filed   on  + 29.01.2014. +

List this case after two weeks.  +

+ +

      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +

Misc. Criminal Case No.10083/2014 + 09.09.2014: +

Shri Rajkumar Dubey, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State.  + As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List after two weeks under the same head.  + Case diary be also made available on the said date. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.10083/2014 + 09.09.2014: +
Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the  + order­sheet of the learned trial Court to apprise this Court  + the latest position of the trial as the challan was filed in the  + month of March, 2014. +
List this case after two weeks.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.10349/2014 + 09.09.2014: +
Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the  + order­sheet of the learned trial Court to apprise this Court  + the latest position of the trial as the challan was filed in the  + month of March, 2014. +
List this case after two weeks.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13099/2014 + 08.09.2014: +
Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + Case diary of POR No.1769/15/14 is available.  + Learned counsel for the parties are directed to clarify  + this fact that arrest memo of applicant no.1 Nilesh is also  + attached with the case diary.  +
List the case on 11.09.2014.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13883/2014 +08.09.2014: +
Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State. +
Heard on the question  of admission.  + Admit. +
Case diary is available. +
With   the   consent   of   the   parties   the   case   is   heard  + finally. +
The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest in  + connection   with   Crime   No.03/2014,   registered   at   Police  + Station   Jeron,   District   Tikamgarh,   for   the   offences  + punishable under Sections 327, 294 and 506­B/34 of IPC  + (in   the   impugned   order   560­B   has   wrongly   been   typed   in  + place of 506­B) and Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of  + Atrocities) Act.  +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicants   submits   that  + applicants   have   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants  + that the applicants objected the misappropriation of funds  + and illegal activities in Panchayat. The applicants are ready  + to cooperate in the investigation and trial. The applicants are  + reputed   citizens   of   the   locality,   having   no   past   criminal  + antecedents, in the event of arrest, their reputation will be  + tarnished, therefore, they be released on anticipatory bail. +
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + opposes the application.     +
Keeping   in   view   the   submissions   made   by   learned  + counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of  + the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the  + case,   I   am   of   the   view   that   this   is   a   fit   case   for   grant   of  + anticipatory   bail   to   the   applicants.   Consequently,   their  + application   under   Section   438   of   the   Cr.P.C.   is   hereby  + allowed.  +
It   is   directed   that   in   the   event   of   arrest,   present  + applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal  + bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/­ (Rupees twenty thousand)  + with   a   solvent   surety   each   in   the   like   amount   to   the  + satisfaction of the Arresting Police Officer. +
The   applicants   shall   make   themselves   available   for  + interrogation by a police officer as and when required. They  + shall   further   abide   by   the   other   conditions   enumerated   in  + sub­Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. +
Certified copy as per rules. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.7303/2014 + 08.09.2014: +
Shri Ashish Kurmi, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case  after two weeks.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.7578/2014 + 08.09.2014: +
Shri Amit Jain, Advocate for the applicant.  + Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, Advocate for the respondent­ + State. +
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal  + of this application with liberty to file afresh after recording  + the evidence of some witnesses. +
Accordingly,   the   application   stands   dismissed   as  + withdrawn with liberty aforesaid. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.7842/2014 + 08.09.2014: +
Shri O.P. Tripathi, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State. +
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the  + order­sheet of the learned trial Court to apprise this Court  + the latest position of the trial. +
List this case after two weeks.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13575/2014 +08.09.2014: +
Shri Neeraj Pathak, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Heard on admission.   +
Admit. +
Case diary is available. +
With   the   consent   of   the   parties   the   case   is   heard  + finally. +
This is the first bail application filed by the applicants  + under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. +
The   applicants   are   in   custody   in   connection   with  + Crime   No.175/2014,   registered   at   Police   Station   Kotwali,  + Bhopal,   for   the   offences   punishable   under   Sections   376,  + 120­B,   313,   506   and   34   of   IPC   and   Section   5­J­1   of  + Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicants   submits   that  + applicants   have   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants  + that the applicants are young ladies and are in custody since  + 01.08.2014, having no past criminal antecedents. In view of  + the aforesaid,  prayer  is  made to  enlarge  the  applicants on  + bail. +

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + has opposed the application for grant of bail. +

Looking   to   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,  + without   expressing   any   view   on   merits   of   the   case   and  + considering the averments made by learned counsel for the  + parties, the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. may be  + accepted. Consequently, it is hereby allowed. +

It is directed that the applicants be released on bail on  + furnishing   a   personal   bond   in   the   sum   of   Rs.25,000/­  + (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety  + each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Committal  + Court/trial Court to appear before the concerned Court on  + the dates given by the concerned Court during trial.  +

C.C. as per rules. +

+ +

      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +

Criminal Revision No.2284/2012 + + 08.09.2014: +

+
Shri Lalji Kushwaha, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State. +
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for a fixed date  + to produce the applicant­ Mohan in this Court. +
Prayer allowed. +
List   the   matter   on   12.12.2014   for   appearance   of  + aforesaid applicant.  +
+ +
(Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.933/2013 + 08.09.2014: +
None for the applicant.  +
Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State. +
As none appears on behalf of the applicant, the case is  + adjourned. +
List the case under the same head after two weeks. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1114/2013 + 08.09.2014: +
Shri   Rama   Shanker   Mishra,   Advocate   for   the  + applicant.  +
Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State. +
Applicant­ Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Yadav is produced by  + Shri   Zakir   Ali,   Constable   No.242   from   District   Jail,  + Annuppur.   His   presence   is   marked.   He   be   returned   back  + with the same Escort.  +
Now   the   appellant   need   not   to   appear   in   this   Court  + and be sent back to serve the remaining jail sentence.  +
Revision has already been admitted.  + Record is received. +
List the case for final hearing in the week commencing  + 27.10.2014.  +

Registrar (Judicial­I) is requested to issue appropriate  + direction to the office to prepare a chart of custody period of  + the applicant from the initial date of his arrest.  +

+ +

      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +

Criminal Appeal No.1743/2014 + + 08.09.2014: +

+
Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + appellant­State. +
Shri   Pushpendra   Verham,   Advocate   for   the  + respondent. +
Heard on I.A. No.17849/2014, which is an application  + for   condonation   of   non­appearance   of   respondent   on  + 08.09.2014. +

Looking to the grounds mentioned in the application  + ( I.A. No.17849/2014), the same is allowed. Non­appearance  + of the respondent on 08.09.2014 is condoned.  +

Now   the   respondent   is   directed   to   remain   present  + before the Registry of this Court on 09.03.2015 and on such  + other dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard. +

Also heard on I.A. No.17848/2014, an application for  + dismissal of appeal on the question of it's maintainability.  +

Copy of the said I.A. be supplied to the learned Panel  + Lawyer, who may file reply on the next date of hearing. +

List this case for consideration of I.A. No.17848/2014  + on 11.09.2014.  +

+ +

(Subhash Kakade)  +           Judge   +     taj. +

Misc. Criminal Case No.9083/2014 + 08.09.2014: +

None for the applicant. +
Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
List this case along with the record of Misc. Criminal  + Case No.8915/2011 before the appropriate Bench.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.10299/2014 + 08.09.2014: +
Ms. Anita Kaithwas, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State prays  + for   and   is   granted   a   week's   time   to   produce   the   complete  + case diary.  +
List this case in the next week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.10299/2014 + 08.09.2014: +
Ms. Anita Kaithwas, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State prays  + for   and   is   granted   a   week's   time   to   produce   the   complete  + case diary.  +
List this case in the next week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.10972/2014 + 08.09.2014: +
Shri Vivek Rusia, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the respondent no.1. + Shri   D.K.   Parouha,   Panel   Lawyer  for   the   respondent  + no.2­State.  +
Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 prays for and  + is granted a days time to argue the matter.  +
List the case on 11.09.2014.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.11401/2014 + 08.09.2014: +
None for the applicant. +
Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is available.  +
No one appears on behalf of the applicant even in the  + second round. +
In   the   absence   of   learned   counsel   for   the   applicant,  + this application is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.11941/2014 + 08.09.2014: +
Shri   H.S.   Dubey,   Senior   Advocate   assisted   by   Shri  + Amit Dubey, Advocate for the applicant. +
Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Case diary is not available.  +
It   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing.  +
List the case in the next week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12055/2014 + 08.09.2014: +
None for the applicant. +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State.  + Case diary is also not available.  + It   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing.  +
List the case after three weeks as per convenience of  + the Registry.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12345/2014 +08.09.2014: +
Shri Satish Chaturvedi, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + Heard on the question  of admission.  + Admit. +
Case diary is available. +
With   the   consent   of   the   parties   the   case   is   heard  + finally. +
The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest in  + connection   with   Crime   No.178/2014,   registered   at   Police  + Station Chorhata, District Rewa, for the offences punishable  + under   Sections   294,   323,   341,   354   and   506­B,   IPC   and  + Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicants   submits   that  + applicants   have   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants  + that the complainant has interested in the payment made by  + the Government for such offences. The applicant is ready to  + cooperate in the investigation and trial. The applicants are  + reputed   citizens   of   the   locality,   having   no   past   criminal  + antecedents, in the event of arrest, their reputation will be  + tarnished, therefore, they be released on anticipatory bail. +
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + opposes the application.     +
Keeping   in   view   the   submissions   made   by   learned  + counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of  + the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the  + case,   I   am   of   the   view   that   this   is   a   fit   case   for   grant   of  + anticipatory   bail   to   the   applicants.   Consequently,   their  + application   under   Section   438   of   the   Cr.P.C.   is   hereby  + allowed.  +
It   is   directed   that   in   the   event   of   arrest,   present  + applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal  + bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/­ (Rupees twenty thousand)  + with   a   solvent   surety   each   in   the   like   amount   to   the  + satisfaction of the Arresting Police Officer. +
The   applicants   shall   make   themselves   available   for  + interrogation by a police officer as and when required. They  + shall   further   abide   by   the   other   conditions   enumerated   in  + sub­Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. +
Certified copy as per rules. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12437/2014 + 08.09.2014: +
Shri Sushil Goswami, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State.  + As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case  in the next week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12697/2014 +08.09.2014: +
Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate   for   the  + respondent­State. +
Heard on the question  of admission.  + Admit. +
Case diary is available. +
With   the   consent   of   the   parties   the   case   is   heard  + finally. +
The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest in  + connection   with   Crime   No.612/2014,   registered   at   Police  + Station  Kotwali,   District   Sidhi,  for   the  offences   punishable  + under Sections 354­K (1), 323, 294 and 506/34, IPC. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicants   submits   that  + applicants   have   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants  + that as per Annexure A­2 and Annexure A­3 it is clear that a  + civil litigation is pending between the parties. The applicant  + is   ready   to   cooperate   in   the   investigation   and   trial.   The  + applicants are reputed citizens of the locality, having no past  + criminal antecedents, in the event of arrest, their reputation  + will be tarnished, therefore, they be released on anticipatory  + bail. +
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + opposes the application.     +
Keeping   in   view   the   submissions   made   by   learned  + counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of  + the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the  + case,   I   am   of   the   view   that   this   is   a   fit   case   for   grant   of  + anticipatory   bail   to   the   applicants.   Consequently,   their  + application   under   Section   438   of   the   Cr.P.C.   is   hereby  + allowed.  +
It   is   directed   that   in   the   event   of   arrest,   present  + applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal  + bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/­ (Rupees twenty thousand)  + with   a   solvent   surety   each   in   the   like   amount   to   the  + satisfaction of the Arresting Police Officer. +
The   applicants   shall   make   themselves   available   for  + interrogation by a police officer as and when required. They  + shall   further   abide   by   the   other   conditions   enumerated   in  + sub­Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. +
Certified copy as per rules. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12580/2014 + 08.09.2014: +
Shri Madan Singh, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
List this case along with the record of Misc. Criminal  + Case No.12373/2014 in the next week. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12581/2014 + 08.09.2014: +
Shri Madan Singh, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
List this case along with the record of Misc. Criminal  + Case No.12373/2014 in the next week. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12459/2014 + 08.09.2014: +
Shri V.K. Pandey, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is not available.  +
It   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing.  +
List the case in the next week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12766/2014 +08.09.2014: +
Shri Lalit Pandey, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate   for   the  + respondent­State. +
Heard on the question  of admission.  + Admit. +
Case diary is available. +
With   the   consent   of   the   parties   the   case   is   heard  + finally. +
The   applicant   has   an   apprehension   of   his   arrest   in  + connection   with   Crime   No.63/2014,   registered   at   Police  + Station   Magrone,   District   Damoh,   for   the   offences  + punishable under Sections 306 and 376/34, IPC. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that as per Annexure A­2, a certificate given by the Dr. N.K.  + Tiwari,  the  applicant  is   suffering  from  cervical  spondylosis  + changes   with   multiple   level   disc   protrusion     and   severe  + underlying   cord   compression.   The   doctor   also   opined   that  + there   is   nothing   to   suggest   that   the   applicant   is   sexually  + competent   for   sexual   activity.   The   applicant   is   ready   to  + cooperate in the investigation and trial. The applicant is a  + reputed   citizen   of   the   locality,   having   no   past   criminal  + antecedents,   in   the   event   of   arrest,   his   reputation   will   be  + tarnished, therefore, he be released on anticipatory bail. +
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + opposes the application.     +
Keeping   in   view   the   submissions   made   by   learned  + counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of  + the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the  + case,   I   am   of   the   view   that   this   is   a   fit   case   for   grant   of  + anticipatory   bail   to   the   applicant.   Consequently,   his  + application   under   Section   438   of   the   Cr.P.C.   is   hereby  + allowed.  +
It   is   directed   that   in   the   event   of   arrest,   present  + applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal  + bond in the sum of  Rs.30,000/­ (Rupees thrity thousand)  + with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of  + the Arresting Police Officer. +
The   applicant   shall   make   himself   available   for  + interrogation   by  a   police   officer   as   and  when   required.   He  + shall   further   abide   by   the   other   conditions   enumerated   in  + sub­Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. +
Certified copy as per rules. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.2352/2000 + + 08.09.2014: +
+
Shri   D.K.   Parouha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   appellant­ + State. +
Shri Neeraj Pathak, Advocate for the respondent. + Learned counsel for the respondent prays for a fixed  + date to produce the respondent­ Narendra Kumar Pandey in  + this Court. +
Prayer allowed. +
List   the   matter   on   29.09.2014   for   appearance   of  + aforesaid respondent.  +
+ +
(Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.2359/2000 + + 08.09.2014: +
+
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the appellant­State. + Shri   Ratnesh   Yadav,   Advocates   for   the   respondent­ + Omprakash Sahu. +
Respondent­   Omprakash   Sahu   is   personally   present  + before   this   Court.   He   is   identified   by   his   counsel.   His  + presence be marked.  +
Now   respondent­   Omprakash   Sahu   is   directed   to  + remain   present   before   the   Registry   of   this   Court   on  + 08.01.2015 and on such other dates as may be fixed by the  + Registry in this regard. +

The appeal has already been admitted.  + Record is available.  +

List for final hearing in due course.  +

+ +

(Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge   +     taj. +

Criminal Appeal No.763/2001 + +

08.09.2014: +

+
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the appellant­State. + Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocates for the respondent  + no.2­Keshav Singh. +
Respondent   no.2   Keshav   Singh  is   personally   present  + before   this   Court.   He   is   identified   by   his   counsel.   His  + presence be marked.  +
Complainant Malti Bai is also present.  + Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 prays for and  + is granted time to file compromise petition. +
Now   the   parties   will   appear   before   the   Registrar  + (Judicial) on 16.09.2014.  +
+ +
(Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.1237/2001 + + 08.09.2014: +
+
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the appellant­State. + Shri   Pushpendra   Dubey   and  Shri   Narendra   Nikhare,  + Advocates for the respondent no.2­Sudhir Mohan. +
Respondent no.2 Sudhir Mohan is personally present  + before   this   Court.   He   is   identified   by   his   counsel.   His  + presence be marked.  +
Respondent no.1 Durga Prasad has died. His name is  + deleted as per the order dated 04.10.2005. +
Respondent no.2 is now directed to appear before the  + trial   Court   Begamganj,   District   Raisen   on   15th  January,  + 2015 and on such other dates as may be given to him in this  + behalf during pendency of the appeal. +
Appeal has already been admitted. + Record is available.  +
List this case for final hearing in due course.  + Cc as per rules. +
+ +
(Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.1763/2004 + + 08.09.2014: +
+
Shri Neeraj Pathak, Advocate for the appellants. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + Learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   prays   for   a   fixed  + date to produce the appellant no.2 Vijay in this Court. +
Prayer allowed. +
List   the   matter   on   25.09.2014   for   appearance   of  + aforesaid appellant.  +
+ +
(Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.2240/2008 + + 08.09.2014: +
+
Shri Neeraj Pathak, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State. +
Applicant­Hariram   is   personally   present   before   this  + Court.   He   is   identified   by   his   counsel.   His   presence   be  + marked.  +
Applicant   is   now  directed  to   appear   before   the  CJM,  + Damoh on 5th March, 2015 and on such other dates as may  + be   given   to   him   in   this   behalf   during   pendency   of   the  + revision. +
Revision has already been admitted. + Record is available.  +
List this case for final hearing in due course. + Registrar (Judicial­I) is requested to issue appropriate  + direction to the office to prepare a chart of custody period of  + the applicant from the initial date of his arrest.  +
+ + + +
(Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.667/2011 + +08.09.2014: +
+
None for the applicant. +
Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State. +
On 05.08.2014 with covering memo death certificate of  + applicant Mangal Singh was filed. +
Learned Panel Lawyer is directed to verify the death of  + applicant­ Mangal Singh. +
Typed  copy  of   this  order   be  supplied  to   the  office   of  + Advocate   General   along   with   photocopy   of   the   death  + certificate for information and strict compliance.  +
List the case on 30.09.2014. +
+ +
(Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge + taj. +
Criminal Revision No.484/2012 + +08.09.2014: +
+
Shri U.S. Jaiswal, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.K.   Kesharwani,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that   the  + applicant­Shashi Kishore Tiwari is in custody in connection  + with some other offence.  +
Let a production warrant be issued to the applicant for  + his appearance before this Court on the next date of hearing. +
List the case on 06.10.2014.  +
+ +
(Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge + taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1036/2012 + 08.09.2014: +
Shri Neeraj Dubey, Advocate for the applicant.  + Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State. +
On 25.08.2014 also  it was  submitted  by  the learned  + counsel   for   the   applicant   that   the   applicant­Mohammad  + Mumtaz Khan has expired.  +
Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest in  + the sum of Rs.10,000/­ against the applicant to secure his  + presence before this Court on the next date of hearing with  + this note that if this fact is found that he has died then file a  + death certificate with required report.  +
Case be listed on 08.10.2014. + Typed  copy  of   this  order   be  supplied  to   the  office   of  + Advocate General for information and strict compliance.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Apppeal No.688/2012 + 08.09.2014: +
Ms.   Manju   Khatri,   Advocate   for   the   appellant.  + Appellant­Suraj   Chourasiya   is   produced   by   Shri   Rakesh  + Kumar, Head Constable No.2424 from Central Jail, Bhopal.  + His presence is marked. He be returned back with the same  + Escort.  +
Shri   Ramesh   Kushwaha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State. +
Now   the   appellant   need   not   to   appear   in   this   Court  + and be sent back to serve the remaining jail sentence.  +
Appeal has already been admitted.  + Record is received. +
List the case for final hearing in due course.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.10617/2014 + 05.09.2014: +
Shri V.K. Lakhera, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State.  + List   this   case   along   with   Misc.   Criminal   Case  + No.10385/2014   before   the   appropriate   Bench   in   the   next  + week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.10631/2014 + 05.09.2014: +
Shri Pushpendra Dubey, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State.  + As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this   case   along   with   Misc.   Criminal   Case   No.11655/2014  + before the appropriate Bench in the next week.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.38/2014                   + +
   05.09. +

   2014: +

    + +
Shri Rahul Tripathi, Advocate for the appellant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + The appeal has already been admitted.  + Heard   on  I.A.   No.2136/2014,   an   application   for  + suspension   of   sentence   and   grant   of   bail   on   behalf   of   the  + appellant. +
The  appellant  has been  convicted  under  Section  376  + and 323 (two counts) of IPC sentenced to undergo rigorous  + imprisonment   for   10   years   and   fine   of   Rs.5,000/­   and  + rigorous   imprisonment   for   1   years   and   fine   of   Rs.1,000/­  + respectively with default stipulation. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submits   that   the  + appellant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   matter.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant  + that   the   prosecutrix   was   a   major   and   was   a   consenting  + party.   The   appellant   is   in   jail   since   29.08.2013.   He   also  + submits   that   there   is   no   likelihood   of   coming   up   of   this  + appeal for final hearing in near future. +
Learned   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   State   vehemently  + opposes the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of  + bail and submitted that the prosecutrix is a minor, hence,  + the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail  + may kindly be rejected.  +
Considering  the  nature  of  offence   proved  against  the  + appellant and also the facts and circumstances of the case, I  + am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to suspend  + the jail sentence and grant bail to the appellant.  +
Accordingly, the I.A. No.2136/2014 stands rejected.  +
  + + +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                   JUDGE + +taj/- +
Misc. Criminal Case No.10243/2014 +05.09.2014: +
Shri Prakash Upadhyay, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Heard on admission.  +
Admit.  +
Case diary is  available. +
With   the   consent   of   the   parties   the   case   is   heard  + finally. +
This is the first bail application filed by the applicants  + under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. +
The   applicants   are   in   custody   in   connection   with  + Crime   No.230/2014,   registered   at   Police   Station   Mouganj,  + District Rewa, for the offence punishable under Section 8/20  + of N.D.P.S. Act. +
At the very outset learned counsel for the applicants  + does   not   wish   to   press   the   bail   application   on   behalf   of  + applicant no.1 Santendra @ Pintu Saket.  +
Accordingly, the bail application on behalf of applicant  + no.1   Santendra   @   Pintu   Saket   stands   dismissed   as   not  + pressed.  +
Now,   the   bail   application   on   behalf   of   the   applicant  + no.2 Kheladi is taken into consideration. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicants   submits   that   he  + has   falsely   been   implicated   in   the   case.     It   is   further  + submitted that the police have failed to identify the actual  + owner   of   the   seized   Cannabis.   The   applicant   no.2   is   in  + custody   since   16.06.2014,   having   no   past   criminal  + antecedents.   In   view   of   the   aforesaid,   prayer   is   made   to  + enlarge the applicant no.2 Kheladi on bail. +
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + has opposed the application for grant of bail. +
Looking   to   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,  + without   expressing   any   view   on   merits   of   the   case   and  + considering the averments made by learned counsel for the  + parties, the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. may be  + accepted. Consequently, it is hereby allowed. +
It   is   directed   that   the  applicant   no.2   Kheladi  be  + released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of  + Rs.30,000/­ (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one solvent  + surety   in   the   like   amount   to   the   satisfaction   of   the  + Committal Court/trial Court to appear before the concerned  + Court   on   the   dates   given   by   the   concerned   Court   during  + trial.  +
C.C. as per rules. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.10960/2014 + 05.09.2014: +
Shri S.K. Shukla, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List after two weeks under the same head.  + Case diary be also made available on the said date. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.11110/2014 + 05.09.2014: +
Shri Mahesh Acharya, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State.  + As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List after one month under the same head.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.11846/2014 + 05.09.2014: +
Shri Pushpendra Dubey, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List after two weeks under the same head.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12374/2014 +05.09.2014: +
Shri Manoj Kumar Soni, Advocate for the applicant.  + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + Heard on the question  of admission.  + Admit. +
Case diary is available. +
With   the   consent   of   the   parties   the   case   is   heard  + finally. +
The   applicant   has   an   apprehension   of   his   arrest   in  + connection   with   Crime   No.60/2011,   registered   at   Police  + Station   Bijadehi   (SC/ST),   District   Betul,   for   the   offences  + punishable under Sections 376 and 506/34 of IPC read with  + Section   3   (1)   (xii)   and   3   (2)   (v)   of   SC/ST   (Prevention   of  + Atrocities) Act. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that   during   trial   before   the   Juvenile   Justice   Boar   the  + proseuctrix was examined as PW­1 with her mother Shivkali  + Bai  (PW­2),   father   Shanker  Rao   (PW­4)   and  other   villagers  + Rekha Bai (PW­3) and Sunil (PW­5), they all turned hostile  + and also stated that the applicant was no instrumental for  + offence.   The   applicant   is   ready   to   cooperate   in   the  + investigation and trial. The applicant is a reputed citizen of  + the   locality,   having   no   past   criminal   antecedents,   in   the  + event of arrest, his reputation will be tarnished, therefore, he  + be released on anticipatory bail. +
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + vehemently opposes the application on the ground that right  + from the beginning to shield himself applicant is absconded  + and  his  name is  very much there as  main  accused  in  the  + FIR, hence, prays for rejection of this application.  +
Keeping   in   view   the   submissions   made   by   learned  + counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of  + the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the  + case,   I   am   of   the   view   that   this   is   a   fit   case   for   grant   of  + anticipatory   bail   to   the   applicant.   Consequently,   his  + application   under   Section   438   of   the   Cr.P.C.   is   hereby  + allowed.  +
It   is   directed   that   in   the   event   of   arrest,   present  + applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal  + bond in the sum of  Rs.30,000/­ (Rupees thirty thousand)  + with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of  + the Arresting Police Officer. +
The   applicant   shall   make   himself   available   for  + interrogation   by  a   police   officer   as   and  when   required.   He  + shall   further   abide   by   the   other   conditions   enumerated   in  + sub­Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. +
Certified copy as per rules.s + + +       (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1003/2000 + + 05.09.2014: +
+
Shri   R.K.   Raghuwanshi,   Advocate   for   the   applicant.  + Applicant­   Praveen   Kumar   Jain   is   also   personally   present  + and   is   duly   identified   by   his   counsel.   His   presence   is  + marked. +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + Heard   on   I.A.   No.17709/2014/2014,   which   is   an  + application for condonation of non­appearance of applicant  + on 22.07.2014. +
Looking to the grounds mentioned in the application  + ( I.A. No.17709/2014), the same is allowed. Non­appearance  + of the applicant on 22.07.2014 is condoned.  +
Revision has already been admitted for final hearing. + Record is available. +
Now list the case for final hearing on 13.10.2014. At  + that   time   the   applicant   shall   remain   personally   present  + before this Court.  +
Registrar (Judicial­I) is requested to issue appropriate  + direction to the office to prepare a chart of custody period of  + the applicant from the initial date of his arrest.  +
+ + + +
(Subhash Kakade)  +           Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.550/2013 + +
05.09.2014: +
+
Shri M.M. Nabi, Advocate for the appellants. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + Learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   prays   for   a   fixed  + date   to   produce   the   appellant   no.2   Sushila   and   appellant  + no.3 Vicky alias Vikas in this Court. +
Prayer allowed. +
List   the   matter   on   08.10.2014   for   appearance   of  + aforesaid appellants.  +
+ +
(Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.550/2013 + +
05.09.2014: +
+
Shri   Arubendra   Singh   Parihar,   Advocate   for   the  + appellants. +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + Learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   prays   for   a   fixed  + date   to   produce   the   appellant   no.2   Idrish   Khan   and  + appellant no.5 Mohd. Asfaque Khan in this Court. +
Prayer allowed. +
List   the   matter   on   17.09.2014   for   appearance   of  + aforesaid appellants.  +
+ +
(Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.7477/2014 + 05.09.2014: +
Shri Abhinav Dubey, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   Rajendra   Kumar   Gupta,   Advocate   for   the  + respondent no.1. +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent no.2­ + State.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List after two weeks under the same head.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.10301/2014 + 05.09.2014: +
None for the applicant. +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State.  + Case diary is available.  +
This   is   a   repeat   application   filed   by   the   applicant  + under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Earlier the application filed by  + the   applicant   is   dismissed   as   withdrawn   vide   order   dated  + 20.03.2014.  +

In the absence of learned counsel for the applicant, the  + application is dismissed for want of prosecution.  +

+ + + +

      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +

Misc. Criminal Case No.11341/2014 + 05.09.2014: +

None for the applicant. +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State.  + Case diary is available.  +
As   none   appears   on   the   behalf   of   the   applicant,   the  + case is adjourned.  +
List this case after four weeks. + Case diary be also made available on the said date.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12046/2014 + 05.09.2014: +
Shri Rajneesh Patel, Advocate for the applicant.  + Shri K.S. Patel, Advocate for the respondent­State. + Learned counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal  + of this application.  +
Accordingly,   the   application   stands   dismissed   as  + withdrawn.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12456/2014 + 05.09.2014: +
Shri Satyam Agrawal, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State.  + In   compliance   of   earlier   order   dated   25.08.2014  + learned   Panel   Lawyer   did   not   file   any   verification   report  + regarding   the   documents   i.e.   Agreement   letter   (Annexure  + A/2) and Compromise (Annexure A/3).  +
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that these documents were already filed with the application.  +
In such premises learned Panel Lawyer is directed to  + verfiy these document and submit a report in this regard on  + the next date of hearing.  +
Typed  copy  of   this  order   be  supplied  to   the  office   of  + Advocate General for information and compliance.  +
List this case after two weeks.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.7252/2014 +05.09.2014: +
Shri Uma Shanker Jaiswal, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + Case diary is available. +
With   the   consent   of   the   parties   the   case   is   heard  + finally. +
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant  + under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. +
The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime  + No.67/2014,   registered   at   Police   Station   Maihar,   District  + Satna, for the offences punishable under Sections 498­A and  + 304­B of IPC .  +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that   the   deceased   has   died   on   08.06.2013   due   to   electric  + shock   and   during   her   treatment   no   complaint   has   been  + made against the applicant neither by the relatives nor by  + the   deceased.   The   applicant   is   a   young   person   and   is   in  + custody   since   25.01.2014,   having   no   past   criminal  + antecedents.   In   view   of   the   aforesaid,   prayer   is   made   to  + enlarge the applicant on bail. +
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + has opposed the application for grant of bail. +
Looking   to   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,  + without   expressing   any   view   on   merits   of   the   case   and  + considering the averments made by learned counsel for the  + parties, the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. may be  + accepted. Consequently, it is hereby allowed. +
It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on  + furnishing   a   personal   bond   in   the   sum   of   Rs.30,000/­  + (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the  + like amount to the satisfaction of the Committal Court/trial  + Court   to   appear   before   the   concerned   Court   on   the   dates  + given by the concerned Court during trial.  +
C.C. as per rules. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.9923/2014 + 05.09.2014: +
None for the applicant. +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State.  + Case diary is available.  +
As   none   appears   on   the   behalf   of   the   applicant,   the  + case is adjourned.  +
List this case after six weeks. + Case diary be also made available on the said date.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1417/2014 +02.09.2014: +
Shri Mahendra Choubey, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate   for   the  + respondent­State. +
Heard on the question of admission.  + Case diary is available. +
With the consent of the parties case is finally heard. + This   revision   under   Section   397/401   of   Cr.P.C.   has  + been   filed   against   the   order   dated   26.06.2014,   passed   in  + Sessions   Trial   No.22/2014,   by   the   learned   Fifteenth  + Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, by which the learned  + trial Court framed charges punishable under Sections 363,  + 366, 354 and 376 (2) (I) of IPC and Sections 6 & 8 of the  + Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. +
The case for the prosecution  is that on 17.02.2014 at  + 08:30   pm   when   the   minor   prosecutrix,   aged   7   years   was  + playing   in   front   of   her   house   at   that   point   of   time   the  + applicant   come   over   there   and   asked   her   to   come   at   his  + home,   he   will   pay   money   to   her.   The   applicant  inside   the  + room   of   his   house   kissed   the   prosecutrix   and   and   also  + forcefully compelled her to fulfill her sexual lust.  +
After   lodging   the   FIR,   challan   was   filed   against   the  + applicant,   hence,   the   accused   was   charge­sheeted.   The  + learned   Fifteenth   Additional   Sessions,   Jabalpur   vide  + impugned order leveled charges against the applicant for the  + offence punishable 363, 366, 354 and 376 (2) (I) of IPC and  + Sections   6   &   8   of   the   Protection   of   Children   From   Sexual  + Offences Act, 2012, against which this revision is being filed.  + Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that   the  +learned trial Court failed to consider that the applicant has  +been released on bail by the learned trial Court. As per the  +statement   taken   under   Section   164   of   Cr.P.C.   the   offence  +under Section 376 (2 (I) of IPC is not made out. There is no  +evidence   to   show   that   the   prosecutrix   was   subjected   to  +sexual  intercourse   by  the   applicant.   The   entire   allegations  +levelled against the applicant are also not showing that the  +applicant   has   committed   the   offence   punishable   under  +Section   376   (2)   (I)   of   IPC.   It   is   further   submitted   by   the  +learned counsel for the applicant that Sections 8 and 6 of  +Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 are  +also not made out because the ingredients of these sections  +are not available in the challan.  +
Learned   Government   Advocate   for   the   respondent­ +State vehemently opposed the contention as advanced by the  +learned counsel for the applicant and prays for dismissal of  +this revision.  +
Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of  +the parties and after perusal of the record as well as the case  +diary   prima­facie   the   applicant   found   involved   in  +commission the aforementioned offence. +
At the stage of framing charges the Court cannot apply  +its judicial mind for the consideration whether or not there  +is any ground for presuming the commission of the offence  +by   the   accused.   At   this   stage   the   Court   will   consider  +judicially whether the material warrants the framing of the  +charge or not. +
 The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to  + be   applied   finally   before   finding,   the   accused   guilty   or  + otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section  + 227 and 228 of  the  Code  of  Criminal Procedure,  1973.  At  + this   stage,   even   a   very   strong   suspicion   founded   upon  + material   before   the   Court,   which   leads   him   to   form   a  + presumptive   opinion   as   to   the   existence   of   the   factual  + ingredients constituting the offence alleged may justify the  + framing   of   charge   against   the   accused   in   respect   of   the  + commission of that offence is lawful.  +
In   view   of   the   above   facts   and   circumstances,   the  + learned   trial  Court   has  rightly  framed   the  charges   against  + the   applicant.  Accordingly,   I   do   not   find   any   illegality   or  + perversity in the impugned order warranting interference by  + way of this Revision petition against framing of charge.  +
The revision is dismissed summarily.  +
+ +   +
   (Subhash Kakade)  +      Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.1113/2014                   + +  04 +    .09.2014: +
    +
Shri Sudhir Mishra, Advocate for the appellants. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Heard   on  I.A.   No.15216/2014,   an   application   for  + suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellants. +
The appellants have been convicted under Section 366  + of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 7  + years and fine of Rs.2,000/­ with default stipulation. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   submits   that   the  + appellants have been falsely implicated in the matter. It is  + submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the  + independent  witnesses  have  not  supported  the case  of  the  + prosecution.   The   appellant   no.2,   is   a  lady  and   has   falsely  + been implicated in the offence. He also submits that there  + was  there  is   no  likelihood  of   coming  up  of  this  appeal  for  + final hearing in near future. +
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer  + for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. +
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances  + of the case and the nature of allegation, this application is  + allowed.   Execution   of   jail   sentence   of   the  appellants  is  + suspended. They are directed to be enlarged on bail on their  + furnishing   a   personal   bond   in   the   sum   of  Rs.30,000/­  + (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only)  and a surety bond in the  + like   amount   to   the   satisfaction   of   trial   Court   for   their  + appearance   before   the   Registry   of   this   Court   on  8th  + February, 2015 and on such other dates as may be fixed by  + the registry in this regard. +
It is made clear that the sentence of fine amount is not  + suspended. +
List this case for final hearing in due course. + C.C. as per rules.  +
+ +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                   JUDGE +taj/­ + Misc. Criminal Case No.12701/2014 +04.09.2014: +
Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Heard on the question  of admission.  + Admit. +
Case diary is available. +
This is the repeat bail application filed by the applicant  + under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Earlier the  + bail   application   filed   by   the   applicant,   which   was   rejected  + vide order dated 22.07.2014. +
The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime  + No.66/2014,   registered   at   Police   Station   Niwas,   District  + Mandla, for the offences punishable under Sections 498­A,  + 306/34 in the alternative 302 of IPC.  +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that in her dying declaration the deceased stated that she  + got burnt due to fall of Chimney, hence it was an accident.  + In the statement of parent of deceased it is no where stated  + that   the   applicant   was   harassing   the   deceased.   The  + applicant   is   in   custody   since   30.03.2014,   having   no   past  + criminal   antecedents.   In   view   of   the   aforesaid,   prayer   is  + made to enlarge the applicant on bail. +
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + vehemently   opposes   the   application  on   the   ground   that  at  + the time of recording the dying declaration   Dr. PW­6 V.K.  + Paigwar stated that the deceased was fully conscious, hence,  + prays for dismissal of this application.     +
Detailed   examination   of   evidence   and   elaborate  + documentation   of   merits   is   not   desirable   and   should   be  + avoided  while  passing  orders on  bail  applications.  What is  + necessary is the satisfaction about prima facie case and not  + an exhaustive exploration of merits in the order itself. It is  + the duty of the parties as well as the Court to see that at the  + stage of deciding bail application, the Court is not dragged  + into   minutest   details   and   in   an   arena   of   conjectures   of  + hypotheses. +
This is a repeat bail application of the applicant, his  + earlier application has been dismissed on 22.07.2014. Ever  + since then, there is no change in the circumstances to take a  + different view. Still with a view to satisfy the judicial mind,  + once again I have gone through all the documents filed by  + the applicant and also the case diary. After considering the  + same, no case is made out for grant of bail to the applicant.  + The application being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.  +
  + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12997/2014 +04.09.2014: +
Shri Nitin Jain, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Heard on the question  of admission.  + Admit. +
Case diary is not available, however, the applicant has  + filed the photocopy of challan paper for consideration of this  + application.  +
This is the repeat bail application filed by the applicant  + under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Earlier the  + bail   application   filed   by   the   applicant,   which   was   rejected  + vide order dated 24.07.2014. +
The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime  + No.519/2014, registered at Police Station Garha, Jabalpur,  + for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (f) and 376  +
(g)   of   IPC   and   Section   4   of   Protection   of   Children   From  + Sexual Offences Act, 2012.  +

Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that     the   applicant   was   not   present   there   at   the   time   of  + incident. The applicant is a young person of 21 years and is  + in   custody   since   25.04.2014,   having   no   past   criminal  + antecedents.   In   view   of   the   aforesaid,   prayer   is   made   to  + enlarge the applicant on bail. +

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + vehemently opposes the application on the ground that the  + prosecutrix is merely aged about 10 years, hence, prays for  + dismissal of this application.     +

Detailed   examination   of   evidence   and   elaborate  + documentation   of   merits   is   not   desirable   and   should   be  + avoided  while  passing  orders on  bail  applications.  What is  + necessary is the satisfaction about prima facie case and not  + an exhaustive exploration of merits in the order itself. It is  + the duty of the parties as well as the Court to see that at the  + stage of deciding bail application, the Court is not dragged  + into   minutest   details   and   in   an   arena   of   conjectures   of  + hypotheses. +

This is a repeat bail application of the applicant, his  + earlier application has been dismissed on 24.07.2014. Ever  + since then, there is no change in the circumstances to take a  + different view. Still with a view to satisfy the judicial mind,  + once again I have gone through all the documents filed by  + the applicant and also the challan papers. After considering  + the   same,   no   case   is   made   out   for   grant   of   bail   to   the  + applicant. The application being devoid of merits is hereby  + dismissed.  +

+ +

      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +

Criminal Appeal No.325/2014 +

04.09.2014: +

Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the appellant­State. + Shri S.M. Shukla, Advocate for the respondents. + Today the case is listed for admission. In the light of  + order dated 27.01.2014 and the order dated 23.04.2014 the  + the appeal was admitted and was fixed for final hearing in  + due course.  +
Now, office is directed to list the case for final hearing  + in due course.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.388/2014 +
04.09.2014: +
Shri M. Shafiqullah, Advocate for the applicant. + Respondent   no.1   to   4   are   duly   served   but   nobody  + appears on their behalf.  +
Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate   for   the  + respondent no.5­State. +
List the case after two weeks under the same heard as  + per convenience of the Registry.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.472/2014 + 04.09.2014: +
Shri Paritosh Trivedi, Advocate for the applicant. + Heard on admission.  +
Admit. +
Shri R.P. Tiwari, Government Advocate accepts notice  + on   behalf   of   the   respondent­State,   hence,   no   notice   is  + required.  +
List this case for final hearing in the week commencing  + 13th October, 2014.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.510/2014 + 04.09.2014: +
Shri Kamlesh Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. + Heard on the question of admission as well as on I.A.  + No.5258/2014, an application for stay of further proceeding  + of the Family Court.  +
Issue show cause notice against admission as well as  + on the said I.A. to the respondent on payment of process fee  + within  a  week   both   by  ordinary   as   well  as   registered  A/D  + post.  +
Notice be made returnable within four weeks. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.518/2014 + +04.09.2014: +
+
None for the applicant. +
Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent no.2­State. +
As none appears on behalf of the applicant, the case is  + adjourned.  +
List this case after two months under the same head  + as per convenience of the Registry.  +
+ + + +
  (Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge + taj. +
Criminal Revision No.784/2006 + +04.09.2014: +
+
Shri K.B. Vishwakarma, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that   since   long   time   the   applicant­Chhotelal   is   not   in   his  + contact.  +
In  view   of   the   aforesaid,   office   is   directed   to   issue   a  + fresh warrant of arrest against the applicant to secure his  + presence before this Court on the next date of hearing. +
The   Superintendent   of   Police,   Rewa   is   directed   for  + strict compliance  of the order  otherwise responsible  officer  + shall remain personally present before this Court. +
Case   be   listed   on   10.11.2014   for   appearance   of   the  + applicant.   +
Registrar (Judicial­I) is requested to issue appropriate  + direction to the office to prepare a chart of custody period of  + the applicant from the initial date of his arrest.  +
+ + + +
  (Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge + taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1779/2011 + 04.09.2014: +
Shri   K.B.   Vishwakarma,   Advocate   for   the   applicant.  + Applicant­Rajesh Kumar Sahu is also personally present and  + is duly identified by his counsel. His presence is marked. He  + be returned back with the same Escort.  +
Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that in compliance of order dated 26.08.2013 the bail bonds  + were not furnished by the applicant, therefore, he is serving  + his   sentence.   It   is   further   submitted   that   the   applicant­  + Rajesh Kumar Sahu is already served out his jail sentence. +
In   such   premises   learned   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State   is   directed   to   get   the   report   from   the  + Central   Jail,   Satna   regarding   serving   of   sentence   of  + applicant.  +
Now the applicant need not appear in this Court.  + List   the   case   on   11.09.2014.   Report   must   be  + submitted by the Learned Panel Lawyer. +
A typed copy of this order be supplied to the Office of  + the Advocate General for information and compliance.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.7427/2014 + 04.09.2014: +
None for the applicant. +
Shri Neeraj Pathak, Advocate for the respondent no.1. + Shri   D.K.   Parouha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   respondent  + no.2­State. +
As   none   present   on   behalf   of   the   applicant,   list   this  + case after three weeks as per convenience of the Registry.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.9180/2014 + 04.09.2014: +
Shri Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case after one month. +
Case diary be also made available on the said date. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.9691/2014 + 04.09.2014: +
Shri Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
As prayed by the learned counsel  for  the applicants,  + list this case after one month. +
Case diary be also made available on the said date. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.6806/2011 + 03.09.2014: +
Shri Sanjeev Saxena, Advocate for the applicant. + As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case after two weeks. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.8055/2011 + 03.09.2014: +
Shri Shivraj Kushwaha, Advocate for the applicant. +
As   prayed   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the  + applicant, list this case after two weeks. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.2329/2013 + 03.09.2014: +
Shri L.D.S. Baghel, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer   for the respondent­ + State.  +
List   this   case   along   with   Criminal   Revision  + No.1043/2013. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.1243/2013 + 03.09.2014: +
None for the appellant.  +
Shri   D.K.   Parouha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   respondent  + no.1­State. +
As no one present on behalf of the applicant, the case  + is adjourned.  +
List this case after one month under the same head as  + per convenience of the Registry.   +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1497/2013 + 03.09.2014: +
Shri Mukesh Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the  + order­sheet of the learned trial Court to apprise this Court  + the latest position of the trial. +
List this case on 30.09.2014 under the same head.  + Case diary be also made available on the said date.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.350/2006 +03.09.2014: +
None for the applicant. +
+
Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent  + + no.5­State.  +
+
This revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has  + + been  filed  by  the  applicant being aggrieved  by  the  order  + + dated   25.01.2006,   passed   in   Criminal   Case  + + No.1291/2002,   by   the   Judicial   Magistrate   First   Class,  + + District Sagar, whereby the learned Court below acquitted  + + the respondents no.1 to 4 of the charge punishable under  + + Section   498­A   of   IPC   and   also   overlooking   the   offence  + + punishable under Section 324 of IPC. +
+
This   revision   is   of   the   year   2006.     Since   none   is  + + present   on   behalf   of   the   applicant,   it   seems   that  with   the  + + passage   of   time,   the   applicant   has   lost   interest   in  + + prosecuting the case. Hence, this application deserves to be  + + dismissed in default. +
+
The   briefly   stated   fact   of   the   case   are   that   the  + + applicant lodged the report against the repondents no.1 to  + + 4   alleging   therein   that   she   married   with   the   respondent  + + no.1 on 09.12.1996, according to Hindu rites and rituals  + prevalent amongst Hindu Society. The respondents no.1 to  + + 4   used   to   tortured   and   committed   Marpeet   with   her   to  + + fulfill their dowry demand.  +
+

Learned trial Court rightly pointed out that........... In  + + this   sequence   learned   trial   Court   rightly   acquitted   the  + + respondent of the charges under Section 3/5 of Explosive  + + Substance Act. +

+

Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   could   not   point  + + out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. It is  + + a well settled  principle  of  law that unless  the  impugned  + + order   is   palpably   wrong   and   grossly   unreasonable,  + + interference in the revision filed under Section 397/401 of  + + Cr.P.C. is not called for.  +

+

Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed.  +

+ + +

(Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge   +     taj. +

Criminal Revision No.354/2006 + + 03.09.2014: +

+
None for the applicant. +
Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest in  + the sum of Rs.10,000/­ against the applicant­ Ramlal Kewat  + to secure his presence before this Court on the next date of  + hearing. +
Case   be   listed   on   12.11.2014   for   appearance   of   the  + aforesaid applicant. +
+ +
(Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.7964/2013 + 02.09.2014: +
Shri Neeraj Singh, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State.  +
Heard on I.A. No.24670/2013, which is an application  + for taking documents on record. +
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is  + allowed. The documents be taken on record.  +
Learned   Panel   Lawyer   submits   that   this   this  + application   filed   under   Section   482,   Cr.P.C.   Complainant  + Govind Namdeo is necessary party.  +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   prays   for   time   to  + argue the matter on this point.  +
List this case in the next week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.2260/2013 + + 03.09.2014: +
+
None for the appellant. +
Shri A.K. Soni, Advocate for the respondents no.1 to 3. + Shri   D.K.   Parouha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   respondent  + no.4­State. +
As one present on behalf of the appellant, list this case  + after two weeks under the same head. +
In the meanwhile learned Panel Lawyer is directed to  + submit the report whether any appeal has been preferred by  + the State against the order of acquittal or not? +
+ +
(Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.411/2006 + + 03.09.2014: +
+
None for the applicant. +
Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest in  + the sum of Rs.1o,000/­ against the applicant­ Sheikh Naseer  + to secure his presence before this Court on the next date of  + hearing. +
Case   be   listed   on   12.11.2014   for   appearance   of   the  + aforesaid applicant. +
+ +
(Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.4254/2011 + 03.09.2014: +
None for the applicants. +
Shri   K.S.   Patel,   Panel   Lawyer    for   the   respondent­ + State.  +
This application has been filed by the applicant under  + Section   482  of   Cr.P.C.   being   aggrieved   by   the   order   dated  + 19.08.2010, passed in Criminal Revision NO.164/2010, by  + the   learned   Second   Additional   Sessions   Judge   (Fast   Track  + Court), Mouganj, District Rewa.  +

Since   no   one   appears   on   behalf  of   the   applicants,   it  + seems that with the passage of time, the applicants have lost  + interest in prosecuting the case. +

Accordingly,   this   application   under   Section   482,  + Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution However,  + the   applicant   is   extended   a   liberty   to   file   appropriate  + application for recalling of this order on admissible ground. +

+ + + +

      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +

Misc. Criminal Case No.4879/2011 + 03.09.2014: +

None for the applicant. +
Shri   K.S.   Patel,   Panel   Lawyer    for   the   respondent­ + State.  +
This application has been filed by the applicant under  + Section   482   of   Cr.P.C.   for   quashing   of   the   FIR   registered  + against the applicant at Police Station T.T. Nagar, Bhopal,  + under   Crime   No.907/2010   and   also   the   Criminal   Case  + No.14084/2010,   pending   in   the   Court   of   Chief   Judicial  + Magistrate, Bhopal.  +
Since   no   one   appears   on   behalf   of   the   applicant,   it  + seems that with the passage of time, the applicant has lost  + interest in prosecuting the case. +
Accordingly,   this   application   under   Section   482,  + Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution However,  + the   applicant   is   extended   a   liberty   to   file   appropriate  + application for recalling of this order on admissible ground. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.5912/2011 + 03.09.2014: +
Shri Naveen Thakur, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent no.1­ + State.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this   case   after   one   month   under   the   same   head   as   per  + convenience of the Registry.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.412/2006 + + 18.02.2014: +
+
None for the applicants. +
Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Further   proceedings   of   Misc.   Criminal   Case  + No.49/2004, pending in the Court of Special Judge, Damoh  + were not stayed. In such premises the report be called for  + from the learned Court below regarding latest position of the  + pendency of the said Misc. Criminal Case. +
Office is directed to list this case on 09.10.2014.  +
+ +
(Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.23019/2010 + 03.09.2014: +
None for the applicant.  +
As no one present on behalf of the applicant, the case  + is adjourned.  +
List this case after two months under the same head  + as per convenience of the Registry.   +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.119/2011 + + 03.09.2014: +
+
Shri V.P. Kushwaha, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + Learned   counsel   for   the   applicants   prays   for  + withdrawal of this revision and this revision has now become  + infructuous.  +
Accordingly,   the  revision   stands  dismissed   as   having  + been rendered infructuous. +
+ +
(Subhash Kakade)  +          V. Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.151/2011 + 03.09.2014: +
None for the applicant.  +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + As no one present on behalf of the applicant, the case  + is adjourned.  +
List this case after two months under the same head  + as per convenience of the Registry.   +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.161/2011 + 03.09.2014: +
None for the applicants.  +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + Learned   Panel   Lawyer   will   apprise   the   Court   on   the  + next date of hearing as to whether the applicant has served  + the awarded sentence. +
Let a typed copy of this order be given to the Office of  + the Advocate General for information and compliance.    +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.301/2011 + 03.09.2014: +
None for the applicant.  +
As no one present on behalf of the applicant, the case  + is adjourned.  +
List this case after two months under the same head  + as per convenience of the Registry.   +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.890/2011 + 03.09.2014: +
None for the applicants.  +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + Following order was passed on 11.07.2014: ­ + "The applicants are directed to submit  + current   status   report   of   the   case   by   filing  + the certified copy of the latest order­sheet of  + the case within two weeks, failing which this  + criminal revision shall be dismissed because  + it has been pending since 2011 without any  + progress."  +
Since   no   one   appears   on   behalf  of   the   applicants,   it  + seems that with the passage of time, the applicant has lost  + interest in prosecuting the case.  +
This   revision   is   dismissed   in   default   for   non­ + compliance of the order dated 11.07.2014.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1837/2010 + 03.09.2014: +
None for the applicant.  +
List   this   case   along   with   Criminal   Revision  + No.1879/2010.   +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.2031/2010 + 03.09.2014: +
None for the applicants.  +
As no one present on behalf of the applicants, the case  + is adjourned.  +
List this case after one months as per convenience of  + the Registry.   +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.2983/2010 + 03.09.2014: +
Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri Ajay Ojha, Advocate for the respondent.  + As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case after one month as per convenience of the Registry.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.4168/2010 + 03.09.2014: +
Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate   for   the  + applicant­State. +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case after one month.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.5070/2010 + 03.09.2014: +
Shri Mukesh Pandey, Advocate for the applicant. + Heard on the question of admission.  + Issue   show   cause   notice   against   admission   to   the  + respondents on payment of process fee within a week both  + by ordinary as well as registered A/D post.  +
Notice be made returnable within four weeks. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.5619/2010 + 03.09.2014: +
Shri Anurag Rathore, Advocate for the applicant. + Issue fresh notice against admission to the respondent  + on payment of process fee within a week both by ordinary as  + well as registered A/D post.  +
Notice be made returnable within four weeks. + Record of the Court below be also called for.  + List thereafter.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.9601/2010 + 03.09.2014: +
Shri Ashish Singh Parihar, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   K.S.   Patel,   Panel   Lawyer    for   the   respondent­ + State.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case after one month.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.9996/2010 + 03.09.2014: +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the applicant­State. + Let the record of the trial Court be called for.  + List this case under the same head thereafter in the  + week commencing 10th November, 2014.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.10882/2010 + 03.09.2014: +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the applicant­State. + Let the record of the trial Court be called for.  + List this case under the same head thereafter in the  + week commencing 10th November, 2014.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13431/2014 +03.09.2014: +
Shri Ajay Kumar Jain, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Heard on admission.   +
Admit. +
Case diary is available.  +
With   the   consent   of   the   parties   the   case   is   heard  + finally. +
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant  + under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. +
The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime  + No.158/2014,   registered   at   Police   Station   Kotwali,   District  + Tikamgarh, for the offences punishable under Sections 363  + and 342/34 of IPC.  +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that  applicant  was   suffering   from   viral   fever,   therefore,   he  + could not remain present before the learned trial Court on  + 25.07.2014. He undertakes to appear on all the date as may  + be given by the trial Court. In view of the aforesaid, prayer is  + made to enlarge the applicant on bail. +

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + has opposed the application for grant of bail. +

Looking   to   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,  + without   expressing   any   view   on   merits   of   the   case   and  + considering the averments made by learned counsel for the  + parties, the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. may be  + accepted. Consequently, it is hereby allowed. +

It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on  + furnishing   a   personal   bond   in   the   sum   of   Rs.25,000/­  + (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety  + in   the   like   amount   to   the   satisfaction   of   the   Committal  + Court/trial Court to appear before the concerned Court on  + the dates given by the concerned Court during trial.  +

C.C. as per rules. +

+ +

      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +

Misc. Criminal Case No.11589/2014 + 03.09.2014: +

None for the applicant. +
Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Case diary is available.  +
List this case after three weeks. + Case diary be also made available on the said date.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.10703/2014 + 03.09.2014: +
Shri M. Shafiqullah, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Case diary is available.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case after three weeks. +
Case diary be also made available on the said date.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12391/2014 + 03.09.2014: +
None for the applicant. +
Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Case diary is available.  +
List this case after three weeks. + Case diary be also made available on the said date.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13489/2014 + 03.09.2014: +
Shri G.S. Baghel, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Case diary is not available.  +
It   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing.  +
List the next week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13186/2014 + 03.09.2014: +
Shri Raman Patel, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Case diary is not available.  +
It   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing.  +
List the next week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.11944/2014 + 03.09.2014: +
None for the applicants. +
Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Case diary is available.  +
List this case after four weeks. + Case diary be also made available on the said date.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13489/2014 + 03.09.2014: +
Shri G.S. Baghel, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri   R.P.   Tiwari,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Case diary is not available.  +
It   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing.  +
List the next week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1761/2014                   +  03 +    .09.2014: +
    +
Shri Anurag Gohil, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Heard on admission.  +
Admit.  +
Record of the Courts below be called for.  + Also heard on I.A. No.16655/2014, an application for  + suspension of sentence and grant of bail to applicant. +
The applicant has been convicted under Section 326 of  + IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5  + years and fine of Rs.5,000/­, with default stipulation. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that   the  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   matter.   The  + applicant   was   on   bail   during   trial   and   never   misused   the  + liberty granted to him. He further submits that there is no  + likelihood of coming up of this revision for final hearing in  + near future. +
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer  + for bail. +
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances  + of the case and the nature of allegation, this application is  + allowed. Execution of jail sentence of the applicant­Prakash  + Palandi  is  suspended. He is directed to be enlarged on bail  + on   furnishing a personal bond in the sum of  Rs.25,000/­  + (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and a surety bond in  + the   like   amount   to   the   satisfaction   of   trial   Court   for   his  + appearance before the Registry of this Court on  15th  April,  + 2015  and   on   such   other   dates   as   may   be   fixed   by   the  + Registry in this regard. +
It   is   made   clear   that   the   sentence   of   fine   is   not  + suspended.  +
List this case for final hearing in due course.  + C.C. as per rules.  +
+ +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                  JUDGE + +taj/­ + Criminal Revision No.1812/2014                   +  03 +    .09.2014: +
    +
Shri Amit Dubey, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Heard on admission.  +
Admit.  +
Record of the Courts below be called for.  + Also heard on I.A. No.17081/2014, an application for  + suspension of sentence and grant of bail to applicant. +
The applicant has been convicted under Section 325 of  + IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6  + months and fine of Rs.500/­, with default stipulation. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that   the  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   matter.   The  + applicant   was   on   bail   during   trial   and   never   misused   the  + liberty granted to him. He further submits that there is no  + likelihood of coming up of this revision for final hearing in  + near future. +
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer  + for bail. +
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances  + of the case and the nature of allegation, this application is  + allowed.   Execution   of   jail   sentence   of   the  applicant­ + Nandkirhore   Gond  is  suspended.   He   is   directed   to   be  + enlarged on bail on  furnishing a personal bond in the sum  + of Rs.25,000/­ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and  + a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial  + Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on  + 15th April, 2015 and on such other dates as may be fixed by  + the Registry in this regard. +
It   is   made   clear   that   the   sentence   of   fine   is   not  + suspended.  +
List this case for final hearing in due course.  + C.C. as per rules.  +
+ +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                  JUDGE + +taj/­ + Criminal Revision No.467/2008 + 03.09.2014: +
Shri Manoj Soni, Advocate for the applicant. Applicant  + is   also   personally   present   and   is   duly   identified   by   his  + counsel. +
Shri   Luvkush   Mishra,   Advocate   for   the   respondent  + no.1. +
Shri   D.K.   Parouha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   respondent  + no.2. +
In compliance of earlier order the respondent no.1 is  + not   present   today   to   verify   the   compromise   before   the  + Registrar (Judicial).  +
Learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   prays   for   and  is  + granted time to keep the respondent present for verification  + of compromise before the Registrar (Judicial).  +
List this case on 26.11.2014.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.2036/2012 + 02.09.2014: +
Shri   Jitendra   Singh   Parihar,   Advocate   for   the  + applicants. +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State.  + Heard on I.A. No.11785/2014, which is an application  + for taking documents on record. +
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is  + allowed. The documents be taken on record.  +
List the case after one month under the same head.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.5472/2012 + 02.09.2014: +
Shri M. Aadil Usmani, Advocate for the applicants. + Learned   counsel   for   the   applicants  is   directed   to   file  + the   order­sheet   of   the   learned   trial   Court   to   apprise   this  + Court the latest position of the trial. +
List this case in the next week under the same head.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.5894/2012 + 02.09.2014: +
Shri   Pratap   Narayan   Mishra,   Advocate   for   the  + applicant. +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the  + order­sheet of the learned trial Court to apprise this Court  + the latest position of the trial. +
List this case after two weeks.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.11426/2012 + 02.09.2014: +
Shri Chandrahas Dubey, Advocate for the applicant. + Issue fresh notice against admission to the respondent  + on payment of process fee within a week both by ordinary as  + well as registered A/D post.  +
Notice be made returnable within four weeks. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1894/2010 + 02.09.2014: +
None for the applicants. +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + Office is directed to call the latest report of Sessions  + Trial   No.458/2008,     pending   in   the   Court   of   the   learned  + Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. +
List the case on 07.10.2014.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1378/2011 + 02.09.2014: +
None for the applicant. +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + Office is directed to call the latest report of Sessions  + Trial No.63/2011,  pending in the Court of the learned Third  + Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sidhi. +
List the case on 07.10.2014.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1516/2011 + 02.09.2014: +
None for the applicant. +
Shri   S.K.   Kashyap,   Government   Advocate   for   the  + respondent­State. +
List this case under the same heard after one month  + as per convenience of the Registry. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1819/2011 + + 02.09.2014: +
+
None for the applicant. +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest in  + the sum of Rs.5,000/­ against the applicant­ Raees Khan to  + secure   his   presence   before   this   Court   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing. +
Case   be   listed   on   28.11.2014   for   appearance   of   the  + aforesaid applicant. +
Registrar (Judicial­I) is requested to issue appropriate  + direction to the office to prepare a chart of custody period of  + the applicant from the initial date of his arrest.  +
+ + + +
(Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.2213/2011 + 02.09.2014: +
None for the applicant. +
None for the respondent no.1. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent no.2­ + State. +
List this case under the same heard after one month. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.9351/2011 + 02.09.2014: +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the applicant­State. + As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case after one month. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.10906/2011 + 02.09.2014: +
None for the applicant. +
Shri   H.K.   Upadhyaya,   Advocate   for   the   respondent  + no.1. +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent no.2­ + State. +
Since no one is present on behalf of the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List the case after one month under the same head as  + per convenience of the Registry.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.739/2006 + 02.09.2014: +
None for the parties. +
Since no one is present on behalf of the parties, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List   in   the   week   commencing   17th   November,   2014.  + as per convenience of the Registry.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.779/2006 + 02.09.2014: +
None for the parties. +
Since no one is present on behalf of the parties, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List   in   the   week   commencing   17th   November,   2014.  + as per convenience of the Registry.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.9666/2014 + 02.09.2014: +
Shri Pradeep Sharma, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri   D.K.   Parouha,   Panel   Lawyer  for   the   respondent  + no.1­State.  +
In   compliance   of   the   earlier   order   notice   against   the  + respondent no.2 Smt. Rashmi Bai Jatav, is duly served but  + no body is present on her behalf.  +
Case diary is also not available.  + It be positively called for on the next date of hearing.  + List the case in the next week under the same head as  + per convenience of the Registry.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.87/2014 +
02.09.2014: +
Shri Vinod Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, list  + this case in the next week. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.274/2014 +
02.09.2014: +
Shri   D.K.   Parouha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   appellant­ + State. +
Shri D.S. Baghel, Advocate for the respondents and is  + also appearing for Surety. +
Surety   Purshottam   Pandey,   who   is   father   of  + respondent no.3 Awdhesh Pandey is present in person and  + is duly identified by this Counsel. +
Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is  + granted   four   weeks   time   to   produce   the   respondent   no.3  + Awadhesh Pandey before this Court. +
List the case on 14.10.2014 for appearance of the said  + respondent. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.11877/2014 +02.09.2014: +
Shri Ashish Kurmi, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + Heard on the question  of admission.  + Admit. +
Case diary is available. +
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant  + under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.  +
The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime  + No.33/2014,   registered   at   Police   Station   Chanbila   Tahsil  + Banda,   District   Sagar,   for   the   offences   punishable   under  + Sections   376   of   IPC   and   Section   3/4   of   Protection   of  + Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.  +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that   the applicant is a young person of 24 years and is in  + custody   since   25.05.2014,   having   no   past   criminal  + antecedents.   In   view   of   the   aforesaid,   prayer   is   made   to  + enlarge the applicant on bail. +
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + vehemently opposes the application on the ground that the  + prosecutrix is merely aged about 13 years, which is evident  + from the record of the school, hence, prays for dismissal of  + this application.     +
Detailed   examination   of   evidence   and   elaborate  + documentation   of   merits   is   not   desirable   and   should   be  + avoided  while  passing  orders on  bail  applications.  What is  + necessary is the satisfaction about prima facie case and not  + an exhaustive exploration of merits in the order itself. It is  + the duty of the parties as well as the Court to see that at the  + stage of deciding bail application, the Court is not dragged  + into   minutest   details   and   in   an   arena   of   conjectures   of  + hypotheses. +
Keeping   in   view   the   submissions   made   by   learned  + counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of  + the case the evidence collected by the prosecution there is  + indication  prima facie  that the applicant is alleged to have  + committed   a   heinous   crime.   Looking   to   the   nature   and  + gravity of the accusation, this is not a fit case for grant bail  + to   the   applicant.   Consequently,   his   application   under  + Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.11944/2014 + 02.09.2014: +
Shri Pramod Thakre, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State.  + Case diary is available.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case in the next week. +
Case diary be also made available on the said date.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12016/2014 + 02.09.2014: +
None for the applicant. +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State.  + Case diary is available.  +
List this case after three weeks. + Case diary be also made available on the said date.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12149/2014 + 02.09.2014: +
Shri P.S. Gaharwar, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State.  + Case diary is available.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case after three weeks. +
Case diary be also made available on the said date.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12312/2014 + 02.09.2014: +
Shri Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State.  + Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   prays   for   and   is  + granted a week's time to file the statement of prosecutrix. +
List this case in the next week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12324/2014 +02.09.2014: +
Shri Ramesh Tamrakar, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + Heard on admission.   +
Admit. +
Case diary is available.  +
With   the   consent   of   the   parties   the   case   is   heard  + finally. +
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant  + under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. +
The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime  + No.448/2014,   registered   at   Police   Station   Moti   Nagar,  + District   Sagar,   for   the   offences   punishable   under   Sections  + 307, 353 and 186/34 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act.  +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that was only present on the spot but not participated the  + incident.   No   seizure   has   been   made   against   him.   The  + applicant is a young person of 29 years and is in custody  + since   31.07.2014,  having no  past  criminal  antecedents.   In  + view of the aforesaid, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant  + on bail. +
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + has opposed the application for grant of bail. +
Looking   to   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,  + without   expressing   any   view   on   merits   of   the   case   and  + considering the averments made by learned counsel for the  + parties, the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. may be  + accepted. Consequently, it is hereby allowed. +
It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on  + furnishing   a   personal   bond   in   the   sum   of   Rs.25,000/­  + (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety  + in   the   like   amount   to   the   satisfaction   of   the   Committal  + Court/trial Court to appear before the concerned Court on  + the dates given by the concerned Court during trial.  +
C.C. as per rules. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12367/2014 + 02.09.2014: +
Shri   Sourabh   Singh   Thakur,   Advocate   for   the  + applicant. +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State.  + Case diary is not available.  +
It be positively called for on the next date of hearing.  + List  this case in the next week. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12411/2014 + 02.09.2014: +
Shri K.B. Vishwakarma, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State.  + Case diary is not available.  +
It be positively called for on the next date of hearing.  + List  this case in the next week. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12484/2014 +02.09.2014: +
Shri P.S. Chouhan, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + Heard on admission.   +
Admit. +
Case diary is available.  +
With   the   consent   of   the   parties   the   case   is   heard  + finally. +
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant  + under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. +
The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime  + No.421/2014,   registered   at   Police   Station   Sarni,   District  + Betul, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366  + (A)   and   376   of   IPC   and   Section   4   of   the   Protection   of  + Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.  +

Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that the applicant is a young person of 20 years and is in  + custody   since   12.07.2014,   having   no   past   criminal  + antecedents.   In   view   of   the   aforesaid,   prayer   is   made   to  + enlarge the applicant on bail. +

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + has opposed the application for grant of bail. +

Looking   to   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,  + without   expressing   any   view   on   merits   of   the   case   and  + considering the averments made by learned counsel for the  + parties, the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. may be  + accepted. Consequently, it is hereby allowed. +

It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on  + furnishing   a   personal   bond   in   the   sum   of   Rs.30,000/­  + (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the  + like amount to the satisfaction of the Committal Court/trial  + Court   to   appear   before   the   concerned   Court   on   the   dates  + given by the concerned Court during trial.  +

C.C. as per rules. +

+ +

      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +

Misc. Criminal Case No.12698/2014 + 02.09.2014: +

Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State.  + Case diary is not available.  +
It be positively called for on the next date of hearing.  + List  this case in the next week. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12657/2014 + 02.09.2014: +
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State.  + Office   is   directed   to   list   the   case   with   the   record   of  + Misc.   Criminal   Case   No.12502/2014   before   appropriate  + Bench today itself. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12797/2014 + 02.09.2014: +
Shri Amit Kumar Garg, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State.  + Case diary is available.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case after two weeks. +
Case diary be also made available on the said date.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12834/2014 +02.09.2014: +
Shri K.S. Rajput, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State. + Heard on admission.   +
Admit. +
Case diary is available.  +
With   the   consent   of   the   parties   the   case   is   heard  + finally. +
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant  + under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. +
The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime  + No.102/2014,   registered   at   Police   Station   Jawar,   District  + Khandwa, for the offences punishable under Sections 450,  + 376 and 506 of IPC.  +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that   there   is   a   land   as   regards   the   partition   of   the   land.  + There   is   also   a   delay   in   lodging   the   FIR.   It   is   further  + submitted that the applicant is in custody since 24.06.2014,  + having   no   past   criminal   antecedents.   In   view   of   the  + aforesaid, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on bail. +
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + has opposed the application for grant of bail. +
Looking   to   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,  + without   expressing   any   view   on   merits   of   the   case   and  + considering the averments made by learned counsel for the  + parties, the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. may be  + accepted. Consequently, it is hereby allowed. +
It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on  + furnishing   a   personal   bond   in   the   sum   of   Rs.30,000/­  + (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the  + like amount to the satisfaction of the Committal Court/trial  + Court   to   appear   before   the   concerned   Court   on   the   dates  + given by the concerned Court during trial.  +
C.C. as per rules. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12869/2014 + 02.09.2014: +
Shri   Arubendra   Singh   Parihar,   Advocate   for   the  + applicant. +
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­State.  + Case diary is available.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case after one month. +
Case diary be also made available on the said date.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12106/2014 + + 01.09.2014: +
+
Shri   Ravish   Kumar   Bhola,  brother   of   the   applicant  + Rajkumar Bhola is present in person.  +
None for the respondent. +
Case   diary   be   positively   made   available   on   the   next  + date of hearing.  +
List the case on 03.09.2014.  +
+ + + +
(Subhash Kakade)  +            Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.2522/2013 + + 01.09.2014: +
+
None  for the parties as the Advocates are abstaining  + from work. +
List the case under the same head as per convenience  + of the office in the week commencing 08.09.2014.  +
+ + + +
(Subhash Kakade)  +            Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.11732/2014 + + 01.09.2014: +
+
None  for the parties as the Advocates are abstaining  + from work. +
In compliance of earlier order dated 13.08.2014 Shri  + N.K.   Nahar,  DSP,   AJAK,   Bhopal  is   present   in   person   with  + case diary.  +
It is submitted by Shri Nahar that applicant M. Idrish  + @ Iddi was arrested by the Police on 21.08.2014 and he was  + enlarged   on   bail   by   the   learned   Special   Judge,   Atrocities,  + District Bhopal on 22.08.2014, copy of order granting bail is  + with the case diary.  +
In the above facts and circumstances of the case, list  + the case on 04.09.2014. +
+ + + +
(Subhash Kakade)  +            Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.563/1998 + + 01.09.2014: +
+
None  for the parties as the Advocates are abstaining  + from work. +
Bailable warrant issued in compliance of earlier order  + dated 25.06.2014 is awaited.  +
List the case under the same head as per convenience  + of the Office. +
+ +
(Subhash Kakade)  +            Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1079/1999 + + 01.09.2014: +
+
None  for the parties as the Advocates are abstaining  + from work. +
Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest in  + the sum of Rs.5,000/­ against the applicant­ Rewa Ram to  + secure   his   presence   before   this   Court   on   the   next   date   of  + hearing. +
Case   be   listed   on   27.10.2014   for   appearance   of   the  + aforesaid applicant. +
Registrar (Judicial­I) is requested to issue appropriate  + direction to the office to prepare a chart of custody period of  + the applicant from the initial date of his arrest.  +
+ + + +
(Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1424/2004 + + 01.09.2014: +
+
None  for the parties as the Advocates are abstaining  + from work. +
List the case under the same head on 25.09.2014.  +
+ + + +
(Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1383/2005 +27.08.2014: +
None for the parties.  +
This   revision   under   Section   397/401   of   Cr.P.C.   has  + been filed against the order dated 27.06.2005, passed by the  + learned   Second   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Satna,   in  + Criminal   Revision   No.04/2004,   reversing   the   order   dated  + 16.12.2003,   passed   in   MJC   No.119/2003,   by   the   learned  + Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna awarded maintenance  + to the tune of Rs.500/­ per month to the respondent. +

This revision is of the year 2005.  One earlier occasion  + also  no  one  appeared  on  behalf  of  the  applicant,  it  seems  + that with the passage of time, the applicant has lost interest  + in prosecuting the case. Hence, this application deserves to  + be dismissed in default. +

Memo of revision, order under challenge perused with  + the records. +

Learned   Revisional   Court   rightly   held,   after  + appreciation   of   evidence   that   the   respondent   is   legally  + wedded   wife   of   applicant.   The   Learned   Revisional   Court  + rightly   found   that   the   applicant   deserted   his   wife   without  + any reasonable cause.  +

It  is   the   obligation  of   the   husband   to  maintain  wife,  + father to maintain children and son to maintain parents.  It  + will, therefore, be for him to show that he has no sufficient  + means to discharge his obligation: Rajathi vs.  C. Ganesan  + (1999)   6   SCC   326.  Means   does   not   signify   only   visible  + means,   such   as   real   property   or   definite   employment:  +

Basanta vs.  Sarat 1982 CrLJ 485. An able­bodied person  + has   sufficient   means:  Kandaswami   vs.     Angammal   AIR  + 1960 Mad 348: 1960 CrLJ 1098. +
In this legal position learned Revisional Court rightly  + held   that   the   applicant   also   having   sufficient   means   of  + income to pay maintenance and, therefore, rightly awarded  + the maintenance amount.  +
Hence, on the merits also, this revision under Section  + 397/401 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed. +
Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed. + A copy of this order be sent to the Court below with  + record. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +    ak+ taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1467/2005 +27.08.2014: +
None for the parties.  +
This   revision   under   Section   397/401   of   Cr.P.C.   has  + been filed against the order dated 26.07.2005, passed by the  + learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Panna, in Criminal  + Revision No.17/2005, reversing the order dated 27.11.2004,  + passed   in   Criminal   Case   No.123/2003,   by   the   learned  + Judicial   Magistrate   First   Class,   Ajaygarh,   District   Panna  + awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs.500/­ per months to  + the respondent. +
This revision is of the year 2006.  One earlier occasion  + also  no  one  appeared  on  behalf  of  the  applicant,  it  seems  + that with the passage of time, the applicant has lost interest  + in prosecuting the case. Hence, this application deserves to  + be dismissed in default. +
Memo of revision, order under challenge perused with  + the records. +
Learned   Revisional   Court   rightly   held,   after  + appreciation   of   evidence   that   the   respondent   is   legally  + wedded   wife   of   applicant.   The   Learned   Revisional   Court  + rightly   found   that   the   applicant   deserted   his   wife   without  + any reasonable cause.  +
It  is   the   obligation  of   the   husband   to  maintain  wife,  + father to maintain children and son to maintain parents.  It  + will, therefore, be for him to show that he has no sufficient  + means to discharge his obligation: Rajathi vs.  C. Ganesan  + (1999)   6   SCC   326.  Means   does   not   signify   only   visible  + means,   such   as   real   property   or   definite   employment:  +
Basanta vs.  Sarat 1982 CrLJ 485. An able­bodied person  + has   sufficient   means:  Kandaswami   vs.     Angammal   AIR  + 1960 Mad 348: 1960 CrLJ 1098. +
In this legal position learned Revisional Court rightly  + held   that   the   applicant   also   having   sufficient   means   of  + income to pay maintenance and, therefore, rightly awarded  + the maintenance amount.  +
Hence, on the merits also, this revision under Section  + 397/401 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed. +
Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed. + A copy of this order be sent to the Court below with  + record. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +    ak+ taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.1866/1999 + + 27.08.2014: +
+
None for the appellant. +
Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
It is submitted by the learned Panel Lawyer that as per  + the PUD dated 16.07.2014 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,  + Chhatarpur   the   sole   appellant   Udaibhansingh,   son   of  + Veersingh   Parihar   has   died.   His   death   certificate   has   also  + been attached with the said report.  +
In view of the aforesaid, the appeal stands abated and  + is accordingly dismissed. +
+ +
(Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.391/2013 +
27.08.2014: +
Ms. Manju Khatri, Advocate for the appellant. + Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State.  +
Heard on I.A. No.15370/2014, an application seeking  + permission to release the appellant on his personal bond as  + he has been directed to be released on bail on his furnishing  + a   personal   bond   in   the   sum   of   Rs.10,000/­   and   a   surety  + bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court  + vide order dated 24.06.2014.  +
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is  + allowed.  +
Now   the   appellant   is   directed   to   be   released   on   his  + furnishing   a   personal   bond   as   directed   vide   order   dated  + 24.06.2014,   and   after   his   date   of   release   within   three  + months he shall manage to furnish surety to the satisfaction  + of the learned trial Court. +

This order shall be read in continuation with the order  + dated 24.06.2014.  +

Copy of this order be also sent to the trial Court for  + compliance.   +

+ +

      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +

Misc. Criminal Case No.11398/2014 + 27.08.2014: +

Shri Pushpendra Dubey, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is available.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case after three weeks. +
Case diary be also made available on the said date.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12992/2014 + 27.08.2014: +
Shri Pushpendra Dubey, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is available.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case in the next week. +
Case diary be also made available on the said date.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.11730/2014 + 27.08.2014: +
None for the applicant. +
Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is available.  +
In the absence of learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List after three weeks. +
Case diary be also made available on the said date.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.11778/2014 + 27.08.2014: +
Shri Vinod Kumar Dubey, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is available.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case after three weeks. +
Case diary be also made available on the said date.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.11854/2014 + 27.08.2014: +
None for the applicant. +
Shri   Umesh   Pandey,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Case diary is available.  +
In the absence of learned counsel for the applicant, the  + case is adjourned.  +
List after four weeks. +
Case diary be also made available on the said date.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12845/2014 +27.08.2014: +
Shri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Heard on the question  of admission.  + Admit. +
Case diary is available. +
With   the   consent   of   the   parties   the   case   is   heard  + finally. +
The   applicant   has   an   apprehension   of   his   arrest   in  + connection   with   Crime   No.198/2014,   registered   at   Police  + Station   Bhalumada,   District   Anuppur,   for   the   offences  + punishable under Sections 452 and 354 (a) (d) of IPC. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that  + applicant has been falsely implicated in the case  on account  + of some dispute regarding payment of newspaper due on the  + prosecutrix.   The   applicant   is   ready   to   cooperate   in   the  + investigation and trial. The applicant is a reputed citizen of  + the   locality,   having   no   past   criminal   antecedents,   in   the  + event of arrest, his reputation will be tarnished, therefore, he  + be released on anticipatory bail. +
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + opposes the application.     +
Keeping   in   view   the   submissions   made   by   learned  + counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of  + the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the  + case,   I   am   of   the   view   that   this   is   a   fit   case   for   grant   of  + anticipatory   bail   to   the   applicant.   Consequently,   his  + application   under   Section   438   of   the   Cr.P.C.   is   hereby  + allowed.  +
It   is   directed   that   in   the   event   of   arrest,   present  + applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal  + bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/­ (Rupees twenty thousand)  + with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of  + the Arresting Police Officer. +
The   applicant   shall   make   himself   available   for  + interrogation   by  a   police   officer   as   and  when   required.   He  + shall   further   abide   by   the   other   conditions   enumerated   in  + sub­Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. +
Certified copy as per rules.s + + +       (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12473/2014 + 27.08.2014: +
Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is available.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case after a week. +
Case diary be also made available on the said date.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12966/2014 + 27.08.2014: +
Shri Abhinav Dubey, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is available.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case in the next week. +
Case diary be also made available on the said date.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12993/2014 + 27.08.2014: +
Shri Hemant Sen, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case in the next week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12721/2014 + 26.08.2014: +
Shri  Sanjay K. Agarwal, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State.  +
Shri   Manish   Datt,   Senior   Advocate   assisted   by   Shri  + Pushpendra Dubey, Advocate for the objector. +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case in the next week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.13033/2014 + 27.08.2014: +
Shri Rajeev Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State.  +
Office   to   verify   and   list   the   case   with   the   record   of  + Misc.   Criminal   Case   No.8789/2014   before   appropriate  + Bench.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.8221/2014 + 27.08.2014: +
Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is not available.  +
It be positively called for on the next date of hearing.  + List  this case on 01.09.2014. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12992/2014 + 27.08.2014: +
None for the applicants. +
Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is available.  +
In the absence of learned counsel for the applicants,  + this application is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.8482/2014 +27.08.2014: +
Shri A. Usmani, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State.  +
Heard on admission.   +
Admit. +
Case diary is available.  +
With the consent of the parties, case is heard finally.  + This is first bail application on behalf of the applicant  + under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.  The applicant is in custody in  + connection   with   Crime   No.71/2014,   registered   at   Police  + Station   Madan   Mahal,   Jabalpur   (M.P.),   for   the   offences  + punishable under Sections 364­A, 302, 201, 114 and 120­B  + of IPC. +
It   is   submitted   by   learned   counsel   for   the   applicant  + that   the   applicant   is   innocent   and   has   been   falsely  + implicated   in   the   case.   It   is   further   submitted   that   the  + investigation   has   already   been   completed   and   challan   has  + already   been   filed.   The   applicant   is   a   young   person   of   19  + years,   having   no   criminal   past.   He   is   in   custody   since  + 14.02.2014 and conclusion of trial would take considerable  + time.   On   the   aforesaid   grounds,   it   is   prayed   that   the  + applicant be released on bail. +

Learned   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   State   vehemently  + opposed   the   application   on   the   ground   that   from   the  + possession   of   the   applicant   one   Desi   Katta,   five   live  + cartridges,     one   iron   cutter   and   one   Mobile   has   been  + recovered at his instance, hence, prays for rejection of this  +bail application.  +

The   basic   principles   laid   down   as   well   as   observed  +disciplinary guidance by the Apex Court in catena of cases  +that   the   Court   should   avoid   elaborate   documentation   of  +merits   while   dealing   with   an   application   for   bail.   While  +dealing with an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. the  +Court cannot go into the details of the evidence to find out  +whether   the   evidence   will   be   sufficient   in   establishing   the  +guilt of the accused as it is not a relevant consideration at  +this stage to ascertain the probability or improbability of the  +prosecution   case   terminating   in   the   conviction   of   the  +accused   or   not.   Detailed   examination   of   evidence   and  +elaborate   documentation   of   merits   is   not   desirable   and  +should be avoided while passing orders on bail applications.  +What is necessary is the satisfaction about prima facie case  +and   not   an   exhaustive   exploration   of   merits   in   the   order  +itself. It is the duty of the parties as well as the Court to see  +that at the stage of deciding bail application, the Court is not  +dragged into minutest details and in an arena of conjectures  +of hypotheses.  +

At the stage of considering bail matters it would not be  +proper   for   the   High   Court   to   express   any   opinion   on   the  +merits   or   demerits   of   the   prosecution   case   as   well   as   the  +defence   as   any   expression   of   opinion   by   the   High   Court  +would undoubtedly affect the trial. +

(i) Niranjan Singh vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote   + AIR  1980 SC 785. +

(ii) Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala vs. State of Gujrat  + AIR 2008 SC 1134. +

(iii) Narayan Ghosh vs. State of Orissa +                   AIR 2008 SC 1159. +

+

Keeping   in   view   the   submissions   made   by   learned  + counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of  + the case the evidence collected by the prosecution there is  + indication  prima facie  that the applicant is alleged to have  + committed   a   heinous   crime.   Looking   to   the   nature   and  + gravity of the accusation, this is not a fit case for grant of  + bail   to   the   applicant.   Consequently,   his   application   under  + Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. +

+ +

      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +

Misc. Criminal Case No.9142/2014 + 27.08.2014: +

None for the applicant. +
Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is available.  +
As none appears on behalf of the applicant, the case is  + adjourned.  +
List this case after four weeks. + Case diary be also made available on the said date.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.9395/2014 + 27.08.2014: +
Shri  M. Shafiqullah, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is available.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case after four weeks. +
Case diary be also made available on the said date.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.1208/2010 + +26.08.2014: +
+
Shri D.K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. + Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
As per the PUD of the Deputy Superintendent, Central  + Jail,   Bhopal,   dated   27th  June,   2014   the   appellant­Sannu  + Setting @ Jafar, Son of Babu Khan, who has been convicted  + under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years  + rigorous   imprisonment   and   fine   of   Rs.5,000/­,   has   been  + released from jail on 20.03.2014 as he has already suffered  + the   awarded   jail   sentence   after   including   the   period   of  + remission.  +
In view of the aforesaid, this appeal has now become  + infructuous. +
Accordingly,   the   appeal   stands   dismissed   as   having  + been rendered infructuous. +
+ +
(Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge      +  taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1631/2014                   +  26.08.2014: +
Shri   Satyendra   Prasad   Dubey,   Advocate   for   the  + applicant. +
Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Heard on admission.  +
Admit.  +
Record of the Courts below be called for.  + Also heard on I.A. No.15524/2014, an application for  + suspension of sentence and grant of bail to applicant. +
The applicant has been convicted under Section 304­A  + of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for  + 1 year and fine of Rs.500/­, with default stipulation. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that   the  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   matter.   The  + applicant   was   on   bail   during   trial   and   never   misused   the  + liberty   granted   to   him.   The   fine   amount   has   already   been  + deposited. He further submits that there is no likelihood of  + coming up of this revision for final hearing in near future. +
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer  + for bail. +
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances  + of the case and the nature of allegation, this application is  + allowed. Execution of jail sentence of the  applicant­Motilal  + Chourasiya  is  suspended. He is directed to be enlarged on  + bail   on     furnishing   a   personal   bond   in   the   sum   of  + Rs.20,000/­ (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) and a surety  + bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court for  + his   appearance   before   the   Registry   of   this   Court   on  20th  + April, 2015 and on such other dates as may be fixed by the  + Registry in this regard. +
It   is   made   clear   that   the   sentence   of   fine   is   not  + suspended.  +
List this case for final hearing in due course.  + C.C. as per rules.  +
+ +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                  JUDGE + +taj/­ + Misc. Criminal Case No.12721/2014 + 26.08.2014: +
Shri  Sanjay K. Agarwal, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State.  +
Shri   Manish   Datt,   Senior   Advocate   assisted   by   Shri  + Pushpendra Dubey, Advocate for the objector. +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case in the next week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12849/2014 +26.08.2014: +
Shri Sanjay Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Heard on admission.   +
Admit. +
Case diary is not available, however, the applicant has  + filed the photocopy of challan paper for consideration of this  + application.  +
With   the   consent   of   the   parties   the   case   is   heard  + finally. +
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant  + under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. +
The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime  + No.389/2014,   registered   at   Police   Station   Waraseoni,  + District Balaghat, for the offences punishable under Section  + 354   (A)   of   IPC   and   Section   7,   8   of   Prevention   of   Children  + From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.  +

Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that the applicant and prosecutrix are young and both are  + having   talking   terms.   It   is   further   submitted   that   the  + applicant is a young person of 19 years and is in custody  + since   10.08.2014,  having no  past  criminal  antecedents.   In  + view of the aforesaid, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant  + on bail. +

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + has opposed the application for grant of bail. +

Looking   to   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,  + without   expressing   any   view   on   merits   of   the   case   and  + considering the averments made by learned counsel for the  + parties, the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. may be  + accepted. Consequently, it is hereby allowed. +

It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on  + furnishing   a   personal   bond   in   the   sum   of   Rs.25,000/­  + (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety  + in   the   like   amount   to   the   satisfaction   of   the   Committal  + Court/trial Court to appear before the concerned Court on  + the dates given by the concerned Court during trial.  +

C.C. as per rules. +

+ +

      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +

Misc. Criminal Case No.11631/2014 +26.08.2014: +

Shri Brijesh Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   D.K.   Paroha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   respondent­ + State. +
Heard on the question  of admission.  + Admit. +
Case   diary   is   not   available,   however,   photocopy   of  + challan   paper   has   been   filed   for   consideration   of   this  + application.  +
With   the   consent   of   the   parties   the   case   is   heard  + finally. +
This   is   the   second   bail   application   filed   by   the  + applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.  + Earlier the applicant has filed his first bail application which  + was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.07.2014. +
The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime  + No.285/2014,   registered   at   Police   Station   Maihar,   District  + Satna, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 341,  + 323 and 294/34 of IPC.  +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that   the   other   co­accused   persons   have   already   been  + released   on   bail   by   this   Hon'ble   Court.   It   is   further  + submitted that the applicant is a young person of 20 years  + and is in custody since 20.04.2014, having no past criminal  + antecedents.   In   view   of   the   aforesaid,   prayer   is   made   to  + enlarge the applicant on bail. +
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + vehemently opposes the application and submitted that the  + the   applicant   is   the   main   accused,   who   caused   injury   by  + sword to the complainant, hence, prays for dismissal of this  + application.     +
Detailed   examination   of   evidence   and   elaborate  + documentation   of   merits   is   not   desirable   and   should   be  + avoided  while  passing  orders on  bail  applications.  What is  + necessary is the satisfaction about prima facie case and not  + an exhaustive exploration of merits in the order itself. It is  + the duty of the parties as well as the Court to see that at the  + stage of deciding bail application, the Court is not dragged  + into   minutest   details   and   in   an   arena   of   conjectures   of  + hypotheses. +
Keeping   in   view   the   submissions   made   by   learned  + counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of  + the case the evidence collected by the prosecution there is  + indication  prima facie  that the applicant is alleged to have  + committed   a   heinous   crime.   Looking   to   the   nature   and  + gravity of the accusation, this is not a fit case for grant bail  + to   the   applicant.   Consequently,   his   application   under  + Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.9142/2014 +

27.08.2014: +

None for the applicant. +
Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is  available.  +
As none appears on behalf of the applicant, List   this  + case after four weeks. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.11497/2014 + 26.08.2014: +
Shri     Harikant   Vishwakarma,   Advocate   for   the  + applicant. +
Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case after three weeks.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.11787/2014 + 26.08.2014: +
Shri Kapil Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is not available.  +
It be positively called for on the next date of hearing.  + List  this case after two weeks. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.11794/2014 + 26.08.2014: +
Shri Atul Anand Awasthy, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
List   this   case   along   with   Misc.   Criminal   Case  + No.12265/2014 on 28.08.2014.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.11898/2014 + 26.08.2014: +
Shri T.K. Vishwakarma, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri D.K. Parouha, Panel Lawyer  for the respondent­ + State.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case in the next week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12024/2014 + 26.08.2014: +
Shri   Manoj   Kumar   Pandey,   Advocate   for   the  + applicants. +
Shri   Umesh   Pandey,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Case diary is not available.  +
It be positively called for on the next date of hearing  + otherwise the matter will be heard on the basis of challan  + papers available with the applicants. +
List  this case on 02.09.2014. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12161/2014 + 26.08.2014: +
Shri Sourabh Bhushan Shrivastava, Advocate for the  + applicant. +
Shri   Umesh   Pandey,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent­State.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case in the next week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.2136/2006 + +26.08.2014: +
+
None for the applicant. +
Shri   Umesh   Pandey,   Government   Advocate  for   the  + respondent­State. +
Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest in  + the   sum   of   Rs.5,000/­   against   the   applicant­Narendra  + Parashar   to   secure   his   presence   before   this   Court   on   the  + next date of hearing. +
Case   be   listed   on   07.10.2014   for   appearance   of   the  + aforesaid applicant. +
Registrar (Judicial­I) is requested to issue appropriate  + direction to prepare chart of custody period of the applicant.  +
+ + + +
  (Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge + taj. +
Criminal Revision No.37/2006 + + 25.08.2014: +
+
None for the applicant. +
Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent  + no.2­State. +
This   revision   under   Section   397/401   of   Cr.P.C.   has  + been   filed   against   the   judgment   of   acquittal   dated  + 30.08.2005, passed in Criminal Case No.504/2001, by the  + learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gairatganj, District  + Raisen,   whereby   the   respondent   no.1   has   been   acquitted  + from the charge under Section 498­A of IPC. +

This   revision   is   of   the   year   2006.     Since   no   one  + appears on behalf of the applicant, it seems that with the  + passage   of   time,   the   applicant   has   lost   interest   in  + prosecuting the case. Hence, this application deserves to be  + dismissed in default. +

+ + + +

(Subhash Kakade)  +           Judge   +     taj. +

Criminal Revision No.24/2006 +25.08.2014: +

None for the parties.  +
This   revision   under   Section   397/401   of   Cr.P.C.   has  + been filed against the order dated 25.09.2005, passed by the  + learned Family Court, Sagar, in MJC No.40/2005, granting  + Rs.800/­per month maintenance to the respondent­wife.  +
This   revision   is   of   the   year   2006.     Since   none   is  + present   on  behalf   of   the   applicant,  it  seems   that  with  the  + passage   of   time,   the   applicant   has   lost   interest   in  + prosecuting the case. Hence, this application deserves to be  + dismissed in default. +
Memo of revision, order under challenge perused with  + the records. +
Learned  Family Court  rightly held,  after  appreciation  + of   evidence   that   the   respondent   is   legally   wedded   wife   of  + applicant. The Learned Family Court rightly found that the  + applicant   deserted   his   wife   without   any   reasonable   cause.  + The   criminal   proceedings   is   also   pending   against   the  + applicant   on   the   report   lodged   by   the   respondent   for   the  + offence punishable under Section 498­A of IPC. +
It  is   the   obligation  of   the   husband   to  maintain  wife,  + father to maintain children and son to maintain parents.  It  + will, therefore, be for him to show that he has no sufficient  + means to discharge his obligation: Rajathi vs.  C. Ganesan  + (1999)   6   SCC   326.  Means   does   not   signify   only   visible  + means,   such   as   real   property   or   definite   employment:  +
Basanta vs.  Sarat 1982 CrLJ 485. An able­bodied person  + has   sufficient   means:  Kandaswami   vs.     Angammal   AIR  + 1960 Mad 348: 1960 CrLJ 1098. +
In this legal position learned Family Court rightly held  + that the applicant also having sufficient means of income to  + pay   maintenance   and,   therefore,   rightly   awarded   the  + maintenance amount.  +
Hence, on the merits also, this revision under Section  + 397/401 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed. +
Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed. + A copy of this order be sent to the Court below with  + record. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.24/2006 +25.08.2014: +
None for the parties.  +
This   revision   under   Section   397/401   of   Cr.P.C.   has  + been filed against the order dated 25.09.2005, passed by the  + learned Family Court, Sagar, in MJC No.40/2005, granting  + Rs.800/­per month maintenance to the respondent­wife.  +
This   revision   is   of   the   year   2006.     Since   none   is  + present   on  behalf   of   the   applicant,  it  seems   that  with  the  + passage   of   time,   the   applicant   has   lost   interest   in  + prosecuting the case. Hence, this application deserves to be  + dismissed in default. +
Memo of revision, order under challenge perused with  + the records. +
Learned  Family Court  rightly held,  after  appreciation  + of   evidence   that   the   respondent   is   legally   wedded   wife   of  + applicant. The Learned Family Court rightly found that the  + applicant   deserted   his   wife   without   any   reasonable   cause.  + The   criminal   proceedings   is   also   pending   against   the  + applicant   on   the   report   lodged   by   the   respondent   for   the  + offence punishable under Section 498­A of IPC. +
It  is   the   obligation  of   the   husband   to  maintain  wife,  + father to maintain children and son to maintain parents.  It  + will, therefore, be for him to show that he has no sufficient  + means to discharge his obligation: Rajathi vs.  C. Ganesan  + (1999)   6   SCC   326.  Means   does   not   signify   only   visible  + means,   such   as   real   property   or   definite   employment:  +
Basanta vs.  Sarat 1982 CrLJ 485. An able­bodied person  + has   sufficient   means:  Kandaswami   vs.     Angammal   AIR  + 1960 Mad 348: 1960 CrLJ 1098. +
In this legal position learned Family Court rightly held  + that the applicant also having sufficient means of income to  + pay   maintenance   and,   therefore,   rightly   awarded   the  + maintenance amount.  +
Hence, on the merits also, this revision under Section  + 397/401 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed. +
Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed. + A copy of this order be sent to the Court below with  + record. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1717/2014                   +  25.08.2014: +
Shri   Sourabh   Singh   Thakur,   Advocate   for   the  + applicant. +
Shri   R.N.   Yadav,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   respondent­ + State. +
Heard on admission.  +
Admit.  +
Record of the Courts below be called for.  + Also heard on I.A. No.16281/2014, an application for  + suspension of sentence and grant of bail to applicant. +
The  applicant  has been  convicted  under  Section  425  + (1­Kha)   of   Arms   Act   and   sentenced   to   undergo   rigorous  + imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/­, with default  + stipulation. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that   the  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   matter.   The  + applicant   was   on   bail   during   trial   and   never   misused   the  + liberty   granted   to   him.   The   fine   amount   has   already   been  + deposited. He further submits that there is no likelihood of  + coming up of this revision for final hearing in near future. +
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer  + for bail. +
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances  + of the case and the nature of allegation, this application is  + allowed.   Execution   of   jail   sentence   of   the  applicant­Dallu  + Baba   @   Dalchand  is  suspended.   He   is   directed   to   be  + enlarged on bail on  furnishing a personal bond in the sum  + of  Rs.15,000/­   (Rupees   Fifteen   Thousand   Only)  and   a  + surety  bond   in  the  like   amount  to   the  satisfaction   of   trial  + Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on  + 6th April, 2015 and on such other dates as may be fixed by  + the Registry in this regard. +
It   is   made   clear   that   the   sentence   of   fine   is   not  + suspended.  +
List this case for final hearing in due course.  + C.C. as per rules.  +
+ +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                  JUDGE + +taj/­ + Criminal Revision No.1727/2014                   +  25.08.2014: +
Shri Sanjeev Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. + Heard on admission.  +
Shri   Santosh   Yadav,   Panel   Lawyer   accepts   notice   on  + behalf   of   the   respondent   no.2­State,   hence,   no   notice   is  + required.  +
Issue   show   cause   notice   against   admission   to   the  + respondent   no.1   on   payment   of   process   fee   within   three  + three days both by ordinary as well as registered A/D post.  + Notice be made returnable within two weeks. +
Also heard on I.A. No.16337/2014, an application for  + suspension of sentence and grant of bail to applicant. +
The applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of  + Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo  + simple   imprisonment   for   6   months   and   fine   of  + Rs.2,52,127/­, with default stipulation. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that   the  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   matter.   The  + applicant   was   on   bail   during   trial   and   never   misused   the  + liberty granted to him. He has also deposited the amount of  + fine. He further submits that there is no likelihood of coming  + up of this revision for final hearing in near future. +
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer  + for bail. +
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances  + of the case and the nature of allegation, this application is  + allowed.   Execution   of   jail   sentence   of   the  applicant­ + Purshottam   Gupta  is  suspended.   He   is   directed   to   be  + enlarged on bail on  furnishing a personal bond in the sum  + of  Rs.20,000/­   (Rupees   Twenty   Thousand   Only)  and   a  + surety  bond   in  the  like   amount  to   the  satisfaction   of   trial  + Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on  + 6th April, 2015 and on such other dates as may be fixed by  + the Registry in this regard. +
It   is   made   clear   that   the   sentence   of   fine   is   not  + suspended.  +
C.C. as per rules.  +
+ +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                  JUDGE + +taj/­ + Criminal Appeal No.1878/2014                   + +   25.08. +

   2014: +

    + +
Shri Pushpendra Dubey, Advocate for the appellant. + Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
The appeal has already been admitted.  + Record of the trial Court be called for.  + Also heard on I.A. No.13533/2014, an application for  + suspension   of   sentence   and   grant   of   bail   on   behalf   of   the  + appellant. +
The appellant has been convicted under Section 294,  + 307 and 506 Part­II of IPC sentenced with fine of Rs.1,000/­  + in   the   first   count,   to   undergo   rigorous   imprisonment   of   4  + years   and   fine   of   Rs.1,000/­   in   the   second   count     and  to  + undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and Rs.1,000/­  + respectively with default stipulation. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submits   that   the  + appellant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   matter.   The  + appellant was on bail during trial and has never misused the  + liberty   granted   to   him.   He   also   submits   that   there   is   no  + likelihood   of   coming   up   of   this   appeal   for   final   hearing   in  + near future. +
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the prayer  + for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. +
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances  + of the case and the nature of allegation, this application is  + allowed. Execution of jail sentence of the appellant ­Ashok  + Chourasiya is suspended. He is directed to  be  enlarged on  + bail   on     furnishing   a   personal   bond   in   the   sum   of  + Rs.25,000/­ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only)  and a  + surety  bond   in  the  like   amount  to   the  satisfaction   of   trial  + Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on  + 6th April, 2015 and on such other dates as may be fixed by  + the Registry in this regard. +
It   is   made   clear   that   the   sentence   of   fine   is   not  + suspended.  +
List this case for final hearing in due course.  + C.C. as per rules.  +
+ +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                   JUDGE + +taj/- +
Criminal Appeal No.2334/2011 + +25.08.2014: +
+
Shri V.A. Ansari, Advocate for the appellants. + Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent­ + State. +
Appellant no.2 Ayub Khan is personally present before  + this Court. He is identified by his counsel. His presence be  + marked.  +
Now appellant no.2 Ayub Khan is directed to remain  + present before the Registry of this Court on 05.01.2015 and  + on such other dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this  + regard. +
The appeal has already been admitted.  + Record received.  +
List for final hearing in due course.  +
+ +
  (Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge + taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12758/2014 + 25.08.2014: +
Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   D.K.   Paroha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is not available.  +
It be positively called for on the next date of hearing.  + List  this case in the next week. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12767/2014 + 25.08.2014: +
Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri   D.K.   Paroha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   respondent­ + State.  +
Case diary is not available.  +
It be positively called for on the next date of hearing.  + It   is   submitted   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the  + applicants   that   the   defect   as   pointed   out   by   the   office   is  + made good.  +
Office to verify and list  this case in the next week. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12793/2014 +25.08.2014: +
Shri Nitin Jain, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   D.K.   Paroha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   respondent­ + State. +
Heard on the question  of admission.  + Admit. +
Case diary is available. +
With   the   consent   of   the   parties   the   case   is   heard  + finally. +
The   applicant   has   an   apprehension   of   his   arrest   in  + connection   with   Crime   No.360/2014,   registered   at   Police  + Station   Moti   Nagar,   Sagar,   District   Sagar,   for   the   offences  + punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 326 and 506/34  + of IPC.  +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted that the applicant is a retired Government  + employee and is an old infirm person of 65 years. There is a  + civil dispute between the parties. The applicant is ready to  + cooperate in the investigation and trial. The applicant is a  + reputed   citizen   of   the   locality,   having   no   past   criminal  + antecedents,   in   the   event   of   arrest,   his   reputation   will   be  + tarnished, therefore, he be released on anticipatory bail. +
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + vehemently opposes the application and submitted that the  + case is related with the acid burn, hence, prays for dismissal  + of this application.     +
Detailed   examination   of   evidence   and   elaborate  + documentation   of   merits   is   not   desirable   and   should   be  + avoided  while  passing  orders on  bail  applications.  What is  + necessary is the satisfaction about prima facie case and not  + an exhaustive exploration of merits in the order itself. It is  + the duty of the parties as well as the Court to see that at the  + stage of deciding bail application, the Court is not dragged  + into   minutest   details   and   in   an   arena   of   conjectures   of  + hypotheses. +
Keeping   in   view   the   submissions   made   by   learned  + counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of  + the case the evidence collected by the prosecution there is  + indication  prima facie  that the applicant is alleged to have  + committed   a   heinous   crime.   Looking   to   the   nature   and  + gravity of the accusation, this is not a fit case for grant of  + anticipatory   bail   to   the   applicant.   Consequently,   his  + application   under   Section   438   of   the   Cr.P.C.   is   hereby  + rejected.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12804/2014 + 25.08.2014: +
Shri Anil Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   D.K.   Paroha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   respondent­ + State.  +
Office to verify and list this case along with the record  + of   Misc.   Criminal   Case   No.1897/2014   before   appropriate  + Bench in the next week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.4295/2014 +25.08.2014: +
Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   D.K.   Paroha,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   respondent­ + State. +
Heard on admission.   +
Admit. +
Case diary is available. +
With   the   consent   of   the   parties   the   case   is   heard  + finally. +
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant  + under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. +
The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime  + No.10/2014,   registered   at   Police   Station   Simariya,   District  + Panna,   for   the   offences   punishable   under   Sections   304­B  + and 498­A of IPC.  +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is  + further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that Smt. Vanadana, wife of the applicant was pregnant and  + due to death of child in her womb she also died. He further  + submited   that   Smt.   Kailash   Bai   (PW­2),   Dinesh   Dahayat  + (PW­3)   and   Leeladhar   Dahayat   (PW­4),   mother,   cousin  + brother   and   uncle   of   the   deceased   was   examined   and  + declared   hostile.   The   witness   Laxman   Dahayat,   father   of  + Smt.   Vandana   also   died   as   in   deposition­sheet   of   Smt.  + Kailash Bai name of her husband is mentioned as Late Shri  + Laxman Dahayat. It is further submitted that the applicant  + is   a   young   person   of   23   years   and   is   in   custody   since  + 15.01.2014, having no past criminal antecedents. In view of  + the   aforesaid,   prayer   is   made   to   enlarge   the   applicant   on  + bail. +

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State  + has opposed the application for grant of bail. +

Looking   to   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,  + without   expressing   any   view   on   merits   of   the   case   and  + considering the averments made by learned counsel for the  + parties, the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. may be  + accepted. Consequently, it is hereby allowed. +

It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on  + furnishing   a   personal   bond   in   the   sum   of   Rs.30,000/­  + (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the  + like amount to the satisfaction of the Committal Court/trial  + Court   to   appear   before   the   concerned   Court   on   the   dates  + given by the concerned Court during trial.  +

C.C. as per rules. +

+ +

      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +

Criminal Revision No.1927/2006 +21.08.2014: +

None for the parties.  +
This   revision   under   Section   397/401   of   Cr.P.C.   has  + been filed against the order dated 28.06.2004, passed by the  + learned   Second   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Satna,   in  + Criminal   Revision   No.10/2004,   reversing   the   order   dated  + 17.12.2003,   passed   in   M.J.C.   No.29/2002,   by   the   learned  + Chief Judicial Magistrate Satna. +

This   revision   is   of   the   year   2006.     One   earlier  + occasions also no one appeared on behalf of the parties, it  + seems that with the passage of time, the applicant has lost  + interest   in   prosecuting   the   case.   Hence,   this   application  + deserves to be dismissed in default. +

Memo of revision, order under challenge perused with  + the records. +

Learned Trial Court rightly held, after appreciation of  + evidence   that   the   respondent   is   legally   wedded   wife   of  + applicant.   The   Learned   Trial   Court   rightly   found   that   the  + applicant   deserted   his   wife   without   any   reasonable   cause.  + The   criminal   proceedings   is   also   pending   against   the  + applicant on the report filed by the respondent no.1 for the  + offence punishable under Section 498­A of IPC. +

It  is   the   obligation  of   the   husband   to  maintain  wife,  + father to maintain children and son to maintain parents.  It  + will, therefore, be for him to show that he has no sufficient  + means to discharge his obligation: Rajathi vs.  C. Ganesan  + (1999)   6   SCC   326.  Means   does   not   signify   only   visible  + means,   such   as   real   property   or   definite   employment:  +

Basanta vs.  Sarat 1982 CrLJ 485. An able­bodied person  + has   sufficient   means:  Kandaswami   vs.     Angammal   AIR  + 1960 Mad 348: 1960 CrLJ 1098. +
In this legal position learned Family Court rightly held  + that the applicant also having sufficient means of income to  + pay   maintenance   and,   therefore,   rightly   awarded   the  + maintenance amount.  +
Hence, on the merits also, this revision under Section  + 397/401 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed. +
Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed. + A copy of this order be sent to the Court below with  + record. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.122/2006 +

22.08.2014: +

Shri U.S. Jaiswal, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   Abhyaraj   Singh,   Advocate   for   the   respondents  + no.1 to 9. +
Shri R.K. Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer for the respondent  + no.10­State.  +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   prays   for   and   is  + granted two weeks time to file reply of I.A. No.979/2006.  +
List this case in the week commencing 8th September,  + 2014.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.811/2013 +
22.08.2014: +
None for the appellant. +
Shri   R.K.   Kesharwani,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State.  +
List the case after three weeks under the same head as  + per the convenience of the Registry. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.1465/2013 + 22.08.2014: +
Shri L.P. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. + Shri   R.K.   Kesharwani,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Let   the   defect   as   pointed   out   by   the   office   be   made  + good within a week.  +
List thereafter.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12540/2013 + 22.08.2014: +
Applicant Sunil Kumar Gawaskar alias Sunil Gautam  + present in person.  +
Applicant prays for and is granted two weeks' time to  + take necessary action regarding filing of the application.  +
List in the week commencing 8th September, 2014.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.703/2014 +
22.08.2014: +
Shri Anup Singh Lodhi, Advocate for the appellant. + Shri   R.K.   Kesharwani,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Let   the   defect   as   pointed   out   by   the   office   be   made  + good within a week.  +
List thereafter.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1006/2014 + 22.08.2014: +
Shri Tony Vishwakarma, Advocate for the applicants. + Shri   R.K.   Kesharwani,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Heard on I.A. No.10249/2014, which is an application  + for condonation of delay. +
There is a delay of 165 days in filing this revision.  + For the reasons stated in the application, which is not  + opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer, the same is allowed.  + The delay in filing the revision is accordingly condoned.  +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1390/2014 + 22.08.2014: +
Shri V.K. Pandey, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.K.   Kesharwani,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State.  +
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that the defect as pointed out by the office has already been  + cured.  +
Office to verify and list the case in the next week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.1613/2014 + 22.08.2014: +
Shri Tribhuwan Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.K.   Kesharwani,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State.  +
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant  + that the defect as pointed out by the office has already been  + cured.  +
Office to verify and list the case in the next week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.9897/2014 + 22.08.2014: +
None for the applicant. +
Shri   R.K.   Kesharwani,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Let   the   defect   as   pointed   out   by   the   office   be   made  + good within a week.  +
List thereafter.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.11445/2014 + 22.08.2014: +
None for the applicant. +
Shri   R.K.   Kesharwani,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Let   the   defect   as   pointed   out   by   the   office   be   made  + good within a week.  +
List thereafter.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.11509/2014 + 22.08.2014: +
Shri L.P. Yadav, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri R.K. Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer for the respondent  + no.3­State.  +
Let   the   defect   as   pointed   out   by   the   office   be   made  + good within a week.  +
List thereafter.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.11550/2014 + 22.08.2014: +
Shri B.K. Upadhyay, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.K.   Kesharwani,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State.  +
List   this   case   along   with   Misc.   Criminal   Case  + No.11557/2014 in the next week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.11704/2014 + 22.08.2014: +
Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri R.K. Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer for the respondent  + no.1­State.  +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case in the next week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.11821/2014 + 22.08.2014: +
Shri Surendra Rajak, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.K.   Kesharwani,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Let   the   defect   as   pointed   out   by   the   office   be   made  + good within three working days.  +
List thereafter.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12038/2014 + 22.08.2014: +
Shri V.K. Pandey, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.K.   Kesharwani,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Heard on I.A. No.16183/2014, which is an application  + seeking   permission   to   convert   this   petition   filed   under  + Section   482   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure   Criminal  + Revision into Criminal Revision. +
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is  + allowed. +
Office is directed to register this petition into Criminal  + Revision. +
Necessary amendment be carried out within a week. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.12072/2014 + 22.08.2014: +
Shri B.K. Upadhyay, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.K.   Kesharwani,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Office is directed to list the case along with the record  + of   Misc.   Criminal   Case   No.12233/2014   before   the  + appropriate Bench in the next week.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.1922/2014 + 22.08.2014: +
Shri Pushpendra Dubey, Advocate for the appellant. + Shri   R.K.   Kesharwani,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the  + respondent­State.  +
Heard on admission.  +
Admit.  +
Record of the trial Court be called for.  + List thereafter for admission and for consideration of  + I.A.   No.13972/2014,   an   application   for   suspension   of  + sentence   and   grant   of   bail   to   the   appellant   in   the   week  + commencing 1st September, 2014. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Misc. Criminal Case No.1656/2014 + 22.08.2014: +
Shri Y.K. Gupta, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.N.   Yadav,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   respondent­ + State.  +
Let   the   defect   as   pointed   out   by   the   office   be   made  + good within three working days.  +
List thereafter.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1596/2014                   +  21.08.2014: +
Shri Wakeel Khan, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.N.   Yadav,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   respondent­ + State. +
Heard on admission.  +
Admit.  +
Record of the Courts below be called for.  + Also heard on I.A. No.15212/2014, an application for  + suspension of sentence and grant of bail to applicant. +
The  applicant  has been  convicted  under  Section  427  + and 353 of IPC and convicted under Section 4 of the M.P.  + Chikitsa Evam Chikitsa Sewa Se Sambandhit Vyaktiyon Ki  + Suraksha   Adhiniyam,   2008   and   sentenced   to   undergo  + rigorous imprisonment for 9 months, 1 year and 3 months  + with fine of Rs.1,000/­ respectively, with default stipulation. +
Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that   the  + applicant   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   matter.   The  + applicant   was   on   bail   during   trial   and   never   misused   the  + liberty granted to him. He further submits that there is no  + likelihood of coming up of this revision for final hearing in  + near future. +
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer  + for bail. +
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances  + of the case and the nature of allegation, this application is  + allowed.  Execution  of  jail sentence  of  the  applicant­Karan  + Balmiki is suspended. He is directed to be enlarged on bail  + on   furnishing a personal bond in the sum of  Rs.25,000/­  + (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and a surety bond in  + the   like   amount   to   the   satisfaction   of   trial   Court   for   his  + appearance   before   the   Registry   of   this   Court   on  6th  April,  + 2014  and   on   such   other   dates   as   may   be   fixed   by   the  + Registry in this regard. +
It   is   made   clear   that   the   sentence   of   fine   is   not  + suspended.  +
List this case for final hearing in due course.  + C.C. as per rules.  +
+ +
          (SUBHASH KAKADE) +                                  JUDGE + +taj/­+ts + Misc. Criminal Case No.1982/2013 + + 21.08.2014: +
+
Shri Atul Dubey, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent no.­ + State. +
Heard   on   I.A.   No.4411/2014,   an   application   seeking  + permission to change the counsel. +
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is  + allowed.  +
Office   is   directed   that  the   name   of   Shri   Atul   Dubey,  + Advocate be reflected in the daily cause list as counsel for  + the applicant.  +
+ +
(Subhash Kakade)  +          Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.692/2006 +21.08.2014: +
None for the parties.  +
This   revision   under   Section   397/401   of   Cr.P.C.   has  + been filed against the order dated 24.05.2006, passed by the  + learned   Family   Court,   Bhopal,   in   MJC   No.550/2005,  + granting   Rs.1,000/­per   month   maintenance   to   the  + respondent no.1­wife and Rs.500/­ to the respondent no.2­ + son.  +
This   revision   is   of   the   year   2006.     Since   none   is  + present   on  behalf   of   the   applicant,  it  seems   that  with  the  + passage   of   time,   the   applicant   has   lost   interest   in  + prosecuting the case. Hence, this application deserves to be  + dismissed in default. +
Memo of revision, order under challenge perused with  + the records. +
Learned  Family Court  rightly held,  after  appreciation  + of   evidence   that   the   respondent   is   legally   wedded   wife   of  + applicant. The Learned Family Court rightly found that the  + applicant   deserted   his   wife   without   any   reasonable   cause.  + The   criminal   proceedings   is   also   pending   against   the  + applicant on the report filed by the respondent no.1 for the  + offence punishable under Section 498­A of IPC. +
It  is   the   obligation  of   the   husband   to  maintain  wife,  + father to maintain children and son to maintain parents.  It  + will, therefore, be for him to show that he has no sufficient  + means to discharge his obligation: Rajathi vs.  C. Ganesan  + (1999)   6   SCC   326.  Means   does   not   signify   only   visible  + means,   such   as   real   property   or   definite   employment:  +
Basanta vs.  Sarat 1982 CrLJ 485. An able­bodied person  + has   sufficient   means:  Kandaswami   vs.     Angammal   AIR  + 1960 Mad 348: 1960 CrLJ 1098. +
In this legal position learned Family Court rightly held  + that the applicant also having sufficient means of income to  + pay   maintenance   and,   therefore,   rightly   awarded   the  + maintenance amount.  +
Hence, on the merits also, this revision under Section  + 397/401 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed. +
Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed. + A copy of this order be sent to the Court below with  + record. +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.2224/2014 + 21.08.2014: +
Shri Atul Upadhyay, Advocate for the appellant. + Shri   R.N.   Yadav,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   respondent­ + State. +
Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal seems to be arguable, hence, admitted for final  + hearing.  +
Record of the trial Court be called for.  + List   immediately   thereafter   for   consideration   of   I.A.  + No.16065/2014   in   the   week   commencing   1st   September,  + 2014.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.2072/2014 + 21.08.2014: +
Shri Sanjayram Tamrakar, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.N.   Yadav,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   respondent­ + State. +
Heard on the question of admission. + Appeal seems to be arguable, hence, admitted for final  + hearing.  +
Record of the trial Court be called for.  + List   immediately   thereafter   for   consideration   of   I.A.  + No.15133/2014   in   the   week   commencing   1st   September,  + 2014.  +
+ +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Appeal No.962/2000 +
21.08.2014: +
Shri Pushpendra Dubey, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri   R.N.   Yadav,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   respondent­ + State. +
As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case under the same head on 15.10.2014. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
Criminal Revision No.1654/2012 + 21.08.2014: +
Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. + Shri Satish Chaturvedi, Advocate for the respondents. + As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list  + this case under the same head after two weeks. +
+ + + +
      (Subhash Kakade)  +                  Judge   +     taj. +
+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_81182428.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_81182428.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..233af8b193974e0ad98425a94380618e517a7f50 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_81182428.html @@ -0,0 +1,360 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sriramalu vs The Secretary on 8 September, 2014 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

3. Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.Sarasamuthu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention. +

4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the detenu has been in remand in the ground case in Cr.No.41/2014 and in the 3rd and 4th adverse cases in Cr.Nos.657/2013 & 3/2014 registered by H4 Korukkupet Police Station and he has not filed any bail application in the 3rd adverse case in Cr.No.657/2013 and the bail applications filed by him in the 4th adverse case and in the ground case before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.MP.Nos.1453/2014 and 1454/2014, were pending as on the date of the passing of the detention order. He would also contend that the detaining authority has placed reliance on the statement of the sponsoring authority to the effect that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail by filing bail application in the 3rd adverse case. Further, the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is very likely of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case and that there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail in the 3rd adverse case and that there is likelihood of his coming out on bail in the 4th adverse case and in the ground case by relying upon the similar cases, viz., [a]the case registered at N1 Royapuram PS Cr.No.196/2013 u/s.341, 336, 323, 427, 385, 397 and 506[ii] IPC wherein bail was granted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.5410/2013 on 19.03.2013 and [b] the case registered by H1 Washermenpet Police Station Cr.No.911/2011 u/s.341, 384, 336, 427, 307 and 506[ii] IPC, wherein bail was granted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.MP.No.9242/2011. The learned counsel would add that admittedly, in this case, the bail applications filed by the detenu in the 4th adverse case and in the ground case is pending and no bail application has been filed by him in the 3rd adverse case and he is in remand in the said cases. When a bail application is pending, there is no presumption that the detenu would be granted bail and when no bail application is filed, there is no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. No cogent materials are available before the Detaining Authority to conclude / to apprehend that the detenu is likely to get bail in the ground case as well as in the 3rd and 4th adverse cases. The apprehension entertained in the mind of the detaining authority that there is a real possibility of detenu coming out on bail as the bail applications in the ground case and in the 4th adverse case are pending is not justifiable for the reason that he has pre-judged the matter. Concedingly he could not foresee the nature of the order that would be passed by the Court. By the reason of pendency of the application, one could not easily come to the conclusion that the Court would certainly grant bail to the accused. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non-application of mind and the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is a mere ipse dixit without any cogent materials. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [a] 2006 [1] MLJ [Crl.] 539, [T.V.SARAVANAN @ S.A.R.PRASANNA VENKATACHARIAR CHATURVEDI V. STATE OF TAMILNADU THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER] ; [b]2005 [1] CTC 577 [VELMURUGAN @ VELU Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE] and [c] 2012 [7] SCC 181 [HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR] . +

+
+ +
+
"4.I am aware that Thiru Raja @ Rajasekar is in remand in H4 Korukkupet Police Station Cr.Nos.657/2013, 3/2014 and 41/2014 and he moved a bail application before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.MP.Nos.1453/2014 and 1454/2014 for H4 Korukkupet PS Cr.Nos.3/2014 and 41/2014 respectively and the same are pending. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru Raja @ Rajasekar are taking action to take him on bail by filing bail application in H4 Korukkupet PS Cr.No.657/2013 by filing bail application before the Court. In a case registered at N1 Royapuram PS Cr.No.196/2013 registered u/s.341, 323, 336, 427, 385, 397 and 506[ii] IPC bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.5410/2013 on 19.03.2013. In a similar case registered at H1 Washermenpet PS Cr.No.911/2011 u/s.341, 336, 384, 427, 307 & 506[ii] IPC bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.9242/2011. Hence, I infer that it is very likely of him coming out on bail in H4 Korukkupet Police Station Cr.Nos.3/2014 and 41/2014 and there is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail application in H4 Korukkupet Police Station Cr.No.657/2013 by filing bail application before appropriate court. If he comes out on bail, he will further indulge in such activities in future, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order........" +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_81255666.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_81255666.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4aa9c80327e07e1b618ffe5a4f3c2235225436e5 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_81255666.html @@ -0,0 +1,376 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Mohammed Anwar vs State Of Karnataka on 20 July, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
Appellants / accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 are + + acquitted for the offence under Sections 302 and + + 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. +
+

Bail bonds if any, executed by the accused + + shall stand cancelled. +

+

Fine amount if any, deposited by the accused + + shall be refunded to them respectively, on due + + identification. +

+

+

Sd/- +

JUDGE + + + Sd/- +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_8187108.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_8187108.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0f269f7d6a6139a5fe54f31be6a1ed5bd11bcc16 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_8187108.html @@ -0,0 +1,572 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Siddharth Patel vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 12 July, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Bail petitioners namely Siddharth Patel, Nilesh Patel + + + + + + and Milan Patel have approached this Court in the instant + + proceedings filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of + + anticipatory bail in case FIR No.14/2024 dated 02.02.2024, + + + + + registered at Police Station Barotiwala, District Solan, H.P., + + under Sections 285, 336, 337, 338, 304-A, 308, 304 Part II of + + + IPC & Section 92 of Factories Act, 1948. +

+

2. The petitioners were admitted to interim bail vide + + + order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this + + Court with the direction to join investigation. Pursuant to notices + + + + + issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed as + + + + + + much as four status reports dated 05.05.2024, 23.05.2024, + + 30.06.2024 and 11.07.2024, respectively, perusal whereof + + + + + + reveals that on 02.02.2024 at 01:57 p.m. vide DDO No.14, Police + + received information that fire has broken out in a building near + + Columbus Factory. After receipt of aforesaid information, Police + + reached the spot and found that incident of fire has taken place + + in Company namely 'M/s N.R. Aromas', as a result thereof, many + + + + + + + + + + workers were injured and had been taken to Brooklin Hospital + + and ESIC, Khatha for treatment. +

+
+ +
+ +

4. On the basis of aforesaid statement recorded by + + + + + + complainant named hereinabove under Section 154 Cr.P.C., + + Police initially lodged FIR, as detailed hereinabove, under + + + + + + Sections 285, 336, 337 and 304 of IPC, against bail-petitioners + + as well as other accused namely Vinod Kumar and + + Chandrashekhar, but subsequently, during investigation, after + + finding negligence of an employee namely Harish, which caused + + fire, Police incorporated Section 304-A of IPC and arrested + + + + + + + + + + Harish under Section 285, 336, 334, 338 and 304-A of IPC, + + however, he was later enlarged on bail by Police. Co-accused + + + + + . +

+
+ +
+

committed by the Police while registering case under Section 304 + + + + + + Part II of IPC against the bail-petitioners because they had + + + + + + definite knowledge that mishandling, if any, of the chemical + + stored in the Factory premises, may cause serious injury to the + + workers as well as property of the Factory in question, but yet, + + + + + + they failed to take appropriate steps for the storage/handling of + + highly inflammable chemical. +

+

7. To the contrary, Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior + + Counsel representing the petitioner(s) in Cr.MP(M) Nos.341 and + + 362 of 2024 and Mr. Randeep Rai, learned Senior Counsel + + + + representing the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No.341 of 2024, while + + + + + refuting aforesaid submissions made by Mr. Vishal Panwar, + + + + + + learned Additional Advocate General, states that no case much + + less under Section 304 Part II is made out against bail- +

+
+ +
+ +

26. In a case titled as Rohit Suri (supra), this Court had + + + + an occasion to deal with the scope of Section 304 Part II, where it + + + + + was held as under: +

+
"9. Investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to + be recovered from the bail petitioners. It is also not in dispute + that bail petitioners are in judicial custody. There is another + aspect of the matter that at the first instance case under + + + + + + Sections 286, 337, 304A of IPC and Section 9 (C) of Explosives + Act 1884 was registered against the bail petitioners and other + persons named in the FIR, but subsequently, police after having + taken note of the fact that explosives substance was being made + in the factory without there being license deleted the aforesaid + Sections and re-registered the case against them under Sections + 304, 120B of IPC and Section 5 of the Explosives Substance Act + 1908. Precise case of the prosecution in the case at hand is + that crackers were being manufactured unauthorizedly in the + premises where fire broke, but definitely there is nothing on + record which can compel this Court to conclude/infer that + + + + + + + + + + explosives substance or special category explosive substance as + defined in the Explosives Substance Act, 1908 were being + manufactured or stored in the premises. Aforesaid observation + made by this court gains significance in view of the statement + made by the complainant under Section 154 of the Cr.PC that + + + + + . +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_8205392.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_8205392.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..61d1b2bdcbf387444cbf257f569ceb938b4aceb0 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_8205392.html @@ -0,0 +1,572 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Siddharth Patel vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 12 July, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Bail petitioners namely Siddharth Patel, Nilesh Patel + + + + + + and Milan Patel have approached this Court in the instant + + proceedings filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of + + anticipatory bail in case FIR No.14/2024 dated 02.02.2024, + + + + + registered at Police Station Barotiwala, District Solan, H.P., + + under Sections 285, 336, 337, 338, 304-A, 308, 304 Part II of + + + IPC & Section 92 of Factories Act, 1948. +

+

2. The petitioners were admitted to interim bail vide + + + order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this + + Court with the direction to join investigation. Pursuant to notices + + + + + issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed as + + + + + + much as four status reports dated 05.05.2024, 23.05.2024, + + 30.06.2024 and 11.07.2024, respectively, perusal whereof + + + + + + reveals that on 02.02.2024 at 01:57 p.m. vide DDO No.14, Police + + received information that fire has broken out in a building near + + Columbus Factory. After receipt of aforesaid information, Police + + reached the spot and found that incident of fire has taken place + + in Company namely 'M/s N.R. Aromas', as a result thereof, many + + + + + + + + + + workers were injured and had been taken to Brooklin Hospital + + and ESIC, Khatha for treatment. +

+
+ +
+ +

4. On the basis of aforesaid statement recorded by + + + + + + complainant named hereinabove under Section 154 Cr.P.C., + + Police initially lodged FIR, as detailed hereinabove, under + + + + + + Sections 285, 336, 337 and 304 of IPC, against bail-petitioners + + as well as other accused namely Vinod Kumar and + + Chandrashekhar, but subsequently, during investigation, after + + finding negligence of an employee namely Harish, which caused + + fire, Police incorporated Section 304-A of IPC and arrested + + + + + + + + + + Harish under Section 285, 336, 334, 338 and 304-A of IPC, + + however, he was later enlarged on bail by Police. Co-accused + + + + + . +

+
+ +
+

committed by the Police while registering case under Section 304 + + + + + + Part II of IPC against the bail-petitioners because they had + + + + + + definite knowledge that mishandling, if any, of the chemical + + stored in the Factory premises, may cause serious injury to the + + workers as well as property of the Factory in question, but yet, + + + + + + they failed to take appropriate steps for the storage/handling of + + highly inflammable chemical. +

+

7. To the contrary, Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior + + Counsel representing the petitioner(s) in Cr.MP(M) Nos.341 and + + 362 of 2024 and Mr. Randeep Rai, learned Senior Counsel + + + + representing the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No.341 of 2024, while + + + + + refuting aforesaid submissions made by Mr. Vishal Panwar, + + + + + + learned Additional Advocate General, states that no case much + + less under Section 304 Part II is made out against bail- +

+
+ +
+ +

26. In a case titled as Rohit Suri (supra), this Court had + + + + an occasion to deal with the scope of Section 304 Part II, where it + + + + + was held as under: +

+
"9. Investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to + be recovered from the bail petitioners. It is also not in dispute + that bail petitioners are in judicial custody. There is another + aspect of the matter that at the first instance case under + + + + + + Sections 286, 337, 304A of IPC and Section 9 (C) of Explosives + Act 1884 was registered against the bail petitioners and other + persons named in the FIR, but subsequently, police after having + taken note of the fact that explosives substance was being made + in the factory without there being license deleted the aforesaid + Sections and re-registered the case against them under Sections + 304, 120B of IPC and Section 5 of the Explosives Substance Act + 1908. Precise case of the prosecution in the case at hand is + that crackers were being manufactured unauthorizedly in the + premises where fire broke, but definitely there is nothing on + record which can compel this Court to conclude/infer that + + + + + + + + + + explosives substance or special category explosive substance as + defined in the Explosives Substance Act, 1908 were being + manufactured or stored in the premises. Aforesaid observation + made by this court gains significance in view of the statement + made by the complainant under Section 154 of the Cr.PC that + + + + + . +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_821368.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_821368.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f998cf060088b93a1c9d299f5f60b59afc478819 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_821368.html @@ -0,0 +1,596 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Amrik Singh vs Karan Sher Singh on 3 March, 2009 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

According to the petitioner, he alongwith others was falsely + +implicated in the aforementioned FIR. Apprehending his arrest, the + +petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed + +by learned Sessions Judge, Patiala on 18.12.2007. The petitioner then + +filed Crl. Misc. No. M-45874 of 2007 in this Court for the concession of + +anticipatory bail. The said petition came up for hearing on 21.12.2007, + +when notice of motion was issued for 25.3.2008 and the petitioner was + +directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer and join the + +investigation. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner was ordered to be + +released on interim bail by the Investigating Officer, subject to his + +furnishing bail bonds to his satisfaction. Armed with the said order, the + +petitioner went to Police Station, Tripri on 2.1.2008 for joining the + +investigation. He was interrogated by the respondents for two hours. At + +that time, some persons belonging to the complainant party were also + +present there, who were pressurizing the respondents to arrest the + +petitioner, even if he had been granted interim bail by this Court. + +However, the respondents were fully satisfied with the queries put to the + +petitioner during the interrogation which lasted for two hours and + +accordingly, the petitioner was allowed to leave the Police Station. + +Later-on, under the pressure of the complainant party, the respondents + +again called the petitioner to the Police Station on 3.1.2008. When the + +petitioner reached there, he was illegally arrested by the respondents, + +ignoring the fact that he had been granted ad-interim bail by this Court + +and the petition for anticipatory bail was pending for 25.3.2008. + +According to the petitioner, he had been arrested by the respondents on + + +the ground that he had not been granted interim bail by this Court under + +Section 307 IPC, which offence was subsequently added in the FIR. In + +fact, when the application for anticipatory bail had come up for hearing + +before this Court, at that time the offence under Section 307 IPC had not + +been added in the FIR, but subsequently with a view to defeating the + +purpose of anticipatory bail, Section 307 IPC was added in the FIR. As + +the respondents illegally arrested the petitioner on 3.1.2008 despite the + +grant of ad-interim bail to him by this Court, they were liable to be + +punished for committing the contempt of Court. +

+
+ +
+ +

In their replies both the respondents stated that apart from + +FIR No.436 dated 15.12.2007, the petitioner stood involved in two other + +criminal cases registered vide FIR Nos.35 dated 23.8.2006 under + +Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and 175 dated 22.5.2007 under + +Sections 324, 323, 341, 506, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station, Tripri, + +Patiala. FIR No.436 dated 15.12.2007 was registered under Sections + +324, 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC against the petitioner and others on the basis + +of statement made by Nirlep Singh to ASI Harminder Singh in Rajindra + +Hospital, Patiala, wherein he categorically stated that injuries were + +inflicted on his person with an intention to kill him. There were 11 + +injuries on the person of Nirlep Singh, out of which four were result of + +sharp edged weapon while the rest with blunt weapon. All the injuries + +were kept under observation. On 15.12.2007 itself respondent No.1 + +alongwith ASI Harminder Singh went to the spot and thereafter to + +Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and recorded supplementary statement of + +Nirlep Singh and on the basis of the same, offences under Sections 307 + +and 325 IPC were added in the FIR on 15.12.2007 itself. A show cause + + +notice dated 16.12.2007 was issued to ASI Harminder Singh for not + +registering the case under Section 307 IPC. It was further submitted that + +the petitioner concealed true facts from the Court while applying for the + +grant of anticipatory bail by mentioning the offences disclosed in the + +FIR to be only under Sections 324, 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC and leaving out + +the offences under Sections 307 and 325 IPC. After the issuance of show + +cause notice to ASI Harminder Singh, the investigation of the case was + +handed over to ASI Darshan Singh, who arrested the petitioner and + +recovered the weapon of offence. As the petitioner had not been granted + +any concession of interim bail for the offences under Sections 307 and + +325 IPC, he was arrested in the case. Therefore, both the respondents did + +not violate the order dated 21.12.2007, as the said order pertained to the + +offences under Sections 324, 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC only and not in + +respect of the offences under Sections 307 and 325 IPC. + +

+
+ +
+

While applying for the concession of anticipatory bail, the + +petitioner described the FIR to be one for offences under Sections 324, + +323, 341, 506, 34 IPC. He did not disclose that the offences under + +Section 307 and 325 IPC stood added in the FIR. Had he mentioned + +about the addition of the graver offences under Sections 307 and 325 + +IPC, there was every likelihood of a different order being passed on the + +application filed by the petitioner before this Court for the grant of + +anticipatory bail. Anyhow, there is no requirement of law that if once an + +accused is granted anticipatory bail in an FIR and some graver offences + +are, thereafter, added in the FIR, the police could not arrest the accused + +without taking prior permission of the Court. In Jagbir Singh vs State + +and another, 2001 (2) RCR (Criminal) 289, which has been relied upon + +by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the proposition that an + +accused could not be arrested without taking prior permission of the + +Court, after he had been allowed anticipatory bail and new offence added + +in the FIR, the Delhi High Court was dealing with a situation where + +person had already been granted pre-arrest bail and after the addition of a + + +new offence in the FIR, the accused was once again before the Court for + +the grant of pre-arrest bail. It is not clear from the said judgment as to + +what were the offences initially mentioned in the FIR, for which the + +accused had been granted the concession of anticipatory bail and what + +were the new offences added in the FIR, for which the prosecution was + +trying to arrest the accused. It is also not clear whether the new offence + +being added in the FIR was an offence of the same gravity or a graver + +offence than the one for which the concession of anticipatory bail had + +been granted earlier. For these reasons, this Court would hesitate to + +place any reliance on the aforementioned judgement to hold that the + +petitioner could not have been arrested by the respondents on 3.1.2008 + +on account of addition of graver offences under Sections 307 and 325 + +IPC in the FIR, which had been initially registered only for not so graver + +offences like offences, under Sections 324, 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC. +

+
+ +
+

Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to COCP + +No.1066 of 2007 titled as "Amrik Singh vs Ashwani Kumar and + +another" decided on 10.1.2008 by this Court to contend that as the + +respondents refused to release the petitioner on interim bail, they + +deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the order granting pre-arrest bail, + +despite the said order being brought to their notice. I have perused the + +said judgment. The facts of that judgment are not identical to the present + +case. The petitioner therein had already been granted pre-arrest bail by + +the Court and despite the same, the respondents-police officials refused + +to release the petitioner therein on ad interim bail, despite the order + +granting pre-arrest bail having been brought to their notice. On the other + +hand, as mentioned above, the present petitioner had been granted + + +interim bail only for the offences under Sections 324, 323, 341, 506, 34 + +IPC and not for the offences under Sections 307 and 325 IPC. Under + +these circumstances, the arrest of the petitioner by the respondents on + +3.1.2008 did not amount to any wilful or intentional dis-obedience of + +the order passed by this Court on 21.12.2007 while granting interim bail + +to the petitioner. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_82490890.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_82490890.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1085a99e5d84cc57f1c9a6f8169e3b46fe8e94b8 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_82490890.html @@ -0,0 +1,384 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ajay @ Harjinder vs State Of U.P. on 20 December, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. List revised. +

+

2. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record. +

+

3. This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Ajay @ Harjinder, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 769 of 2012, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut. +

+

4. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. (as he was then) vide order dated 09.10.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16455 of 2015 (Ajay @ Harjinder vs. State of U.P.). The said order reads as under:- +

+
+ +
+ +
Learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the informant have strongly opposed the bail on the ground that applicant has serious criminal history involving the offences u/s 302 and 307 I.P.C. Order of rejection in the connected bail itself indicates that one of the prosecution witness namely Nitin was assassinated in the Court premises, thus trial is unable to proceed on account of fear, applicant is a member of a gang led by co-accused Yogesh, in the event applicant is released, possibility of intimidating witnesses cannot be ruled out, application is liable to be rejected. +
+
+ +
+ +
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. +
+
The present bail application has been filed for enlarging the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.769 of 2012, u/s 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, P.S. Sardhana, District Meerut. +
+
Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that applicant has not been named in the F.I.R., but after four days of the alleged incident, two persons who were alleged to have been the eye-witnesses and were present at the time of lodging the F.I.R., had named the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. It is further contended that the said two witnesses, who were present at the time of lodging of the F.I.R. did not name the applicant in the F.I.R. at the time of lodging the F.I.R., which itself falsifies their implication. He has next contended that applicant has criminal history of fourteen cases, which has duly been explained in paragraph 11 of the second supplementary affidavit dated 2.4.2017, which is on record, and it is argued that in most of the cases, the implication of the applicant was found false and he has been acquitted, and in others he has been granted bail. He has further argued that in a case u/s 302 IPC, he has been acquitted and the judgement has been appended alongwith the supplementary affidavit. It is next contended that in the pending trial, not even a single witness has been examined, A certified copy of the order sheet has been produced before this Court and has been taken on record. Learned counsel has further contended that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future and there are no chances of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is lastly contended that the applicant is in jail since 22.3.2013, and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. +
+
+ +
+ +
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. +
+
(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_825830.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_825830.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c1a9fdfebe8cd0ed16c967cf441f398ebd09b6f4 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_825830.html @@ -0,0 +1,436 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Anilbhai vs State on 11 February, 2010 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

Before +coming to the fate of Special Criminal Application No.503 of 2009, it +may be noted that respondent No.2 i.e. original accused approached +the High Court by filing Criminal Misc. Application No.4886 of 2008 +in Criminal Misc. Application No.13740 of 2008. It may be recalled +that Criminal Misc. Application No.13740 of 2008 was filed for +anticipatory bail which was granted by the High Court at the time +when the accused faced charges under sections 406 and 420 of the +Indian Penal Code. In Criminal Misc. Application No.4886 of 2008, +the applicant stated at length the developments after the High Court +granted him anticipatory bail and pointed out at considerable length +the addition of section 409 of the Indian Penal Code in the +investigation. He also pointed out that on account of such addition, +he has preferred fresh anticipatory bail application. He pointed out +that by virtue of addition of section 409 of the IPC, the learned +Magistrate would not be competent to entertain his regular bail +application. He, therefore, prayed that the Court may grant ten days +time for filing Regular Bail Application before the Sessions Court +for offence under section 406, 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code +and till the same is decided, he may not be arrested. In para 10(B), +it was prayed as under: +

+
+ +
+ +
On +the basis of above chain of events, it is the case of the petitioner +that the regular bail request of the petitioner is not maintainable. +The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail only for offence under +sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The anticipatory bail +therefore cannot cover the subsequent additional section 409 of the +Indian Penal Code which is a much graver offence. The accused +therefore cannot be stated to have been in custody so as to enable +him to file regular bail application for offence under section 409 +also. +
+
+ +
+ +

6. +Considering the seriousness of the injuries, the petitioners cannot +be permitted to continue on the same bail bonds. They will have to +apply for fresh bail for offence under S.326 IPC. +

+

On +the other hand, learned advocate Shri Dagli for respondent No.2 +submitted that respondent No.2 had moved fresh anticipatory bail +application upon addition of section 409 of the IPC which was +opposed by the State as well as the complainant as not maintainable. +He submitted that therefore the regular bail application by virtue of +anticipatory bail granted by the High Court cannot be opposed as not +maintainable which would render the accused remedyless. +

+
+ +
+ +

Respondent +No.2, original accused, thereupon approached the High Court and +sought extension of time for applying for regular bail. In such an +application, he made a detailed disclosure of section 409 having been +added later on. In fact, it is primarily on this ground that he +sought extension of time. In his Criminal Misc. Application No.4886 +of 2009, he has categorically stated that the Investigating Officer +had submitted report for adding section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. +In view of this, he filed anticipatory bail application before the +Sessions Court which was opposed by the State contending that such +fresh application is not maintainable. It is pointed out that +offence under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code being punishable +with imprisonment for life, the court of Magistrate cannot entertain +regular bail application and such bail application shall have to be +filed before the Sessions Court. He, therefore, prayed for +extension of time of 10 days for filing regular bail application +before the Sessions Court, which as already noted above, was granted +by the High Court. Subsequently also, when the petitioner sought +recalling of the order of the High Court granting extension of time +to the original accused, this Court only stated that the Sessions +Court shall decide the application on its own merits and in +accordance with law without being influenced by the order of the High +Court. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_82908342.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_82908342.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3c86e9970606944b7b015ab5e08f69e7034b560e --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_82908342.html @@ -0,0 +1,455 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Mukesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The petitioner is in custody for about 4 years. + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 665 of 2023 + + The instant Revision is filed by CICL himself, + + challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order, + + dated 9th of August, 2023, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2023 + + by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum- + + Children's Court, Banka. The CICL was arrested in connection + + with Banduwa Kurawa P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023, corresponding + + to G.R. No. 1202 of 2023, for the offences punishable under + + Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 + + of the Arms Act. However, later on, Sections 34 of the IPC and + + Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section + + 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes + + (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added. Prayer for + + bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Appeal in + + exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Juvenile + + Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter + + referred to as 'said Act') vide order, dated 15th of June, 2023. + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 687 of 2023 + + The petitioner/CICL was arrested in connection + + with Fesar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, + + 325, 307, 34, 504, 506 and 379 of the IPC along with his father + + and uncle. The petitioner prayed for regular bail before the JJB, + + Aurangabad. In JJB Case No. 932 of 2023, prayer for bail was + + rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 41 + + of 2023 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children's Court, + + Aurangabad. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal + + and affirmed the order of the JJB. The petitioner has assailed the + + said order of the Appellate Court on various grounds, specially + + on the ground that the father and uncle of the petitioner have + + already been granted bail for the same offence. + +
+
+ +
+

Reg. Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2024 + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + The petitioner was booked along with other major + + accused persons in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 237 of + + 2022, dated 13th of August, 2022, under Section 302 and 34 of + + the IPC. The petitioner being a CICL prayed for bail before the + + Juvenile Justice Board, but his prayer for bail was rejected. He + + preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the said Act before the + + learned Special Judge, Children's Court and the said appeal was + + also dismissed and the order of rejection of bail passed by the + + JJB was affirmed. It is stated by the petitioner that the accused + + persons who are major, namely, Sushil Kumar Yadav and Anil + + Yadav were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on + + 26th of April, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 4091 of 2023. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_8299734.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_8299734.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c75eb79a5351c57b90cda0646e7ecc293cab945f --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_8299734.html @@ -0,0 +1,433 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Susa @ Susanta Baliarsingh @ vs State Of Odisha .... Opp. Party on 5 March, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

147/148/448/427/354/323/307/506/149 IPC & 9(b) I.E. Act + (Regular Bail) +

(vi) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 171 dtd. 20.12.2014 U/S - + 341/294/323/354/506 IPC (Judgment - Acquitted) +

(vii) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 75 dtd. 17.08.2016 U/S - + 147/148/427/323/506/149 IPC r/w 25 Arms Act & 3/4 E.S. Act + (Judgment - Acquitted) +

(ix) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 05 dtd. 13.01.2017 U/S - + 147/148/294/323/506/149 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act (Judgment - + Acquitted) +

+
+ +
+

(xv) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 19 dtd. 09.03.2019 U/S - + 52(a)(i) Odisha Excise Act (Judgment - Acquitted) + (xvi) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 25 dtd. 17.02.2020 U/S - + 52(a)(i) Odisha Excise Act (Judgment - Acquitted) + (xvii) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 52 dtd. 21.05.2019 U/S - + 451/323/354(A)/354(B)/294/506/34 IPC (Regular Bail) + (xviii) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 99 dtd. 20.10.2019 U/S - +

Page 3 of 7 +

52(a)(i) Odisha Excise Act (Judgment - Acquitted) + (xix) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 79 dtd. 12.06.2020 U/S - + 52(a)(i) Odisha Excise Act (Judgment - Acquitted) + (xx) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 163 dtd. 20.11.2020 U/S - + 341/323/379/294/506/34 IPC (Judgment - Acquitted) + (xxi) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 123 dtd. 13.08.2021 U/S - + 186 IPC r/w 52(a)(i) Excise Act r/w Sec 183/184 of M.V. Act + (Judgment - Acquitted) + (xxii) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 147 dtd. 22.09.2021 U/S - + 52(a)(i) Odisha Excise Act (Judgment - Acquitted) + (xxiii) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 152 dtd. 02.10.2021 U/S - + 52(a)(i) Odisha Excise Act (Judgment - Acquitted) + (xxiv) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 82 dtd. 31.03.2023 U/S - + 294/323/452/506/34 (Regular Bail) + (xxv) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 183 dtd. 24.12.2020 U/S - + 52(a)(i) Odisha Excise Act (Judgment - Acquitted) + (xxvi) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 36 dtd. 23.04.20106 U/S - + 47(a) B & O Odisha Excise Act (Judgment - Acquitted) + (xxvii)Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 62 dtd. 22.06.2018 U/S - + 52(a)(i) Odisha Excise Act (Judgment - Acquitted) + (xxviii)Nirakarpur P.S. Case No - 95 dtd. 28.09.2017 U/S - + 52(a)(i) Odisha Excise Act (Judgment - Acquitted)" +

+
+ +
+ +
Mr. Sahoo further submits that out of 27 cases excluding the + + present case, the petitioner has been acquitted in 24 cases out of + + which 18 cases are under the Orissa Excise Act. Out of the + + remaining 4 cases which are pending, one is the present case and + +corrected vide the other three cases are (i) * Jankia P.S. Case No.235 of 2023 +order dated +05.03.2025 + under Sections 307/506/34 of the IPC Nirakarpur P.S. Case No. + + 116 of 2014 under Sections 147/ 148/ 448/ 427/ 354/ 323/ 307/ + + 506/ 149 of IPC read with Section 9 (b) of I.E. Act, (ii) Nirakarpur + + P.S. Case No.52 of 2019 under Sections 451/ 323/ 354(A)/ 354(B)/ + + 294/ 506/ 34 IPC and (iii) Nirakarpur P.S. Case No.82 of 2023 + + under Sections 294/323/452/506/34 of the IPC and he has been + + + + + granted bail in all the three cases. He further submits that one + +Ashok Mohapatra has been examined as P.W.1 in this case and he + +has not supported the prosecution case. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_83046788.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_83046788.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cb13762274aca3b231785842b59e046b72a17705 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_83046788.html @@ -0,0 +1,381 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ramesh Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 11 April, 2017 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

28. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the + + impugned judgments of conviction recorded by the Courts below are set + + aside. Petitioner is acquitted of offence under Section 498A IPC. Bail + + bonds, if any, furnished by the petitioner are discharged. Fine amount, + + if any, deposited by the petitioner is also ordered to be refunded to him. +

+

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. +

+

(Sandeep Sharma) + + + + + Judge + April 11, 2017 + (Vikrant) + + + + + + + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_83074510.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_83074510.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..872926ebecf6f2af1c614db45ce4adba618237ab --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_83074510.html @@ -0,0 +1,369 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ajeet Kumar Urf Adesh Bhati vs State Of U.P. on 4 March, 2021 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
(i) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8605 of 2020 in case crime no. 361 of 2019, under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
(ii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7311 of 2020 in case crime no. 602 of 2019, under Sections 420, 409, 467, 120-B, 468, 471, 201 IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
(iii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7040 of 2020 in case crime no. 603 of 2019, under Sections 420, 409, 201, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
+ +
+ +
(iv) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7308 of 2020 in case crime no. 674 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406, 506, 467, 468, 471, 509, 201, 120-B IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
(v). Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7309 of 2020 in case crime no. 592 of 2019, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 201 IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
(vi) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7364 of 2020 in case crime no. 697 of 2019, under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 467, 468, 471, 409, 506, 201, 120-B IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_83760337.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_83760337.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..42fe9fdad619427766f813a81802527100240cbf --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_83760337.html @@ -0,0 +1,424 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Krishna Shekar Shetty vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 August, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

12. The learned APP also relied upon the judgment of a + coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sarang Arvind + Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 (3) Mh.L.J. 774. It was + submitted that, in a situation where an accused is initially granted + bail in connection with offences under the Indian Penal Code, but + later the provisions of the MCOC Act are attracted, the applicant is + required to be taken into custody in relation to the fresh offence + registered under the MCOC Act. Thereafter, the applicant can only + seek bail in accordance with the stricter conditions prescribed + under the special enactment, namely, the MCOC Act. +

+
+ +
+ +

16. It is not in dispute that the applicant was earlier released on + bail in connection with the offence registered under Section 392 of + + + + + + + ba3631-2024.doc + + + the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to robbery. The said bail was + granted prior to the invocation of the provisions of the MCOC Act. + It is also not in dispute that thereafter, based on additional + material collected during investigation, the Investigating Officer + sought sanction to apply the MCOC Act. The sanction was + accordingly granted, and the learned Sessions Judge permitted the + arrest of the applicant under the said special law. +

+
+ +
+ +

40. As rightly submitted by the learned APP, and as held by this + Court in the case of Sarang Arvind Goswami (Supra), when MCOC + provisions are subsequently applied in respect of the same set of + facts or persons, the Investigating Agency is well within its right to + seek fresh custody, even if the accused was earlier released on bail + in the IPC offence. The ratio of that decision makes it clear that the + earlier bail order does not extend to or shield the accused from + arrest in the MCOC case, which stands on a different legal footing. +

+
+ +
+ +

42. In the facts of the present case, the applicant has failed to + discharge this heavier burden. The very fact that the applicant is + alleged to have committed multiple offences of a similar nature + while he was on bail in earlier cases shows a prima facie likelihood + of recidivism, which defeats the argument that bail in the earlier + IPC case ought to have protected him from arrest in the present + offence under the MCOC Act. +

+

43. The learned APP has also pressed into service the bar + contained in Section 21(5) of the MCOC Act, contending that the + applicant, having already been released on bail in an earlier + offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, has committed + another offence of a similar nature while on bail, thereby + attracting the disqualification under the said provision. Section + 21(5) specifically provides that where an accused is released on + bail and is subsequently arrested on accusation of having + committed an offence under the MCOC Act, he shall not be + released on bail, unless the Court is satisfied that there are + exceptional circumstances to justify such release. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_84416213.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_84416213.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..18e0f23888cd81ea0b7aa4bf6c1cf94faf6df8ec --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_84416213.html @@ -0,0 +1,455 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ajamal Alam @ Ajalam Alam vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The petitioner is in custody for about 4 years. + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 665 of 2023 + + The instant Revision is filed by CICL himself, + + challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order, + + dated 9th of August, 2023, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2023 + + by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum- + + Children's Court, Banka. The CICL was arrested in connection + + with Banduwa Kurawa P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023, corresponding + + to G.R. No. 1202 of 2023, for the offences punishable under + + Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 + + of the Arms Act. However, later on, Sections 34 of the IPC and + + Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section + + 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes + + (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added. Prayer for + + bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Appeal in + + exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Juvenile + + Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter + + referred to as 'said Act') vide order, dated 15th of June, 2023. + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 687 of 2023 + + The petitioner/CICL was arrested in connection + + with Fesar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, + + 325, 307, 34, 504, 506 and 379 of the IPC along with his father + + and uncle. The petitioner prayed for regular bail before the JJB, + + Aurangabad. In JJB Case No. 932 of 2023, prayer for bail was + + rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 41 + + of 2023 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children's Court, + + Aurangabad. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal + + and affirmed the order of the JJB. The petitioner has assailed the + + said order of the Appellate Court on various grounds, specially + + on the ground that the father and uncle of the petitioner have + + already been granted bail for the same offence. + +
+
+ +
+

Reg. Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2024 + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + The petitioner was booked along with other major + + accused persons in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 237 of + + 2022, dated 13th of August, 2022, under Section 302 and 34 of + + the IPC. The petitioner being a CICL prayed for bail before the + + Juvenile Justice Board, but his prayer for bail was rejected. He + + preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the said Act before the + + learned Special Judge, Children's Court and the said appeal was + + also dismissed and the order of rejection of bail passed by the + + JJB was affirmed. It is stated by the petitioner that the accused + + persons who are major, namely, Sushil Kumar Yadav and Anil + + Yadav were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on + + 26th of April, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 4091 of 2023. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_86202656.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_86202656.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b5e612eb5d0ac1b7d39c7feccf430f95c6a8134b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_86202656.html @@ -0,0 +1,365 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Santosh Singh vs State Of U.P. on 26 May, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. +
+
+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_86707630.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_86707630.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e9de0e8d404005bc81ce7ed8f7c4aa2dee608cb7 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_86707630.html @@ -0,0 +1,361 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Mrs.I.Padmavathy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 July, 2013 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

13. The learned counsel had further submitted that, in paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority had stated that the detenu is in remand, in Central Crime Branch X Cr.Nos.396/2012, 403/2012, 437/2012, 446/2012 and 531/2012 and that the detenu has moved bail applications in the said cases, before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, in Crl.M.P.Nos.5339/2012, 5341/2012, 5780/2012, 5783/2012, and 5779/2012 respectively. The said bail applications had been dismissed, on 16.11.2012. The detaining authority has further stated that the detenu has moved bail applications, once again, in respect of the said crime numbers, before the Principal Sessions Court,Chennai, in Crl.M.P.Nos.11822/2012, 11823/2012, 11824/2012, 11825/2012 and 11826/2012, respectively, and that they are pending. It has been further stated that, in a similar case, registered at the Central Crime Branch Crime No.296/2012, under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C., bail had been granted by the Court of sessions, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.7225/2012. Therefore, the detaining authority had inferred that it is very likely of the detenu coming out on bail, in Central Crime Branch X Cr.Nos.396/2012, 403/2012, 437/2012, 446/2012 and 531/2012. +

+
+ +
+ +

69. It had also been stated that, in a similar case registered at the Central Crime Branch Crime No.296/2012, under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C., bail had been granted by the Court of sessions, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.7225/2012. Therefore, it had been inferred that it is very likely of the detenu coming out on bail in Central Crime Branch X Cr.Nos.396/2012, 403/2012, 437/2012, 446/2012 and 531/2012. It had also been stated that if the detenu comes out on bail, he would indulge in further activities, which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. However, it is noted that the case referred to by the detaining authority, in paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention, does not relate to a co-accused in the cases relating to the detenu. Further, it cannot be said that the cases relating to the detenu are not similar in nature with the case in Central Crime Branch Crime No.296/2012, on facts. Even though the case, in Central Crime Branch Crime No.296/2012, is said to be similar in nature, arising under Sections 406 and 420 Indian Penal Code, it cannot be said that they are similar in nature, in respect of other aspects, with the cases concerning the detenu. Further, only a copy of the bail order, relating to crime No.296/2012, had been furnished to the detenu. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_869066.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_869066.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4931b501011c559b8daac27279f7f8e95bc6a5e3 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_869066.html @@ -0,0 +1,415 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Smt. Rupwati vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 February, 2010 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

On this application the Magistrate ordered that the case be registered and +investigated. The police then registered a case against the accused persons. +The accused then moved an application for surrender before the Magistrate, +whereupon a report was called for from the Police Station. It was reported +that the accused are wanted for the offences under Section 147, 148, 323, 324, +506, 504 I.P.C. The applicant and other accused were then granted bail. +However when the charge sheet was filed by the investigating officer he +added Sections 307, 324, 326, 506 I.P.C. as well. +

+
+ +
+ +

The learned counsel for the applicant at the time of arguments made a single +submission that the co-accused Jagmal, Sukkhu, Kallu, Vishnu, Dinesh, +Yaspal and Malkher had filed Criminal Misc. Application no. 28302/2007 in +the High Court in which the following order was passed on 04.12.2007. +

+
"Heard Sri A.B.L. Gour learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Saurabh +Gour advocate for the applicants and the learned and also persued the +materials on record. +
+
It is said that the accused applicants were already on bail for the offence +under Sections 147, 148, 323, 336, 325, 504 I.P.C. But on the basis of medical +report then collected by the Investigation officer police has now submitted +charge sheet and added the offence under Sections 324, 326, 504, 307 I.P.C. + Let the accused applicants be readmitted on bail for the added offence +under Sections 324, 326, 504, 307 I.P.C. subject to their furnishing personal +bonds with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the +Court concerned. +
+
+ +
+ +

The Hon'ble Apex Court then considered the effect of the order of the High +Court by which the accused persons were allowed to furnish their personal +bond and surety bonds for the offence under Section 304 IPC and observed as +under:- +

+
"In the case in hand, the accused respondents could apply for bail afresh +after the offence had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC. They +deliberately did not do so and filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.in +order to circumvent the procedure whereunder they would have been +required to surrender as the bail application could be entertained and heard +only if the accused were in custody. It is important to note that no order +adverse to the accused respondents had been passed by any Court nor there +was any miscarriage of justice or any illegality. In such circumstances, the + High Court committed manifest error of law in entertaining a petition under +Section 482 Cr.P.C and issuing a direction to the subordinate court to accept +the sureties and bail bonds for the offence under Section 304 IPC. The effect +of the order passed by the High Court is that the accused after getting bail in +an offence under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC on the very day on which +they were taken into custody, got an order of bail in their favour even after +the injured had succumbed to his injuries and the case had been converted +into one under Section 304 IPC without any Court examining the case on +merits, as it stood after conversion of the offence. The procedure laid down +for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., though available to the accused +respondents, having not been availed of, the exerciser of power by the High +Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is clearly illegal and the impugned order by +it has to be set aside." +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_870744.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_870744.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6509184f1e4995893eb076549eb23236b65f907d --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_870744.html @@ -0,0 +1,366 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Abhai Raj Singh vs State Of U.P. on 29 January, 2010 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned +A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of +sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. +

The accused-appellants Pankaj Kumar Tewari and Rakesh +Kumar Tewari have been convicted in Sessions Trial No.82 of 2002 +(Case Crime No.383/2001) for the offence punishable under Section +323/34 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo one year's simple +imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment +of fine to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment and have +have been acquitted to the charge for the offence punishable under +Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C. Accused-appellants were on bail during +trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on +record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_87200329.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_87200329.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..004bddf1d251b5f6f61c09cb381d2394b1c85a7b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_87200329.html @@ -0,0 +1,383 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Mukeem vs State Of U.P. on 12 April, 2022 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. +

+

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. " +

+

15. Mr. Zafar Abbas, learned counsel for applicants- Mukeem, Irfan and Rashid @ Loha contends that applicants Mukeem and Rashid @ Loha are named as well as charge sheeted accused, whereas applicant Irfan is a not named but a charge sheeted accused. However, they are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in above mentioned case crime number. It is then contended that applicant Irfan who is not named in F.I.R, but he has been charge sheeted under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B IPC. Claiming parity with the bail orders of co-accused Chand Babu and Nabi Hasan @ Nabiya referred to above, he submits that applicant Irfan is liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. He, further submits that case of applicant-Irfan is similar and identical to aforementioned co-accused who have already been enlarged on bail. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of applicant-Irfan can be distinguished from aforesaid co-accused who have been enlarged on bail so as to deny him bail. According to Mr. Zafar Abbas, learned counsel for aforementioned applicants, conspiracy is a close door affair and is therefore subject to trial evidence. It is then contended that applicants- Mukeem and Rashid @ Loha fall in the first set of charge sheeted accused. Two accused falling in the first set of charge sheeted accused namely, Nabiya and Jane Alam have already been enlarged on bail. Thus for the facts and reasons mentioned in the bail orders of aforesaid co-accused applicants Mukeem and Rashid @ Loha are also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. +

+
+ +
+ +

16. It is next contended that aforementioned applicants are men of clean antecedents inasmuch as they have no criminal history to their credit except the present one. Applicant-Mukeem is in jail since 13.5.2021. Applicant-Irfan is in jail since 4.6.2021. Applicant-Rashid @ Loha is in jail since 14.5.2021. As such, they have undergone sufficient period of incarceration. In case, applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with trial. +

+

17. Mr. Subhash Chandra Pandey,the learned counsel for applicant- Hori contends that applicant is named as well as charge sheeted accused but he is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in above mentioned case crime number. It is then contended that applicant Hori has been charge sheeted under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B IPC. Referring to bail orders of Chand Babu and Nabi Hasan @ Nabiya who have already been enlarged on bail by this Court, it is urged that case of applicant Hori is similar and identical to charge-sheeted accused Chand Babu and Nabi Hasan @ Nabiya. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicant can be distinguished from aforesaid co-accused so as to deny him bail. As such, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. +

+
+ +
+ +

18. It is next contended that applicant- Hori has criminal history of one case, which has been duly explained in paragraph 25 of his bail application. Applicant-Hori is in jail since 27.7.2021. As such, he has undergone more than eight months of incarceration. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. +

+

19. Mr. Keshari Nath Tripathi,the learned counsel for applicant- Arif contends that applicant is not named in F.I.R. but he is a charge-sheeted accused. He has been falsely implicated in above mentioned case crime number. It is then contended that applicant Arif has been charge sheeted under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B IPC. Referring to bail orders of Jane Alam and Nabiya who have already been enlarged on bail by this Court, it is contended that case of applicant Arif is similar and identical to aforesaid accused who have already been enlarged on bail. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicant can be distinguished from aforesaid co-accused so as to deny him bail. As such, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. +

+
+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_8758507.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_8758507.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4a02a021b07f2c5b6a6f814527b0f11ca310633d --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_8758507.html @@ -0,0 +1,492 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + An Application For Anticipatory Bail ... vs Unknown on 13 January, 2017 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

Be that as it may, we find from our order dated 29.07.2016 +that on the previous occasion we had requested Mr. Dastoor to +find out any authority which empowered us to rely and act on the +materials which are not borne out by the materials collected + + + + +during investigation and are not found in the case diary to which +Mr. Dastoor submitted that he could not find out any such +authority. +

+

The ld. Senior Advocate appearing for the de facto complainant +contended that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail if +the Court takes into account the backdrop of the case. It was +submitted that the daughter of the de facto complainant who is the +victim in this case was travelling with the accused/petitioner in a +car. The accused had long acquaintance with the victim girl but +for reasons best known to him he drove the car so rashly as to put +an end to the life of the victim and the car allegedly dashed against +the road divider and overturned. It was contended that the +accused/petitioner did suffer very little injury whereas the victim +sustained fatal injuries and ultimately succumbed to those +injuries. It was contended that since the case was registered +under Section 279/304A/337/427 I.P.C. the accused/petitioner +was released on bail. The investigating officer on completion of +investigation submitted charge-sheet, inter alia, under Section +304A I.P.C. The de facto complainant lodged a 'Narazi' petition. It +was kept pending. He came in revision and a Ld. Single Judge of +this Hon'ble Court in C.R.R. No.4037 of 2015 came to observe:- +

+
+ +
+ +

The Ld. Advocate for the de facto complainant argued that +during further investigation the investigating agency made a +prayer for adding Section 304 I.P.C. and another prayer for +cancellation for bail of the petitioner. Such prayer was made on +8th September, 2015 and on 4th December, 2015 the Ld. Magistrate +cancelled the bail of the petitioner and directed him to appear +before the Court and to pray for fresh bail under Section 437 of the +Code. The accused/petitioner challenged the said order in +Criminal Revision no. 4035 of 2015 and a Ld. Single Judge of this +Hon'ble Court disposed of the aforesaid Revisional Application +observing that the order dated 4th December, 2015 passed by the +Ld. C.J.M., Barasat in connection with New Town Police Station +case no.332 of 2014 is modified to the extent that the petitioner is +disentitled to bail granted by the Ld. Magistrate for the bailable +offence under Section 239/334/427 of the Indian Penal Code, as +the investigating officer has already intimated the Court of the Ld. +Magistrate about involvement of the petitioner in aggravated non- +bailable offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. +It is found that in the concluding line of para 8 of the aforesaid +judgment passed in C.R.R. No. 4035 of 2015 the observation is as +follows: +

+
+ +
+ +

Without adverting to the argument put forward by the Ld. +Advocate appearing for the accused/petitioner immediately we find +no hesitation to hold that the aforesaid decision is not at all +applicable here because in the present case the accused/petitioner +has not been granted bail by a Judicial Magistrate for the +aggravated offence under Section 304 I.P.C. In the instant case, +after cancellation/revocation of the bail granted to him for bailable +offence he has approached this Court invoking Section 438 of the +Cr.P.C. The Ld. Advocate also relied on a decision reported in +2007 Cr.L.J. 3422 where the Apex Court held that where bail +granted in favour of the accused for the offence under Section +324/352 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code direction to continue +bail after conversion of offence into Section 304 instead of directing +accused to apply for bail afresh under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is +illegal. We find that the Hon'ble Apex Court made such +observation in the context of exercise of power by the High Court + + + + +under Section 482 of the Code. The aforesaid case law again has +no manner of application before us since the application for +anticipatory bail filed by the accused/petitioner is not one under +Section 482 of the Code but a regular one under Section 438 of the +Code, which determination this Bench is seized of. +

+
+ +
+ +

The Ld. Advocate for the de facto complainant also relied on a +decision reported in 2014 Cr.L.J. 137 where the Hon'ble Kerala +High Court held that person released on bail in connection with +bailable offence can be rearrested without order passed by +Sessions Court or High Court under Section 439(2) where +investigation discloses commission of non-bailable offence in the +same crime. There is no quarrel with such legal proposition. +

+

Mr. Bikas Ranjan Bhattacharya, the learned Senior Counsel +appearing for the accused/petitioner contended that anybody can +imagine that a theatre of the absurd was enacted by the +accused/petitioner taking the victim girl in his car and dashing +against a road divider intending to cause her death but the fact +remains that a road accident did take place in which both the +accused/petitioner and the victim girl were injured but to the +misfortune of everybody concerned the girl succumbed to her +injury. It was argued that from the observations made by the Ld. +Single Judge disposing of the Revisional Applications filed by the +parties it cannot be said that the accused/petitioner did not have +any option but to surrender either before the Court or before the +investigating officer. It was argued that there is no provision in the +code or in any other statute that in case of cancellation/revocation +of bail granted to a person in bailable offence consequent upon +addition of charge under aggravated non-bailable offence, debars + + + + +him from invoking the provision of Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Ld. +Senior Counsel argued that the clear observation of the Ld. Single +Judge in C.R.R. NO. 4035 of 2015 is that the petitioner is at liberty +to pray for bail for the offence Under Section 304 of the I.P.C. and +since bail also includes anticipatory bail there cannot be any +predicament on his part to file the instant application under +Section 438 Cr.p.C. before this Hon'ble Court. It was argued that +it is for the trial court to decide whether the accused/petitioner is +guilty for the offence under Section 304 I.P.C. or for that matter +for any other offence or offences but at this juncture this Court +has to examine the criteria for grant of anticipatory bail and +cannot be swayed by any idea or presupposition that the accident +was the act of any predetermination on the part of the petitioner. +It was submitted that the petitioner is not likely to flee the course +of justice. Lastly, the Ld. Advocate referred to a decision reported +in 2015 (7) Supreme 641. In the aforesaid decision reference was +made to the celebrated decision in the case of Gurbaksh Singh +Sibbia and Others Vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565. It is +stated in para 19 of the judgment:- +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_87662603.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_87662603.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d01b8f3970be354dfe505d0feb00ef011ea2085d --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_87662603.html @@ -0,0 +1,363 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Deshraj Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 November, 2022 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that though the applicant and co-accused persons have been summoned under section 302/120-B IPC but the attending facts and circumstances of the case clearly show that it was a case of suicide and that no offence under Section 302 IPC is made out. Learned counsel has referred the case of Santoshi @ Santosh Kumar vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 CrPC No-5775 of 2020), decided on 18.11.2020, wherein, co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the accused for offences under Sections 302, 328, 420 IPC. Learned counsel has further referred the case of Sumedh Singh Saini Vs. State of Punjab and another (Criminal Appeal No.827of 2020), decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on 03.12.2020, wherein, anticipatory bail was granted to the accused by the Hon'ble Apex Court for offences under Section 302 IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant has further referred the case of Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia V State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 1632. +

+
+ +
+ +

7. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that in view of provisions of Section 438(5)(b) CrPC, an application for anticipatory bail for offence under Section 302 IPC is not maintainable, as the offence under section 302 IPC entails punishment up to death sentence and thus, the instant application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. +

+

8. After considering the case laws referred above it appears that if no prima facie case under Section 302 IPC is made out, in that contingency, the anticipatory bail application would be maintainable, even if section 302 IPC has been applied in the case. The provisions of section 438(5)(b) bar grant of anticipatory bail in the offences, in which death sentence can be awarded. Thus, if no such case is made out, the anticipatory bail application would be maintainable.. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_87669225.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_87669225.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..708f75ac85269e299a9ab711d76bb91e92b1b155 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_87669225.html @@ -0,0 +1,375 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Arun Bhandari vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 December, 2019 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

19. In Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. (2014)16 SCC 508, this Court had granted bail to accused for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 394, 411, 454, 506, 120B and 34 IPC on the ground of parity as another accused Ashok was already enlarged on bail. The wife of deceased filed appeal for setting aside order of bail granted by this Court. Court considered various earlier authorities and said in para 13 of judgment as under : +

+
"...It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail and have not been taken note of bail or it is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the Court does not dwell upon the violation of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the Court." +
+
+ +
+ +

20. Thereafter, referring to 15 cases registered against accused showing that he was a history-sheeter and mostly under Section 302 IPC, order of bail was set aside. Court observed that there has to be a balance between personal liberty of an individual and peace and harmony of Society. No individual interest can be allowed to create a concavity in the stem of social stream otherwise it would bring chaos and anarchy in the Society. Relevant observations made in this regard are reproduced as under : +

+
+ +
+ +

25. In X vs. The State of Telangana and Ors. (2018)16 SCC 511, accused, a Film Producer, based in Mumbai, was charged of offences under Sections 376, 342, 493, 506, 354(C) of IPC. Accused got anticipatory bail from Sessions Judge on 13.01.2017 and had advantage of that order for about eight months. The said order was cancelled by Sessions Judge on the ground that accused has not disclosed that he was also accused in 2G Spectrum case. This cancellation order was affirmed by High Court and also by Supreme Court. Thereafter accused moved a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by High Court and accused was released on bail. This order was challenged in appeal before Supreme Court. Upholding the said order, Court said that bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case, based on supervening event has been made out. +

+
+ +
+ +

26. In Seema Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. (2018) 16 SCC 10 bail granted to accused by High Court in the case registered under Sections 498-A, 302, 120-B IPC was challenged in appeal before Supreme Court. Court noticed that accused-2's bail application was rejected by Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ghaziabad and thereafter bail was granted by High Court. Court said that gravity of offence is a relevant factor but not the sole ground to deny bail if there are other overwhelming circumstances justifying grant of bail. Noticing special feature, Court upheld order of High Court granting bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_87683857.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_87683857.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a077a0238e5e06ad996348c79f0788f18a39155e --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_87683857.html @@ -0,0 +1,368 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Saurabh Yadav @ Kandu Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 26 July, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. Heard Mrs. Shilpa Ahuja, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Nand Kishor Mishra the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State + +

2. Perused the record. +

+

3. This 4th repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant-Saurabh Yadav @ Kandu Yadav seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.104 of 2022, under Sections 302, 120B I.P.C, Police Station-Anjar, District- Mahoba,during the pendency of trial. +

+

4. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38000 of 2022 (Saurabh Yadav @ Kandu Yadav Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is reproduced hereinunder:- +

+
+ +
+ +
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. +
+
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_89075897.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_89075897.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..49cf4c44e05e4768d3162cb5a75965760131fb42 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_89075897.html @@ -0,0 +1,2203 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Kosaraju Sasidhar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 34, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

+

Kosaraju Sasidhar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025

+ +
        THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
+
+
+CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475,
+
+ 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839,
+
+                     5920 and 9083 of 2024
+
+
+COMMON ORDER:
+ + +

Crl.P.No.5197 of 2024 + + + This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A32 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

2

+ + + + +

2. Sri N. Harinadh, learned Counsel for petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, + +learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- + +State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.4896 of 2024 + + +

3. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A46 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

4. Sri Mukkamalla Rama Swamy, the learned counsel for + +petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + 3 + + + + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5230 of 2024 + + +

5. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A35 and A51 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

6. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + 4 + + + + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5256 of 2024 + + +

7. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A43 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

8. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + 5 + + + + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.5367 of 2024 + + +

9. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A4 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

10. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 6 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5475 of 2024 + + +

11. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A64 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

12. Sri Karanki Yaswanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, the learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

7

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5487 of 2024 + + +

13. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A47 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

14. Ms.P.Srilatha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 8 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5503 of 2024 + + +

15. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A19 and A20 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

16. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 9 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5550 of 2024 + + +

17. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A2, A16, A37 and A45 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

18. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

10

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5553 of 2024 + + +

19. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A7 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

20. Sri Peta Gnana Teja, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 11 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5585 of 2024 + + +

21. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A1 and A67 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

22. Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

12

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5652 of 2024 + + +

23. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A15 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

24. Sri Chalasani Venkat, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

13

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5718 of 2024 + + +

25. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A8, A22, A36 and A68 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

26. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 14 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5724 of 2024 + + +

27. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A3 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

28. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

15

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5752 of 2024 + + +

29. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A31, A53 and A65 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime + +No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna + +District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections + +143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) + +of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

30. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

16

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5839 of 2024 + + +

31. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A55 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

32. Sri B.V Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 17 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5920 of 2024 + + +

33. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A6, A13, A14, A17, A27, A28, A30, A39, A42, A52, + +A54, A56, A61 and A69 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

34. Ms.V.Devi Satya Sri, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

18

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.9083 of 2024 + + +

35. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A75 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

36. Sri G.L.Nageswar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor + +appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments. + + +

37. In all the above bail petitions, detailed counters were filed + +by the respondent-State. +

19

+ + + + +

38. All these criminal petitions pertain to Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station. By these petitions these + +accused pray for pre-arrest bail. All these petitions were heard + +together and by this common order they shall be disposed of. + +The crime incident allegedly occurred on 20.02.2023. Upon a + +written information dated 22.02.2023 F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was + +registered. The scene of offence was Telugu Desam Party office, + +Gannavaram. Sri Mudunuri Satyavardhan belonging to Madiga + +caste, which is a scheduled caste, was computer operator + +working in Telugu Desam Party office and living in the said office. + + +

39. During the time when this crime incident allegedly occurred + +the party in power was YSR Congress Party. Investigation + +commenced and went on for some time. Thereafter there were + +general elections and the then opposition party/Telugu Desam + +Party came into power. Thereafter investigation continued + +further. The allegations and counter allegations in this case + +disclosed the rift between both the political parties. Petitioners + +contend that this is a case falsely alleged against them out of + +political vendetta. According to State, for political reasons there + +was inadequate investigation soon after commission of the + +offence. By the time this crime incident occurred Sri Vallabhaneni + 20 + + + + +Vamsi Mohan was Member of Legislative Assembly for + +Gannavaram Assembly Constituency. He is one of the accused + +in the present crime. +

+

+

40. The version of the prosecution is that on 18.02.2023 during + +afternoon hours a press meet was held by Sri Vallabhaneni + +Vamsi Mohan wherein he allegedly made certain insulting + +remarks as against Sri N.Chandrababu Naidu, Sri Nara Lokesh + +and their family members and used indecent language. In + +response to it, certain leaders of Telugu Desam Party conducted + +a press meeting on 19.02.2023 in the morning hours and + +condemned the statements made by the opponent political party + +people. +

+

+

41. In the above backdrop of facts, the crime incident allegedly + +occurred. It is stated that on 20.02.2023 at about 5:00 P.M. + +Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan went to Telugu Desam Party + +office and on noticing followers of Telugu Desam Party he caused + +enquiries about Mr. Pattabhi of Telugu Desam Party and warned + +them that they would finish Telugu Desam Party and left the + +place. +

21

+ + + + +

42. In the next 30 minutes at about 5:30 P.M. about 100 + +persons belonging to YSR Congress Party came to Telugu + +Desam Party office wielding sticks, stones, petrol bottles and + +various other arms and while hailing Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi + +Mohan they attacked the party office. They threw stones, entered + +into the party office and destroyed the furniture, broke two + +computers and two televisions and caused tremendous panic + +among everyone available there. In the first information report + +the de facto complainant was able to mention the names of 44 + +accused. It also made a mention about four named accused who + +came upon him and abused him by his caste name. The further + +case of the prosecution is that these hooligans caused chaos and + +some of them using their sticks and cricket playing wickets + +seriously damaged three cars/AP 39 K 1999, AP 16 DJ 9499 and + +TS 10 EC 4099. It is also stated that one Mr. Rabbani poured + +petrol on the car bearing No.AP 16 DA 5555 and lit fire to it. The + +version of the de facto complainant is that there were police + +people at the Telugu Desam Party office and they remained mute + +spectators. During investigation it was found that some of the + +accused made attempts to burn the party office as walls in one + +room were found with charred marks. +

22

+ + + + +

43. Investigation has been in progress. Some of the accused + +were arrested and were remanded to judicial custody. According + +to prosecution, at least 44 accused were absconding. After + +gaining contact with about 28 accused they were questioned + +about their mobile phones and only seven out of them + +surrendered their mobile phones and 20 of the accused furnished + +false information with regard to the instruments they used and + +their mobile numbers. +

+

+

44. During the investigation, CCTV footage was collected. + +When the crime incident occurred, various people captured it on + +their mobile phones and all such material was collected. Based + +on these investigative efforts, allegations are made against all + +these petitioners by the prosecution that they are all involved in + +this crime incident. +

+

+

45. Broadly stated all these petitioners raised the following + +contentions: +

+

+

 That there was unexplained delay in registration of crime. + + The incident occurred on 20.02.2023 and F.I.R. was + + registered on 22.02.2023. That around the same time and + + place certain incidents occurred which resulted in + 23 + + + + + registration of multiple F.I.Rs. and many of which disclosed + + accusation of criminal acts of followers of Telugu Desam + + Party as against members of YSR Congress Party + + members and this case is in a way a counter blast to Crime + + Nos.132 of 2023 and 133 of 2023. +
+
+  F.I.R. does not contain any allegations of overt acts against + + these petitioners. +
+
+  After change in political party in power witnesses were + + planted and false evidence is created. +
+
+  The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. were bailable and + + many of these petitioners were served with Section 41A + + Cr.P.C. notice. However, after the change of political + + Government police have unlawfully brought additional + + penal provisions to nullify the rightful reliefs available to the + + petitioners. +
+
+

46. Plethora of precedent is cited on behalf of the petitioners + +and on behalf of some of the accused meticulous written + +arguments are filed leaving one to wonder that this to pronounce + +a judgment as if it is one after trial. +

24

+ + + + +

47. The following significant aspects are required to be noticed: + + +

F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was registered for the offences + +punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435 and 506 read with + +149 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989'). Since caste atrocity was one of + +the offences alleged, on the instructions of Superintendent of + +Police, Krishna, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gannavaram + +took up investigation. After recording the statements of about six + +witnesses, the investigation officer found that the provisions of the + +Act, 1989 were not applicable. Therefore, he applied to the + +Superintendent of Police to accord permission to delete those + +provisions. By proceedings dated 04.07.2023 the Superintendent + +of Police granted such permission. Investigation went further and + +scores of witnesses were examined. Thereafter by way of an + +alteration memo dated 07.08.2024 the investigation agency got + +added Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989. It + +also added Sections 436, 450 and 452 I.P.C. It is also to be + +noticed that in this case so far there are 71 accused. + 25 + + + + +

48. Since in the present crime incident not only offences under + +the Indian Penal Code but also offences under the Act, 1989 are + +alleged, the forceful argument raised by the State is that + +anticipatory bail petitions are not maintainable by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. The further argument is + +that the High Court does not now possess concurrent original + +jurisdiction for bails as well as anticipatory bails and it has only + +appellate jurisdiction by virtue of Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and + +therefore, these petitions are to be dismissed. In such + +circumstances, this Court on 13.11.2024 requested the learned + +counsels on both sides to address arguments in that regard since + +the jurisdictional bar has arisen. +

+

+

49. Valiant submissions are made by the learned counsels for + +petitioners wherein references are made to Sections 18 and 18A + +of the Act, 1989 and precedent is cited to show that if there is no + +prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989 is + +made out, anticipatory bail could be considered. It is also argued + +that this Court in these petitions during hearing granted interim + +protection and therefore, the same may be made absolute since + +these petitioners have not violated anything thereafter. + 26 + + + + +

50. The point that falls for consideration is: + + +

"What is the effect of Section 14A of the Scheduled + + Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the concurrent original + + jurisdiction of the High Court in considering bails + + and anticipatory bails where offences under the Act, + + 1989 are involved? +
+
+POINT: +
+
+

51. Offences under the Act, 1989 can be taken cognizance of + +and tried and be disposed of by Special Courts and Exclusive + +Special Courts as provided in Section 14 of the Act, 1989. Those + +Courts since now empowered to take cognizance hold power to + +take remand of the accused and consider bails. There is no + +provision in the Act, 1989 adverting to the aspects that are to be + +considered by those Courts when they entertain bail petitions. + +Therefore, those Courts draw their powers from the Code of + +Criminal Procedure. Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal + +Procedure is headed as provisions as to bail and bonds. It + +consists of Sections 436 to 450. They refer to bail in cases of + +bailable offences and bail in cases of non-bailable offences. + 27 + + + + +Section 438 Cr.P.C. is given heading direction for grant of bail to + +person apprehending arrest. To the extent the said provision is + +required alone is extracted here: +

+
"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending + arrest: +
+
(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be + arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- +

bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the + Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the + event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that + Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the + following factors, namely:- +

+
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; + +
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to + whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on + conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; + +
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and + +
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of + injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so + arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an + interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail: + +
Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, + the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order + under this sub-Section or has rejected the application for + grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer + 28 + + + + + incharge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the + applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in + such application." +
+

52. Thus, as per the above provision, those accused who + +anticipate their arrest may seek pre-arrest bail and they could + +move such applications either before this Court or before the + +Court of Sessions. It is in the light of such a provision the + +petitioners have straightaway moved this Court for their prayers + +for pre-arrest bail. +

+

+

53. The first submission of the State is that in cases of caste + +atrocities anticipatory bails cannot be maintained by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. Those provisions read as + +below: +

+

+

"18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons + committing an offence under the Act.-- Nothing in + section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case + involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of + having committed an offence under this Act. + + 18A. No enquiry or approval required.--(1) For the + purposes of this Act,-- (a) preliminary enquiry shall not be + required for registration of a First Information Report against + any person; or + 29 + + + + +
(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the + arrest, if necessary, of any person, + + against whom an accusation of having committed an + offence under this Act has been made and no procedure + other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall + apply. +
+
(2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply + to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or + order or direction of any Court." +
+

54. The crisp response from the learned counsels for the + +petitioners is that the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would + +apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist + +pointing towards the commission of an offence under the Act, + +1989. If the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under + +the Act, 1989 are not disclosed on the prima facie reading of the + +allegations levelled in the complaint or F.I.R. then in such + +circumstances, the bar of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would not + +apply and the Courts would not be absolutely precluded from + +granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons. In justification of + +this argument they cited ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + +India in Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala1. + +1 + 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601 + 30 + + + + +

55. If one goes by the contentions of the learned counsel for + +petitioners this Court is to take a view whether the allegations in + +the F.I.R./written information of the de facto complainant prima + +facie disclose caste atrocity or not. However, according to the + +State, even such a view cannot be taken by this Court by virtue of + +interdict contained in Section 14A of the Act, 1989. Therefore, it + +is required to notice what this provision says. The provision reads + +as below: +

+

+

"14A. Appeals:--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained + in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an + appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not + being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an + Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and + on law. +
+
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section + (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, + 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court + against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive + Special Court granting or refusing bail. + + (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for + the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall + be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of + the judgment, sentence or order appealed from: Provided + that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry + of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the + 31 + + + + + appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal + within the period of ninety days: Provided further that no + appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of + one hundred and eighty days. +
+
(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far + as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months + from the date of admission of the appeal." + +

56. As per Sub-Section (2) of Section 14Aof the Act, the + +petitions for bail are to be considered by the Special Court and in + +the event of their granting or refusing to grant such bails the + +aggrieved can prefer an appeal before this Court. Thus, the + +concurrent jurisdiction for consideration of anticipatory bails + +provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C. stood excluded. It is not as + +though the aggrieved is deprived of all the remedies. After + +inviting an order on the bail petition from the Special Court the + +aggrieved is entitled to prefer an appeal before this Court in terms + +of Section 14A of the Act, 1989. In the case at hand, the + +petitioners have moved bail petitions straightaway before this + +Court. At any rate, what is before this Court is not an appeal + +against an order passed by the Special Court with reference to + +bails. It shall be stated that on the same subject matter High + +Court could not be said to possess concurrent original jurisdiction + 32 + + + + +as well as appellate jurisdiction. If one is to state that a bail is + +different from anticipatory bail the result is that in anticipatory + +bails this Court holds original jurisdiction and in regular bails it + +holds only appellate jurisdiction. Assuming that in a case a + +petition for anticipatory bail being moved before the Special Court + +resulted in dismissal, then according to the logic applied by the + +petitioners the petitions would have to move only another bail + +petition before this Court and not an appeal. Such logic is in + +violation of what is clearly provided in Section 14A of the Act, + +1989. It is to be seen that the question of bail presupposes + +detention or custody of the person. In a case where a person is + +arrested he prays for a regular bail. In cases of anticipatory bail + +in the event of granting the relief, it has no effect unless and until + +the accused is arrested. In other words, the order of anticipatory + +bail comes into effect only after a person is arrested and not + +otherwise. In contrast to regular bail, in cases of anticipatory bail + +the order is obtained in advance. In regular bails it was obtained + +after arrest. The timing at which a prayer is made, and an order + +is granted, have no relevance when it comes to operation of + +those orders as in both the cases they come into operation only in + +those cases where a person is arrested. In such view of the + 33 + + + + +matter the word bail used in Section 14A of the Act, 1989 + +encompasses regular bail as well as anticipatory bail. Therefore, + +it must be stated that an application for bail or anticipatory bail + +can be filed only before the Special Court or the Exclusive + +Special Court as the case may be and not before the High Court. + +An order granting or refusing bail or anticipatory bail by the + +Special Court or Exclusive Special Court can be assailed before + +this Court invoking its appellate jurisdiction provided in Section + +14A of the Act, 1989. This Court had deliberated these aspects + +on earlier occasions when similar questions were raised and it + +reached to the same conclusions and reference can be made to + +the following: +

+

+

1. Nakka Nagireddy v. State of A.P.2 + + +
2. Deepak Kumar Tala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh3. + + +

57. Similar conclusions were reached at by other High Courts. + +Reference can be made to the following: +

+

+

1. K.M.Basheer v. Rajani K.T.4 + +2 + 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5322 Order dated 11.11.2024 +3 + Order dated 22.10.2024 in Criminal Petition No.6487 of 2024 +4 + 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 472 + 34 + + + + +
2. Lokesh v. State of Karnataka5 + + +
3. In re Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 v. Nil6 + + +
4. Atul Rajput v. The State of Madhya Pradesh7 + + +

58. At the bar, for petitioners, Abhishek Awasthi v. State of + +U.P.8 is cited. That is a case where other subsections of Section + +14A of the Act, 1989 fell for consideration and the powers of the + +High Court were considered under Section 482 of Code of + +Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings. + +Finally, it was held that with a view to prevent the misuse or + +abuse of the Court or law, the High Court holds inherent + +jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. + +Such question is not available before this Court. Even otherwise + +a brief reference to what was stated by their Lordships in Shajan + +Skaria's case9 would be sufficient here. At paragraph No.49 their + +Lordships stated that if the accused puts forward the case of + +malicious prosecution on account of political or private vendetta + +5 + 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15742 +6 + 2018 SCC OnLine ALL 2087 +7 + Order dated 10.04.2024 in Crl.A.No.3261 of 2024 of the High Court of +Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur +8 + MANU/UP/4595/2024 + 35 + + + + +such aspects can be considered only by the High Court in + +exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code or + +in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the + +Constitution of India. However, powers under Section 438 of the + +Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised once the + +contents of the complaint/F.I.R. disclose a prima facie case. In + +fact, in that case Section 14A of the Act, 1989 did not come up for + +consideration since the anticipatory bail petition was first moved + +before the trial Court and as against those orders appeal was + +preferred before the High Court. +

+

+

59. The plethora of precedent cited before this Court is not with + +reference to Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and therefore any + +reference to those cherished principles of those rulings is not + +required. This Court refrains from delving into other facts and the + +principles of law governing anticipatory bails since any such + +discussion may unnecessarily prejudice the contentions of both + +sides when appropriate applications are filed before appropriate + +Courts for the reliefs or when the maters come up before this + +Court in appeal. +

+

9 + Supra 1 + 36 + + + + +

60. Learned counsel for petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5920 + +of 2024 argued that this very Bench on earlier occasions + +considered and granted anticipatory bail and therefore, the same + +benefit can be extended to the present petitioners. The attention + +of this Court is brought to Sri Settipalli Raghurami Reddy v. + +The State of Andhra Pradesh10 and Julakanti Brahma Reddy + +@ Brahma Nanda Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 11. In + +both those matters the question about Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 was never raised by either side and therefore, there was no + +occasion for this Court to express itself on that aspect of the + +matter. After those orders it was in October and November 2024 + +only this Court had occasion to consider Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 and accordingly decided the earlier referred Nakka + +Nagireddy's case12 and Deepak Kumar Tala's case13. + +Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions of the learned + +counsel for the petitioners. +

+

+

61. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition + +No.5920 of 2024 further argued that the investigating agency is + +10 + Order dated 23.07.2024 in Criminal Petition No.3807 of 2024 +11 + Order dated 13.08.2024 in Criminal Petition No.10005 of 2023 +12 + supra 2 +13 + supra 3 + 37 + + + + +not entitled to add new penal provisions and cited State of + +Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde14. That was a case + +where on written information police registered a crime and + +investigating into it and filed charge sheet specifying certain penal + +provisions. At that stage the informant filed a petition to add + +Sections 364, 394 and 398 I.P.C. The question arose about the + +powers of the Magistrate at that stage as to whether he can + +incorporate those penal provisions as requested by the informant + +in a charge sheet filed by the police. Their Lordships stated that + +allowing incorporation of new provisions into the charge sheet as + +requested by the written informant at that stage is impermissible. + +However, the Court which is to try the case has to consider the + +first information report and all the other material collected and + +take a decision to frame appropriate charges under all the + +relevant penal provisions. Thus, the cited ruling has no relevance + +to the present case at hand. In the case at hand, the + +investigating police, exercising their right of investigation, have + +found it appropriate that the material on record do attract various + +provisions which were not originally mentioned in the F.I.R. Such + +power cannot be questioned. Informant would only put forth the + +14 + AIR 2014 SC 620 + 38 + + + + +facts before the registering officer and the Station House Officer + +on receiving such information using his own diligence + +incorporates the relevant penal provisions in the F.I.R. During + +investigation certain facts may be found incorrect and certain new + +facts may have been discovered and certain new accused may + +have been found having connection with the crime. There can be + +no legal hurdle in that regard since investigation is a voyage of + +truth. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsels for + +petitioners that provisions under the Act, 1989 were brought into + +effect during investigation and therefore have to be discarded is + +an argument that cannot be sustained. It may be recorded here + +that even to begin with in the case at hand the F.I.R. mentioned + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989. At the present also + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989 are alleged by the + +prosecution. Simply because at one stage such penal provisions + +were dropped does not mean that at a later stage they cannot be + +brought in. The argument that the new addition was not granted + +by the Superintendent of Police cannot be countenanced since + +the method of investigation is sole prerogative of the investigation + +officer. For the above reasons, the point is answered against the + +petitioners. +

39

+ + + + +

62. In the result, all these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. It is + +made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate + +petitions for appropriate reliefs before the appropriate Court. In + +the event such petitions are filed, the Court where they are filed is + +to consider the petitions on judicial side and dispose of them in + +accordance with law. Any observations made herein are confined + +to these petitions and they have no bearing on the merits or + +demerits of the case on either side. +

+

________________________ + Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J +Date: 06.01.2025 +Ivd + 40 + + + + + THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR + + + + +CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475, + 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839, + 5920 and 9083 of 2024 + + + + + Date: 06.01.2025 + + + +Ivd +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_89443312.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_89443312.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b011e3f31c5b280cb91ca0c8c99d30c0d5a1d71f --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_89443312.html @@ -0,0 +1,372 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Parvinder Singh Alias Pappu vs Sandeep Singh And Ors on 13 July, 2015 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
45. In view of my above said discussions, the complainant has + not been able to bring on record the existence of entire + circumstances which are sufficient to prove its case beyond + the shadow of reasonable doubt. Accordingly, by giving +RAVINDER SINGH benefit of doubt, the accused Sandeep, Darshan Lal and + + + + + CRM-A-1436-MA of 2014 + + + Lashkar Singh are acquitted from the charges framed against + them under section 323, 352, 354 read with section 34 of IPC. + Bail bonds and surety bonds of all these accused stand + discharged from their liability. File be consigned to the record + room after due compliance and same be revived as and when + accused Harvinder Kumar is apprehended by the police or he + himself surrenders in the Court." +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_89669618.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_89669618.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4785ed369be7b3515cddab4c01e90f059585dd21 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_89669618.html @@ -0,0 +1,508 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Vipin Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 2 September, 2019 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

and other injured medically examined from Deen Dyal + + Upadhyay, Shimla registered a case under Sections 323 and 324 + + + + + + of IPC against the present bail petitioners. +

+

4. On 1.7.2019, Vikas, who is one of the accused in the + + + + + + present FIR, also lodged a complaint, alleging therein that on + + 30.6.2019 at about 10:30 PM when he had come to cart road for + + + purchasing Ice cream, persons namely, Karan and Suraj stopped + + him and extended threats. He further alleged that after having + + + + heard noise, his younger brother Vikrant also came on the spot. +

+
+ +
+ +

On seeing his brother Vikrant, Karan and Suraj fled away from + + + + + the spot, but subsequently they came alongwith persons namely, + + + + + + Raju, Karan, Suraj, Rahul, Vicky and Vinod and gave beatings + + + + + + with the help of beer bottle and chopper, as a result of which, + + they suffered serious injuries. Police got the complainant + + medically examined at Deen Dyal Upadhyay Hospital, Shimla + + and subsequently on the basis of the aforesaid statement made + + by the complainant, named hereinabove, lodged formal FIR + + against the bail petitioners under Sections 307, 341, 323, 147, + + + + + + + + + + 148, 149 and 506 of IPC. Bail petitioners herein are behind the + + bars since 1st July, 2019, whereas co­accused Vikrant and Bunty + + + + + . +

+
+ +
+ +

6. Learned counsel representing the bail petitioners + + + + + + while inviting attention of this Court to the medical opinion + + + + + + rendered on record by the Medical Officer, contended that no + + case much less under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the + + bail petitioners because injuries suffered by the complainant in + + the FIR No.136 of 2019 have been opined to be simple in nature + + and not grievous. He further contended that as per own story of + + the prosecution, no evidence with regard to use of blunt weapon + + + + + + + + + + such as sword, chopper and Khokhari came to be established and + + as such, bail petitioners, who are behinds the bars for more than + + + + + . +

+
+ +
+

by learned counsel for the petitioner that no case much less + + + + + + under section 307 of IPC against the bail petitioner is + + + + + + sustainable. Moreover, leaving everything aside, this Court finds + + that qua the same incident, cross FIR's came to be lodged at + + + + + + police Station, Sadar, Shimla, H.P. In the FIR No.135/2019 + + lodged by the bail petitioner, persons who came to be arrested, + + + have been already ordered to be enlarged on bail by this Court. +

+ +
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_89991561.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_89991561.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6ad475da0279e26cb86d533bb1d28e849e89f189 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_89991561.html @@ -0,0 +1,392 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + State vs Tarun @ Maddy & Others on 8 September, 2017 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

I.S. MEHTA, J. +

+

1. Instant petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. read with + Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the State (petitioner + herein) seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated + 24.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, + (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi in FIR No. 1187/2015 + registered under Sections 302/308/201/212/34 IPC at Police + Station Hauz Khas whereby the respondents, i.e. Tarun @ + Maddy, Vikas @ Shammi, Ashish Balguer, Vikas Balguer and + Vishal Balguer, were granted bail as the other co-accused Anil + Kumar Yadav was granted bail vide order dated 27.02.2017 + passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, (South) + Saket Courts, New Delhi in FIR No. 1187/2015 registered under + Sections 302/308/201/212/34 IPC at Police Station Hauz Khas. +

+
+ +
+

9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the + petitioner/State has further submitted that one another co- + accused Siddhant @ Goldy was charged only for offenses under + Sections 201/212 IPC which are bailable offences and because + of this reason he was not charged under Sections 302/307 IPC + and the remaining Sections and he was enlarged on bail by the + learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 16.11.2015 during the + course of the investigation itself. +

+
+ +
+

17. Since the Trial Court, prima facie, found 'the respondent' + and others to have committed the offence under Section 302/308 + IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC, grant of bail to 'the + respondent' merely because of certain discrepancies, cannot be + justified. +

18. Resultantly, the petition is allowed and the bail granted + to 'the respondent' is cancelled. 'The respondent' shall + surrender and appear before the Trial Court on 19th June, 2017. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_90075485.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_90075485.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..61c544d3716e97b1f181e0b77d058732924da0c8 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_90075485.html @@ -0,0 +1,429 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 November, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Order + +05/11/2020 + All the above mentioned bail applications shall stand decided + +by this common order as they arise out of same FIR. + +

The present bail applications have been filed under Section + +439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners who are in custody in + +connection with F.I.R. No.252/2020, Police Station Dovada, District + +Dungarpur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, + +394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B of I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12431/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 436, 394, + +384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of + +the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.11515/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, + +384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B of the I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.11861/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 384, + +284, 269, 270, 283 & 336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of + +P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11865/2020), + +under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 436, 394, 284, 269, 270, 283, + +336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11867/2020), under Sections + + (5 of 7) [CRLMB-12431/2020 + a/w connected nmatters] + + +147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, 384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336, + +120-B of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12205/2020), under Sections + +147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B + +of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. + +Bail Application No.12207/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, + +341, 394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 383, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and + +under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail + +Application No.12210/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, + +394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12433/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, + +284, 269, 270, 283, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 + +of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12436/2020). +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_90183878.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_90183878.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..540f22aa25f1e63d6f57d1241cc0fff6d6f110d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_90183878.html @@ -0,0 +1,386 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Pradeep Singh Alias Pradeep Singh ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 March, 2017 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

 under sections 341, 342, 323, 325/34 of the I.P.C. against the petitioners  + +showing the petitioners on police bail. +

+

iii. The learned C.J.M differing with the opinion of the police took cognizance of  + +the   offence   under   sections   341,   342,   323,   307,   34   of   the   I.P.C   by   order   dated  + +27.02.2016  and directed to issue N.B.W against the petitioners. + +

iv. The court below has not cancelled bail of the petitioners granted by police till  + +date, nor has passed any order in terms of provision of Section 436(2) Cr.P.C. + + +

+
+ +
+

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with  Maheshpur P.S.  + +Case  No. 08 of 2016,  corresponding to  G.R. No.  32  of 2016  for  the offence  under  + +sections 427, 379, 504, 447/34 of the Indian Penal Code. + +Record reveals that; +

+

i. The petitioners were granted police bail. +

3

+ + ii.  The police after completion of investigation, submitted Final Form No. 72 of  + +2016 under sections 447, 427, 504, 34 of the I.P.C. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_90680138.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_90680138.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..91341024dd2a8b48720143809ac397ce1bb7af7a --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_90680138.html @@ -0,0 +1,394 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Thakore Amratji @ Tinaji Jaswantji @ ... vs State Of Gujarat on 31 January, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

+ + +

NEUTRAL CITATION + + + + + R/CR.A/2186/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2024 + + undefined + + + + +

17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present Criminal + +Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of + +conviction and sentence dated 4 th August 2008 passed by the + +learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, + +Patan, in Sessions Case No.59 of 2007, is hereby quashed and + +set-aside. The present appellants being accused nos.2, 3 and 4, + +namely, Thakore Amratji @ Tinaji Jaswantji @ Jalaji, Thakore + +Chenaji Gambhirji and Thakore Ramjiji @ Bodo Khodaji, are + +acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 325 of the + +Indian Penal Code. Bail bond furnished by them are ordered to + +be cancelled. Fine, if paid, be refunded. Records and + +proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial court concerned + +forthwith. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_90686486.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_90686486.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8f2ae33a1540496d5517c9657adc5923d11a822a --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_90686486.html @@ -0,0 +1,483 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + National Investigation Agency vs Maddileti A1 on 25 March, 2022 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The list of documents filed by NIA are verified, particulars + of witnesses in Annexure-A are verified, the case properties is + deposited vide P.I. No. 03/2020 in Annexure - C. The offices + charge sheeted against A1 to A4 are mentioned below for each + accused. +
A1 Maddileti @ Bandari Maddileti @ Manohar @ Sony + U/Sec. 120B IPC, Sec. 17, 18, 18B, 38, 39 and 40 of the UA (P) + Act 1967. A1 released on bail. +
A2 Yapa Narayana @ Haribhushan @ Jagan @ Alluri @ + Lakma @ HB @ H, U/Sec.120B IPC, Sec. 17, 18, 18B, 38, 39 and + 40 of UA (P) Act 1967. A2 is ABSCONDING. +
+
+ +
+

A3 Menchu Sandeep @ Praveen, U/Sec. 120B IPC, Sec. 17, + 18, 18B, 38, 39 and 40 of UA (P) Act 1967. A3 released on bail. +

A4 Nalamasa Krishna @ Rathnamala @ Ramsila @ Ram + U/Sec. 120B IPC, Sec. 17, 18, 18B, 38, 39 and 40 of UA (P) Act + 1967. A4 released on bail. +

As per our record, the accused No.1, A3 and A4 are + released on bail and A2 is Absconding. NBW may be issued + against A2. +

A2 died and A2 abated on 27.10.2020. +

+

+

9. Accordingly, the Presiding Officer of the Special Court took + +cognizance against A1, A3 and A4 for the offences under Section + +120B IPC, Sections 17, 18, 18B, 38, 39 and 40 of UAP Act 1967. + +The cognizance order, dated 02.11.2020, reads as follows: + + +

+
+ +
+

11. The circumstances are somewhat peculiar in this case. As + +seen from the material placed on record, the bail applications of + +A1, A3 and A4 were filed seeking bail for the offences under + +Section 120B of IPC, Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of TPS Act and + +Sections 18, 18B and 20 of the UAP Act for which, the + +respondents/A1, A3 and A4 were remanded. By the time the + +subject bail applications of A1, A3 and A4 came up for + +consideration before the Special Court for the second time, some + +offences were deleted and some offences were added against A1, + +A3 and A4. However, the Special Court completely ignored the + +said fact and proceeded to decide the bail applications of A1, A3 + +and A4 for the offences for which they were remanded i.e., Section + +120B of IPC, Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of TPS Act and Sections 18, + +18B and 20 of the UAP Act. None of the parties to the proceedings + +brought the fact of additions and deletions of certain offences + +alleged against the A1, A3 and A4 to the notice of the Special + 6 Dr.SA,J & KL, J + Crl.A.No.388, 389 & /2020 + + + + +Court, before passing the orders, dated 04.09.2021. Here, it is apt + +to state that while considering bail application(s) of the accused, + +the Court shall decide whether the accused is entitled for bail for + +all the offences alleged against him/her. Bail cannot be granted to + +the accused taking into consideration some of the offences alleged + +against him and omitting some of the offences, in the same crime. + +When the same was pointed out by this Court, all the learned + +counsel on record fairly conceded for remitting the matter to the + +Special Court for deciding the bail applications of A1, A3 and A4 for + +all the offences for which cognizance was taken against them. + +Further, the aspect as to whether there is prima facie case against + +A1, A3 and A4 for invoking Section 43D(5) of UAP Act is required + +to be examined and determined in relation to all the offences for + +which cognizance was taken against A1, A3 and A4, on filing of + +Police Report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. Section 439 of + +Cr.P.C. mandates filing application/s for bail for which, accusation + +of offence was made. On the date of determination of the bail + +applications for second time, the accusation against the + +respondents/A1, A3 and A4 was/is under Section 120B IPC, + +Sections 17, 18, 18B, 38, 39 and 40 of UAP Act 1967. The bail + +applications could have been heard and determined for those + +offences, taking into consideration the directions/observations + 7 Dr.SA,J & KL, J + Crl.A.No.388, 389 & /2020 + + + + +made by this Court vide common judgment, dated 20.07.2021, + +passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.419, 457 and 468 of 2020. + + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_90940429.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_90940429.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0c66b9dfac723e146fa814376b8ee26cef7796e7 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_90940429.html @@ -0,0 +1,355 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Palani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu By Its Secretary ... on 6 February, 2015 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

11. In so far as the case on hand is concerned, we have already pointed out that there is, totally, unexplained delay of 16 days in considering and disposing of the representation of the detenu and as such, the same would vitiate the impugned order of detention. It is needless to say that the guarantee of earliest disposal of the representation set out in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been infringed. +

12. In so far as the other ground, namely, non-supply of copy of bail applications filed in similar cases, is concerned, it is seen from paragraph 4 of the Grounds of Detention that in a similar case in Cr.No.1025/2011 under Sections 341, 392 read with 336, 397 and 506(ii) of IPC, bail was granted in Cr.MP.No.12888/2011 and in another similar case in Cr.No.301/2009 under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 of IPC, bail was granted in Cr.OP.No.13843/2009. On a perusal of the Paper Book furnished by the Prosecution, it is seen that it does not contain the copy of the said bail applications filed in similar cases. The said bail applications filed in similar case were the documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority to come to a subjective satisfaction that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. Admittedly, such documents have not been supplied to the detenu, as it did not form part of the Paper Book furnished by the Prosecution. Therefore, non supply of the copy of the bail applications in similar case sto the detenu would vitiate the impugned detention order. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_91465514.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_91465514.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef5727310cfa5994e152e47198d1a5134a25aa63 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_91465514.html @@ -0,0 +1,439 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + R D Patil @ Rudragouda vs The State on 13 December, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Criminal Petition No.201625/2023 is filed by the + +petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.295/2023 registered by + +University Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 34, 37 of + +IPC and Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2008 + +(for short, hereinafter referred to as 'IT Act') + + +

2. Criminal Petition No.201627/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner who is accused No.1 under Section 438 of + +Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.267/2023 + +registered by Afzalpur Police Station, Kalaburagi District, for + +the offences punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, + +420, 34, 36, 37, 149 of IPC. +

+
+ +
+ +

+

3. Criminal Petition No.201738/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + + + + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.144/2023 registered by + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

4. Criminal Petition No.201736/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.145/2023 registered by + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

+
+ +
+

5. Criminal Petition No.201735/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.146/2023 registered by + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

6. Criminal Petition No.201734/2023 is filed by the + +same petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., + +seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.147/2023 registered by + + + + +Yadgiri Town Police Station, Yadgir District, for the offences + +punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 420, 149 of IPC. + + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_9162926.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_9162926.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6d16dff449e5b611615ebafb70f8c68ff08f9c70 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_9162926.html @@ -0,0 +1,431 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Chetanbhai Natwarlal Shrimadi vs State Of Gujarat on 28 February, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

5. It appears from the materials on record that the police +completed the investigation and filed charge-sheet for the +offence punishable under sections 498A, 302, 304B, 203 read +with 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the +Dowry Prohibition Act. It appears that at the end of the +investigation, the police reached to the conclusion that the +case is one of homicidal death and not suicidal death. In such +circumstances, the first informant, i.e,. the father of the + + + + + R/CR.MA/4178/2018 JUDGMENT + + + +deceased preferred an application under section 439(2) of the +IPC for the cancellation of bail of the three applicants. The +Criminal Misc. Application No.1513 of 2017 filed by the original +first informant for the cancellation of bail of the three +applicants herein came to be allowed by the Principal Sessions +Judge, Kheda at Nadiad vide order dated 6th February, 2018. +The reasonings assigned by the court below while cancelling +the bail of the three applicants herein are extracted hereunder; +

+
+ +
+ +

(7) After aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous Application +No. 1513/2017 was decided, applicant filed present +application u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail wherein +present applicants are charged u/s 302 of the I.P.C. +

+

(8) The following issues and grounds have been taken +into account while deciding present bail application. +

+

1. The reason no. 1 to 6 mentioned in para 8 of + Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. + 1513/2017 seeking cancellation of bail have + been taken into account. +

+
+ +
+

2. The order granting anticipatory bail to the + applicants for the offence u/s 306 of the I.P.C. + was passed earlier, but thereafter, as stated + above, application seeking cancellation of bail + was granted. The section 302 of the I.P.C was + added. As the said offence was more serious, + the bail was cancelled. +

+ Page 16 of 46 +

R/CR.MA/4178/2018 JUDGMENT + + + +

+
+ +
+ +

18. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the +parties and having considered the materials on record, the +only question that falls for my consideration is whether I should +exercise my discretion in favour of the applicants. +

+

19. As noted above, the applicants were already released on +regular bail by the order of the Sessions Court way back on 7th +November, 2017. It is only when the Investigating Officer +entertained a doubt in his mind after talking to the Medical +Officer concerned that section 302 of the IPC came to be +added and the bail of the three applicants was ordered to be +cancelled. Thus, the only point for my consideration, at this +stage, is whether there is any substance in the theory of +homicidal death put forward by the prosecution. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_91843780.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_91843780.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..edb313c8f237c2236a760a9a858b55a353689dd3 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_91843780.html @@ -0,0 +1,455 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Avnish Kumar @ Anish vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The petitioner is in custody for about 4 years. + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 665 of 2023 + + The instant Revision is filed by CICL himself, + + challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order, + + dated 9th of August, 2023, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2023 + + by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum- + + Children's Court, Banka. The CICL was arrested in connection + + with Banduwa Kurawa P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023, corresponding + + to G.R. No. 1202 of 2023, for the offences punishable under + + Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 + + of the Arms Act. However, later on, Sections 34 of the IPC and + + Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section + + 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes + + (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added. Prayer for + + bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Appeal in + + exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Juvenile + + Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter + + referred to as 'said Act') vide order, dated 15th of June, 2023. + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 687 of 2023 + + The petitioner/CICL was arrested in connection + + with Fesar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, + + 325, 307, 34, 504, 506 and 379 of the IPC along with his father + + and uncle. The petitioner prayed for regular bail before the JJB, + + Aurangabad. In JJB Case No. 932 of 2023, prayer for bail was + + rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 41 + + of 2023 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children's Court, + + Aurangabad. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal + + and affirmed the order of the JJB. The petitioner has assailed the + + said order of the Appellate Court on various grounds, specially + + on the ground that the father and uncle of the petitioner have + + already been granted bail for the same offence. + +
+
+ +
+

Reg. Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2024 + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + The petitioner was booked along with other major + + accused persons in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 237 of + + 2022, dated 13th of August, 2022, under Section 302 and 34 of + + the IPC. The petitioner being a CICL prayed for bail before the + + Juvenile Justice Board, but his prayer for bail was rejected. He + + preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the said Act before the + + learned Special Judge, Children's Court and the said appeal was + + also dismissed and the order of rejection of bail passed by the + + JJB was affirmed. It is stated by the petitioner that the accused + + persons who are major, namely, Sushil Kumar Yadav and Anil + + Yadav were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on + + 26th of April, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 4091 of 2023. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_91860438.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_91860438.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..19f94053747bf6e466096c2ee2df180c696a27a8 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_91860438.html @@ -0,0 +1,423 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Reserved On: 11.8.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 18 August, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

12. The order sheets show that the summons and + +bailable warrants were issued to secure the presence of the + +witnesses; however, the witnesses did not appear, and the + + 2025:HHC:27642 + + + +summons and bailable warrants were also not returned to the + +Court. The order sheets maintained by the learned Trial Court + +corroborate the petitioner's version that his right to a speedy + +trial is being violated. In Rajiv Sharma (supra), the Hon'ble + +Supreme Court held that where the charges were not framed for + +more than one year and one month in an offence punishable + +under Section 302 inter alia, the right to speedy trial of the + +accused was violated. In Mukesh Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble + +Supreme Court held that incarceration of the accused in an + +offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC for fourteen months + +without conclusion of the trial violates the right to speedy trial. + +In Zahur Haider Zaidi (supra), the custody of the accused in an + +offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC without + +completing the trial was held to be unjustified. In Robin Patrwal + +(supra), this Court held that custody of two years for an offence + +punishable under Section 302 of the IPC entitled him to bail. In + +Umesh (supra), the custody of one year and two months in an + +offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC was held to be + +sufficient to release the accused on bail. In Sansar Chand (supra), + +the custody of one year and ten months in an offence punishable + +under Section 302 of IPC inter alia was held to be sufficient to + + 2025:HHC:27642 + + + +justify his release on bail. In Hemant Kumar (supra), the custody + +of two years in an offence punishable under Section 302 of the + +IPC was held to be sufficient to enlarge him on bail. In Pankaj + +Kumar (supra), the custody of the accused in an offence + +punishable under Section 302 of IPC for one year and one month + +without concluding the trial was held to be sufficient to enlarge + +the accused on bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_92169353.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_92169353.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4d72c101216603b09964eeb038041d5c569fc7bd --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_92169353.html @@ -0,0 +1,455 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ujjawal Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The petitioner is in custody for about 4 years. + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 665 of 2023 + + The instant Revision is filed by CICL himself, + + challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order, + + dated 9th of August, 2023, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2023 + + by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum- + + Children's Court, Banka. The CICL was arrested in connection + + with Banduwa Kurawa P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023, corresponding + + to G.R. No. 1202 of 2023, for the offences punishable under + + Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 + + of the Arms Act. However, later on, Sections 34 of the IPC and + + Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section + + 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes + + (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added. Prayer for + + bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Appeal in + + exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Juvenile + + Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter + + referred to as 'said Act') vide order, dated 15th of June, 2023. + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 687 of 2023 + + The petitioner/CICL was arrested in connection + + with Fesar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, + + 325, 307, 34, 504, 506 and 379 of the IPC along with his father + + and uncle. The petitioner prayed for regular bail before the JJB, + + Aurangabad. In JJB Case No. 932 of 2023, prayer for bail was + + rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 41 + + of 2023 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children's Court, + + Aurangabad. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal + + and affirmed the order of the JJB. The petitioner has assailed the + + said order of the Appellate Court on various grounds, specially + + on the ground that the father and uncle of the petitioner have + + already been granted bail for the same offence. + +
+
+ +
+

Reg. Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2024 + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + The petitioner was booked along with other major + + accused persons in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 237 of + + 2022, dated 13th of August, 2022, under Section 302 and 34 of + + the IPC. The petitioner being a CICL prayed for bail before the + + Juvenile Justice Board, but his prayer for bail was rejected. He + + preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the said Act before the + + learned Special Judge, Children's Court and the said appeal was + + also dismissed and the order of rejection of bail passed by the + + JJB was affirmed. It is stated by the petitioner that the accused + + persons who are major, namely, Sushil Kumar Yadav and Anil + + Yadav were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on + + 26th of April, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 4091 of 2023. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_92519097.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_92519097.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d69eb0c154a2e10eccd48f9a7f57126641c61f0d --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_92519097.html @@ -0,0 +1,2203 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Nakka Pullaiah Alias Gandhi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 34, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

+

Nakka Pullaiah Alias Gandhi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025

+ +
        THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
+
+
+CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475,
+
+ 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839,
+
+                     5920 and 9083 of 2024
+
+
+COMMON ORDER:
+ + +

Crl.P.No.5197 of 2024 + + + This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A32 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

2

+ + + + +

2. Sri N. Harinadh, learned Counsel for petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, + +learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- + +State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.4896 of 2024 + + +

3. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A46 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

4. Sri Mukkamalla Rama Swamy, the learned counsel for + +petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + 3 + + + + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5230 of 2024 + + +

5. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A35 and A51 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

6. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + 4 + + + + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5256 of 2024 + + +

7. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A43 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

8. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + 5 + + + + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.5367 of 2024 + + +

9. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A4 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

10. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 6 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5475 of 2024 + + +

11. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A64 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

12. Sri Karanki Yaswanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, the learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

7

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5487 of 2024 + + +

13. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A47 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

14. Ms.P.Srilatha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 8 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5503 of 2024 + + +

15. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A19 and A20 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

16. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 9 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5550 of 2024 + + +

17. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A2, A16, A37 and A45 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

18. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

10

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5553 of 2024 + + +

19. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A7 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

20. Sri Peta Gnana Teja, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 11 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5585 of 2024 + + +

21. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A1 and A67 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

22. Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

12

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5652 of 2024 + + +

23. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A15 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

24. Sri Chalasani Venkat, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

13

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5718 of 2024 + + +

25. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A8, A22, A36 and A68 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

26. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 14 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5724 of 2024 + + +

27. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A3 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

28. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

15

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5752 of 2024 + + +

29. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A31, A53 and A65 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime + +No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna + +District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections + +143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) + +of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

30. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

16

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5839 of 2024 + + +

31. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A55 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

32. Sri B.V Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 17 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5920 of 2024 + + +

33. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A6, A13, A14, A17, A27, A28, A30, A39, A42, A52, + +A54, A56, A61 and A69 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

34. Ms.V.Devi Satya Sri, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

18

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.9083 of 2024 + + +

35. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A75 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

36. Sri G.L.Nageswar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor + +appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments. + + +

37. In all the above bail petitions, detailed counters were filed + +by the respondent-State. +

19

+ + + + +

38. All these criminal petitions pertain to Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station. By these petitions these + +accused pray for pre-arrest bail. All these petitions were heard + +together and by this common order they shall be disposed of. + +The crime incident allegedly occurred on 20.02.2023. Upon a + +written information dated 22.02.2023 F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was + +registered. The scene of offence was Telugu Desam Party office, + +Gannavaram. Sri Mudunuri Satyavardhan belonging to Madiga + +caste, which is a scheduled caste, was computer operator + +working in Telugu Desam Party office and living in the said office. + + +

39. During the time when this crime incident allegedly occurred + +the party in power was YSR Congress Party. Investigation + +commenced and went on for some time. Thereafter there were + +general elections and the then opposition party/Telugu Desam + +Party came into power. Thereafter investigation continued + +further. The allegations and counter allegations in this case + +disclosed the rift between both the political parties. Petitioners + +contend that this is a case falsely alleged against them out of + +political vendetta. According to State, for political reasons there + +was inadequate investigation soon after commission of the + +offence. By the time this crime incident occurred Sri Vallabhaneni + 20 + + + + +Vamsi Mohan was Member of Legislative Assembly for + +Gannavaram Assembly Constituency. He is one of the accused + +in the present crime. +

+

+

40. The version of the prosecution is that on 18.02.2023 during + +afternoon hours a press meet was held by Sri Vallabhaneni + +Vamsi Mohan wherein he allegedly made certain insulting + +remarks as against Sri N.Chandrababu Naidu, Sri Nara Lokesh + +and their family members and used indecent language. In + +response to it, certain leaders of Telugu Desam Party conducted + +a press meeting on 19.02.2023 in the morning hours and + +condemned the statements made by the opponent political party + +people. +

+

+

41. In the above backdrop of facts, the crime incident allegedly + +occurred. It is stated that on 20.02.2023 at about 5:00 P.M. + +Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan went to Telugu Desam Party + +office and on noticing followers of Telugu Desam Party he caused + +enquiries about Mr. Pattabhi of Telugu Desam Party and warned + +them that they would finish Telugu Desam Party and left the + +place. +

21

+ + + + +

42. In the next 30 minutes at about 5:30 P.M. about 100 + +persons belonging to YSR Congress Party came to Telugu + +Desam Party office wielding sticks, stones, petrol bottles and + +various other arms and while hailing Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi + +Mohan they attacked the party office. They threw stones, entered + +into the party office and destroyed the furniture, broke two + +computers and two televisions and caused tremendous panic + +among everyone available there. In the first information report + +the de facto complainant was able to mention the names of 44 + +accused. It also made a mention about four named accused who + +came upon him and abused him by his caste name. The further + +case of the prosecution is that these hooligans caused chaos and + +some of them using their sticks and cricket playing wickets + +seriously damaged three cars/AP 39 K 1999, AP 16 DJ 9499 and + +TS 10 EC 4099. It is also stated that one Mr. Rabbani poured + +petrol on the car bearing No.AP 16 DA 5555 and lit fire to it. The + +version of the de facto complainant is that there were police + +people at the Telugu Desam Party office and they remained mute + +spectators. During investigation it was found that some of the + +accused made attempts to burn the party office as walls in one + +room were found with charred marks. +

22

+ + + + +

43. Investigation has been in progress. Some of the accused + +were arrested and were remanded to judicial custody. According + +to prosecution, at least 44 accused were absconding. After + +gaining contact with about 28 accused they were questioned + +about their mobile phones and only seven out of them + +surrendered their mobile phones and 20 of the accused furnished + +false information with regard to the instruments they used and + +their mobile numbers. +

+

+

44. During the investigation, CCTV footage was collected. + +When the crime incident occurred, various people captured it on + +their mobile phones and all such material was collected. Based + +on these investigative efforts, allegations are made against all + +these petitioners by the prosecution that they are all involved in + +this crime incident. +

+

+

45. Broadly stated all these petitioners raised the following + +contentions: +

+

+

 That there was unexplained delay in registration of crime. + + The incident occurred on 20.02.2023 and F.I.R. was + + registered on 22.02.2023. That around the same time and + + place certain incidents occurred which resulted in + 23 + + + + + registration of multiple F.I.Rs. and many of which disclosed + + accusation of criminal acts of followers of Telugu Desam + + Party as against members of YSR Congress Party + + members and this case is in a way a counter blast to Crime + + Nos.132 of 2023 and 133 of 2023. +
+
+  F.I.R. does not contain any allegations of overt acts against + + these petitioners. +
+
+  After change in political party in power witnesses were + + planted and false evidence is created. +
+
+  The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. were bailable and + + many of these petitioners were served with Section 41A + + Cr.P.C. notice. However, after the change of political + + Government police have unlawfully brought additional + + penal provisions to nullify the rightful reliefs available to the + + petitioners. +
+
+

46. Plethora of precedent is cited on behalf of the petitioners + +and on behalf of some of the accused meticulous written + +arguments are filed leaving one to wonder that this to pronounce + +a judgment as if it is one after trial. +

24

+ + + + +

47. The following significant aspects are required to be noticed: + + +

F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was registered for the offences + +punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435 and 506 read with + +149 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989'). Since caste atrocity was one of + +the offences alleged, on the instructions of Superintendent of + +Police, Krishna, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gannavaram + +took up investigation. After recording the statements of about six + +witnesses, the investigation officer found that the provisions of the + +Act, 1989 were not applicable. Therefore, he applied to the + +Superintendent of Police to accord permission to delete those + +provisions. By proceedings dated 04.07.2023 the Superintendent + +of Police granted such permission. Investigation went further and + +scores of witnesses were examined. Thereafter by way of an + +alteration memo dated 07.08.2024 the investigation agency got + +added Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989. It + +also added Sections 436, 450 and 452 I.P.C. It is also to be + +noticed that in this case so far there are 71 accused. + 25 + + + + +

48. Since in the present crime incident not only offences under + +the Indian Penal Code but also offences under the Act, 1989 are + +alleged, the forceful argument raised by the State is that + +anticipatory bail petitions are not maintainable by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. The further argument is + +that the High Court does not now possess concurrent original + +jurisdiction for bails as well as anticipatory bails and it has only + +appellate jurisdiction by virtue of Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and + +therefore, these petitions are to be dismissed. In such + +circumstances, this Court on 13.11.2024 requested the learned + +counsels on both sides to address arguments in that regard since + +the jurisdictional bar has arisen. +

+

+

49. Valiant submissions are made by the learned counsels for + +petitioners wherein references are made to Sections 18 and 18A + +of the Act, 1989 and precedent is cited to show that if there is no + +prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989 is + +made out, anticipatory bail could be considered. It is also argued + +that this Court in these petitions during hearing granted interim + +protection and therefore, the same may be made absolute since + +these petitioners have not violated anything thereafter. + 26 + + + + +

50. The point that falls for consideration is: + + +

"What is the effect of Section 14A of the Scheduled + + Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the concurrent original + + jurisdiction of the High Court in considering bails + + and anticipatory bails where offences under the Act, + + 1989 are involved? +
+
+POINT: +
+
+

51. Offences under the Act, 1989 can be taken cognizance of + +and tried and be disposed of by Special Courts and Exclusive + +Special Courts as provided in Section 14 of the Act, 1989. Those + +Courts since now empowered to take cognizance hold power to + +take remand of the accused and consider bails. There is no + +provision in the Act, 1989 adverting to the aspects that are to be + +considered by those Courts when they entertain bail petitions. + +Therefore, those Courts draw their powers from the Code of + +Criminal Procedure. Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal + +Procedure is headed as provisions as to bail and bonds. It + +consists of Sections 436 to 450. They refer to bail in cases of + +bailable offences and bail in cases of non-bailable offences. + 27 + + + + +Section 438 Cr.P.C. is given heading direction for grant of bail to + +person apprehending arrest. To the extent the said provision is + +required alone is extracted here: +

+
"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending + arrest: +
+
(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be + arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- +

bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the + Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the + event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that + Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the + following factors, namely:- +

+
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; + +
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to + whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on + conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; + +
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and + +
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of + injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so + arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an + interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail: + +
Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, + the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order + under this sub-Section or has rejected the application for + grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer + 28 + + + + + incharge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the + applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in + such application." +
+

52. Thus, as per the above provision, those accused who + +anticipate their arrest may seek pre-arrest bail and they could + +move such applications either before this Court or before the + +Court of Sessions. It is in the light of such a provision the + +petitioners have straightaway moved this Court for their prayers + +for pre-arrest bail. +

+

+

53. The first submission of the State is that in cases of caste + +atrocities anticipatory bails cannot be maintained by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. Those provisions read as + +below: +

+

+

"18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons + committing an offence under the Act.-- Nothing in + section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case + involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of + having committed an offence under this Act. + + 18A. No enquiry or approval required.--(1) For the + purposes of this Act,-- (a) preliminary enquiry shall not be + required for registration of a First Information Report against + any person; or + 29 + + + + +
(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the + arrest, if necessary, of any person, + + against whom an accusation of having committed an + offence under this Act has been made and no procedure + other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall + apply. +
+
(2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply + to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or + order or direction of any Court." +
+

54. The crisp response from the learned counsels for the + +petitioners is that the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would + +apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist + +pointing towards the commission of an offence under the Act, + +1989. If the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under + +the Act, 1989 are not disclosed on the prima facie reading of the + +allegations levelled in the complaint or F.I.R. then in such + +circumstances, the bar of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would not + +apply and the Courts would not be absolutely precluded from + +granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons. In justification of + +this argument they cited ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + +India in Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala1. + +1 + 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601 + 30 + + + + +

55. If one goes by the contentions of the learned counsel for + +petitioners this Court is to take a view whether the allegations in + +the F.I.R./written information of the de facto complainant prima + +facie disclose caste atrocity or not. However, according to the + +State, even such a view cannot be taken by this Court by virtue of + +interdict contained in Section 14A of the Act, 1989. Therefore, it + +is required to notice what this provision says. The provision reads + +as below: +

+

+

"14A. Appeals:--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained + in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an + appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not + being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an + Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and + on law. +
+
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section + (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, + 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court + against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive + Special Court granting or refusing bail. + + (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for + the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall + be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of + the judgment, sentence or order appealed from: Provided + that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry + of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the + 31 + + + + + appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal + within the period of ninety days: Provided further that no + appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of + one hundred and eighty days. +
+
(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far + as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months + from the date of admission of the appeal." + +

56. As per Sub-Section (2) of Section 14Aof the Act, the + +petitions for bail are to be considered by the Special Court and in + +the event of their granting or refusing to grant such bails the + +aggrieved can prefer an appeal before this Court. Thus, the + +concurrent jurisdiction for consideration of anticipatory bails + +provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C. stood excluded. It is not as + +though the aggrieved is deprived of all the remedies. After + +inviting an order on the bail petition from the Special Court the + +aggrieved is entitled to prefer an appeal before this Court in terms + +of Section 14A of the Act, 1989. In the case at hand, the + +petitioners have moved bail petitions straightaway before this + +Court. At any rate, what is before this Court is not an appeal + +against an order passed by the Special Court with reference to + +bails. It shall be stated that on the same subject matter High + +Court could not be said to possess concurrent original jurisdiction + 32 + + + + +as well as appellate jurisdiction. If one is to state that a bail is + +different from anticipatory bail the result is that in anticipatory + +bails this Court holds original jurisdiction and in regular bails it + +holds only appellate jurisdiction. Assuming that in a case a + +petition for anticipatory bail being moved before the Special Court + +resulted in dismissal, then according to the logic applied by the + +petitioners the petitions would have to move only another bail + +petition before this Court and not an appeal. Such logic is in + +violation of what is clearly provided in Section 14A of the Act, + +1989. It is to be seen that the question of bail presupposes + +detention or custody of the person. In a case where a person is + +arrested he prays for a regular bail. In cases of anticipatory bail + +in the event of granting the relief, it has no effect unless and until + +the accused is arrested. In other words, the order of anticipatory + +bail comes into effect only after a person is arrested and not + +otherwise. In contrast to regular bail, in cases of anticipatory bail + +the order is obtained in advance. In regular bails it was obtained + +after arrest. The timing at which a prayer is made, and an order + +is granted, have no relevance when it comes to operation of + +those orders as in both the cases they come into operation only in + +those cases where a person is arrested. In such view of the + 33 + + + + +matter the word bail used in Section 14A of the Act, 1989 + +encompasses regular bail as well as anticipatory bail. Therefore, + +it must be stated that an application for bail or anticipatory bail + +can be filed only before the Special Court or the Exclusive + +Special Court as the case may be and not before the High Court. + +An order granting or refusing bail or anticipatory bail by the + +Special Court or Exclusive Special Court can be assailed before + +this Court invoking its appellate jurisdiction provided in Section + +14A of the Act, 1989. This Court had deliberated these aspects + +on earlier occasions when similar questions were raised and it + +reached to the same conclusions and reference can be made to + +the following: +

+

+

1. Nakka Nagireddy v. State of A.P.2 + + +
2. Deepak Kumar Tala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh3. + + +

57. Similar conclusions were reached at by other High Courts. + +Reference can be made to the following: +

+

+

1. K.M.Basheer v. Rajani K.T.4 + +2 + 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5322 Order dated 11.11.2024 +3 + Order dated 22.10.2024 in Criminal Petition No.6487 of 2024 +4 + 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 472 + 34 + + + + +
2. Lokesh v. State of Karnataka5 + + +
3. In re Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 v. Nil6 + + +
4. Atul Rajput v. The State of Madhya Pradesh7 + + +

58. At the bar, for petitioners, Abhishek Awasthi v. State of + +U.P.8 is cited. That is a case where other subsections of Section + +14A of the Act, 1989 fell for consideration and the powers of the + +High Court were considered under Section 482 of Code of + +Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings. + +Finally, it was held that with a view to prevent the misuse or + +abuse of the Court or law, the High Court holds inherent + +jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. + +Such question is not available before this Court. Even otherwise + +a brief reference to what was stated by their Lordships in Shajan + +Skaria's case9 would be sufficient here. At paragraph No.49 their + +Lordships stated that if the accused puts forward the case of + +malicious prosecution on account of political or private vendetta + +5 + 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15742 +6 + 2018 SCC OnLine ALL 2087 +7 + Order dated 10.04.2024 in Crl.A.No.3261 of 2024 of the High Court of +Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur +8 + MANU/UP/4595/2024 + 35 + + + + +such aspects can be considered only by the High Court in + +exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code or + +in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the + +Constitution of India. However, powers under Section 438 of the + +Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised once the + +contents of the complaint/F.I.R. disclose a prima facie case. In + +fact, in that case Section 14A of the Act, 1989 did not come up for + +consideration since the anticipatory bail petition was first moved + +before the trial Court and as against those orders appeal was + +preferred before the High Court. +

+

+

59. The plethora of precedent cited before this Court is not with + +reference to Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and therefore any + +reference to those cherished principles of those rulings is not + +required. This Court refrains from delving into other facts and the + +principles of law governing anticipatory bails since any such + +discussion may unnecessarily prejudice the contentions of both + +sides when appropriate applications are filed before appropriate + +Courts for the reliefs or when the maters come up before this + +Court in appeal. +

+

9 + Supra 1 + 36 + + + + +

60. Learned counsel for petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5920 + +of 2024 argued that this very Bench on earlier occasions + +considered and granted anticipatory bail and therefore, the same + +benefit can be extended to the present petitioners. The attention + +of this Court is brought to Sri Settipalli Raghurami Reddy v. + +The State of Andhra Pradesh10 and Julakanti Brahma Reddy + +@ Brahma Nanda Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 11. In + +both those matters the question about Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 was never raised by either side and therefore, there was no + +occasion for this Court to express itself on that aspect of the + +matter. After those orders it was in October and November 2024 + +only this Court had occasion to consider Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 and accordingly decided the earlier referred Nakka + +Nagireddy's case12 and Deepak Kumar Tala's case13. + +Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions of the learned + +counsel for the petitioners. +

+

+

61. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition + +No.5920 of 2024 further argued that the investigating agency is + +10 + Order dated 23.07.2024 in Criminal Petition No.3807 of 2024 +11 + Order dated 13.08.2024 in Criminal Petition No.10005 of 2023 +12 + supra 2 +13 + supra 3 + 37 + + + + +not entitled to add new penal provisions and cited State of + +Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde14. That was a case + +where on written information police registered a crime and + +investigating into it and filed charge sheet specifying certain penal + +provisions. At that stage the informant filed a petition to add + +Sections 364, 394 and 398 I.P.C. The question arose about the + +powers of the Magistrate at that stage as to whether he can + +incorporate those penal provisions as requested by the informant + +in a charge sheet filed by the police. Their Lordships stated that + +allowing incorporation of new provisions into the charge sheet as + +requested by the written informant at that stage is impermissible. + +However, the Court which is to try the case has to consider the + +first information report and all the other material collected and + +take a decision to frame appropriate charges under all the + +relevant penal provisions. Thus, the cited ruling has no relevance + +to the present case at hand. In the case at hand, the + +investigating police, exercising their right of investigation, have + +found it appropriate that the material on record do attract various + +provisions which were not originally mentioned in the F.I.R. Such + +power cannot be questioned. Informant would only put forth the + +14 + AIR 2014 SC 620 + 38 + + + + +facts before the registering officer and the Station House Officer + +on receiving such information using his own diligence + +incorporates the relevant penal provisions in the F.I.R. During + +investigation certain facts may be found incorrect and certain new + +facts may have been discovered and certain new accused may + +have been found having connection with the crime. There can be + +no legal hurdle in that regard since investigation is a voyage of + +truth. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsels for + +petitioners that provisions under the Act, 1989 were brought into + +effect during investigation and therefore have to be discarded is + +an argument that cannot be sustained. It may be recorded here + +that even to begin with in the case at hand the F.I.R. mentioned + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989. At the present also + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989 are alleged by the + +prosecution. Simply because at one stage such penal provisions + +were dropped does not mean that at a later stage they cannot be + +brought in. The argument that the new addition was not granted + +by the Superintendent of Police cannot be countenanced since + +the method of investigation is sole prerogative of the investigation + +officer. For the above reasons, the point is answered against the + +petitioners. +

39

+ + + + +

62. In the result, all these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. It is + +made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate + +petitions for appropriate reliefs before the appropriate Court. In + +the event such petitions are filed, the Court where they are filed is + +to consider the petitions on judicial side and dispose of them in + +accordance with law. Any observations made herein are confined + +to these petitions and they have no bearing on the merits or + +demerits of the case on either side. +

+

________________________ + Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J +Date: 06.01.2025 +Ivd + 40 + + + + + THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR + + + + +CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475, + 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839, + 5920 and 9083 of 2024 + + + + + Date: 06.01.2025 + + + +Ivd +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_93024261.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_93024261.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..57f97da89de7428ee9282d0e7644679f11bfb7da --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_93024261.html @@ -0,0 +1,462 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Mohammad Kaif vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 12 March, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

12. To substantiate plea to enlarge the petitioners on bail, + +learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon order dated 5.7.2023 + +passed in Cr.MP (M) No. 1501 of 2023, titled as Ram Singh @ Kaka + +Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has been + +enlarged on bail on 5.7.2023 after remaining in jail for 3 years 2 months. + +

( 2025:HHC:5741 ) + +

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred order + +dated 16.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1494 of 2023, titled as + +Rampal @ Ramphal Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section + +302 IPC has been enlarged on bail after remaining in custody for 4 years + +9 months by considering plea of the petitioner regarding delay in trial. +

+
+ +
+

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners have referred order + +dated 20.10.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2481 of 2023, titled as + +Sanma Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC has + +been released on bail after 3 years 3 months detention considering the + +fact that only 22 witnesses out of 30 witnesses were examined by that + +time. +

+

15. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further relied on + +order dated 4.11.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2618 of 2023, titled as + +Jasbir Singh Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 IPC + +has been released on bail after 3 years 5 months detention considering + +the fact that only 16 witnesses out of 39 witnesses were examined by + +that time. +

+
+ +
+ +

18. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further referred + +order dated 1.9.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1216 of 2023, titled as + +Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 + +IPC has been released on bail after 4 years detention considering the + +fact that only 13 witnesses out of 47 witnesses were examined by that + +time. +

+

19. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further relied on + +order dated 24.7.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1217 of 2023, titled as + +Kulveer Singh Vs. State of H.P., wherein accused under Section 302 + +IPC has been released on bail after 1 year detention considering the fact + +that no witnesses out of 30 witnesses were examined by that time. +

+
+ +
+ +

30. Order dated 3rd September, 2024 passed in Cr.MP (M) No. + +1584 of 2024, titled as Krishan Kumar Vs. State of H.P. has also been + +referred by learned counsel for the petitioners, wherein petitioner an + +accused under Section 302 IPC was enlarged on bail after detention of 5 + +years 5 months by considering the fact that out of 48 witnesses only 16- + +18 witnesses had been examined and there was no likelihood of + +conclusion of trial in near future. +

+

31. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the + +petitioners on order dated 18.9.2024 passed in Cr.MP (M) No. 1804 of + +2024, titled as Suryakant Vs. State of H.P., wherein petitioner, an + +accused under Section 302 IPC, has been enlarged on bail by co- + +ordinate Bench on the ground of delay in trial after custody of more than + +3 years 10 months by taking into consideration the fact that there was no + +likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future as 23 witnesses were yet to + +be examined. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_93410360.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_93410360.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7f55e61eb54e530b60b89ed8be368d9d0fd4feea --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_93410360.html @@ -0,0 +1,452 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Shri Ramesh S/O Uddappa Khilari vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 June, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

2. Case of the prosecution is that the victim lady is + +working as Aaya in Gurubasav School at Beeranagaddi. + +She is married and having two children. She used to go to + +Gokak for purchasing articles and she met one Basavarj + +Khilari - accused No. 6 and he took her saying that he will + +get her job. About two months ago, the victim lady and + +one Smt. Sharada had gone to Ghataprabha and after + +work they were waiting for bus. At that time one motor + +cyclist introduced himself as Vinod Talawar - a teacher in + +Harugeri and he took the phone number of the victim lady + +and they were in touch. On 05.09.2023, i.e., on teachers' + +day the victim lady had gone to Gokak and at that time + +she received a phone call from Vinod Talawar (C.W.16) + +and both of them had tea in a hotel. At that time, they + +met accused No. 6 - Basavaraj Khilari and he requested + +both of them to come to his room and have tea and all the + + NC: 2024:KHC-D:8204 + + C/W CRL.P No. 101347 of 2024, CRL.P No. + 101541 of 2024 + + +three of them went to Basavaraj Khilari's room. Accused + +No. 6 locked victim lady and Vinod Talawar in the room. At + +about 02.30 - 03.00 pm, 4 to 5 people came and asked + +them as to why they were staying in their room and + +assaulted them, took Rs.2,000/-, purse, ATM and mobile + +from Vinod Talawar and they assaulted the victim lady and + +took Rs.2,000/-, earrings, purse and mobile. They also + +demanded Rs.2,00,000/- to leave them. Later they made + +Vinod Talawar and victim lady to stand and took photos, + +video graphed, showed knife to her and removed her + +saree and raped one after another. At that time it was + +about 05.30 pm and Vinod Talawar ran away. The accused + +were talking to each other and their names were Ramesh + +Khilari, Durappa, Yallappa, Ramasidda and Krishna and + +they threatened them with dire consequences. Said + +complaint filed by the victim lady came to be registered in + +crime No. 132/2023 of Gokak Town Police Station for + +offence punishable under Sections 341, 342, 376D, 384 + +and 506 read with Section 149 IPC. During investigation + + NC: 2024:KHC-D:8204 + + C/W CRL.P No. 101347 of 2024, CRL.P No. + 101541 of 2024 + + +accused Nos. 1 and 6 came to be arrested. The Police after + +completing investigation filed charge sheet against the + +accused for offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, + +376-D, 384, 395, 397, 120-B, 506 read with Section 149 + +of IPC. Bail petitions filed by accused Nos.1 and 6 came to + +be rejected. Anticipatory bail petition filed by accused No. + +3 came to be rejected by the Sessions Court. Therefore, + +petitioners are before this Court seeking bail/anticipatory + +bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_93764587.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_93764587.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9b9d33b2030e2aa107763c387fb48f0b793796f3 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_93764587.html @@ -0,0 +1,463 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Karanpreet Singh Alias Giani Alias ... vs State Of Punjab And Other on 1 March, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
COMPARATIVE CHART + +Sr. Details of FIRs Status +No. +1 FIR No.15/2021 u/s 307, 323, 324, 120B, Convicted for 7 + 148, 149, 325, 326, 201 IPC, P.S. Basti years + Bawa Khel + + + 2 of 9 + + Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030364 + + + + +CRWP-344-2025 + + UNDER-TRIAL CASES +2 (a) FIR No.16/2022 dated 07.02.2022 u/s PWs On bail vide + 307/341/34 IPC & Section 25/54/59 Arms order dated + Act, P.S. Division-1, Jalandhar 05.03.2023 +2 (b) FIR No.29/2022 dated 07.02.2022 under PWs on bail vide + Sections 384/212/216/116/120-B IPC & order dated + Section 25/54/59 Arms Act, P.S. Division- 17.03.2023 + 8, Jalandhar +2 (c) FIR No.68/2022 dated 16.06.2022 under PWs On bail vide + Section 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act, P.S. Navi order dated + Baradari. 02.03.2023 +2 (d) FIR No.37/2021 dated 30.03.2021 under PWs on bail vide + Section 153A/386/504 IPC, P.S. Division- order + 2, Jalandhar. dated26.04.2023 +2 (e) FIR No.124/2020 dated 22.09.2020 under PWs on bail vide + Sections 323/324/160/148/149 IPC & order dated + Section 67 IT Act, P.S. Division-2, 02.03.2023 + Jalandhar. +
+
+ +
+
2 (f) FIR No.174/2016 dated 10.09.2016 under PWs on bail vide + Section 61 Excise Act, P.S. Bhargo Camp, order + Jalandhar dated02.06.2022 +2 (g) FIR No.42/2016 dated 01.03.2016 under PWs On bail vide + Section 382/34 IPC, P.S. Navi Baradari, order dated + Jalandhar 07.06.2017 +2(h) FIR No.233/2022 dated 26.09.2022 under PWs on bail vide + Section 28/29/30 of NDPS Act & Section order dated + 42/52A Prison Act, P.S. STF-4. 04.03.2023 + CONVICTION CASES +3(a) FIR No.103 dt. 18.06.2017, u/s 452, 323, Already undergone + 341, 506, 509, 148, 149 IPC, registered at vide order dated + P.S. Bhargo Camp, Jalandhar 02.06.2022 +3(b) FIR No.198 dated 25.10.2016, u/s 22 of Conviction order + NDPS Act, registered at P.S. Bhargo dt.14.05.2018 for 2 + Camp, Jalandhar years by the ld. +
+
+ +
+

4(c) FIR No.127 of 2020, under Section Acquitted on + 61/1/14 of Excise Act, Section 21, 22 of 26.10.2024 + NDPS Act, Section 379B, 382, 482, 465, + 467, 468, 471, 120B, 216 IPC and Section + 25 of Arms Act, registered at P.S. Bhargo + Camp, Jalandhar. +

4 (d) FIR No.202 dated 24.11.2019, under Acquitted on + Section 302, 201, 148, 149 IPC and 16.02.2023 + Section 3 (2-V) of SC & ST Act, registered + at P.S. Division No.5, Jalandhar. +

4 (e) FIR No.182 of 2018, u/s 52A of the Acquitted on + Prisoners Act, registered at P.S. Kotwali, 13.10.2023 + Kapurthala + PRODUCTION WARRANT CASES +5 (a) DDR No.16/2017 dt. 29.05.2017 Act Bail out on + Section 110 Cr. P.C. Police Station Bhargo 08.06.2017 + Camp +5 (b) FIR No.68/2019 dated 13.07.20197, under PW on bail vide + Section 61/1/14 Excise Act, P.S. Lambra order dt.02.03.2023 +5 (c) FIR No.99 of 2019, under Section 307, PW on bail vide + 160, 427, 148, 149 IPC, registered at P.S. order dt.11.02.2020 + Division No.1, Jalandhar +5 (d) FIR No.177 of 2019, under Section 279, PW on bail vide + 420, 419, 411 IPC and Section 61/1/14 of order dt.13.12.2019 + Excise Act, registered at P.S. Division + No.8, Jalandhar +5(e) FIR No.94 of 2020, under Section 160, PW on bail vide + 427, 452, 506, 148, 149 IPC, registered at order dt.13.08.2020 + P.S. Division No.1, Jalandhar +5(f) FIR no.180 dt.14.11.2019 u/s 307, 379B, PW on bail vide + 160, 148, 149, 326, 323, 324 IPC and order dt.22.05.2020 + Section 13-3-67 of Gambling Act, + registered at P.S. Division No.6, Jalandhar +5(g) FIR No.30 of 2018, u/s 21, 22, 29 of NDPS Bail out on + Act, registered at P.S. Patara, Jalandhar 05.10.2018 + + + + + 4 of 9 + + Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030364 + + + + +CRWP-344-2025 + + + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_94279627.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_94279627.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..58b2e5ce68605e7b3180db7fd96f0b2b1e786f42 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_94279627.html @@ -0,0 +1,429 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Mukesh vs State on 5 November, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Order + +05/11/2020 + All the above mentioned bail applications shall stand decided + +by this common order as they arise out of same FIR. + +

The present bail applications have been filed under Section + +439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners who are in custody in + +connection with F.I.R. No.252/2020, Police Station Dovada, District + +Dungarpur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, + +394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B of I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12431/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 436, 394, + +384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of + +the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.11515/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, + +384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B of the I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.11861/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 384, + +284, 269, 270, 283 & 336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of + +P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11865/2020), + +under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 436, 394, 284, 269, 270, 283, + +336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11867/2020), under Sections + + (5 of 7) [CRLMB-12431/2020 + a/w connected nmatters] + + +147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, 384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336, + +120-B of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12205/2020), under Sections + +147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B + +of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. + +Bail Application No.12207/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, + +341, 394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 383, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and + +under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail + +Application No.12210/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, + +394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12433/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, + +284, 269, 270, 283, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 + +of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12436/2020). +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_94281150.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_94281150.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c82fd30075686a2e019f49804957f433fc7e2b4d --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_94281150.html @@ -0,0 +1,369 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Shailesh vs State Of U.P. on 10 January, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
These applications for bail have been filed by applicants Shailesh, Kuldeep, Nardev, Teetu and Govinda seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 311 of 2021, under sections 147, 148, 302, 34, 120B, 2016 IPC, Police Station- Pilakhua, District Hapur during pendency of trial. +
+
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43082 of 2021 (Shailesh Vs. State of U.P.) came up for orders on 7.2.2022 and this Court passed the following order: +
+
"Heard Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. R.P. Singh and Vishal Singh, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Deepak Rana, learned counsel for informant. +
+
+ +
+ +
These applications for bail have been filed by applicants Shailesh, Kuldeep, Nardev, Teetu and Govinda seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 311 of 2021, under sections 147, 148, 302, 34, 120B, 2016 IPC, Police Station- Pilakhua, District Hapur during pendency of trial. +
+
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43082 of 2021 (Shailesh Vs. State of U.P.) came up for orders on 7.2.2022 and this Court passed the following order: +
+
"Heard Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. R.P. Singh and Vishal Singh, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Deepak Rana, learned counsel for informant. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_94352874.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_94352874.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b9d5235e5ddc0faf53ac66c0bcf42a68d3a8ad18 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_94352874.html @@ -0,0 +1,404 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Pasumarthi Venkata Satyanarayana ... vs The Assistant Director, Enforcement ... on 6 May, 2021 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

12. With regard to burden or proof on the person charged as +envisaged in section 24 of the Act, the Supreme Court has held +that section 45 of the PMLA Act only speaks of the scheduled +offense in Part-A of the Schedule, whereas section 24 speaks of +the offence of money laundering, and raises a presumption +against the person prosecuted for the crime of money laundering + + + + R/CR.MA/2774/2021 JUDGMENT + + + +and such presumption has no application to the scheduled +offence mentioned in section 45 of the PMLA Act. In the present +case, the applicant is charged with scheduled offences as +defined under section 2(u) of the Act. An F.I.R is registered +for the offence under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B of the +IPC which are specified in Paragraph No.2 of Part-A. The +maximum punishment prescribed for the offences for which the +applicant is charged is seven years. The applicant has been +granted bail for the IPC offences on the condition of +depositing Rs.50,00,000/-. +

+
+ +
+ +

13. It is the case of the Enforcement Directorate that the +applicant has illegally gained the aforesaid amount of +Rs.2,70,0000/- by fallaciously inflating the numbers of +circulation of the newspapers. Prima facie, from the documents +on record, including the allegations leveled in the F.I.R. +reveal that it appears that the applicant has gained +Rs.70,00,000/-, by cheating the Government and has gained an +amount of Rs.2,00,00000/- by cheating private advertisement +agencies. It is also not disputed that no complaint has been +filed by the private agencies alleging illegal cheating against +the applicant. No private agency has come forward claiming +illegal gains by the applicant from their private contracts. +Such agencies are also not made co-accused. After the +investigation, the properties to the tune of Rs.4 Crores are +also attached. Though, the factum of release on bail in the +I.P.C. / Scheduled offence cannot be a prime consideration of +release for the offence of money laundering under the Act, the +conditions imposed in the order of bail which are not adverse +to the interest of the State cannot be ignored. The Coordinate +Bench of this Court, while granting bail to the applicant for +the offence punishable under Section 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B +of the IPC has observed in para-5(iv), (vi) thus : +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_95315616.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_95315616.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..64502cabc432f86c63a02af643ae3ef4a2c7f271 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_95315616.html @@ -0,0 +1,522 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sri C R Marulappa vs State Of Karnataka on 8 September, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. The accused Nos.4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are the + +petitioners, have approached this Court seeking anticipatory + +bail in Crime No.45/2023 of Holalkere Police Station, + +Chitradurga District. +

+

+

2. It is the case of the prosecution that, Sri.Praveen + +K.H-complainant stated to be the adopted son of his aunt + +Smt.S.Veenakumari. On 28.01.2023 at about 4.30 p.m., the + +said Smt.S.Veenakumari died. The relatives of the husband of + +Smt.S.Veenakumari took the dead body for cremation at their + +native place. The complainant and his family members also + +participated in the cremation and came back to their village. + +On 08.02.2023 at about 11.00 a.m., the complainant and his + +family members were invited to talk about the further + +ceremony of the deceased. Instead of going to the place where + +the accused suggested talking about the ceremony, it is stated + +that the complainant and his father and mother were standing + +in the vicinity of Kote Nanjappa College at Holalkere. There, + +the accused stated to have assaulted all three persons. The + +overt act of each accused has been narrated in the complaint. + +After the incident, the complainant lodged a complaint against + +all the accused, the jurisdictional police have registered a case + + + + + +in Crime No.45/2023 for the offences punishable under + +Sections 504, 323, 354, 307, 506 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal +Code (for short 'IPC'). All the petitioners have obtained + +anticipatory bail in Crime No.45/2023. Subsequently, the + +mother of the complainant stated to have died on 19.05.2023 + +after the lapse of three months. Therefore, the police have + +made a requisition to the jurisdictional Magistrate to + +incorporate Section 302 of IPC against the petitioners. Hence, + +the petitioners approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail + +for the above-said offence. +

+
+ +
+

+

12. To fortify my view, it is necessary to rely on the + +judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRADEEP + +RAM v. STATE OF JHARKHAND1, para Nos.24, 29 and 31, which + +reads thus: +

+

+

"24. One of the judgments, which needs to be + noticed in the above reference is Hamida v. Rashid. + In the above case, the accused was granted bail for + the offences under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC. + The victim succumbed to his injuries in the night + intervening 16-6-2005 and 17-6-2005. The offence + thereafter was converted into Section 304 IPC. An + + + (2019) 17 SCC 326 + + + + + +application was filed in the High Court by the accused +to permit them to remain on same bail even after +conversion of the offence into one under Section 304 +IPC, which was allowed by the High Court. The +complainant filed an appeal by special leave in this +Court against the judgment of the Allahabad High +Court. This Court allowed the appeal and set aside +the order of the High Court and directed the accused +to be taken into custody with liberty to apply for bail +for the offences for which he was charged before +proper court in accordance with law. This Court +further held that the accused could apply for bail +afresh after the offence had been converted into one +under Section 304 IPC. This Court laid down the +following in paras 10, 11 and 12 : (SCC pp. 479-80) + "10. In the case in hand, the respondent- +
+
+ +
+

accused could apply for bail afresh after the + offence had been converted into one under + Section 304 IPC. They deliberately did not do + so and filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC + in order to circumvent the procedure + whereunder they would have been required to + surrender as the bail application could be + entertained and heard only if the accused + were in custody. It is important to note that + no order adverse to the respondent-accused + had been passed by any court nor was there + any miscarriage of justice or any illegality. In + such circumstances, the High Court committed + manifest error of law in entertaining a petition + under Section 482 CrPC and issuing a + direction to the subordinate court to accept + + + + + +the sureties and bail bonds for the offence +under Section 304 IPC. The effect of the order +passed by the High Court is that the accused +after getting bail in an offence under Sections +324, 352 and 506 IPC on the very day on +which they were taken into custody, got an +order of bail in their favour even after the +injured had succumbed to his injuries and the +case had been converted into one under +Section 304 IPC without any court examining +the case on merits, as it stood after +conversion of the offence. The procedure laid +down for grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC, +though available to the respondent-accused, +having not been availed of, the exercise of +power by the High Court under Section 482 +CrPC is clearly illegal and the impugned order +passed by it has to be set aside. +

+
+ +
+

11. The learned counsel for the appellant has +submitted that charge under Section 302 IPC +has been framed against the respondent- +

accused by the trial court and some +subsequent orders were passed by the High +Court by which the accused were ordered to +remain on bail for the offence under Section +302 read with Section 34 IPC on furnishing +fresh sureties and bail bonds only on the +ground that they were on bail in the offence +under Section 304 IPC. These orders also +deserve to be set aside on the same ground. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_95691477.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_95691477.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fbdf4b7bd485fd486cdebeb14156b0a87e8f7b4e --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_95691477.html @@ -0,0 +1,455 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Gaurav Kumar @ Gautam Kumar @ Gaurav ... vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
The petitioner is in custody for about 4 years. + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 665 of 2023 + + The instant Revision is filed by CICL himself, + + challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order, + + dated 9th of August, 2023, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2023 + + by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum- + + Children's Court, Banka. The CICL was arrested in connection + + with Banduwa Kurawa P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023, corresponding + + to G.R. No. 1202 of 2023, for the offences punishable under + + Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 + + of the Arms Act. However, later on, Sections 34 of the IPC and + + Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section + + 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes + + (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added. Prayer for + + bail of the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Appeal in + + exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Juvenile + + Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter + + referred to as 'said Act') vide order, dated 15th of June, 2023. + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + Reg. Cr. Revision No. 687 of 2023 + + The petitioner/CICL was arrested in connection + + with Fesar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, + + 325, 307, 34, 504, 506 and 379 of the IPC along with his father + + and uncle. The petitioner prayed for regular bail before the JJB, + + Aurangabad. In JJB Case No. 932 of 2023, prayer for bail was + + rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 41 + + of 2023 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children's Court, + + Aurangabad. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal + + and affirmed the order of the JJB. The petitioner has assailed the + + said order of the Appellate Court on various grounds, specially + + on the ground that the father and uncle of the petitioner have + + already been granted bail for the same offence. + +
+
+ +
+

Reg. Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2024 + Patna High Court CR. REV. No.613 of 2023 dt.04-04-2024 + + + + + + The petitioner was booked along with other major + + accused persons in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 237 of + + 2022, dated 13th of August, 2022, under Section 302 and 34 of + + the IPC. The petitioner being a CICL prayed for bail before the + + Juvenile Justice Board, but his prayer for bail was rejected. He + + preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the said Act before the + + learned Special Judge, Children's Court and the said appeal was + + also dismissed and the order of rejection of bail passed by the + + JJB was affirmed. It is stated by the petitioner that the accused + + persons who are major, namely, Sushil Kumar Yadav and Anil + + Yadav were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on + + 26th of April, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 4091 of 2023. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_96208411.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_96208411.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2fcf5dfe9d126228a4a0e45dba00fd230d1fb826 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_96208411.html @@ -0,0 +1,429 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ganesh vs State on 5 November, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

Order + +05/11/2020 + All the above mentioned bail applications shall stand decided + +by this common order as they arise out of same FIR. + +

The present bail applications have been filed under Section + +439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners who are in custody in + +connection with F.I.R. No.252/2020, Police Station Dovada, District + +Dungarpur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, + +394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B of I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12431/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 436, 394, + +384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of + +the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.11515/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, + +384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B of the I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.11861/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 384, + +284, 269, 270, 283 & 336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of + +P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11865/2020), + +under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 436, 394, 284, 269, 270, 283, + +336 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11867/2020), under Sections + + (5 of 7) [CRLMB-12431/2020 + a/w connected nmatters] + + +147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, 384, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336, + +120-B of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In + +Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12205/2020), under Sections + +147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336 & 120-B + +of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 of P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. + +Bail Application No.12207/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, + +341, 394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 383, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and + +under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail + +Application No.12210/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, + +394, 436, 284, 269, 270, 283, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and under + +Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12433/2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 436, + +284, 269, 270, 283, 336, 120-B of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 + +of the P.D.P.P. Act (In Criminal Misc. Bail Application + +No.12436/2020). +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_96713847.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_96713847.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..492585adfb1de51c8bcb1f74913c58e716c9be5b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_96713847.html @@ -0,0 +1,383 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sikendar Khan vs Decd.Hussain Khan Thru.Lrs.Ikbal on 29 July, 2015 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

C.c. as per Rules. +

+
                                                   (Mrs.    S.R.
+Waghmare)
+sumathi                                         Judge
+
+
+
+
+
+          08/07/2015
+

Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned Counsel for + the appellant. +

233 +

Shri 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. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_96740311.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_96740311.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..409cb041c97c6b374c19353e21d8bdab25266f35 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_96740311.html @@ -0,0 +1,449 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Birendra Paswan vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 15 March, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ 9 +

14. Thus, it is submitted by Mr. Ganguly that the learned Magistrate + +also cannot review its own order granting interim bail in favour of + +petitioner on 26th April, 2022 and subsequently cancelling the order on + +30th April, 2022. +

+

15. Mr. Ganguly further submits that the learned Magistrate absolutely + +misconstrued the ratio of Pradeep Ram vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. + +reported in (2019) 17 SCC 326. +

+

16. Next limb of argument advance by Mr. Ganguly is that the learned + +Magistrate completely misdirected himself while holding that offence + +under Section 409 of the IPC is graver offence than offence under Section + +406 of the IPC and therefore following Pradeep Ram (supra) decision + +interim bail of the petitioner was liable to be canceled. It is submitted by + +Mr. Ganguly that Section 409 of the IPC prescribes punishment with + +imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a + +term which may extend to ten years, and also fine. Section 467 of the IPC + +prescribes similar punishment for the offence of forgery of valuable + +security, will etc. In the instant case, Dakshineswar Police Station Case + +No.3 of 2022 was registered against the petitioner under Section 467 of + +the IPC along with other penal provisions. The learned Magistrate while + +releasing the accused on interim bail considered that the accused was + +charged with an offence under Section 467 of the IPC which prescribes + +punishment for imprisonment of life or imprisonment for a period which + +may extend to ten years and also with fine. Thus, introduction of Section + +409 of the IPC did not constitute allegation of graver offence which was + + + + +the basic reason of cancellation of bail by the learned Magistrate. Thus, + +the order dated 30th April, 2022 is also erroneous and liable to be set + +aside. +

+
+ +
+

25. The petitioner carries on business of purchasing and selling scrape + +iron materials. Thus, he is held to be a "merchant" within the meaning of + +Section 409 IPC and the learned Magistrate has not committed any error + +in adding Section 409 IPC against the accused. +

+

26. Now, comes the question as to whether the learned Magistrate was + +justified in cancelling the order of interim bail granted in favour of the + +petitioner and issuing warrant of arrest against the accused/petitioner. + +This court is in conformity with the observation made by the learned + +Magistrate that Section 409 IPC is graver offence in comparison to Section + +406, if gravity of offence is considered in terms of the severity of + +punishment. At the same time, this Court agrees with the submission + +made by the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner + +was facing investigation under the charge of Section 467 of the IPC from + +the very beginning which also prescribes imprisonment for life or + +imprisonment which may extend to ten years and also fine. Therefore, on + +the date of granting interim bail the petitioner was facing investigation of + +a criminal case which is punishable with the similar punishment as that + +of Section 409 IPC. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_97529164.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_97529164.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5ffcf671cd1664c1ff2f48db9017c72d809cd6e2 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_97529164.html @@ -0,0 +1,386 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + A.Kamala vs The State on 9 August, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

27. The detenu is in remand in CCB, CCD-I Crime No.158 of 2024 + + and he has moved Bail Application in the above case before the Court of + + Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB and CBCID. Cases in Sl.No.608 of 2024 + + and the bail petition were pending on the date of passing the Detention Order. + + Since in the similar case in CCB Crime No.66 of 2023 under Sections 420 + + IPC @ 406, 420, 465, 468, read with 120(B) of IPC, bail was granted to the + + accused concerned in a similar case, the Detaining Authority has inferred that + + + +https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis + + + it is very likely of the detenu will be released on bail in the ground case at the + + time of disposal of pending bail application. The bail order in a similar case + + has been considered and discussed on the grounds of detention only with a + + view to justifying the possibility of the detenu being released on bail in the + + ground case at the time of disposal of the pending bail application. Hence, the + + Detaining Authority has raised his apprehension on the grounds of detention. + + + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_98032900.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_98032900.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..be447885979bf17da1a3e31af776f97a4e7e572d --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_98032900.html @@ -0,0 +1,2203 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sri Nannapaneni Chalapathi Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 34, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

+

Sri Nannapaneni Chalapathi Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025

+ +
        THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
+
+
+CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475,
+
+ 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839,
+
+                     5920 and 9083 of 2024
+
+
+COMMON ORDER:
+ + +

Crl.P.No.5197 of 2024 + + + This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A32 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

2

+ + + + +

2. Sri N. Harinadh, learned Counsel for petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, + +learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- + +State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.4896 of 2024 + + +

3. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A46 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

4. Sri Mukkamalla Rama Swamy, the learned counsel for + +petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + 3 + + + + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5230 of 2024 + + +

5. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A35 and A51 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

6. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + 4 + + + + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5256 of 2024 + + +

7. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A43 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

8. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + 5 + + + + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.5367 of 2024 + + +

9. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A4 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

10. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 6 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5475 of 2024 + + +

11. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A64 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

12. Sri Karanki Yaswanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, the learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

7

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5487 of 2024 + + +

13. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A47 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

14. Ms.P.Srilatha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 8 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5503 of 2024 + + +

15. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A19 and A20 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

16. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 9 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5550 of 2024 + + +

17. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A2, A16, A37 and A45 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

18. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

10

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5553 of 2024 + + +

19. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A7 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

20. Sri Peta Gnana Teja, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 11 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5585 of 2024 + + +

21. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A1 and A67 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

22. Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

12

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5652 of 2024 + + +

23. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A15 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

24. Sri Chalasani Venkat, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

13

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5718 of 2024 + + +

25. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A8, A22, A36 and A68 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

26. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 14 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5724 of 2024 + + +

27. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A3 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

28. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

15

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5752 of 2024 + + +

29. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A31, A53 and A65 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime + +No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna + +District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections + +143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) + +of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

30. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

16

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5839 of 2024 + + +

31. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A55 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

32. Sri B.V Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 17 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5920 of 2024 + + +

33. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A6, A13, A14, A17, A27, A28, A30, A39, A42, A52, + +A54, A56, A61 and A69 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

34. Ms.V.Devi Satya Sri, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

18

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.9083 of 2024 + + +

35. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A75 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

36. Sri G.L.Nageswar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor + +appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments. + + +

37. In all the above bail petitions, detailed counters were filed + +by the respondent-State. +

19

+ + + + +

38. All these criminal petitions pertain to Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station. By these petitions these + +accused pray for pre-arrest bail. All these petitions were heard + +together and by this common order they shall be disposed of. + +The crime incident allegedly occurred on 20.02.2023. Upon a + +written information dated 22.02.2023 F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was + +registered. The scene of offence was Telugu Desam Party office, + +Gannavaram. Sri Mudunuri Satyavardhan belonging to Madiga + +caste, which is a scheduled caste, was computer operator + +working in Telugu Desam Party office and living in the said office. + + +

39. During the time when this crime incident allegedly occurred + +the party in power was YSR Congress Party. Investigation + +commenced and went on for some time. Thereafter there were + +general elections and the then opposition party/Telugu Desam + +Party came into power. Thereafter investigation continued + +further. The allegations and counter allegations in this case + +disclosed the rift between both the political parties. Petitioners + +contend that this is a case falsely alleged against them out of + +political vendetta. According to State, for political reasons there + +was inadequate investigation soon after commission of the + +offence. By the time this crime incident occurred Sri Vallabhaneni + 20 + + + + +Vamsi Mohan was Member of Legislative Assembly for + +Gannavaram Assembly Constituency. He is one of the accused + +in the present crime. +

+

+

40. The version of the prosecution is that on 18.02.2023 during + +afternoon hours a press meet was held by Sri Vallabhaneni + +Vamsi Mohan wherein he allegedly made certain insulting + +remarks as against Sri N.Chandrababu Naidu, Sri Nara Lokesh + +and their family members and used indecent language. In + +response to it, certain leaders of Telugu Desam Party conducted + +a press meeting on 19.02.2023 in the morning hours and + +condemned the statements made by the opponent political party + +people. +

+

+

41. In the above backdrop of facts, the crime incident allegedly + +occurred. It is stated that on 20.02.2023 at about 5:00 P.M. + +Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan went to Telugu Desam Party + +office and on noticing followers of Telugu Desam Party he caused + +enquiries about Mr. Pattabhi of Telugu Desam Party and warned + +them that they would finish Telugu Desam Party and left the + +place. +

21

+ + + + +

42. In the next 30 minutes at about 5:30 P.M. about 100 + +persons belonging to YSR Congress Party came to Telugu + +Desam Party office wielding sticks, stones, petrol bottles and + +various other arms and while hailing Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi + +Mohan they attacked the party office. They threw stones, entered + +into the party office and destroyed the furniture, broke two + +computers and two televisions and caused tremendous panic + +among everyone available there. In the first information report + +the de facto complainant was able to mention the names of 44 + +accused. It also made a mention about four named accused who + +came upon him and abused him by his caste name. The further + +case of the prosecution is that these hooligans caused chaos and + +some of them using their sticks and cricket playing wickets + +seriously damaged three cars/AP 39 K 1999, AP 16 DJ 9499 and + +TS 10 EC 4099. It is also stated that one Mr. Rabbani poured + +petrol on the car bearing No.AP 16 DA 5555 and lit fire to it. The + +version of the de facto complainant is that there were police + +people at the Telugu Desam Party office and they remained mute + +spectators. During investigation it was found that some of the + +accused made attempts to burn the party office as walls in one + +room were found with charred marks. +

22

+ + + + +

43. Investigation has been in progress. Some of the accused + +were arrested and were remanded to judicial custody. According + +to prosecution, at least 44 accused were absconding. After + +gaining contact with about 28 accused they were questioned + +about their mobile phones and only seven out of them + +surrendered their mobile phones and 20 of the accused furnished + +false information with regard to the instruments they used and + +their mobile numbers. +

+

+

44. During the investigation, CCTV footage was collected. + +When the crime incident occurred, various people captured it on + +their mobile phones and all such material was collected. Based + +on these investigative efforts, allegations are made against all + +these petitioners by the prosecution that they are all involved in + +this crime incident. +

+

+

45. Broadly stated all these petitioners raised the following + +contentions: +

+

+

 That there was unexplained delay in registration of crime. + + The incident occurred on 20.02.2023 and F.I.R. was + + registered on 22.02.2023. That around the same time and + + place certain incidents occurred which resulted in + 23 + + + + + registration of multiple F.I.Rs. and many of which disclosed + + accusation of criminal acts of followers of Telugu Desam + + Party as against members of YSR Congress Party + + members and this case is in a way a counter blast to Crime + + Nos.132 of 2023 and 133 of 2023. +
+
+  F.I.R. does not contain any allegations of overt acts against + + these petitioners. +
+
+  After change in political party in power witnesses were + + planted and false evidence is created. +
+
+  The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. were bailable and + + many of these petitioners were served with Section 41A + + Cr.P.C. notice. However, after the change of political + + Government police have unlawfully brought additional + + penal provisions to nullify the rightful reliefs available to the + + petitioners. +
+
+

46. Plethora of precedent is cited on behalf of the petitioners + +and on behalf of some of the accused meticulous written + +arguments are filed leaving one to wonder that this to pronounce + +a judgment as if it is one after trial. +

24

+ + + + +

47. The following significant aspects are required to be noticed: + + +

F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was registered for the offences + +punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435 and 506 read with + +149 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989'). Since caste atrocity was one of + +the offences alleged, on the instructions of Superintendent of + +Police, Krishna, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gannavaram + +took up investigation. After recording the statements of about six + +witnesses, the investigation officer found that the provisions of the + +Act, 1989 were not applicable. Therefore, he applied to the + +Superintendent of Police to accord permission to delete those + +provisions. By proceedings dated 04.07.2023 the Superintendent + +of Police granted such permission. Investigation went further and + +scores of witnesses were examined. Thereafter by way of an + +alteration memo dated 07.08.2024 the investigation agency got + +added Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989. It + +also added Sections 436, 450 and 452 I.P.C. It is also to be + +noticed that in this case so far there are 71 accused. + 25 + + + + +

48. Since in the present crime incident not only offences under + +the Indian Penal Code but also offences under the Act, 1989 are + +alleged, the forceful argument raised by the State is that + +anticipatory bail petitions are not maintainable by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. The further argument is + +that the High Court does not now possess concurrent original + +jurisdiction for bails as well as anticipatory bails and it has only + +appellate jurisdiction by virtue of Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and + +therefore, these petitions are to be dismissed. In such + +circumstances, this Court on 13.11.2024 requested the learned + +counsels on both sides to address arguments in that regard since + +the jurisdictional bar has arisen. +

+

+

49. Valiant submissions are made by the learned counsels for + +petitioners wherein references are made to Sections 18 and 18A + +of the Act, 1989 and precedent is cited to show that if there is no + +prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989 is + +made out, anticipatory bail could be considered. It is also argued + +that this Court in these petitions during hearing granted interim + +protection and therefore, the same may be made absolute since + +these petitioners have not violated anything thereafter. + 26 + + + + +

50. The point that falls for consideration is: + + +

"What is the effect of Section 14A of the Scheduled + + Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the concurrent original + + jurisdiction of the High Court in considering bails + + and anticipatory bails where offences under the Act, + + 1989 are involved? +
+
+POINT: +
+
+

51. Offences under the Act, 1989 can be taken cognizance of + +and tried and be disposed of by Special Courts and Exclusive + +Special Courts as provided in Section 14 of the Act, 1989. Those + +Courts since now empowered to take cognizance hold power to + +take remand of the accused and consider bails. There is no + +provision in the Act, 1989 adverting to the aspects that are to be + +considered by those Courts when they entertain bail petitions. + +Therefore, those Courts draw their powers from the Code of + +Criminal Procedure. Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal + +Procedure is headed as provisions as to bail and bonds. It + +consists of Sections 436 to 450. They refer to bail in cases of + +bailable offences and bail in cases of non-bailable offences. + 27 + + + + +Section 438 Cr.P.C. is given heading direction for grant of bail to + +person apprehending arrest. To the extent the said provision is + +required alone is extracted here: +

+
"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending + arrest: +
+
(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be + arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- +

bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the + Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the + event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that + Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the + following factors, namely:- +

+
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; + +
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to + whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on + conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; + +
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and + +
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of + injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so + arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an + interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail: + +
Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, + the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order + under this sub-Section or has rejected the application for + grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer + 28 + + + + + incharge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the + applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in + such application." +
+

52. Thus, as per the above provision, those accused who + +anticipate their arrest may seek pre-arrest bail and they could + +move such applications either before this Court or before the + +Court of Sessions. It is in the light of such a provision the + +petitioners have straightaway moved this Court for their prayers + +for pre-arrest bail. +

+

+

53. The first submission of the State is that in cases of caste + +atrocities anticipatory bails cannot be maintained by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. Those provisions read as + +below: +

+

+

"18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons + committing an offence under the Act.-- Nothing in + section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case + involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of + having committed an offence under this Act. + + 18A. No enquiry or approval required.--(1) For the + purposes of this Act,-- (a) preliminary enquiry shall not be + required for registration of a First Information Report against + any person; or + 29 + + + + +
(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the + arrest, if necessary, of any person, + + against whom an accusation of having committed an + offence under this Act has been made and no procedure + other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall + apply. +
+
(2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply + to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or + order or direction of any Court." +
+

54. The crisp response from the learned counsels for the + +petitioners is that the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would + +apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist + +pointing towards the commission of an offence under the Act, + +1989. If the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under + +the Act, 1989 are not disclosed on the prima facie reading of the + +allegations levelled in the complaint or F.I.R. then in such + +circumstances, the bar of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would not + +apply and the Courts would not be absolutely precluded from + +granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons. In justification of + +this argument they cited ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + +India in Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala1. + +1 + 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601 + 30 + + + + +

55. If one goes by the contentions of the learned counsel for + +petitioners this Court is to take a view whether the allegations in + +the F.I.R./written information of the de facto complainant prima + +facie disclose caste atrocity or not. However, according to the + +State, even such a view cannot be taken by this Court by virtue of + +interdict contained in Section 14A of the Act, 1989. Therefore, it + +is required to notice what this provision says. The provision reads + +as below: +

+

+

"14A. Appeals:--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained + in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an + appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not + being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an + Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and + on law. +
+
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section + (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, + 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court + against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive + Special Court granting or refusing bail. + + (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for + the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall + be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of + the judgment, sentence or order appealed from: Provided + that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry + of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the + 31 + + + + + appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal + within the period of ninety days: Provided further that no + appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of + one hundred and eighty days. +
+
(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far + as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months + from the date of admission of the appeal." + +

56. As per Sub-Section (2) of Section 14Aof the Act, the + +petitions for bail are to be considered by the Special Court and in + +the event of their granting or refusing to grant such bails the + +aggrieved can prefer an appeal before this Court. Thus, the + +concurrent jurisdiction for consideration of anticipatory bails + +provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C. stood excluded. It is not as + +though the aggrieved is deprived of all the remedies. After + +inviting an order on the bail petition from the Special Court the + +aggrieved is entitled to prefer an appeal before this Court in terms + +of Section 14A of the Act, 1989. In the case at hand, the + +petitioners have moved bail petitions straightaway before this + +Court. At any rate, what is before this Court is not an appeal + +against an order passed by the Special Court with reference to + +bails. It shall be stated that on the same subject matter High + +Court could not be said to possess concurrent original jurisdiction + 32 + + + + +as well as appellate jurisdiction. If one is to state that a bail is + +different from anticipatory bail the result is that in anticipatory + +bails this Court holds original jurisdiction and in regular bails it + +holds only appellate jurisdiction. Assuming that in a case a + +petition for anticipatory bail being moved before the Special Court + +resulted in dismissal, then according to the logic applied by the + +petitioners the petitions would have to move only another bail + +petition before this Court and not an appeal. Such logic is in + +violation of what is clearly provided in Section 14A of the Act, + +1989. It is to be seen that the question of bail presupposes + +detention or custody of the person. In a case where a person is + +arrested he prays for a regular bail. In cases of anticipatory bail + +in the event of granting the relief, it has no effect unless and until + +the accused is arrested. In other words, the order of anticipatory + +bail comes into effect only after a person is arrested and not + +otherwise. In contrast to regular bail, in cases of anticipatory bail + +the order is obtained in advance. In regular bails it was obtained + +after arrest. The timing at which a prayer is made, and an order + +is granted, have no relevance when it comes to operation of + +those orders as in both the cases they come into operation only in + +those cases where a person is arrested. In such view of the + 33 + + + + +matter the word bail used in Section 14A of the Act, 1989 + +encompasses regular bail as well as anticipatory bail. Therefore, + +it must be stated that an application for bail or anticipatory bail + +can be filed only before the Special Court or the Exclusive + +Special Court as the case may be and not before the High Court. + +An order granting or refusing bail or anticipatory bail by the + +Special Court or Exclusive Special Court can be assailed before + +this Court invoking its appellate jurisdiction provided in Section + +14A of the Act, 1989. This Court had deliberated these aspects + +on earlier occasions when similar questions were raised and it + +reached to the same conclusions and reference can be made to + +the following: +

+

+

1. Nakka Nagireddy v. State of A.P.2 + + +
2. Deepak Kumar Tala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh3. + + +

57. Similar conclusions were reached at by other High Courts. + +Reference can be made to the following: +

+

+

1. K.M.Basheer v. Rajani K.T.4 + +2 + 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5322 Order dated 11.11.2024 +3 + Order dated 22.10.2024 in Criminal Petition No.6487 of 2024 +4 + 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 472 + 34 + + + + +
2. Lokesh v. State of Karnataka5 + + +
3. In re Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 v. Nil6 + + +
4. Atul Rajput v. The State of Madhya Pradesh7 + + +

58. At the bar, for petitioners, Abhishek Awasthi v. State of + +U.P.8 is cited. That is a case where other subsections of Section + +14A of the Act, 1989 fell for consideration and the powers of the + +High Court were considered under Section 482 of Code of + +Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings. + +Finally, it was held that with a view to prevent the misuse or + +abuse of the Court or law, the High Court holds inherent + +jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. + +Such question is not available before this Court. Even otherwise + +a brief reference to what was stated by their Lordships in Shajan + +Skaria's case9 would be sufficient here. At paragraph No.49 their + +Lordships stated that if the accused puts forward the case of + +malicious prosecution on account of political or private vendetta + +5 + 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15742 +6 + 2018 SCC OnLine ALL 2087 +7 + Order dated 10.04.2024 in Crl.A.No.3261 of 2024 of the High Court of +Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur +8 + MANU/UP/4595/2024 + 35 + + + + +such aspects can be considered only by the High Court in + +exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code or + +in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the + +Constitution of India. However, powers under Section 438 of the + +Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised once the + +contents of the complaint/F.I.R. disclose a prima facie case. In + +fact, in that case Section 14A of the Act, 1989 did not come up for + +consideration since the anticipatory bail petition was first moved + +before the trial Court and as against those orders appeal was + +preferred before the High Court. +

+

+

59. The plethora of precedent cited before this Court is not with + +reference to Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and therefore any + +reference to those cherished principles of those rulings is not + +required. This Court refrains from delving into other facts and the + +principles of law governing anticipatory bails since any such + +discussion may unnecessarily prejudice the contentions of both + +sides when appropriate applications are filed before appropriate + +Courts for the reliefs or when the maters come up before this + +Court in appeal. +

+

9 + Supra 1 + 36 + + + + +

60. Learned counsel for petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5920 + +of 2024 argued that this very Bench on earlier occasions + +considered and granted anticipatory bail and therefore, the same + +benefit can be extended to the present petitioners. The attention + +of this Court is brought to Sri Settipalli Raghurami Reddy v. + +The State of Andhra Pradesh10 and Julakanti Brahma Reddy + +@ Brahma Nanda Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 11. In + +both those matters the question about Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 was never raised by either side and therefore, there was no + +occasion for this Court to express itself on that aspect of the + +matter. After those orders it was in October and November 2024 + +only this Court had occasion to consider Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 and accordingly decided the earlier referred Nakka + +Nagireddy's case12 and Deepak Kumar Tala's case13. + +Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions of the learned + +counsel for the petitioners. +

+

+

61. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition + +No.5920 of 2024 further argued that the investigating agency is + +10 + Order dated 23.07.2024 in Criminal Petition No.3807 of 2024 +11 + Order dated 13.08.2024 in Criminal Petition No.10005 of 2023 +12 + supra 2 +13 + supra 3 + 37 + + + + +not entitled to add new penal provisions and cited State of + +Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde14. That was a case + +where on written information police registered a crime and + +investigating into it and filed charge sheet specifying certain penal + +provisions. At that stage the informant filed a petition to add + +Sections 364, 394 and 398 I.P.C. The question arose about the + +powers of the Magistrate at that stage as to whether he can + +incorporate those penal provisions as requested by the informant + +in a charge sheet filed by the police. Their Lordships stated that + +allowing incorporation of new provisions into the charge sheet as + +requested by the written informant at that stage is impermissible. + +However, the Court which is to try the case has to consider the + +first information report and all the other material collected and + +take a decision to frame appropriate charges under all the + +relevant penal provisions. Thus, the cited ruling has no relevance + +to the present case at hand. In the case at hand, the + +investigating police, exercising their right of investigation, have + +found it appropriate that the material on record do attract various + +provisions which were not originally mentioned in the F.I.R. Such + +power cannot be questioned. Informant would only put forth the + +14 + AIR 2014 SC 620 + 38 + + + + +facts before the registering officer and the Station House Officer + +on receiving such information using his own diligence + +incorporates the relevant penal provisions in the F.I.R. During + +investigation certain facts may be found incorrect and certain new + +facts may have been discovered and certain new accused may + +have been found having connection with the crime. There can be + +no legal hurdle in that regard since investigation is a voyage of + +truth. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsels for + +petitioners that provisions under the Act, 1989 were brought into + +effect during investigation and therefore have to be discarded is + +an argument that cannot be sustained. It may be recorded here + +that even to begin with in the case at hand the F.I.R. mentioned + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989. At the present also + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989 are alleged by the + +prosecution. Simply because at one stage such penal provisions + +were dropped does not mean that at a later stage they cannot be + +brought in. The argument that the new addition was not granted + +by the Superintendent of Police cannot be countenanced since + +the method of investigation is sole prerogative of the investigation + +officer. For the above reasons, the point is answered against the + +petitioners. +

39

+ + + + +

62. In the result, all these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. It is + +made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate + +petitions for appropriate reliefs before the appropriate Court. In + +the event such petitions are filed, the Court where they are filed is + +to consider the petitions on judicial side and dispose of them in + +accordance with law. Any observations made herein are confined + +to these petitions and they have no bearing on the merits or + +demerits of the case on either side. +

+

________________________ + Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J +Date: 06.01.2025 +Ivd + 40 + + + + + THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR + + + + +CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475, + 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839, + 5920 and 9083 of 2024 + + + + + Date: 06.01.2025 + + + +Ivd +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_98034926.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_98034926.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6bd210b86a55401ff06a88352b86bbff93fa84f0 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_98034926.html @@ -0,0 +1,371 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Tamilarasi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 July, 2014 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
5. I am aware that Elangovan is in remand in Cantonment +P.S.Cr.No.1357/2013 and has moved bail application before the Sessions Court, +Tiruchirappalli Division in Cr.M.P.No.1557/2013 for Cantonment PS +Cr.No.1357/2013 and the same is pending. In a similar case, registered at +Palakkarai P.S.Cr.No.277/2012 u/s 392 r/w 397 IPC bail was granted to the +accused Elangovan by the in-charge Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli +in Cr.M.P.No.627/2012 on 02.04.2012 who was remanded on 17.03.2012. From this +I draw inference that he (Elangovan) is very likely to be released on bail in +this case. If he comes out on bail he may indulge in such activities again as +well which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further +the recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of +effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are +prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On the materials placed +before me, I am satisfied that Elangovan, son of Arunachalam is a Goonda +and there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him +from indulging in acts which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public +order under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. + +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_98819598.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_98819598.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..21f4d95834244163c2a279204dc44ddf00a0232f --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_98819598.html @@ -0,0 +1,2203 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Olupalli Mohana Ranga Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 34, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

+

Olupalli Mohana Ranga Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 January, 2025

+ +
        THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
+
+
+CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475,
+
+ 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839,
+
+                     5920 and 9083 of 2024
+
+
+COMMON ORDER:
+ + +

Crl.P.No.5197 of 2024 + + + This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A32 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

2

+ + + + +

2. Sri N. Harinadh, learned Counsel for petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, + +learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- + +State submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.4896 of 2024 + + +

3. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A46 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

4. Sri Mukkamalla Rama Swamy, the learned counsel for + +petitioner and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + 3 + + + + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5230 of 2024 + + +

5. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A35 and A51 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

6. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + 4 + + + + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

+

+Crl.P.No.5256 of 2024 + + +

7. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A43 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

8. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + 5 + + + + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + + +Crl.P.No.5367 of 2024 + + +

9. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A4 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

10. Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 6 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5475 of 2024 + + +

11. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A64 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

12. Sri Karanki Yaswanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, the learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

7

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5487 of 2024 + + +

13. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A47 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

14. Ms.P.Srilatha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 8 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5503 of 2024 + + +

15. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A19 and A20 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

16. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 9 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5550 of 2024 + + +

17. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A2, A16, A37 and A45 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

18. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

10

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5553 of 2024 + + +

19. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A7 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

20. Sri Peta Gnana Teja, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 11 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5585 of 2024 + + +

21. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A1 and A67 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

22. Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the + +petitioners and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and + +Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

12

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5652 of 2024 + + +

23. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A15 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

24. Sri Chalasani Venkat, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

13

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5718 of 2024 + + +

25. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A8, A22, A36 and A68 seeking anticipatory bail in + +Crime No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, + +Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under + +Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section + +3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the + +strength of the material collected, altered the provision of law into + +Sections 436, 450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) + +and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes + +(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

26. Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 14 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5724 of 2024 + + +

27. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A3 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 of + +Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered for + +the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, 506 + +read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

28. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

15

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5752 of 2024 + + +

29. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A31, A53 and A65 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime + +No.137 of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna + +District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections + +143, 147, 148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) + +of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

30. Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

16

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.5839 of 2024 + + +

31. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A55 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

32. Sri B.V Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and + +Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri M.Lakshmi + +Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned + +Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State + +submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. + 17 + + + + +Crl.P.No.5920 of 2024 + + +

33. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioners/A6, A13, A14, A17, A27, A28, A30, A39, A42, A52, + +A54, A56, A61 and A69 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 + +of 2023 of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, + +registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, + +148, 435, 506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the + +material collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, + +450, 452 and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of + +Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + +Atrocities) Act, 1989. +

+

+

34. Ms.V.Devi Satya Sri, learned Counsel for the petitioners + +and Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri + +M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai + +Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for + +respondent-State submitted arguments and cited legal + +authorities. +

18

+ + + + +Crl.P.No.9083 of 2024 + + +

35. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya + +Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has been filed by the + +petitioner/A75 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station, Krishna District, registered + +for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435, + +506 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. Thereafter, the police, on the strength of the material + +collected, altered the provision of law into Sections 436, 450, 452 + +and 120B of I.P.C and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989. +

+

+

36. Sri G.L.Nageswar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner + +and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor + +appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments. + + +

37. In all the above bail petitions, detailed counters were filed + +by the respondent-State. +

19

+ + + + +

38. All these criminal petitions pertain to Crime No.137 of 2023 + +of Gannavaram Urban Police Station. By these petitions these + +accused pray for pre-arrest bail. All these petitions were heard + +together and by this common order they shall be disposed of. + +The crime incident allegedly occurred on 20.02.2023. Upon a + +written information dated 22.02.2023 F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was + +registered. The scene of offence was Telugu Desam Party office, + +Gannavaram. Sri Mudunuri Satyavardhan belonging to Madiga + +caste, which is a scheduled caste, was computer operator + +working in Telugu Desam Party office and living in the said office. + + +

39. During the time when this crime incident allegedly occurred + +the party in power was YSR Congress Party. Investigation + +commenced and went on for some time. Thereafter there were + +general elections and the then opposition party/Telugu Desam + +Party came into power. Thereafter investigation continued + +further. The allegations and counter allegations in this case + +disclosed the rift between both the political parties. Petitioners + +contend that this is a case falsely alleged against them out of + +political vendetta. According to State, for political reasons there + +was inadequate investigation soon after commission of the + +offence. By the time this crime incident occurred Sri Vallabhaneni + 20 + + + + +Vamsi Mohan was Member of Legislative Assembly for + +Gannavaram Assembly Constituency. He is one of the accused + +in the present crime. +

+

+

40. The version of the prosecution is that on 18.02.2023 during + +afternoon hours a press meet was held by Sri Vallabhaneni + +Vamsi Mohan wherein he allegedly made certain insulting + +remarks as against Sri N.Chandrababu Naidu, Sri Nara Lokesh + +and their family members and used indecent language. In + +response to it, certain leaders of Telugu Desam Party conducted + +a press meeting on 19.02.2023 in the morning hours and + +condemned the statements made by the opponent political party + +people. +

+

+

41. In the above backdrop of facts, the crime incident allegedly + +occurred. It is stated that on 20.02.2023 at about 5:00 P.M. + +Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan went to Telugu Desam Party + +office and on noticing followers of Telugu Desam Party he caused + +enquiries about Mr. Pattabhi of Telugu Desam Party and warned + +them that they would finish Telugu Desam Party and left the + +place. +

21

+ + + + +

42. In the next 30 minutes at about 5:30 P.M. about 100 + +persons belonging to YSR Congress Party came to Telugu + +Desam Party office wielding sticks, stones, petrol bottles and + +various other arms and while hailing Sri Vallabhaneni Vamsi + +Mohan they attacked the party office. They threw stones, entered + +into the party office and destroyed the furniture, broke two + +computers and two televisions and caused tremendous panic + +among everyone available there. In the first information report + +the de facto complainant was able to mention the names of 44 + +accused. It also made a mention about four named accused who + +came upon him and abused him by his caste name. The further + +case of the prosecution is that these hooligans caused chaos and + +some of them using their sticks and cricket playing wickets + +seriously damaged three cars/AP 39 K 1999, AP 16 DJ 9499 and + +TS 10 EC 4099. It is also stated that one Mr. Rabbani poured + +petrol on the car bearing No.AP 16 DA 5555 and lit fire to it. The + +version of the de facto complainant is that there were police + +people at the Telugu Desam Party office and they remained mute + +spectators. During investigation it was found that some of the + +accused made attempts to burn the party office as walls in one + +room were found with charred marks. +

22

+ + + + +

43. Investigation has been in progress. Some of the accused + +were arrested and were remanded to judicial custody. According + +to prosecution, at least 44 accused were absconding. After + +gaining contact with about 28 accused they were questioned + +about their mobile phones and only seven out of them + +surrendered their mobile phones and 20 of the accused furnished + +false information with regard to the instruments they used and + +their mobile numbers. +

+

+

44. During the investigation, CCTV footage was collected. + +When the crime incident occurred, various people captured it on + +their mobile phones and all such material was collected. Based + +on these investigative efforts, allegations are made against all + +these petitioners by the prosecution that they are all involved in + +this crime incident. +

+

+

45. Broadly stated all these petitioners raised the following + +contentions: +

+

+

 That there was unexplained delay in registration of crime. + + The incident occurred on 20.02.2023 and F.I.R. was + + registered on 22.02.2023. That around the same time and + + place certain incidents occurred which resulted in + 23 + + + + + registration of multiple F.I.Rs. and many of which disclosed + + accusation of criminal acts of followers of Telugu Desam + + Party as against members of YSR Congress Party + + members and this case is in a way a counter blast to Crime + + Nos.132 of 2023 and 133 of 2023. +
+
+  F.I.R. does not contain any allegations of overt acts against + + these petitioners. +
+
+  After change in political party in power witnesses were + + planted and false evidence is created. +
+
+  The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. were bailable and + + many of these petitioners were served with Section 41A + + Cr.P.C. notice. However, after the change of political + + Government police have unlawfully brought additional + + penal provisions to nullify the rightful reliefs available to the + + petitioners. +
+
+

46. Plethora of precedent is cited on behalf of the petitioners + +and on behalf of some of the accused meticulous written + +arguments are filed leaving one to wonder that this to pronounce + +a judgment as if it is one after trial. +

24

+ + + + +

47. The following significant aspects are required to be noticed: + + +

F.I.R.No.137 of 2023 was registered for the offences + +punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 435 and 506 read with + +149 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled + +Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, + +1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989'). Since caste atrocity was one of + +the offences alleged, on the instructions of Superintendent of + +Police, Krishna, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gannavaram + +took up investigation. After recording the statements of about six + +witnesses, the investigation officer found that the provisions of the + +Act, 1989 were not applicable. Therefore, he applied to the + +Superintendent of Police to accord permission to delete those + +provisions. By proceedings dated 04.07.2023 the Superintendent + +of Police granted such permission. Investigation went further and + +scores of witnesses were examined. Thereafter by way of an + +alteration memo dated 07.08.2024 the investigation agency got + +added Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989. It + +also added Sections 436, 450 and 452 I.P.C. It is also to be + +noticed that in this case so far there are 71 accused. + 25 + + + + +

48. Since in the present crime incident not only offences under + +the Indian Penal Code but also offences under the Act, 1989 are + +alleged, the forceful argument raised by the State is that + +anticipatory bail petitions are not maintainable by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. The further argument is + +that the High Court does not now possess concurrent original + +jurisdiction for bails as well as anticipatory bails and it has only + +appellate jurisdiction by virtue of Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and + +therefore, these petitions are to be dismissed. In such + +circumstances, this Court on 13.11.2024 requested the learned + +counsels on both sides to address arguments in that regard since + +the jurisdictional bar has arisen. +

+

+

49. Valiant submissions are made by the learned counsels for + +petitioners wherein references are made to Sections 18 and 18A + +of the Act, 1989 and precedent is cited to show that if there is no + +prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989 is + +made out, anticipatory bail could be considered. It is also argued + +that this Court in these petitions during hearing granted interim + +protection and therefore, the same may be made absolute since + +these petitioners have not violated anything thereafter. + 26 + + + + +

50. The point that falls for consideration is: + + +

"What is the effect of Section 14A of the Scheduled + + Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the concurrent original + + jurisdiction of the High Court in considering bails + + and anticipatory bails where offences under the Act, + + 1989 are involved? +
+
+POINT: +
+
+

51. Offences under the Act, 1989 can be taken cognizance of + +and tried and be disposed of by Special Courts and Exclusive + +Special Courts as provided in Section 14 of the Act, 1989. Those + +Courts since now empowered to take cognizance hold power to + +take remand of the accused and consider bails. There is no + +provision in the Act, 1989 adverting to the aspects that are to be + +considered by those Courts when they entertain bail petitions. + +Therefore, those Courts draw their powers from the Code of + +Criminal Procedure. Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal + +Procedure is headed as provisions as to bail and bonds. It + +consists of Sections 436 to 450. They refer to bail in cases of + +bailable offences and bail in cases of non-bailable offences. + 27 + + + + +Section 438 Cr.P.C. is given heading direction for grant of bail to + +person apprehending arrest. To the extent the said provision is + +required alone is extracted here: +

+
"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending + arrest: +
+
(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be + arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- +

bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the + Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the + event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that + Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the + following factors, namely:- +

+
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; + +
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to + whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on + conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; + +
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and + +
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of + injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so + arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an + interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail: + +
Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, + the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order + under this sub-Section or has rejected the application for + grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer + 28 + + + + + incharge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the + applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in + such application." +
+

52. Thus, as per the above provision, those accused who + +anticipate their arrest may seek pre-arrest bail and they could + +move such applications either before this Court or before the + +Court of Sessions. It is in the light of such a provision the + +petitioners have straightaway moved this Court for their prayers + +for pre-arrest bail. +

+

+

53. The first submission of the State is that in cases of caste + +atrocities anticipatory bails cannot be maintained by virtue of + +Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. Those provisions read as + +below: +

+

+

"18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons + committing an offence under the Act.-- Nothing in + section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case + involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of + having committed an offence under this Act. + + 18A. No enquiry or approval required.--(1) For the + purposes of this Act,-- (a) preliminary enquiry shall not be + required for registration of a First Information Report against + any person; or + 29 + + + + +
(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the + arrest, if necessary, of any person, + + against whom an accusation of having committed an + offence under this Act has been made and no procedure + other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall + apply. +
+
(2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply + to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or + order or direction of any Court." +
+

54. The crisp response from the learned counsels for the + +petitioners is that the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would + +apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist + +pointing towards the commission of an offence under the Act, + +1989. If the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under + +the Act, 1989 are not disclosed on the prima facie reading of the + +allegations levelled in the complaint or F.I.R. then in such + +circumstances, the bar of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would not + +apply and the Courts would not be absolutely precluded from + +granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons. In justification of + +this argument they cited ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of + +India in Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala1. + +1 + 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601 + 30 + + + + +

55. If one goes by the contentions of the learned counsel for + +petitioners this Court is to take a view whether the allegations in + +the F.I.R./written information of the de facto complainant prima + +facie disclose caste atrocity or not. However, according to the + +State, even such a view cannot be taken by this Court by virtue of + +interdict contained in Section 14A of the Act, 1989. Therefore, it + +is required to notice what this provision says. The provision reads + +as below: +

+

+

"14A. Appeals:--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained + in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an + appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not + being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an + Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and + on law. +
+
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section + (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, + 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court + against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive + Special Court granting or refusing bail. + + (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for + the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall + be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of + the judgment, sentence or order appealed from: Provided + that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry + of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the + 31 + + + + + appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal + within the period of ninety days: Provided further that no + appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of + one hundred and eighty days. +
+
(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far + as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months + from the date of admission of the appeal." + +

56. As per Sub-Section (2) of Section 14Aof the Act, the + +petitions for bail are to be considered by the Special Court and in + +the event of their granting or refusing to grant such bails the + +aggrieved can prefer an appeal before this Court. Thus, the + +concurrent jurisdiction for consideration of anticipatory bails + +provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C. stood excluded. It is not as + +though the aggrieved is deprived of all the remedies. After + +inviting an order on the bail petition from the Special Court the + +aggrieved is entitled to prefer an appeal before this Court in terms + +of Section 14A of the Act, 1989. In the case at hand, the + +petitioners have moved bail petitions straightaway before this + +Court. At any rate, what is before this Court is not an appeal + +against an order passed by the Special Court with reference to + +bails. It shall be stated that on the same subject matter High + +Court could not be said to possess concurrent original jurisdiction + 32 + + + + +as well as appellate jurisdiction. If one is to state that a bail is + +different from anticipatory bail the result is that in anticipatory + +bails this Court holds original jurisdiction and in regular bails it + +holds only appellate jurisdiction. Assuming that in a case a + +petition for anticipatory bail being moved before the Special Court + +resulted in dismissal, then according to the logic applied by the + +petitioners the petitions would have to move only another bail + +petition before this Court and not an appeal. Such logic is in + +violation of what is clearly provided in Section 14A of the Act, + +1989. It is to be seen that the question of bail presupposes + +detention or custody of the person. In a case where a person is + +arrested he prays for a regular bail. In cases of anticipatory bail + +in the event of granting the relief, it has no effect unless and until + +the accused is arrested. In other words, the order of anticipatory + +bail comes into effect only after a person is arrested and not + +otherwise. In contrast to regular bail, in cases of anticipatory bail + +the order is obtained in advance. In regular bails it was obtained + +after arrest. The timing at which a prayer is made, and an order + +is granted, have no relevance when it comes to operation of + +those orders as in both the cases they come into operation only in + +those cases where a person is arrested. In such view of the + 33 + + + + +matter the word bail used in Section 14A of the Act, 1989 + +encompasses regular bail as well as anticipatory bail. Therefore, + +it must be stated that an application for bail or anticipatory bail + +can be filed only before the Special Court or the Exclusive + +Special Court as the case may be and not before the High Court. + +An order granting or refusing bail or anticipatory bail by the + +Special Court or Exclusive Special Court can be assailed before + +this Court invoking its appellate jurisdiction provided in Section + +14A of the Act, 1989. This Court had deliberated these aspects + +on earlier occasions when similar questions were raised and it + +reached to the same conclusions and reference can be made to + +the following: +

+

+

1. Nakka Nagireddy v. State of A.P.2 + + +
2. Deepak Kumar Tala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh3. + + +

57. Similar conclusions were reached at by other High Courts. + +Reference can be made to the following: +

+

+

1. K.M.Basheer v. Rajani K.T.4 + +2 + 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5322 Order dated 11.11.2024 +3 + Order dated 22.10.2024 in Criminal Petition No.6487 of 2024 +4 + 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 472 + 34 + + + + +
2. Lokesh v. State of Karnataka5 + + +
3. In re Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 v. Nil6 + + +
4. Atul Rajput v. The State of Madhya Pradesh7 + + +

58. At the bar, for petitioners, Abhishek Awasthi v. State of + +U.P.8 is cited. That is a case where other subsections of Section + +14A of the Act, 1989 fell for consideration and the powers of the + +High Court were considered under Section 482 of Code of + +Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings. + +Finally, it was held that with a view to prevent the misuse or + +abuse of the Court or law, the High Court holds inherent + +jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. + +Such question is not available before this Court. Even otherwise + +a brief reference to what was stated by their Lordships in Shajan + +Skaria's case9 would be sufficient here. At paragraph No.49 their + +Lordships stated that if the accused puts forward the case of + +malicious prosecution on account of political or private vendetta + +5 + 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15742 +6 + 2018 SCC OnLine ALL 2087 +7 + Order dated 10.04.2024 in Crl.A.No.3261 of 2024 of the High Court of +Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur +8 + MANU/UP/4595/2024 + 35 + + + + +such aspects can be considered only by the High Court in + +exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code or + +in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the + +Constitution of India. However, powers under Section 438 of the + +Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised once the + +contents of the complaint/F.I.R. disclose a prima facie case. In + +fact, in that case Section 14A of the Act, 1989 did not come up for + +consideration since the anticipatory bail petition was first moved + +before the trial Court and as against those orders appeal was + +preferred before the High Court. +

+

+

59. The plethora of precedent cited before this Court is not with + +reference to Section 14A of the Act, 1989 and therefore any + +reference to those cherished principles of those rulings is not + +required. This Court refrains from delving into other facts and the + +principles of law governing anticipatory bails since any such + +discussion may unnecessarily prejudice the contentions of both + +sides when appropriate applications are filed before appropriate + +Courts for the reliefs or when the maters come up before this + +Court in appeal. +

+

9 + Supra 1 + 36 + + + + +

60. Learned counsel for petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5920 + +of 2024 argued that this very Bench on earlier occasions + +considered and granted anticipatory bail and therefore, the same + +benefit can be extended to the present petitioners. The attention + +of this Court is brought to Sri Settipalli Raghurami Reddy v. + +The State of Andhra Pradesh10 and Julakanti Brahma Reddy + +@ Brahma Nanda Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 11. In + +both those matters the question about Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 was never raised by either side and therefore, there was no + +occasion for this Court to express itself on that aspect of the + +matter. After those orders it was in October and November 2024 + +only this Court had occasion to consider Section 14A of the Act, + +1989 and accordingly decided the earlier referred Nakka + +Nagireddy's case12 and Deepak Kumar Tala's case13. + +Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions of the learned + +counsel for the petitioners. +

+

+

61. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition + +No.5920 of 2024 further argued that the investigating agency is + +10 + Order dated 23.07.2024 in Criminal Petition No.3807 of 2024 +11 + Order dated 13.08.2024 in Criminal Petition No.10005 of 2023 +12 + supra 2 +13 + supra 3 + 37 + + + + +not entitled to add new penal provisions and cited State of + +Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde14. That was a case + +where on written information police registered a crime and + +investigating into it and filed charge sheet specifying certain penal + +provisions. At that stage the informant filed a petition to add + +Sections 364, 394 and 398 I.P.C. The question arose about the + +powers of the Magistrate at that stage as to whether he can + +incorporate those penal provisions as requested by the informant + +in a charge sheet filed by the police. Their Lordships stated that + +allowing incorporation of new provisions into the charge sheet as + +requested by the written informant at that stage is impermissible. + +However, the Court which is to try the case has to consider the + +first information report and all the other material collected and + +take a decision to frame appropriate charges under all the + +relevant penal provisions. Thus, the cited ruling has no relevance + +to the present case at hand. In the case at hand, the + +investigating police, exercising their right of investigation, have + +found it appropriate that the material on record do attract various + +provisions which were not originally mentioned in the F.I.R. Such + +power cannot be questioned. Informant would only put forth the + +14 + AIR 2014 SC 620 + 38 + + + + +facts before the registering officer and the Station House Officer + +on receiving such information using his own diligence + +incorporates the relevant penal provisions in the F.I.R. During + +investigation certain facts may be found incorrect and certain new + +facts may have been discovered and certain new accused may + +have been found having connection with the crime. There can be + +no legal hurdle in that regard since investigation is a voyage of + +truth. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsels for + +petitioners that provisions under the Act, 1989 were brought into + +effect during investigation and therefore have to be discarded is + +an argument that cannot be sustained. It may be recorded here + +that even to begin with in the case at hand the F.I.R. mentioned + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989. At the present also + +certain penal provisions of the Act, 1989 are alleged by the + +prosecution. Simply because at one stage such penal provisions + +were dropped does not mean that at a later stage they cannot be + +brought in. The argument that the new addition was not granted + +by the Superintendent of Police cannot be countenanced since + +the method of investigation is sole prerogative of the investigation + +officer. For the above reasons, the point is answered against the + +petitioners. +

39

+ + + + +

62. In the result, all these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. It is + +made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate + +petitions for appropriate reliefs before the appropriate Court. In + +the event such petitions are filed, the Court where they are filed is + +to consider the petitions on judicial side and dispose of them in + +accordance with law. Any observations made herein are confined + +to these petitions and they have no bearing on the merits or + +demerits of the case on either side. +

+

________________________ + Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J +Date: 06.01.2025 +Ivd + 40 + + + + + THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR + + + + +CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5197, 4896, 5230, 5256, 5367, 5475, + 5487, 5503, 5550, 5553, 5585, 5652, 5718, 5724, 5752, 5839, + 5920 and 9083 of 2024 + + + + + Date: 06.01.2025 + + + +Ivd +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/IPC_99874784.html b/hc_bulk/IPC_99874784.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..69c31fb832b6f3cb9442de19894c69664037f283 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/IPC_99874784.html @@ -0,0 +1,506 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Annu Das vs State Of West Bengal And Another on 25 April, 2022 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
(a) Upon registration of FIR, inter alia, for commission + +of offence punishable under Section 308 IPC, opposite party + +No.2 appeared before the learned Magistrate on 18.05.2020 + + + + + +and prayed for bail. On the self-same day, she was granted + +interim bail observing as follows :- +
+
"Accused, Rupali Sarkar, lady accused, is not required + for P.C. her custodial detention for purpose of + investigation is not required." +

(b) On the next day i.e. on 19.05.2020, the victim died + +and Section 304 IPC was added to the array of offences on + +27.05.2020. Prosecuting agency prayed for cancellation of + +bail of opposite party no.2 which, however, was not taken up + +for consideration in view of the prevailing pandemic + +conditions. In the meantime, opposite party no.2 appeared + +before the learned Magistrate and prayed for fresh bail in + +view of the addition of graver offence under Section 304 IPC. + +Both the prosecuting agency and the petitioner/de-facto + +complainant raised objection to her release on bail in view of + +the added graver offence. Rejecting such objection, the court + +below granted interim bail to the opposite party no.2 + +observing as follows :- +

+
+ +
+ +
Mr. Chatterjee has objected to the maintainability of + +such challenge. He submits earlier order dated 10.07.2020 + +(enlarging the opposite party no.2 on bail after adding + +Section 304 IPC) was unsuccessfully challenged in CRM + +5349 of 2020. Prior to disposal of the earlier application, a + +Single Judge of this Court in CRR 1081 of 2020 vide order + +dated 21.07.2020 had already directed further investigation + +with regard to the graver offence under Section 302 IPC. In + +this backdrop, present challenge to grant of bail upon + +addition of offence under Section 302 IPC is wholly cosmetic + +in nature. There was no change in the gravity of the offence + +or the role of the opposite party no.2 therein at the time + +when the earlier application for cancellation was considered. + +On the first blush, such submissions appear to be attractive. + +However, deeper scrutiny of the matter particularly order + +dated 12.08.2020 in CRM 5349 of 2020 would show that the + +Coordinate Bench had addressed the issue of cancellation of + +bail in respect of a different order and that too on a + +completely different premise. The Bench while considering + +the prayer for cancelling order dated 10.07.2020 did not + +advert to the issues which have been raised in the present + +application regarding the legality and propriety of the + +subsequent order granting bail to an accused upon addition + +of a graver offence punishable under section 302 IPC. + +
+
+ +
+ +

It is also apposite to bear in mind the co-ordinate + +Bench had not decided the legality and propriety of grant of + +bail to opposite party no.2 upon addition of offence under + +section 304 IPC. In this backdrop, entertaining this + +application challenging the orders granting bail to opposite + +party no.2 after addition of graver offence under section 302 + +IPC on the ground of perversity and/or non-consideration of + +relevant facts cannot amount to review or re-opening of any + +issue decided in the earlier applications. +

+
+ +
+ +

In view of the aforesaid overwhelming materials on + +record disclosing active role of opposite party no. 2 in the + +murder of the victim, we are of the opinion the court below + +erred in law in mechanically granting bail to her + +notwithstanding addition of offence under section 302 IPC. + +Order granting bail is wholly perverse and has caused serious + +miscarriage of justice. It needs no emphasis cancellation of + +bail on the ground of perversity in the order stands on a + +completely different footing from post bail conduct. When an + +order granting bail is perverse and based on incorrect + +appreciation of law it is the bounden duty of a superior court + +to interfere and correct such error lest unjust and unfair + +advantage to an accused would create deleterious impact on + +the confidence of the victim in particular and the society at + +large in the criminal justice delivery system. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_107320387.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_107320387.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fce527d71b55291d1d3f182b6740e330e8a06f2a --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_107320387.html @@ -0,0 +1,465 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Vikram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

14(iii). Even a suspect or an accused under NDPS + +Act does not have any vested right or an automatic + +claim for pre-arrest bail or regular bail, merely on + +the ground, that the quantity of contraband, allegedly + +involved, is either small or intermediate. However, while + +considering the prayer for bail, even in offences under + +the NDPS, relating to small or intermediate quantity, + +still the claim is required to be tested in the backdrop + +of Section(s) 438 or 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure +

- 28 - +

+
+ +
+

2025:HHC:2977) + + + + +{herein, Cr.P.C.}, and also in the context of the broad + +parameters mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, + +as referred to above. +

+

14(iv). In the above backdrop, the general principle + +is that when, a bail petitioner approaches a Court for + +bail {pre-arrest or regular bail} under NDPS Act and + +a Court, forms a prima facie opinion on the basis of + +available material, that there is a prima facie case + +or reasonable grounds pointing towards the accusation of + +an offence, be it relating to a small or intermediate + +quantity of contraband therefore, such an accused has + +neither any automatic right nor can the privilege of + +bail be extended as a rule. +

+
+ +
+
15(i) Status Report(s) and the material on record + +do not point out any prima-facie case or reasonable + +grounds to believe the accusation against the bail + +petitioner(s), as referred to above. +
+
15(ii) Status Report(s) filed by State Authorities, + +does not indicate anything to show that the + +bail petitioners are involved in offenceunder Section 21 + +of the NDPS Act. Even Learned State Counsel has not + +placed on record any material to show that bail + +petitioners are involved in commission of offence under + +Section 21 of NDPS Act. In these circumstances, plea of + +the bail petitioners for bail has carries weight and the + +same is accordingly accepted. +
+
+ +
+ +
 BAIL   WHEN      NO         RECOVERY     FROM       BAIL
+           PETITIONERS:
+                              - 36 -
+                          2025:HHC:2977)
+
+
+
+
+15(iii)     Status Report(s) unambiguously admits that
+
+
contraband weighing 12.06 grams of Chitta/Herion was + +recovered from the main accused [Prikshit Dhani]. +
+
Once even as per the Status Report(s) neither any + +recovery was affected from bail petitioners nor any + +material has been placed on record to reveal that the bail + +petitioners have indulged in acts or omissions under + +Section 21 of NDPS Act, therefore, the plea for bail has + +merit and the same is accordingly accepted. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_110034502.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_110034502.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d73715ca8c12ab7a57fc99a448be3080ac14e0e --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_110034502.html @@ -0,0 +1,437 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Amarjeet vs State Of Haryana on 30 July, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
2. FIR no.255 dated Recovery of 51 Pending under trial and is fixed + 10.07.2018 u/s grams Heroin from for 20.11.2023 for Prosecution + 21b/61/85 of petitioner (on Bail) Evidence + NDPS Act, Police + Station Sadar + Fatehabad + +
3. FIR no.324 dated Petitioner had Pending under trial and is fixed + 16.08.2018 u/s supplied 75 grams for 02.01.2024 for Appearance + 21b/61/85 of (in custody). As bail +NDPS Act, Police of the petitioner was + Station Sadar cancelled on + Fatehabad 02.03.2022 due to + non-appearance + +
+
+ +
+

6. FIR no.664 dated Petitioner had Pending under trial and is fixed + 28.11.2018 u/s supplied 15 grams for 31.01.2024 for Prosecution + 21b/61/85 of (On Bail) Evidence + NDPS Act, Police + Station City + Fatehabad + +

7. FIR No.279 dated Petitioner had Pending under trial and is fixed + 16.07.2019 u/s supplied 18 grams for 18.12.2023 for Appearance + 21b/61/85 of (In custody). As bail +NDPS Act, Police of the petitioner was + Station Sadar cancelled on + Fatehabad 20.01.2023 due to + non-appearance + +

+
+ +
+

8. FIR No.168 dated Petitioner had Pending under trial and is fixed + 02.10.2019 u/s supplied 5 grams for 09.11.2023 for Prosecution + 21b/29/61/85 of (On bail). Evidence + NDPS Act, Police + Station Jhanir + (Mansa) + +

9. FIR No.186 dated Recovery of 50 Pending under trial and is fixed + + + + + 4 of 15 + + Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:096543 + + + + + + + + 07.05.2018 u/s grams Heroin from for 06.11.2023 for Prosecution + 21c/61/85 of petitioner (On Bail) Evidence + NDPS Act, Police + Station City + Tohana + +

+
+ +
+

10. FIR No.147 dated Recovery of 12 Pending under trial and is fixed + 06.06.2020 u/s grams Heroin from for 23.11.2023 for Prosecution + 21/25/61/85 of petitioner (On bail). Evidence. + NDPS Act, Police + Station + Sardulgarh, + Mansa (Punjab) + + + LIST OF CASES ENDED IN CONVICTION:- +

1. FIR No.429 dated 13.07.2014 U/S 61-1-14 of Excise Act, + Police Station Sadar Fatehabad. +
2. FIR No.122 dated 22.02.2014 U/S 61-1-14 of Excise Act, + Police Station City Fatehabad. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_113896923.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_113896923.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bd9b5f0ba624ed940f52ab84ae8e865419bcd0de --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_113896923.html @@ -0,0 +1,475 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Announced On: 25.03.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 25 March, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

[A] ANALYSIS ON CLAIM FOR BAIL UNDER + SECTION 37(1) (b) OF NDPS ACT IN INSTANT + CASE: +

+

8. Perusal of Status Report admits in + +an unambiguous terms that the police party + +recovered Poppy husk/Chura Post weighing 54.402 + +Kg from gunny bags in the car on 14.09.2023 in a + +White Creta Hundai Car bearing registration No. +

- 15 - 2025:HHC:7555 + + + +HR14P-9300. Once no contraband was recovered from + +the bail petitioner [Shambhu Lal Meena], then, the rigors + +of Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act, cannot be invoked + +in case of the bail petitioner. +

+
+ +
+

- 16 - 2025:HHC:7555 + + + +against him. +

+

8(iii). Case of bail petitioner is that he was not + +aware that other co-accused, were carrying the + +contraband in car. In these circumstances, once the + +bail petitioner, specifically denies the fact, that he had + +knowledge of other accused carrying contraband and + +no material has been placed on record by State + +Authorities in Status Report that the bail petitioner + +[Shambhu Lal Meena], had knowledge of contraband, + +therefore, the bail petitioner at this stage appears to be + +not guilty of offence in the instant case. + +8(iv). Status Report filed by State Authorities do + +not spell out any material to show that the + +bail petitioner has resorted to any activities, so as to + +invoke the provisions of Section 15 of NDPS Act against + +the bail petitioner. Nothing has been placed on record + +that the bail petitioner produces, manufactures, + +possesses, sells, transports, imports or exports or uses + +the alleged contraband in instant case. In these +

+
+ +
+ +

NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING REPITITION + OF OFFENCE AFTER BAIL: +

+
9. The Status Reports filed by State Authorities + +have not expressed any apprehension of repetition of +
- 19 - 2025:HHC:7555 + + + +offence after release on bail, which still is being taken + +care of, by imposing stringent bail conditions in later + +part of this bail order. +
+

Taking into account the entirety of the facts + +and circumstances, including the Status Reports, this + +Court is of the considered view that there are no + +reasonable grounds to believe that the bail petitioner + +is guilty and nothing exists that bail petitioner is likely + +to repeat the offence after release on bail and, therefore, + +even by applying twin principles in Section 37(1) (b) + +of the NDPS Act, the bail petitioner [Shambhu Lal Meena] + +is entitled to be enlarged on bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
"The petitioner is an accused for the alleged + offences punishable under Sections 8/22 and +

29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic +Substances Act. His bail application was + dismissed by the High Court. He has already + undergone about one year and four months + in jail. The petitioner and com accused were + found in possession of 80 grams of MD powder + each of which commercial quantity is 50 grams. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_121529007.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_121529007.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..89cf8e835b76898324fc03036f3ab297c6a40c5e --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_121529007.html @@ -0,0 +1,493 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Reserved On: 3Rd January vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

In this background, while testing the claim + +for bail, a Court is required to form a prima-facie + +opinion in the context of broad-parameters as referred + +to above, without delving into the evidence on merits, + 2025:HHC:2976 - 13 - REPORTABLE + +as it may tend to prejudice the rights of the accused + +as well as the prosecution. +

+

ANLYSIS: CLAIM FOR BAIL IN INSTANT CASE: + +

9. While examining the claim of the bail + +petitioner in the instant case, this Court is conscious of + +the fact that, in case, an accused is alleged involved + +in commercial quantity of contraband [charas of 1.126 + +Kgs.], therefore, in normal parlance, the rigors of Section + +37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act are to be satisfied before acceding + +the claim for bail in terms of the mandate of law laid, + +down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narcotics Control + +Bureau vs Mohit Aggarwal AIR 2022 SC 3444, + +followed in Union of India vs Ajay Kumar Singh @ + +Pappu, SLP (Criminal) No.2351 of 2023, has been + +reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State by + +the Inspector of Police vs B. Ramu, SLP (Criminal) + +No.8137 of 2022 decided on 12.02.2024. In aforesaid + +background, this Court proceeds to examine the claim of + +bail petitioner [Jitender Singh], for bail, in view of the + 2025:HHC:2976 - 14 - REPORTABLE + +Statutory mandate of Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act and + +on other grounds available to the bail petitioner, by way + +of exceptions to the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act, in + +terms of the mandate of law of Hon'ble Supreme Court, + +hereinbelow. +

+
+ +
+ +

[A]. CLAIM FOR BAIL UNDER SECTION 37(1) (b) OF + NDPS ACT: +

+
10. Perusal of Status Report admits in an + +unambiguous terms that the police party recovered the + +bag containing 1.126 Kgs. of the contraband, i.e. charas + +from accused Suraj Kumar, who was occupying seat + +No.41 in Bus No.HP-73-2697 on 06.03.2024 at about + +11:00 a.m. Once no contraband was recovered + +from bail petitioner [Jitender Singh], then, the + +prosecution story objecting to bail by involving rigors + +of Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act, cannot be invoked in + +case of bail petitioner. +
+
+ +
+ +

10(ii). Status Report filed by State Authorities do + +not spell out any material to show that the + +bail petitioner has resorted to any activities, so as to + +invoke the provisions of Section 20 of NDPS Act against + +the bail petitioner. Nothing has been placed on record + +that the bail petitioner had produced, manufactured, + +possessed, sold, transported, imported, exported or + +used the contraband as alleged in the instant case. In + +these circumstances, the bail petitioner appears to be not + +guilty, at this stage, and therefore, the bail petitioner + +deserves to be extended the benefit of bail.

+
+ +
+

(b) of the NDPS Act, the bail petitioner [Jitender Singh] + +is entitled to be enlarged on bail. +

+

[B]. CLAIM FOR BAIL ON OTHER EXCEPTIONAL + GROUNDS: CIRCUMSTANCES: +

+
12. Notwithstanding, the discussion with respect + 2025:HHC:2976 - 18 - REPORTABLE + +to claim for bail under Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act + +[supra], this Court is of the considered view that bail + +petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail for the + +following reasons:- +
+
13. Learned counsel for the bail petitioner, + +Ms. Ranjeeta Meghta, submits that FIR in the instant + +case was registered on 06.03.2024 and the petitioner + +is in custody for more than 11 months now. It is further + +submitted that investigation is complete and challan- +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_125569.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_125569.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a4bf63ff3f7467bd9e1fa242baf6d3382dadbb2e --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_125569.html @@ -0,0 +1,373 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sundaresan Alias Meganathan Alias Mega vs State on 18 May, 1993 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

16. In the decision reported in Berlin Joseph alias Ravi v. State, 1992 (1) Crimes 1221 a Full Bench of Kerala High Court has considered the questions (1) whether the High Court can suspend the sentence passed on an accused convicted of an offence under NDPS Act during pendency of his appeal before the High Court and (2) whether the conditions in Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail have overriding effect on the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Full Bench of Kerala High Court held that High Court has no power to suspend the sentence of a convicted person either during the pendency of his appeal or revision, unless it relates to the offence under Section 27 of the Act and the conditions in Section 37 of NDPS Act for granting bail have overriding effect on the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. In the decision reported in A. R. Antulay etc. etc. v. R. S. Nayak, 1992 (1) Crimes 193 : 1992 Cri LJ 2717) the Supreme Court has held that Article 22 of the Constitution of India declares no person shall be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. It is both in the interest of the accused as well as the society that the criminal case is concluded soon. If the accused is guilty, he ought to be declared so. The Criminal Procedure Code provides for early investigation and for a speedy and fair trial. It is sufficient to say that the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial emanating from Article 21 is properly reflected in the provisions under Section 309, Cr.P.C. In the decision reported in Bhagirathsingh Judeja v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court has enunciated the principles for grant of bail and for cancellation of bail. The Supreme Court observed that it is now well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that the power to grant bail is not to be exercised as if the punishment before trial is being imposed. The only material considerations in such a situation are whether the accused would be readily available for his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence. If there is no prima facie case there is no question of considering other circumstances. But even where a prima facie case is established, the approach of the court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment but whether the presence of the accused would be readily available for trial or that he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence. +

+
+ +
+ +
The same High Court also further observed that the provisions of Sections 52(1) and 57 of the NDPS Act regarding search and arrest of the accused or seizure under the Act are mandatory. In the decision reported in Mari Appa v. State of M.P., 1990 Crl LJ 1990 learned single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that the provisions of Section 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act are mandatory. The learned Judge has observed that no doubt the court expected to keep the object of the Act before it while dealing with bail petition under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, but the object of the Act cannot be allowed to defeat the basis rights available even to an accused under Art. 21 of the Constitution. No one would be justified in ignoring the procedural safeguards, as provided in the Act, having a vital bearing on the constitutional right. The Court while considering an application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not to be equated with Section 248, Cr.P.C. which demands acquittal on finding not guilty. It is for the limited purposes essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and record its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds, i.e. not to say that the court has to consider the matter as if, it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal recording a finding of not guilty. One is question of 'belief' under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the other is question of 'finding' under Section 248, Cr.P.C. and that they should not confuse any court. +
+
+ +
+ +

23. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also relied upon the decision reported in Raj Bahadur v. State of U.P., 1991 Cri. LJ 2239 : (1991 All LJ 812) wherein the learned single Judge of Allahabad High Court has held that failure to summon public witnesses at the time of search and recovery of brown sugar under S. 50 of NDPS Act cannot be a ground for enlarging the accused on bail. It was also held that the grant of bail to an accused person under NDPS Act can be regulated by the provisions of S. 37 of the NDPS Act. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also relied upon the Judgment reported in Kantilal Jain v. Assistant Collector, C.I.U., Madurai, 1991 LW Crl. 563 (K. M. Natarajan & Somasundaram, JJ.) Learned Judges of this court placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishanlal, 1991 LW Crl. 53 : (1991 Cri LJ 654) where it was held that the powers of the High Court to grant bail under S. 439, Cr.P.C. are subject to the limitations contained in S. 37 of the NDPS Act. In that decision, learned Judges ultimately held in the facts and circumstances of that case that the appellant/accused has not established that there are not sufficient materials against him and that he is not guilty of the offences for which he was convicted and that he is entitled to be released on bail pending disposal of the appeal in that view, the learned Judges dismissed the application for bail. +

+
+ +
+ +

24. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that there is prima facie against the petitioner and that he is not entitled to bail. On hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and after considering the decisions stated above, we are of the view that the provisions of Ss. 41 to 57 of the NDPS Act are all mandatory and that violation of the same would be fatal to the case of the prosecution and that the compliance of the mandatory provisions can be looked into even at the time of grant of bail also. On a consideration of the decisions of various High Courts and also the Apex Court, we are of the view that the personal liberty of the citizen as guaranteed under Arts. 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution is supreme. At the same time, we are not ignoring the reasons and objects of the NDPS Act providing deterrent punishment to a person who violates the provisions of the NDPS Act. Even the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1991 LW Crl 53 : (1991 Crl LJ 654) (supra) does not say that a person accused of an offence under the NDPS Act is not at all entitled to bail. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that the restrictions imposed under S. 37 of the NDPS Act have also to be considered while considering the grant of bail under S. 437, Cr.P.C. But the Apex Court in the abovesaid decision had no occasion to consider the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and that any violation of the same would vitiate the trial. The observation of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1991 LW Crl 53 : (1991 Cri LJ 654) (supra) is "for the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the powers of the High Court to grant bail under S. 439, Cr.P.C. are subject to the limitations contained in the amended S. 37 of the NDPS Act. The restrictions placed under the abovesaid section is applicable to the High Court also in the matter of granting bail." +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_129105185.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_129105185.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4e5a6f46ec8784f4246b08bf2c449941b23069ea --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_129105185.html @@ -0,0 +1,434 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Saiyed Tosif (Tausif) S/O Mahmad ... vs State Of Gujarat on 14 July, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

12. Therefore, looking into the entire circumstances of + the present case and the fact that the contraband + substance recovered in the present case is commercial in + nature, there are no reasonable grounds for believing + that the applicant is not guilty of the offence. That being + the case, the limitations prescribed for the grant of bail + under Section 37 NDPS Act are not satisfied and thus, no + benefit can be given to him at this stage. The bail + application is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. +

+
+ +
+

5. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt further submits that + there is no compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. + The provisions of the NDPS Act are extremely stringent, + coupled with various presumptions raised against the + accused and stringent bail conditions, all made the NDPS + Act a very stringent measure of legislation, which, the + more stringent it is, must contain necessary safeguards + against arbitrary search, seizure and arrest, or else it + would fall foul of the fundamental rights chapter of the + constitution and hence, the same requires a strict + + + + + NEUTRAL CITATION + + + + + R/CR.MA/11358/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 + + undefined + + + + + adherence to the law and procedures. The so-called + technicalities of the NDPS Act are the only safeguards + available to anyone prosecuted under the NDPS Act. + That, these safeguards are the only remedies available to + the innocent person to prove his innocence. +

+
+ +
+
12. Therefore, looking into the entire circumstances + of the present case and the fact that the + contraband substance recovered in the present + case is commercial in nature, there are no + reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant + is not guilty of the offence. That being the case, the + limitations prescribed for the grant of bail under + Section 37 NDPS Act are not satisfied and thus, no + benefit can be given to him at this stage. The bail + application is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is + discharged. +
+
+ +
+ +

5. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt further submits + that there is no compliance of Section 52A of the + NDPS Act. The provisions of the NDPS Act are + extremely stringent, coupled with various + presumptions raised against the accused and + stringent bail conditions, all made the NDPS Act a + very stringent measure of legislation, which, the + more stringent it is, must contain necessary + safeguards against arbitrary search, seizure and + arrest, or else it would fall foul of the fundamental + rights chapter of the constitution and hence, the + same requires a strict adherence to the law and + procedures. The so-called technicalities of the NDPS + Act are the only safeguards available to anyone + prosecuted under the NDPS Act. That, these + safeguards are the only remedies available to the + innocent person to prove his innocence. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_1336298.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_1336298.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b1fc78759d7916bc9bf0b7586ddb041c25e48148 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_1336298.html @@ -0,0 +1,373 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ram Dayal vs Central Narcotic Bureau on 3 September, 1992 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

12. Although Rajnikant (supra) is an earlier decision and yet not cited in Kishanlal (supra), there is no conflict at all between the two. To be candid and categorical, it is to be stated at once that in Rajnikant, provisions of NDPS Act whether of Section 36A or of Section 37 were not at all considered or interpreted as it was a pre-amendment case and, therefore, it had no occasion to do so. The decision is rendered on the provisions of Sections 167(2), 437, 439, Criminal Procedure Code. On facts, however, that was also a case of a person accused under NDPS Act. The Magistrate had released the accused on 29-7-1988 (before NDPS Act was amended) in terms of proviso (a) to Section 167(2) but after the charge-sheet was filed the High Court ordered his rearrest by cancelling his bail; that order was upheld, relying on Raghubir Singh's holding that once prosecution's default which entitled the accused to be released was purged as a result of the charge-sheet being filed, "the prosecution may seek to have the bail cancelled on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence". It is Kishanlal (supra) that deals squarely with thesmestion of such an accused's right to bail and Delhi High Court's D. B. decision that High Court's bail power under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code is not controlled by section-37, NDPS Act was reversed. The decision clearly and firmly establishes the premises that Section 37, NDPS is sole repository of the bail power, whether of the "Special Court" or of the High Court, and defuses effectively the controversy mooted in Question No. 1. +

+
+ +
+ +

14. Long pre-trial detention is an anathema but it is not unconstitutional, nor even it is a novelty. Under Section 20(4), Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, for short, TADA, even one year's ceiling is contemplated and is made inexorable; the provisions of Sub-sections (8) and (9) thereof are in pari materia with Section 37, NDPS Act. Article 21 of the Constitution regulates State power in terms of the requirement of "reasonable procedure"; the Constitution does not make the State impotent, unable to defend itself and its peace-loving citizens against any kind of clandestine organised activity, overtly violent or covertly so, impinging on public safety and security of State. The anti-drug traffic Covenants of United Nations of 1961, 1971 and 1988 have international community's support and sanction. They derive authority from Article 25 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economical, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966. As a Member-State of United Nations, India has implemented the 1988 Covenant by amending the NDPS Act and incorporating therein the new bail provisions and also other stringent provisions aforestated. The judicial discretion contemplated in terms of Section 37, NDPS Act has to be exercised independently irrespective of any other consideration except of the "limitations" expressly prescribed. Without reference to the requirement of submission of charge-sheet, the discretion can be exercised by the Court to order release of a person accused of an offence under the Act at any stage of the; pre-trial detention if the Court is not satisfied that, as contended by the prosecution, the accused is guilty of an offence or is likely to commit any offence while on bail. There is no cause, therefore, to be unduly sceptic or despondent. +

+
+ +
+ +

17. In the Orissa case, Sanatan Sahu, (supra), facts were similar to that of Rajnikant in that validity of cancellation of the bail had to be examined and that was done following Rajnikant's ratio. The view taken was that bail before charge-sheet could be granted in terms of Section 167(2) proviso to fulfil the legislative "command". No reasons are given except that another decision of the Court is cited as holding Section 167(2) proviso to be applicable to a proceeding under NDPS Act. In the Karnataka case Kamlabai, (supra) the question was of High Court's bail power and that was traced to Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code, outside Section 37, NDPS Act, upon holding that High Court was not "Court" within the meaning of the term employed in Section 37. Both decisions, in our view, are affected by Apex Court's Kishanlal's holding because, as has been held at the Summit level, even High Court cannot grant bail outside Section 37, NDPS Act by invoking Section 167(2), Criminal Procedure Code. This Court's Division Bench decision in Kalika Prasad (supra) is based squarely on Section 167(2), Criminal Procedure Code. It does not refer to any provision of NDPS Act and no reason is given for the view summarily taken that Section 167(2), Criminal Procedure Code is invokable by a person arrested under NDPS Act praying for bail to High Court. We overrule Kalika Prasad because the view taken is untenable in the face of Apex Court's decision is Kishanlal's case. +

+
+ +
+ +

18. We conclude now and answer Question No. 1 in the negative. We reiterate that section-167(2) proviso, Criminal Procedure Code, is not applicable to a proceeding under NDPS Act. We hold that even if charge-sheet is filed after 90 days of the arrest of the accused on that ground itself the person charged under Section 18, NDPS Act is not entitled to get bail from the High Court. Indeed, "Special Court" and High Court are equally placed in respect of competence under Section 37, NDPS Act in the matter of grant of bail to a person accused of an offence under the said Act. Irrespective of the date of submission of the charge-sheet it will be open always to the "Special Court" and the High Court to consider the prayer under Section 37 and both Courts are required to dispose of the prayer in terms only of the said provision because no power outside that is invokable by a person accused under the Act to get released on bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_134581494.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_134581494.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a372e2b6c7916ac6b3bc6e59d18486dc6033a2e --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_134581494.html @@ -0,0 +1,544 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhea Chakraborty vs Union Of India And Anr on 7 October, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

9. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the + +Applicant that the Applicant's statements were allegedly recorded + +on 6.9.2020, 7.9.2020 and 8.9.2020. According to him, she + +retracted such statements on 8.9.2020 and 9.9.2020. + + +

10. The Applicant had preferred Criminal Bail Application + +No.1871/2020 before the Special Court for NDPS at Greater + +Mumbai for her release on bail. This Application was rejected by + +the learned Special Judge vide his order dated 11.9.2020. The + +learned Judge specifically observed that Section 27A operated + +against her and at this stage it was not possible to observe that her + +statement was recorded under coercion and hence was + +inadmissible. The learned Judge referred to Section 37 of NDPS + +Act. He also referred to recovery of commercial quantity of LSD + +from accused Anuj Keshwani. It was further observed that the + +investigation was at a preliminary stage and from the available + +record, it could not be said that, there were no reasonable grounds + + + + 15 1.3-BA-st-2386-2020 + + to connect the Applicant/Accused. According to the learned + + Judge, bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act operated and, therefore, + + she was not entitled for release on bail. It was also observed that if + + she was released on bail, then she would alert others involved in + + the offence and that they would destroy the evidence. According + + to the learned Special Judge, there was possibility of tampering of + + evidence. On these reasons, her bail application was rejected. + + +

+
+ +
+ +

+

21. Since this is an application for bail in respect of offences + +punishable under the NDPS Act, the provisions of that Act are + +required to be considered carefully. The bail provisions under the + +NDPS Act are mentioned under Section 37 of that Act. Section 37 + +reads thus : +

+

+ +

24 1.3-BA-st-2386-2020 + + "37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable-(1) + Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code + of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-- +
+
+ +
+ +

. After this amendment in the year 2001, now Section 37 + +reads as mentioned hereinbefore. +

+

+ +

35 1.3-BA-st-2386-2020 + +

33. Thus, it can be seen that in the year 1985, Cr.P.C. + +governed the provisions of bail for NDPS offences. By the + +amendment carried in the year 1989 (w.e.f. 29.5.1989), for the first + +time, the provisions of Cr.P.C. were excluded by specifically + +introducing a non obstante clause excluding application of Cr.P.C. + +for grant of bail. If there was inconsistency between the NDPS Act + +and Cr.P.C., the provisions of NDPS Act were to prevail. + + +

+
+ +
+ +

+

45. The non obstante clause in Section 37 plays a very + +important part in construction of that Section. Originally in the + +year 1985 this non obstante clause operated to exclude the + +provisions of Cr.P.C. only to make all offences cognizable. At that + +point of time, Section 37 declared that all the offences were + +cognizable notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr.P.C.. In the + +year 1985, the applicability of the Schedule to Cr.P.C. was not + +excluded. For the first time in the year 1989, when the amended + +provision of Section 37 was brought into force, the bail provisions + +of Cr.P.C. were brought under the non obstante clause of Section 37 + +47 1.3-BA-st-2386-2020 + +of NDPS Act. Therefore, since 1989, the provisions for bail + +including the Schedule to Cr.P.C., and in particular Part II of + +Schedule of Cr.P.C., ceased to apply for offences punishable under + +the NDPS Act. The provisions of NDPS Act in respect of bail + +provisions were given complete over-riding effect and from that + +point onwards the classification of offences were strictly governed + +by Section 37 of the NDPS Act to the exclusion of all the provisions + +of Cr.P.C. in respect of classification of such offences. The only + +concession given by Section 37 of NDPS Act to the provisions of + +Cr.P.C. are mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 37. The Scheme + +of Section 37 clearly shows that its provisions are independent of + +Cr.P.C. and only additional limitations mentioned in Cr.P.C. in + +granting bail were relevant. Therefore, clearly the classification of + +offence was restricted to Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the + +Schedule, in particular Part II of the Schedule of Cr.P.C. has no + +application. The same situation continued even after amendment + +of year 2001 made to Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Wherever there + +was no inconsistency between the provisions of Section 37 and the + +provisions for bail under Cr.P.C. then only it was permissible to look + +at the Cr.P.C. for bail provisions. Therefore, other procedural + + + 48 1.3-BA-st-2386-2020 + +aspects concerning bail provisions, for example, execution of bail + +bonds etc. will be governed by the provisions of Cr.P.C.. If the + +accused claims bail as of right in case of possession of small + +quantity then no investigation can be carried out to find the source + +and trade of the contraband. This defeats the object of the Act. + +Considering all this discussion, I am of the firm view that the + +observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh + +(supra) are binding and all offences under the NDPS Act are non- + +bailable. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_13488433.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_13488433.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..734642d256e948545e914740e8cc035d4e9371bc --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_13488433.html @@ -0,0 +1,478 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sri Haricharan Biswas vs The State Of Tripura on 18 March, 2019 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

IN GRANT OF BAIL NDPS TO PREVAIL OVER CRPC. : + +

24. The Apex Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. +
+

Kishan Lal and Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 705(2 Judge Bench) has + +held that the powers of the High Court in granting bail under + +Section 439 Cr.P.C are subject to the limitations contained under + +the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances + +Act, 1985 and that the provisions of the Code of Criminal + +Procedure are excluded to the extent of conflict and the reason as + +stands noticed in Ram Samujh (supra) is to check the menace of + +dangerous drugs flooding the market. The Court while interfering + Page - 22 of 60 + + +with the order of grant of bail passed by the High Court observed + +as under: +

+
+ +
+ +

DELAYED TRIAL IN NDPS ACT - BAIL: +

+

+

38. In Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics, + +(2013) 2 SCC 603 (2 Judge Bench), the Court, while considering + +the application for grant of bail of an accused, who had spent + +more than 12 years in custody, granted bail only for the reason + +that there was inordinate delay in the conduct of trial. The Court + +found that the period of deprivation pending trial becomes unduly + +long, the fairness assured by Art.21 of the Constitution of India + +would be received as a joke. Also the accused had suffered + +imprisonment half of the maximum punishment provided under + +the offence for which he was charged to face trial. +
+
+ +
+

Page - 36 of 60 + + +The relevant paragraphs are extracted herein below: + +

"39. When we come to paragraph 2 of Part A of the +Schedule, this becomes even more apparent. +Sections 19, 24, 27-A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs +and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are all +sections which deal with narcotic drugs and +psychotropic substances where a person is found +with, what is defined as, "commercial quantity" of +such substances. In each of these cases, +under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, a person +prosecuted for these offences has to meet the same +twin conditions which are contained in Section 45 of +the 2002 Act. Inasmuch as these Sections attract +the twin conditions under the NDPS Act in any case, +it was wholly unnecessary to include them again in +paragraph 2 of Part A of the Schedule, for when a +person is prosecuted for an offence under Sections +19, 24, 27A or 29 of the NDPS Act, together with an +offence under Section 4 of the 2002 Act, Section +37 of the NDPS Act would, in any case, be attracted +when such person is seeking bail for offences +committed under the 2002 Act and the NDPS Act. +
+
+ +
+ +
40. Also, the classification contained within +the NDPS Act is completely done away with. +Unequals are dealt with as if they are now equals. +The offences under the NDPS Act are classified on +the basis of the quantity of narcotic drugs and +psychotropic substances that the accused is found +with, which are categorized as: (1) a small quantity, +as defined; (2) a quantity which is above small +quantity, but below commercial quantity, as +defined; and (3) above commercial quantity, as +defined. The sentences of these offences vary from +1 year for a person found with small quantity, to 10 +years for a person found with something between +small and commercial quantity, and a minimum of + Page - 37 of 60 + + + 10 years upto 20 years when a person is found with + commercial quantity. The twin conditions specified + in Section 37 of the NDPS Act get attracted when + bail is asked for only insofar as persons who have + commercial quantities with them are concerned. A + person found with a small quantity or with a + quantity above small quantity, but below + commercial quantity, punishable with a one year + sentence or a 10 year sentence respectively, can + apply for bail under Section 439 of the Code of + Criminal Procedure without satisfying the same twin + conditions as are contained in Section 45 of the + 2002 Act, under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. By + assimilating all these three contraventions and + bracketing them together, the 2002 Act treats as + equal offences which are treated as unequal by + the NDPS Act itself, when it comes to imposition of + the further twin conditions for grant of bail. This is + yet another manifestly arbitrary and discriminatory + feature of the application of Section 45." +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_138227421.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_138227421.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6cc990c00c0995be3dc7a37febb5de0eaa999277 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_138227421.html @@ -0,0 +1,518 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Satinder Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 4 August, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

S. 35 OF NDPS ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN BAILS: +

+
16. S. 35 of NDPS Act reads as follows: +
+
35. Presumption of culpable mental state .(1) In any + prosecution for an offence under this Act which requires a + culpable mental state of the accused, the Court shall + presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be + a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no + such mental state with respect to the act charged as an + offence in that prosecution. +
+
+ +
+ +

. +

+

e) In Narcotics Control Bureau v Kishan Lal, 1991 (1) SCC 705, + Supreme Court holds, +

6. Section 37 as amended starts with a non-obstante + clause stating that notwithstanding anything contained in + the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no person accused + of an offence prescribed therein shall be released on bail + unless the conditions contained therein were satisfied. The + + + + + + Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act is a + special enactment as already noted it was enacted with a + view to make stringent provision for the control and + regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs and + psychotropic substances. That being the underlying object + + and particularly when the provisions of Section 37 of + + Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act are in + negative terms limiting the scope of the applicability of the + provisions of Criminal Procedure Code regarding bail, in + our view, it cannot be held that the High Court's powers to + grant bail under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code are + + + not subject to the limitation mentioned under Section 37 of + Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. The + non-obstante clause with which the Section starts should + be given its due meaning and clearly it is intended to + + + + + restrict the powers to grant bail. In case of inconsistency + between Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code and + + + + + + Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic +Substances Act, 1985 Section 37 prevails. +

+
+ +
+ +

In Bijando Singh v. Md. Ibocha, 2004(10) SCC 151, Supreme Court + + + + + +

g) + + holds, +

3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Special Court + (NDPS), releasing the accused on bail, the appellant + + moved the Guwahati High Court against the said order on + the ground that the order granting bail is contrary to the + + provisions of law and the appropriate authority never + noticed the provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs + And Psychotropic Substances Act. The High Court, + however, being of the opinion that if the attendance of the + + + accused is secured by means of bail bonds, then he is + entitled to be released on bail. The High Court, thus, in our + opinion, did not consider the provisions of Section 37 of + the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. +

+
+ +
+

provided under the CrPC, or any other law for the time + + + + + + being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal + approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is + indeed uncalled for. +

+

n) In Sujit Tiwari v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC Online SC 84, in the + given facts, Supreme Court granted bail, by observing, +

10. The prosecution story is that the appellant was aware + of what his brother was doing and was actively helping his + + + + + + brother. At this stage we would not like to comment on the + merits of the allegations levelled against the present + appellant. But other than the few WhatsApp messages + and his own statement which he has resiled from, there is + very little other evidence. At this stage it appears that the + + appellant may not have even been aware of the entire + + conspiracy because even the prosecution story is that the + brother himself did not know what was loaded on the ship + till he was informed by the owner of the vessel. Even when + the heroin was loaded in the ship it was supposed to go + towards Egypt and that would not have been a crime + + + under the NDPS Act. It seems that Suprit Tiwari and other + 7 crew members then decided to make much more money + by bringing the ship to India with the intention of disposing + of the drugs in India. During this period the Master Suprit + + + + + Tiwari took the help of Vishal Kumar Yadav and Irfan + Sheikh who had to deliver the consignment to Suleman + + + + + + who had to arrange the money after delivery. The main + allegation made against the appellant is that he sent the + list of the crew members after deleting the names of 4 + Iranians and Esthekhar Alam to Vishal Kumar Yadav and + + + + + + Irfan Sheikh through WhatsApp with a view to make their + disembarkation process easier. Even if we take the + prosecution case at the highest, the appellant was aware + that his brother was indulging in some illegal activity + because obviously such huge amount of money could not + be made otherwise. However, at this stage it cannot be + said with certainty whether he was aware that drugs were + being smuggled on the ship or not, though the allegation is + that he made such a statement to the NCB under Section + 67 of the NDPS Act. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_14123647.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_14123647.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b790bdb8bca889ecfd115e09f13f3e7dd7728812 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_14123647.html @@ -0,0 +1,465 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Vikram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

14(iii). Even a suspect or an accused under NDPS + +Act does not have any vested right or an automatic + +claim for pre-arrest bail or regular bail, merely on + +the ground, that the quantity of contraband, allegedly + +involved, is either small or intermediate. However, while + +considering the prayer for bail, even in offences under + +the NDPS, relating to small or intermediate quantity, + +still the claim is required to be tested in the backdrop + +of Section(s) 438 or 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure +

- 28 - +

+
+ +
+

2025:HHC:2977) + + + + +{herein, Cr.P.C.}, and also in the context of the broad + +parameters mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, + +as referred to above. +

+

14(iv). In the above backdrop, the general principle + +is that when, a bail petitioner approaches a Court for + +bail {pre-arrest or regular bail} under NDPS Act and + +a Court, forms a prima facie opinion on the basis of + +available material, that there is a prima facie case + +or reasonable grounds pointing towards the accusation of + +an offence, be it relating to a small or intermediate + +quantity of contraband therefore, such an accused has + +neither any automatic right nor can the privilege of + +bail be extended as a rule. +

+
+ +
+
15(i) Status Report(s) and the material on record + +do not point out any prima-facie case or reasonable + +grounds to believe the accusation against the bail + +petitioner(s), as referred to above. +
+
15(ii) Status Report(s) filed by State Authorities, + +does not indicate anything to show that the + +bail petitioners are involved in offenceunder Section 21 + +of the NDPS Act. Even Learned State Counsel has not + +placed on record any material to show that bail + +petitioners are involved in commission of offence under + +Section 21 of NDPS Act. In these circumstances, plea of + +the bail petitioners for bail has carries weight and the + +same is accordingly accepted. +
+
+ +
+ +
 BAIL   WHEN      NO         RECOVERY     FROM       BAIL
+           PETITIONERS:
+                              - 36 -
+                          2025:HHC:2977)
+
+
+
+
+15(iii)     Status Report(s) unambiguously admits that
+
+
contraband weighing 12.06 grams of Chitta/Herion was + +recovered from the main accused [Prikshit Dhani]. +
+
Once even as per the Status Report(s) neither any + +recovery was affected from bail petitioners nor any + +material has been placed on record to reveal that the bail + +petitioners have indulged in acts or omissions under + +Section 21 of NDPS Act, therefore, the plea for bail has + +merit and the same is accordingly accepted. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_145117603.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_145117603.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e62f17ca95bc1aa8dd214b66529face1eb59f1f5 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_145117603.html @@ -0,0 +1,435 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Reserved On: 17.10.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 25 October, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

Hence, pending a decision by the Larger Bench, this Court has to + +follow the judgment of Praduman Justa (supra) and hold that the + +codeine phosphate falls within the definition of a manufactured + +drug. +

+

15. Once it is so held, the rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS + +Act will apply to the present case and the Court would be unable to + +grant bail to the petitioner without holding that the petitioner had + +complied with the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. +

+

16. Section 37 of the NDPS Act provides that in an offence + +involving commercial quantity, the court should be satisfied that + +the accused is not guilty of the commission of an offence and is not + +likely to commit any offence while on bail. Section 37 of the NDPS + +Act reads as under: +

+
+ +
+

(emphasis supplied) +

23. Based on the above precedent, the test which the High +Court and this Court are required to apply while granting bail +is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the + + + + + + accused has not committed an offence and whether he is + likely to commit any offence while on bail. Given the + seriousness of offences punishable under the NDPS Act and + in order to curb the menace of drug trafficking in the + country, stringent parameters for the grant of bail under the + NDPS Act have been prescribed." +

+
+ +
+ +

20 It was held in Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh, 2023 + +SCC OnLine SC 346 that the bail cannot be granted without + +complying with the requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It + +was observed: +

+
4. This apart, it is noticed that the High Court, in passing the + impugned order of bail, had lost sight of Section 37 of + the NDPS Act, which, inter alia, provides that no person + accused of an offence involving commercial quantity shall be + released on bail unless the twin conditions laid down therein + are satisfied, namely, (i) the public prosecutor has been + given an opportunity to oppose the bail application; and (ii) + the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for + believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and that he + is not likely to commit any such offence while on bail. +
+
+ +
+

8. Thus, the provisions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of + the NDPS Act and the decisions referred supra revealing the + consistent view of this Court that while considering the + application for bail made by an accused involved in an + offence under NDPS Act a liberal approach ignoring the + mandate under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is impermissible. + Recording a finding mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS + Act, which is sine qua non for granting bail to an accused + under the NDPS Act cannot be avoided while passing orders + on such applications." +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_150476273.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_150476273.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c9358bb18f99d0d2fea245807175ae98d4f3d8a4 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_150476273.html @@ -0,0 +1,466 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Satish Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 29 June, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

20. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON S. 37 OF NDPS ACT: +

+
a) In Union of India v. Merajuddin, (1999) 6 SCC 43, a three Judges Bench +of Supreme Court while cancelling the bail, observed in Para 3, as follows, + + + + + + + + + + + The High Court appears to have completely ignored the + mandate of Sec. 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and + Psychotropic Substances Act while granting him bail. The + High Court overlooked the prescribed procedure." +
+

. +

+
+ +
+ +

f) In Bijando Singh v. Md. Ibocha, 2004(10) SCC 151, Supreme Court +holds, +

3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Special Court + (NDPS), releasing the accused on bail, the appellant + moved the Guwahati High Court against the said order on + the ground that the order granting bail is contrary to the + provisions of law and the appropriate authority never + + + + + + + + + + + noticed the provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs + And Psychotropic Substances Act. The High Court, + however, being of the opinion that if the attendance of the + accused is secured by means of bail bonds, then he is + + + + + . +

+
+ +
+ +

k) In Union of India v. Niyazuddin & Anr, (2018) 13 SCC 738, Supreme +Court holds, +

7. ...Section 37 of the NDPS Act contains special + provisions with regard to grant of bail in respect of certain + offences enumerated under the said Section. They are :- +

(1) In the case of a person accused of an offence + punishable under Section 19, (2) Under Section 24, (3) + Under Section 27A and (4) Of offences involving + commercial quantity. The accusation in the present case is + with regard to the fourth factor namely, commercial + quantity. Be that as it may, once the Public Prosecutor + opposes the application for bail to a person accused of the + enumerated offences under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, + + + + + + + + + + + in case, the court proposes to grant bail to such a person, + two conditions are to be mandatorily satisfied in addition to + the normal requirements under the provisions of the + Cr.P.C. or any other enactment. (1) The court must be + + + + + . +
+
+ +
+

12. We, however, feel that some stringent conditions will + + have to be imposed upon the appellant. +

+

SUM UP: +

+
21. From the summary of the law relating to rigors of S.37 of NDPS Act, + + +while granting bail involving commercial quantities in the NDPS Act, the + +following fundamental principles emerge: +
+
a) The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of + granting bail arises on merits. [Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva + + + + + + Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549]. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_152487870.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_152487870.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6c5bdac94f6e3b71cc02e15a90f63a729c1945cb --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_152487870.html @@ -0,0 +1,479 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ____________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

[A] ANALYSIS ON CLAIM FOR BAIL UNDER + SECTION 37(1) (b) OF NDPS ACT IN INSTANT + CASE: +

- 15 - +
+

8. Perusal of Status Report admits in + +an unambiguous terms that the police party + +recovered Poppy husk/Chura Post weighing 54.402 + +Kg from gunny bags in the car on 14.09.2023 in a + +White Creta Hundai Car bearing registration No. + +HR14P-9300. Once no contraband was recovered from + +the bail petitioner [Jitender], then, the rigors of + +Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act, cannot be invoked in case + +of the bail petitioner. +

+
+ +
+

NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING REPITITION + OF OFFENCE AFTER BAIL: +

- 19 - +
+
9. The Status Report filed by State Authorities + +has not expressed any apprehension of repetition of + +offence after release on bail, which, still is being taken + +care of, by imposing stringent bail conditions in later + +part of this bail order. +
+

Taking into account the entirety of the facts + +and circumstances, including the Status Reports, this + +Court is of the considered view that there are no + +reasonable grounds to believe that the bail petitioner + +is guilty and nothing exists that bail petitioner is likely + +to repeat the offence after release on bail and, therefore, + +even by applying the twin principles in Section 37(1) (b) + +of the NDPS Act, the bail petitioner [Jitender] is + +entitled to be enlarged on bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
melt down where, there is no likelihood of trial being + +completed in a reasonable time and the prolonged + +incarceration so as prevent deprivation or curtailment of + +personal liberty and to ensure right of speedy trial, in + +terms of Article 21 of Constitution of India, in the following + +terms:- +
+
"24. There are a few penal statutes that make a + departure from the provisions of Sections + 437, 438, and 439 of the Code of Criminal + Procedure, 1973. A higher threshold is provided + in these statutes for the grant of + bail. By way of illustration, we may refer + to Section 45(1)(ii) of PMLA, proviso + to Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities + (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 37 of the + Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic +Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act'). + The provisions regarding bail in some of such + statutes start with a non obstante clause for + overriding the provisions of Sections + 437 to 439 of the CrPC. The legislature has + done so to secure the object of making the + penal provisions in such enactments. For + example, the PMLA provides for Section + 45(1)(ii) as money laundering poses a serious + threat not only to the country's financial system + but also to its integrity and sovereignty. +
+
+ +
+ +

11(ii). In Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal + +(Crl.) No(s).7115/2024, titled as Sohrab Khan Versus + +The State of Madhya Pradesh, decided on 13.08.2024, + +the Hon'ble Supreme Court has extended the benefit of + +concession of bail to an accused, who was facing + +incarceration of one year and four months and had + +no criminal antecedents as in this case, in the following + +terms:- +

+
"The petitioner is an accused for the alleged + offences punishable under Sections 8/22 and + 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic +Substances Act. His bail application was + dismissed by the High Court. He has already + undergone about one year and four months + in jail. The petitioner and com accused were + found in possession of 80 grams of MD powder + each of which commercial quantity is 50 grams. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_156828738.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_156828738.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f4a76d35920b990fbda53f8326d1afa78c47ea8d --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_156828738.html @@ -0,0 +1,421 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Edwin Emeka Igbokwe vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 15 March, 2021 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

1. This application under Section 439 CrPC read with Section 37 of the +Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act ( in short 'NDPS Act') is +filed by the petitioner seeking regular bail in complaint case +No.SC/225/2017 titled as NCB v. Ikechukwu Chukwubuikem Stanley & +Ors. pending in the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Act, Patiala House. +

2. The petitioner had filed a bail application before the learned Special + + + + + + Judge NDPS, who by order dated 16.12.2020 had rejected the bail +application of the petitioner. The petitioner is in judicial custody since +30.01.2017. +

+
+ +
+ +

12. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of a Court to grant bail for + + + + + offences under NDPS Act, bail in cases of recovery of commercial quantity +is circumscribed by the provision of Section 37 of the Act. The bail can be +granted only when there are reasonable grounds for believing that the +accused is not guilty of the offence and he is not likely to commit any +offence when released on bail. The parameters for grant of bail to accused +involved in the offence under NDPS Act have been laid down in a number +of judgments. The Supreme Court in Collector of Customs v. Ahmadalieva +Nodira reported as (2004) 3 SCC 549 has observed as under: +

+
+ +
+
(ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, have + to be satisfied. It is manifest that the conditions are cumulative + and not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the + accused being not guilty, has to be based on "reasonable + grounds". +

13. The expression "reasonable grounds" has not been defined + in the said Act but means something more than prima facie + grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing + that the accused is not guilty of the offence he is charged with. + The reasonable belief contemplated in turn, points to existence of + such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to + justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged + offence (vide Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari [(2007) 7 + SCC 798 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 505] ). Thus, recording of + satisfaction on both the aspects, noted above, is sine qua non for + granting of bail under the NDPS Act. +

+
+ +
+
20. The expression "reasonable grounds" means something + more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial + probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the + alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the + provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as + are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused + is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High + Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object + of Section 37 that in addition to the limitations provided under + the CrPC, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating + the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under + the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for." +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_160048602.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_160048602.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e783eb72c34f652365bb6a4f48a646e53212ce3c --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_160048602.html @@ -0,0 +1,479 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ____________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

[A] ANALYSIS ON CLAIM FOR BAIL UNDER + SECTION 37(1) (b) OF NDPS ACT IN INSTANT + CASE: +

- 15 - +
+

8. Perusal of Status Report admits in + +an unambiguous terms that the police party + +recovered Poppy husk/Chura Post weighing 54.402 + +Kg from gunny bags in the car on 14.09.2023 in a + +White Creta Hundai Car bearing registration No. + +HR14P-9300. Once no contraband was recovered from + +the bail petitioner [Vishal Sharma], then, the rigors + +of Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act, cannot be invoked + +in case of the bail petitioner. +

+
+ +
+

NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING REPITITION + OF OFFENCE AFTER BAIL: +

- 19 - +
+
9. The Status Reports filed by State Authorities + +have not expressed any apprehension of repetition of + +offence after release on bail, which, still is being taken + +care of, by imposing stringent bail conditions in later + +part of this bail order. +
+

Taking into account the entirety of the facts + +and circumstances, including the Status Reports, this + +Court is of the considered view that there are no + +reasonable grounds to believe that the bail petitioner + +is guilty and nothing exists that bail petitioner is likely + +to repeat the offence after release on bail and, therefore, + +even by applying the twin principles in Section 37(1) (b) of + +the NDPS Act, the bail petitioner [Vishal Sharma] + +is entitled to be enlarged on bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
melt down where, there is no likelihood of trial being + +completed in a reasonable time and the prolonged + +incarceration so as prevent deprivation or curtailment of + +personal liberty and to ensure right of speedy trial, in + +terms of Article 21 of Constitution of India, in the following + +terms:- +
+
"24. There are a few penal statutes that make a + departure from the provisions of Sections + 437, 438, and 439 of the Code of Criminal + Procedure, 1973. A higher threshold is provided + in these statutes for the grant of + bail. By way of illustration, we may refer + to Section 45(1)(ii) of PMLA, proviso + to Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities + (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 37 of the + Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic +Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act'). + The provisions regarding bail in some of such + statutes start with a non obstante clause for + overriding the provisions of Sections + 437 to 439 of the CrPC. The legislature has + done so to secure the object of making the + penal provisions in such enactments. For + example, the PMLA provides for Section + 45(1)(ii) as money laundering poses a serious + threat not only to the country's financial system + but also to its integrity and sovereignty. +
+
+ +
+ +

11(ii). In Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal + +(Crl.) No(s).7115/2024, titled as Sohrab Khan Versus + +The State of Madhya Pradesh, decided on 13.08.2024, + +the Hon'ble Supreme Court has extended the benefit of + +concession of bail to an accused, who was facing + +incarceration of one year and four months and had + +no criminal antecedents as in this case, in the following + +terms:- +

+
"The petitioner is an accused for the alleged + offences punishable under Sections 8/22 and + 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic +Substances Act. His bail application was + dismissed by the High Court. He has already + undergone about one year and four months + in jail. The petitioner and com accused were + found in possession of 80 grams of MD powder + each of which commercial quantity is 50 grams. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_1600671.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_1600671.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6b0310035ec4e9e0e5280266b1f3ac67cdef1662 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_1600671.html @@ -0,0 +1,378 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sardarsingh Nagsingh Rajput (Sisodia) ... vs State Of Gujarat on 23 April, 1993 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

5. As against the above, M/s. P. S. Chapaneri, K. C. Shah, M. A. Bukhari & K. P. Raval, the learned APPs vehementaly opposing these bail applications at the very outset submitted that in the instant Cases, following three circumstances emerge from the record, namely; (i) that the offences alleged against the petitioners-accused are under the NDPS Act which is the special Act, (ii) that there is a Section 37 (amended) in the said Act which once again is specially engrafted in place of old Section 37 which in unmistakable terms had placed limitation on exercise of powers by the Courts in matter of releasing the accused on bail, and (iii) that the petitioners have been found to be in (a) conscious and intelligent possession of muddamal drugs, (b) of quite big quantity and the value. According to the learned APPs, thus taking into consideration the overriding effect of Section 37 (amended) in the matter of granting bail applications, there was not and indeed cannot be any such question of releasing the petitioners-accused on default-bail either under Section 167(2)(a) of the Code or under Section 36-A(1)(b) of the NDPS Act. Making good these submissions, the learned APPs have first of all invited attention of this Court to Section 37(old) and amended one. In this regard, the learned APPs submitted from the bare reading of Section 37(old) and amended one, the difference between the two is ex facie clear. Section 37 came to be amended by the Amending Act No. 2 of 1989, substituting the old Section 37 by giving overriding effect over the relevant provision relating to bail under the NDPS Act as well as the Code. The learned APPs thereafter further invited attention of this Court to the special circumstances that have constrained the Parliament to amend Section 37, which are so reflected in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (Amendment) Act, 1988 (No. 2 of 1989). These are - +

+
+ +
+ +
"6. Section 37 as amended starts with a non obstanate clause stating that Notwithstanding anyting contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no person accused of the offence prescribed therein shall be released on bail unless the conditions contained therein are were satisfied. The NDPS Act is a special enactment and as already noted, it was enacted with a view to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs & psychotropic substances. That being the underlying object and particularly when the provision of Section 37 of NDPS Act are in negative terms limiting the scope of applicability of the provisions of Cr.P.C. regarding bail, in our view, it cannot be held that High Courts' powers to grant bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. are not subject to the limitations mentioned under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The non-obstante clause with which the Section starts should be given its due meaning and clearly it is intended to restrict the powers to grant bail. In case of inconsistency between Section 439 of Cr. P.C. and Section 37 of the NDPS Act, Section 37 pervails. In this context, Section 4 of Cr.P.C. may be noted which reads thus : +
+
+ +
+ +

Further, as regard the argument of the learned advocates for the petitioners that since the accused were not forwarded to the custody of the Session Courts, as warranted under Section 36-A(1)(b) of the Act, their continued detention on expiry of 15th day having been rendered clearly illegal and unauthorised, in view of Article 21 of the Constitution, their liberty cannot be interferred with without due procedure established by law, this Court has no hesitation in holding that this contention of the learned advocates also has no substance worth the name, for the simple reason that in the facts and circumstances of these cases, it cannot be said that the liberty of the citizen have been taken away without any due procedure established by law. It is quite true that on expiry of 15th day, the learned Magistrates were ordinarily required to forward custody of the petitioners/their case papers to the Session Courts which have not done. But then, at. the same time, under such circumstances, even if the petitioners claim to be released on default-bail, the alleged offence being non-bailiable, they would obviously be required to make regular bail applications before the Court and while considering such bail applications, as discussed above, the Court is duty-bound to take into consideration the provisions as contained in Section 37 (amended) which are special in matter of releasing any accused under the NDPS Act on bail. Thus, making the conjoint reading of Section 36-A(1)(b) and Section 37 (amended), it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the liberty of the petitioners has been taken away without due procedure established by law. Thus, despite the fact that petitioners were not forwarded on expiry of the 15th day, by virtue of operation of Section 37 (amended), they would not be entitled to be released on bail. Thus, if at all the liberty of the petitioners has been taken away, as alleged, that has been taken away in the light of Section 37 (amended) of the NDPS Act. +

+
+ +
+ +

The answers to the questions raised at the top of this judgment, when briefly summarised, the same read as under :-- +

+
(1) In the matter of offences under NDPS Act so far the default-bail under Section 167(2)(a) of the Code as well as Section 36A(1)(b) of the said Act are concerned, they in view of firstly Section 37 (amended) and secondly, the Supreme Court decision in case of Narcotic Control Bureau v. Kishan Lal (supra) are out of question. (Ref : Questions Nos. 1 and 3) + + +(2) That merely because it. is held that the accused under the NDPS Act are not entitled to any default bail either under Section 167(2)(a) of the Code or under Section 36-A(1)(h) of the said Act that does not relieve Investigating Agency and the concerned Court from discharging their obligation of complying with the necessary requirements, either to submit the Charge-sheet on or before the stipulated period of 90 days and forward the custody of the accused to Special/Session Court on expiry of the fifteenth day. In fact, any default either by Investigating Agency or the concerned Magistrate would be liable to explanation to its superior authorities. In this regard, the Home Department would indeed do well if appropriate circulars are issued to all the concerned Police Officers investigating the cases under the NDPS Act, insisting upon them to file the charge-sheet within stipulated statutory time-limit as defined under Section 167(2)(a) of the Code. Similarly, the Registry of this Court is also directed to issue Circulars to all the learned Magistrates regarding due compliance of Section 36-A(1)(b) of the NDPS Act to forward custody of the accused to the Special/ Session Court on expiry of first fifteen days. (Ref.: Questions Nos. 1 and 3 above). +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_1622641.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_1622641.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f62953fb364239c721833eb0ae6df22950394736 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_1622641.html @@ -0,0 +1,379 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Jarin Khan vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 October, 1992 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
(1) Whether the High Court can suspend the sentence passed on an accused convicted of an offence under NDPS Act during pendency of his appeal before the High Court? +
+
(2) Whether the conditions in Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail have overriding effect on the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (For short "the Code)? +
+

It has been held that High Court has no power to suspend the sentence of a convicted person either during the pendency of his appeal or revision, unless it relates to the offence Under Section 27. As regard the second question, the Full Bench of the Kerla High Court while relying on Md. Abdul v. State of West Bengal 1991 (II) Crimes-741 held that Section 167(2) would operate even for offences under the NDP0S Act and then Section 37 of the NDPS Act has no application. In other words, Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not override Section 167(2) of the Code. +

+
+ +
+ +

10. On the contrary Mr. Bhargava does not dispute the power of the High Court to grant bail under the NDPS Act but he has submitted that the petitioner can only be enlarged on bail if the conditions provided Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are satisfied. He has also submitted that the case of Rajnikant Jivanlal Patel v. Intelligence Officer AIR 1990 S.C. 71 is not applicable and the present case is fully covered by the decision of their lordships in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishanlal Cr.L.R. (S.C.) 1991-178. +

+
+ +
+ +

11. At the very threshold it may be stated that as regards the power of High Court in grant bail is concerned, there is no dispute but it is subject to Section 37 of the NDPS Act and depends upon the facts of its own. +

+

The only question which requires consideration in this bail application is whether on account of non-compliance of proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. the petitioner can be released on bail without satisfying the conditions mentioned in Section 37 of the NDPS Act ? +

+
+ +
+ +

12. As regards the case law cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in Berlin Joseph v. State 1992 (II) Crimes-353, the Full Bench of the Kerla High Court has observed that the Supreme Court decision in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishanlal 1991 Cr.R.L.R. (S.C.) 178 does not help in resolving the present controversy because in that decision the question considered was whether Section 37 would control Section 439 of the Code and further observed that is a different question altogether So also in Imam's case 1991 Cr.L.R. (S.C.) 178 it has been observed that the Supreme Court in Kishanlal's case was not dealing with a case wherein challan was not presented within 90/60 days. But as observed in the judgment in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishanlal 1991 Cr.L.R. (S.C.) 178 the petitioners sought bail before the High Court on the grounds of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. as of right and illness. The High Court extended the interim bail holding that limitation in Section 37(2) of the NDPS Act cannot be read as fetteres in exercise of power under Section 439 of the Code. In appeal the Supreme Court held that the power of the High Court is subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It is true that the Apex Court has not mentioned Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. but when the sole ground was of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. alongwith the ground of illness which is clear from the perusal of the judgment itself, therefore, it cannot be said that the point of Section 167(2)Cr.P.C. was not in issue otherwise, their lordships could have answered in terms of Section 167(2) without discussing Section 37 of the NDPS Act. As such the suggestion of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid case of Narcotics Control Bureau is not applicable cannot be accepted rather in that case it has been observed in the operative part of the Order that "the learned Counsel appearing for the Narcotics Control Bureau, the appellant herein, is also not pressing cancellation of the bail. Therefore, we are not remitting the matters to the High Court for fresh consideration." This observation goes to show that an accused person cannot be released on bail on the ground of Section167(2) Cr.P.C. without satisfying the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In view of this, in my humble opinion, their lordships have considered the point of Section 167(2) as the charge- sheet was filed at a belated stage and held that the power to grant bail Under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is subject to limitations contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and the cases of Berlin Joseph v. State 992(II)Crimes-353 and Imam v. C.B.I. New Delhi 1992 Cr.L.R. 290 are not helpful to the petitioner. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_16518754.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_16518754.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0eb772dfaee962c28873d51fd48682658429fff4 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_16518754.html @@ -0,0 +1,1451 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Petitioners vs State on 21 January, 2019 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + +

Legal Document View

+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + +
+ [Cites 21, Cited by 0] + +
+ +

Orissa High Court

+

Petitioners vs State on 21 January, 2019

+ +

Author: A. K. Mishra

+ +

Bench: A. K. Mishra

+ +
                                BLAPL No.4170
+                                        1     of 2017
+
+
+
+
+                             BLAPL Nos.4170, 6464, 6879,8478,5353 and
+                           8548 of 2017 and 2354, 2672 and 2674 of 2018
+
+                   Prakash Kumbhar                   (in   BLAPL   No.4170 of 2017)
+                   Santosh Das                       (in   BLAPL   No.6464 of 2017)
+                   Ramkumar Rajput                   (in   BLAPL   No.6879 of 2017)
+                   Ananta Das                        (in   BLAPL   No.8478 of 2017)
+                   Gouranga Meher                    (in   BLAPL   No.5353 of 2017)
+                   Sumanta Khatua                    (in   BLAPL   No.8548 of 2017)
+                   Mana Sahu                         (in   BLAPL   No.2354 of 2018)
+                   Balu Khilla                       (in   BLAPL   No.2672 of 2018)
+                   Santosh Golory                    (in   BLAPL   No.2674 of 2018)
+                                                                     .........Petitioners
+
+                                            Vrs.
+
+                   State of Odisha                                  ........Opp. Party
+
+
+
+19.   21.01.2019           In all these petitions made U/s. 439 Cr.P.C., the
+                   petitioners have prayed bail for being accused of offences
+                   under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
+                   (hereinafter referred to as „NDPS Act‟) involving commercial
+                   quantity for which bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act is
+                   required to be considered.
+
+                   2.      As the common question arises in all the above cases,
+                   hearing is taken up to consider the submissions of learned
+                   counsel for the parties.
+
+                   3.      Though several decisions are cited by learned counsel
+                   for both the parties, only relevants are referred to contextually
+                   to avoid multiplicity.
+
+                   3-(a)     Learned counsel       S.R. Mohapatra and Mr. Manas
+                   Chand submit that when the mandatory provisions of the
+                   NDPS Act such as Sec-42(1) and sec-50(1) are found
+                              2
+
+
+
+
+contravened or not complied with, the trial is vitiated and
+accused is entitled to bail. In support of his contention, they
+cited the decisions.
+
+(i)     (1994) 7 OCR -460 Rabi Sahoo vs State
+(ii)    1991 (11)OLR-475 Satyabrata @ Sarat Mallia and
+        another vs. State
+(iii)   (1996) 10 OCR-372 Umakanta Patel vs. State.
+(iv)    (2010)47    OCR   (SC)    -752    Sami  Ullaha vs.
+        Superintendent, Narcotic Central Bureu.
+(v)     (2013) 54 OCR-841 Thane Singh vs Central Bureau of
+        Narcotics.
+
+        Sami Ullaha case deals with cancellation of bail under
+Section 439 Cr.P.C. after receipt of second report of
+laboratory. The said decision is no help to the point posed
+here. The Thane Singh decision has been relied upon by the
+learned Additional Government Advocate and the same shall
+be dealt with later.
+
+        It may be noted that the cited Rabi Sahoo decision has
+been referred to in the subsequent Umakanta Patel case.
+
+        In Satyabrata (supra) case it is held as follows:-
+
+        "If the accused is to be released on bail, the Court has to
+        record its satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds
+        to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence
+        charged. Sub-sec, (i)(b)(ii) of Section 37 of the Act requires
+        that the Public Prosecutor has to be given an opportunity
+        to oppose such application for such release. This has a
+        definite purpose and the Public Prosecutor has a vital
+        role to play in the whole process of reaching the
+        satisfaction by the Court and is required to present the
+        entire material collected against the accused effectively
+        and in opposition to the application of bail showing that
+        no reasonable ground exists for believing that the
+        accused is not guilty of the offences charged". Then His
+                           3
+
+
+
+
+      Lordship granted bail In view of violation of the statutory
+      safeguards contained in Sec, 50(1) of the Act.
+
+      In Umakanta Patel (supra) case it is held as follows-:
+
+      "8. xxxxxxx As has been stated earlier certain provisions
+      including Section 50 of the Act are mandatory and non-
+      observance thereof vitiates the trial. Resort to Sections
+      42 and 50 of the Act is taken at the initial stage of
+      investigation and compliance thereof can very well be
+      ascertained from the case diary. So in course of hearing
+      of an application for bail if on scrutiny of the diary, it
+      appears that the procedural safeguards have not been
+      followed, the Court can look to the same for the limited
+      purpose of finding whether there are reasonable grounds
+      to believe that the accused is not guilty. This finding of
+      the Court, however, cannot be equated with the one
+      which is recorded at the end of the trial to pronounce
+      judgment. It may well be argued that even though non-
+      observance of the statutory provisions is apparent on the
+      face of the record, yet in course of trial it can supply the
+      omission by leading oral evidence. To my mind, this
+      cannot be accepted and on mere assumption of the
+      probable evidence that may be led by the prosecution,
+      accused cannot be refused bail."
+
+      9. In view of my discussions made above, while
+      respectfully agreeing with the views propounded in Rabi
+      Sahoo, (1994) 7 Ori CR 460 (supra), Fakir Sundari,
+      (1995) 8 Ori CR 320 (supra) and Narahari Das (supra), I
+      would hold that due to infraction of the requirements
+      of Section 50 of the Act the accused is entitled to be
+      released on bail".
+
+3-(b). Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S. N. Das
+relying upon the decision reported in AIR 2017 (S.C)-5500 -
+(2018) 11 SCC -1 Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs Union Of
+India contended that similar provision like sec-37 of The
+NDPS Act has been declared unconstitutional as it violates
+Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
+                         4
+
+
+
+
+      Putting emphasis upon the word "oppose", Mr. Das
+further submits that in view of the direction of Hon‟ble
+Supreme Court in Hussain & Anr. v. Union of India
+(CrA.509/201 judgment dt. 09-03-2017) reported in 2017 (5)
+SCC-702 to the effect that, the sessions trials where accused
+are in custody shall     be normally concluded within two
+years; it is imperative to maintain consistency with that
+direction and the public prosecutor must address the right
+to speedy trial of accused and in doing so, must show the
+contribution of accused, if any, to cause delay in trial and
+where no fault    is attributable, the court can ignore such
+„oppose‟ and on consideration of other factors required u/s
+439 Cr.P.C can dispose of the bail petition.
+
+      Both the above decisions will be discussed later with
+reference to the points urged.
+
+3-(c). Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, Mr. A. N. Das submits
+in reply that the direction of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
+Husain case (supra) is mandatory and is to be implemented
+but the same has no effect for the purpose of consideration
+of bail petition under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
+
+      It is categorically submitted by Mr. Das on behalf of
+the State that in order to give effect, the direction of Hon‟ble
+Supreme Court in Hussain Case, this Court can give any
+direction to speed up the trial and to ensure the completion
+of trial within two years. Beyond the above, nothing more
+can be done by this Court while considering the bail petition
+under 37 of NDPS Act.
+                          5
+
+
+
+
+      Referring A.R. Anthulle case, 1992 1 SCC 225, Thane
+Singh vrs. Central Bureau of Narcotics reported in 2013 (2)
+SCC 590 and Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee vrs.
+Union of India and others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 731
+learned Additional Government Advocate further contended
+that the interest of society is to be kept in view while
+releasing the accused in the case under NDPS Act and the
+directions of in Hussain judgment are to be balanced as far
+as possible.
+
+      It is noteworthy to mention that all the above decisions
+cited by learned Addl. Government Advocate, Mr. Das have
+been referred to in the Hussain case (supra) for which I do
+not think proper to burdensome this order further.
+
+      Lastly, Mr. Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate
+while opposing the bail application submits that twin
+conditions test as provided u/s 37 of the NDPS Act is
+mandatory as per the decisions rendered by the Hon‟ble
+Supreme Court in the case of Satpal Singh Vrs. the State
+of Punjab reported in 2018 (5) SCALE 519, and drew the
+attention of this court to the following of that decision:-
+
+      "Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, when a person is
+      accused of an offence punishable under Section 19 or 24
+      or 27A and also for offences involving commercial
+      quantity, he shall not be released on bail unless the
+      Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to
+      oppose the application for such release, and in case a
+      Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court must
+      be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
+      believing that the person is not guilty of the alleged
+      offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence
+      while on bail. Materials on record are to be seen and the
+                           6
+
+
+
+
+      antecedents of the accused are to be examined to enter
+      such a satisfaction. These limitations are in addition to
+      those prescribed under the Cr.P.C or any other law in
+      force on the grant of bail. In view of the seriousness of
+      the offence, the law makers have consciously put such
+      stringent restrictions on the discretion available to the
+      court while considering application for release of a
+      person on bail. It is unfortunate that the provision has
+      not been noticed by the High Court. And it is more
+      unfortunate that the same has not been brought to the
+      notice of the Court."
+
+4.    In the face of learned counsel‟s contention, it is
+apposite to refer first the decision Hussain & Anr. v. Union
+of India reported in 2017 (5) SCC-702. The Hon‟ble Apex
+court in that case considering the question as to the
+circumstances in which bail can be granted on the ground of
+delayed proceedings when a person is in custody on the
+allegation of having committed offence under Section 21(c) of
+the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
+(the NDPS Act) ,has given direction as follows-:
+
+      "27. To sum up:
+      (i) The High Courts may issue directions to subordinate
+      courts that -
+      (a) Bail applications be disposed of normally within one
+      week;
+      (b) Magisterial trials, where accused are in custody, be
+      normally concluded within six months and sessions
+      trials where accused are in custody be normally
+      concluded within two years;
+      (c) Efforts be made to dispose of all cases which are five
+      years old by the end of the year;
+      (d) As a supplement to Section 436A, but consistent with
+      the spirit thereof, if an undertrial has completed period of
+      custody in excess of the sentence likely to be awarded
+      if conviction is recorded such undertrial must be released
+      on personal bond. Such an assessment must be made by
+      the concerned trial courts from time to time;
+                          7
+
+
+
+
+      (e) The above timelines may be the touchstone for
+      assessment of judicial performance in annual
+      confidential reports.
+      (emphasis added)
+      (ii) The High Courts are requested to ensure that bail
+      applications filed before them are decided as far as
+      possible within one month and criminal appeals where
+      accused are in custody for more than five years are
+      concluded at the earliest;
+      (iii) The High Courts may prepare, issue and monitor
+      appropriate action plans for the subordinate courts;
+      (iv)The High Courts may monitor steps for speedy
+      investigation and trials on administrative and judicial
+      side from time to time;
+      (v) The High Courts may take such stringent measures as
+      may be found necessary in the light of judgment of this
+      Court in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal (supra).
+      28. Accordingly, we request the Chief Justices of all High
+      Courts to forthwith take appropriate steps consistent
+      with the directions of this Court in Hussain Ara Khatoon
+      (1995) 5 SCC 326) (supra), Akhtari Bi (Smt.) (supra), Noor
+      Mohammed (supra), Thana Singh (supra), S.C. Legal Aid
+      Committee (supra), Imtiaz Ahmad (supra), Ex. Captain
+      Harish Uppal (supra) and Resolution of Chief Justices'
+      Conference and observations hereinabove and to have
+      appropriate monitoring mechanism in place on the
+      administrative side as well as on the judicial side for
+      speeding up disposal of cases of undertrials pending in
+      subordinate courts and appeals pending in the High
+      Courts.''
+
+5.    Having heard learned counsel for both sides, it is
+pertinent to note that the applicability of 37 of NDPS Act,
+and the conditions required to be satisfied in addition to the
+limitations available under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are no more
+res integra. Hence on this score this Court is not called upon
+to formulate any point for consideration. The factual aspect
+of each case is to be examined while going through the
+respective bail petitions.
+                           8
+
+
+
+
+         Matter does not rest here. What is not agreed is the
+disagreement on point of the direction given in the Hussain
+decision (supra) by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. Hence, this
+aspect of implementing the direction of Hon‟ble supreme
+court in Hussain & Anr. v. Union of India case while
+considering the bail application u/s 37 of NDPS Act is
+required to examined and for that following questions arise.
+
+5-(a).   Whether there is a need      to address the Twin
+         conditions test as provided u/s 37 of the NDPS
+         Act when the public prosecutor while opposing
+         the bail application does not attribute any fault to
+         accused for the delay in trial referring the trial
+         time as per the direction of Hon‟ble supreme court
+         in   Hussain    &    Anr.   v.   Union    of    India
+         (CrA.509/201 judgment dt.09-03-2017) to the
+         effect that, the sessions trials where accused are
+         in custody     be normally concluded within two
+         years?
+
+5-(b). How can these two imperatives              i.e    Twin
+         conditions test as per sec-37 of the NDPS Act and
+         conclusion of trial within two years           as per
+         Hussain & Anr. be met ?
+
+6.       Plain reading of the provision under Section 37 of the
+NDPS Act does not postulate any ambiguity and it reads as
+follows-
+                           9
+
+
+
+
+      "37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.-(1)
+      notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
+      Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
+      (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be
+      cognizable;
+      (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for
+      offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27 A
+      and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall
+      be released on bail or on his own bond unless
+      (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to
+      oppose the application for such release, and
+      (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application,
+      the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds
+      for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that
+      he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
+      (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause
+      (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations
+      under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
+      or any other law for the time being in force, on granting
+      of bail."
+
+7.       It is not disputed that twin conditions test is
+mandatory when the bail application is opposed by the
+public prosecutor. Since the release of accused coming
+under the cloud of sec 37 of NDPS Act is stiff, the trial is to
+be concluded at the earliest. Here the direction of Hon‟ble
+supreme court in Hussain & Anr. v. Union of India                    to
+conclude trial within two years is to be carried forward.
+
+7-(a). The position on this context earlier to Hussain case-
+direction dtd.09.03.2017 needs to be encapsulated first.
+
+      In the case of Union Of India vs Rattan Mallik @
+Habul on 23 January, 2009 2009 (1) SCC -482 the Hon‟ble
+apex court has reiterated that-:
+
+      "11. The broad principles which should weigh with the
+      Court in granting bail in a non-bailable offence have been
+      enumerated in a catena of decisions of this Court and,
+                          10
+
+
+
+
+     therefore, for the sake of brevity, we do not propose to
+     reiterate     the     same.       However,       when        a
+     prosecution/conviction is for offence(s) under a special
+     statute and that statute contains specific provisions for
+     dealing with matters arising there under, including an
+     application for grant of bail, these provisions cannot be
+     ignored while dealing with such an application. As
+     already noted, in the present case, the respondent has
+     been convicted and sentenced for offences under
+     the NDPS Act and therefore, while dealing with his
+     application for grant of bail, in addition to the broad
+     principles to be applied in prosecution for offences
+     under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 the relevant provision
+     in the said special statute in this regard had to be kept in
+     view.
+            Xxx
+     14. We may, however, hasten to add that while
+     considering an application for bail with reference
+     to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court is not called
+     upon to record a finding of `not guilty'. At this stage, it is
+     neither necessary nor desirable to weigh the evidence
+     meticulously to arrive at a positive finding as to whether
+     or not the accused has committed offence under
+     the NDPS Act. What is to be seen is whether there is
+     reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not
+     guilty of the offence(s) he is charged with and further
+     that he is not likely to commit an offence under the said
+     Act while on bail. The satisfaction of the Court about the
+     existence of the said twin conditions is for a limited
+     purpose and is confined to the question of releasing the
+     accused on bail''
+
+      In the case of Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari,
+(2007) 7 SCC 798 held as under:-
+
+     "The expression used in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is "reasonable
+     grounds". The expression means something more than
+     prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable
+     causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the
+     offence charged and this reasonable belief contemplated
+     in turn points to existence of such facts and
+     circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify
+     recording of satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of
+     the offence charged.
+                              11
+
+
+
+
+         The word "reasonable" has in law the prima facie
+         meaning of reasonable in regard to those circumstances
+         of which the actor, called on to act reasonably, knows or
+         ought to know. It is difficult to give an exact definition of
+         the word "reasonable".
+
+8.        Position post Hussain case may now be seen.
+
+8-(a). The case of Union of India v. Niyazuddin Sk. &
+Another (judgment dt. 24-07-2017) reported in 2017(4) RCR
+(Criminal) 644, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has also held
+that-:
+
+         "The accusation in the present case is with regard to the
+         fourth factor namely, commercial quantity. Be that as it
+         may, once the Public Prosecutor opposes the application
+         for bail to a person accused of the enumerated offences
+         under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, in case, the court
+         proposes to grant bail to such a person, two conditions
+         are to be mandatorily satisfied in addition to the normal
+         requirements under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. or any
+         other enactment. (1) The court must be satisfied that
+         there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
+         person is not guilty of such offence; (2) that person is not
+         likely to commit any offence while on bail."
+
+
+9.       Significantly    though     in   different   statute,    Hon‟ble
+Supreme Court did not show favour to twin conditions test
+and the rationale behind it. The said decision reported in AIR
+2017 (S.C)-5500 -(2018) 11 SCC -1 Nikesh Tarachand Shah
+vs Union Of India on 23 November, 2017 is helpful to
+answer the points posed in the case at hand. Section 45(1) of
+the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 has been
+declared unconstitutional by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
+insofar as it imposes two further conditions for release on
+bail, as it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
+                          12
+
+
+
+
+India. It cannot be lost sight that Section 45(1) of the
+Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and section 37
+the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
+(the NDPS Act) are in      pari materia.      While analyzing, the
+Hon‟ble Supreme court has observed therein as follows -:
+      "33. Also, the classification contained within the NDPS
+      Act is completely done away with. Unequals are dealt
+      with as if they are now equals. The offences under
+      the NDPS Act are classified on the basis of the quantity
+      of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances that the
+      accused is found with, which are categorized as: (1) a
+      small quantity, as defined; (2) a quantity which is above
+      small quantity, but below commercial quantity, as
+      defined; and (3) above commercial quantity, as defined.
+      The sentences of these offences vary from 1 year for a
+      person found with small quantity, to 10 years for a
+      person found with something between small and
+      commercial quantity, and a minimum of 10 years upto 20
+      years when a person is found with commercial quantity.
+      The twin conditions specified in Section 37 of the NDPS
+      Act get attracted when bail is asked for only insofar as
+      persons who have commercial quantities with them are
+      concerned. A person found with a small quantity or with
+      a quantity above small quantity, but below commercial
+      quantity, punishable with a one year sentence or a 10
+      year sentence respectively, can apply for bail
+      under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
+      without satisfying the same twin conditions as are
+      contained in Section 45 of the 2002 Act, under Section
+      37 of the NDPS Act. By assimilating all these three
+      contraventions and bracketing them together, the 2002
+      Act treats as equal offences which are treated as
+      unequal by the NDPS Act itself, when it comes to
+      imposition of the further twin conditions for grant of bail.
+      This    is   yet    another    manifestly arbitrary    and
+      discriminatory feature of the application of Section"
+
+10.   Viewing the provision of law and precedential position
+reiterated from time to time, it is important to advert that the
+concern of the Hon‟ble Apex Court for the liberty of accused
+and his right to speedy justice has always been expressed in
+                                13
+
+
+
+
+unambiguous           words.    Right     to   speedy    trial    and    twin
+conditions test for bail u/s 37 NDPS Act are separate but
+interrelated. The important one is the former because of the
+fact that trial time has been prescribed in Hussain & Anr. v.
+Union of India (supra). The same is certain, predictable and
+is potent enough to relax to some extent the problem of
+pretrial detention.
+
+         The later one, twin conditions test as provided u/s 37
+of NDPS Act, is uncertain and meant to be ascertained mostly
+by guess work. When release of the under trial prisoner (UTP)
+is associated with the result of guesswork or conjecture, the
+trial time assumes primacy. The contribution of UTP to cause
+delay in the proceeding should be an important factor within
+the      ambit   of   "oppose       the   application"   by      the    public
+prosecutor. Twin conditions are a much higher threshold bar
+than any of the conditions which are ascertainable prima
+facie.
+
+         The cause and consequence of failure to address delay
+in trial and the contribution of UTP thereto while opposing
+the bail application by learned public prosecutor cannot be
+overlooked because the preemption of that step would draw
+court to the next step as to whether to make twin conditions
+test or not. In order to ensure the primacy of "oppose to bail
+application stage", the delaying factors are required to be
+placed in no uncertain terms. Attribution of fault in this
+regard to UTP must be specific and definite. Failure to do so,
+may lead such objection to implicit negation of trial time
+                          14
+
+
+
+
+prescribed in Hussain & Anr. v. Union of India (supra).In
+such a situation, the court may not be under any compulsion
+to go for twin conditions test. For these reasons, when the
+public prosecutor does not oppose the bail application
+referring fault of the U.T.P. to cause delay in trial referring the
+direction of Hon‟ble Supreme Court, there is no need to go for
+the Twin conditions test as provided u/s 37 of the NDPS Act.
+
+11.          The imperatives of sec 37 of NDPS Act and the
+direction of Hon‟ble the supreme court in case of Hussain &
+Anr. v. Union of India (supra) to the effect that, the sessions
+trials where accused are in custody be normally concluded
+within two years, can be given effect in the following manner:-
+
+11-(a).            While opposing the bail application, the
+delaying factors and fault of UTP must be placed specifically
+by the learned public prosecutor.
+
+11-(b).            Where the trial as per Hussain judgment
+stipulation either could not have been concluded or cannot be
+adhered to and for such deficiency no fault is attributed to
+U.T.P. while opposing bail application, the court may hesitate
+to make twin conditions test as provided u/s 37 of the NDPS
+Act.
+
+12.    In view of the above legal position drawn on analysis,
+let the fact of the bail petitions at hand be seen specifically for
+disposal.
+                        15
+
+
+
+
+BLAPL No.4170 of 2017
+
+            In this case the petitioner, namely, Prakash
+Kumbhar is an accused for commission of offence under
+Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, 1985, for having in
+possession of three packets containing 14 Kg. 730gms, 25kg
+570gms and 21kg 195gms         of Ganja in connection with
+Gochhapada P.S. Case No.56 of 2015 corresponding to G.R.
+Case No.76 of 2015 of the court of learned Sessions Judge-
+cum-Special Judge, Kandhamal, Phulbani.
+            Accused, Prakash Kumbhar is in custody since
+ 21.09.2017.
+            Having regards to the quantity of contraband, I
+ am not satisfied that accused will not commit similar type of
+ offence after release. Hence I am inclined to reject the bail
+ petition. The Trial Court is directed to complete the trial
+ within four months hence.
+
+BLAPL No.6464 of 2017
+
+      In this case the petitioner namely, Santosh Das is an
+accused for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of
+NDPS Act, 1985, for having in possession of 64Kg. of Ganja
+in connection with P.R. No.37 of 2017-18 EI & EB Unit-II,
+Cuttack corresponding to 2(a) CC No.11 of 2017 of the court
+of learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Cuttack.
+
+      Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
+accused was a passenger of a TATA ZEST Vehicle bearing
+                           16
+
+
+
+
+Registration    No.OD-01F-9446       and    is   in   custody    since
+17.06.2017.
+      It   is   also   submitted    that   the   informant      is   the
+ Investigating Officer and the trial is vitiated as per decision of
+ Mohan Lal Vrs. State of Punjab (2018) SCC online SC 974.
+ He further submits that the mandatory provision under
+ section 42(2) of the NDPS Act has been violated as the
+ Superior Officer has not been informed. While opposing the
+ bail the learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that all
+ the mandatory provisions have been complied with.
+      Nothing has been stated as to the delay in trial and fault
+ of U.T.P. No criminal antecedent is shown against the
+ accused. For the facts not disputed by State, I am inclined to
+ grant bail.
+      Let the accused be admitted to bail on such terms and
+ conditions to be imposed by the learned Trial Court.
+
+BLAPL No.6879 of 2017
+
+      In this case the petitioner namely, Ramkumar Rajput is
+an   accused     for   commission    of    offence    under   Section
+20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985, for having in possession of 28
+Kg. 700 gms. of Ganja in connection with Padwa P.S. Case
+No.65 of 2017 corresponding to T.R. No.12 of 2017 of the
+court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
+Koraput.
+
+      Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that three
+bags were seized containing contraband Ganja about 28 Kg
+and the number of passengers in the car were 5 and for that
+                        17
+
+
+
+
+it cannot be said that the petitioner was in possession of
+contraband article more than commercial quantity.
+
+      Further it is stated that the petitioner is in custody
+since 28.07.2017 and trial has not yet been concluded. Added
+to that he submits that, the mandatory provisions for search
+and seizure are not followed.
+
+      Learned Additional Standing Counsel opposes the bail
+stating that the mandatory provisions have been complied
+with and seized article is more than commercial quantity.
+
+      Nothing is stated about delay in trial and the fault of
+U.T.P. No criminal antecedent of the petitioner is shown.
+Hence I am satisfied that the petitioner will not likely to
+commit any offence after release on bail.
+
+      Having regards to the above facts and custody period, I
+am inclined to release the accused on bail.
+
+      Let the accused be admitted to bail on such terms and
+conditions to be imposed by the learned Trial Court.
+
+BLAPL No.8478 of 2017
+
+      In this case the petitioner namely, Ananta Das is an
+accused for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of
+NDPS Act, 1985, for having in possession of 20Kg. 100Gms.
+of Ganja in connection with P.R. No.53 of 2017-18 of S.I. of
+Excise, District Mobile Squad, Angul corresponding to Special
+(NDPS) Case No.13 of 2017 of the court of learned Special
+Judge, Angul.
+                           18
+
+
+
+
+      Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
+seized quantity of contraband article is 20 Kg. 100gms for
+which the accused is in custody since 21.09.2017 and the
+informant of this case is the Investigating Officer for which
+trial is vitiated as per decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
+Mohan Lal Vrs. State of Punjab (2018) SCC online SC 974.
+Further it is submitted that the mandatory provision under
+section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been complied with.
+
+      Learned Addl. Government Advocate opposes the bail
+stating that the seized contraband Ganja is 21 Kg. 100 gms.
+and the mandatory provisions have been complied with and
+there is no instruction about the cause of delay in trial.
+
+      Having regards to the above fact and custody period the
+petitioner is entitled to bail.
+
+      Let the accused be admitted to bail on such terms and
+conditions to be imposed by the learned Trial Court.
+
+BLAPL No.5353 of 2017
+
+      In    this   case   the     petitioner   namely,   Gouranga
+Meher is an accused for commission of offence under Section
+20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985, for having in possession of 22
+Kg. 150 Gms. of Ganja in connection with Dhama P.S. Case
+No.83 of 2017 corresponding to T.R. Case No.62 of 2017 of
+the court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
+Sambalpur.
+                          19
+
+
+
+
+        The learned Additional Standing Counsel opposes the
+bail application stating that the seized contraband Ganja
+involves   commercial    quantity    and    all    the   mandatory
+provisions required under the NDPS Act have been complied
+with.
+
+        Accused is in custody since 21.06.2017. Nothing has
+been stated about delay in trial. No criminal antecedent of
+petitioner is brought to the notice of the Court.
+
+        Having regards to the material placed, I am satisfied
+that the petitioner is not likely to commit any offence while on
+bail and prima facie is not guilty of offence. Hence, he is
+entitled to be released on bail.
+
+        Let the accused be admitted to bail on such terms and
+conditions to be imposed by the learned Trial Court.
+
+BLAPL No.8548 of 2017
+
+        In this case the petitioner namely, Sumanta Khatua is
+an   accused    for   commission    of   offence   under   Section
+20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 in connection with Boudh P.R.
+Case No.11 of 2017 corresponding to 2(a) CC No.3 of 2017 of
+the court of learned Special Judge, Boudh.
+
+        It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
+that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 09.10.2017
+and has been prejudiced as the informant is the Investigating
+Officer of this case. Further it is submitted that the
+mandatory provision under section 55 and 57 of NDPS Act
+                          20
+
+
+
+
+are not complied with and relying upon the decision of the
+case of Mohan Lal vs. State of Pubjab reported in 2018
+SCC online SC 974 and persuaded the court to take a view
+that the chance of conviction of accused is remote.
+
+      Learned Additional Government Advocate opposes the
+bail stating that the investigation by the informant is not
+prejudicial and for that no adverse view can be taken against
+the prosecution. Further it is also contended that though the
+stage of trial is not known the mandatory provision under
+sections 55 and 57 are complied with and for that the
+accused is not to be benefited.
+
+      In view of the Three Judge Bench decision of Hon‟ble
+Supreme Court in Mohan Lal case (supra), prejudice has
+already been caused to face fair trial. No criminal antecedent
+is shown for which I am satisfied that the petitioner is not
+likely to commit any offence while on bail.
+
+      Regards being had to the above facts, I am inclined to
+grant bail to the petitioner.
+
+      Let the accused be admitted to bail on such terms and
+conditions to be imposed by the learned Trial Court.
+
+BLAPL No.2354 of 2018
+
+      In this case the petitioner namely, Mana Sahu is an
+accused for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of
+NDPS Act, 1985, for having in possession of 145 Kg. 320 gms.
+of Ganja in connection with Kantamala P.S. Case No.43 of
+                          21
+
+
+
+
+2014 corresponding to C.T. Case No.195 of 2014 of the court
+of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special
+Judge, Boudh vide Special Case (NDPS Act) No.1/2014(T).
+
+      Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
+accused-petitioner is in custody since 29.05.2014. 145Kg.
+320Gms of Ganja was seized from the house, but not from the
+conscious possession of the accused. It is stated that accused
+is 72 years old and trial is yet to be completed. Learned
+counsel for the petitioner also referring the deposition of
+P.W.1-A.S.I. of Kantamal Police Station submits that while
+seizure of contraband article was made from the veranda of
+the house, the accused was found in the backside of the
+house but the occupants of the house were lady members and
+children.
+
+      Learned Additional Government Advocate opposes the
+bail stating that the last date to record the evidence by the
+lower court was 3.9.2018. With regards to possession of
+contraband article by the accused, it is stated that the house
+from where the seizure was made belonged to the accused-
+petitioner.
+
+      No criminal antecedent is shown against the accused.
+Learned     Additional   Government   Advocate    is   unable   to
+attribute any fault to the petitioner for the delay in trial since
+29.5.2014.
+
+      Having regards to the age of the petitioner and custody
+period, I am inclined to admit the petitioner on bail.
+                         22
+
+
+
+
+       Let the accused be admitted to bail on such terms and
+conditions to be imposed by the learned Trial Court.
+
+BLAPL No.2672 of 2018
+
+       In this case the petitioner namely, Balu Khilla is an
+accused for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of
+NDPS Act, 1985, for having in possession of 76 Kg. 830 gms.
+of Ganja in connection with Padwa P.S. Case No.03 of 2017
+corresponding to T.R. Case No.01 of 2017 of the court of
+learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koraput.
+
+       Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
+Additional Government Advocate for the State.
+
+       The report of Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-
+Special Judge, Koraput dated 5.12.2018 reveals that the
+Commission was appointed to examine one official witness
+and the date was fixed awaiting Commission Report. It is also
+reported therein that the case is likely to be disposed of by the
+end of April, 2019.
+
+       Both the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
+AGA stated to have no information about further development
+in the trial.
+
+       Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
+accused-petitioner was a passenger in the Auto Rickshaw and
+is in custody since 6.1.2017 and there is no antecedent
+against him. He further referring substantial evidence of one
+                          23
+
+
+
+
+Bhakta    Muduli-P.W.4    stated      that    in    the   Auto,    seven
+passengers were available.
+
+      Regards being had to the report of learned trial court
+that trial is to be completed by April, 2019, I am not inclined
+to grant bail to the petitioner. The trial court is directed to
+expedite trial. The petitioner is at liberty to renew the bail
+prayer if trial is not completed by the end of April, 2019.
+
+
+
+
+BLAPL No.2674 of 2018
+
+      In this case the petitioner namely, Santosh Golory is an
+accused      for   commission    of       offence     under       Section
+20(b)(ii)(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985, for having three nos. of
+polythene bags containing 60 Kg. 320 Gms. of Ganja in
+connection     with   Nandapur     P.S.      Case    No.97    of    2017
+corresponding to T.R. Case No.17 of 2017 of the court of
+learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koraput.
+
+      Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
+accused-petitioner is in custody since 13.9.2017 and trial has
+not yet been completed and he was one of the passengers in
+Toyota Qualis vehicle bearing Registration No. CH-04-1885.
+Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no
+independent witness was present at the time of seizure.
+
+      Learned AGA opposes the bail stating that this
+accused-petitioner is involved in another NDPS case and he
+                                24
+
+
+
+
+      was an occupant of the vehicle from which seizure of 61 Kgs
+      of Ganja was made.
+
+              In view of the involvement of the petitioner in another
+      NDPS case, the commission of this type of offence by him
+      after release is not ruled out. Hence I am not inclined to grant
+      bail.
+
+              Accordingly the bail petition stands rejected.
+
+              The learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial
+      keeping in view the guideline of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
+      the case of Hussain & Anr. Vrs. Union of India, 2017 (5)
+      SCC 702.
+
+
+
+                                               ..............................
+                                               Dr. A. K. Mishra, J.
+
+ + + +

mkp +

+
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_170167215.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_170167215.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9834e6251a9391a182916a6e044e22685ccc2ff6 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_170167215.html @@ -0,0 +1,383 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Shailendra Kumar Gupta @ Shailu vs State Of U.P. on 5 March, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

6. Shri Imran Ullah, learned counsel (amicus curie) while referring to paragraph nos. 7 and 22 of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala has contended that the Court is required to record a finding mandated under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act which is a sine qua non for grant of bail to the accused under the N.D.P.S. Act. With regard to bail, learned counsel has referred to the judgements of the Apex Court in the matters of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation3, Union of India Vs. Shiv Shanker Kesari4, State of M.P. Vs. Kajad5, Union of India Vs. Ram Samujh and another6, Union of India Vs. Thamisharasi7 and Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another8 . It is contended by the learned counsel that refusal of bail is the rule and its grant an exception in view of Section 37(1)(b)(ii). Liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is uncalled for. He contends that Section 37 of the NDPS Act starts with a non-obstante clause and therefore, the provisions of Section 437/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be applicable with regard to a person accused of an offence punishable under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity of contraband. The words "reasonable grounds" also appear in clause (i) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. but the authority given to a High Court or a Court of Session under clause (a) of Section 439 permitting release on bail of any person accused of an offence would be curtailed in view of the stringent provision of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. The limitations prescribed under the NDPS Act on granting of bail are in addition to the limitations under Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force. It is further contended that while considering an application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. With reference to the phrase "reasonable grounds for believing", the learned counsel has referred to paragraph no. 37 of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra) to contend that the legislature has used the the words 'reasonable grounds for believing' instead of 'the evidence' which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. +

+
+ +
+ +

SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPLES WITH REGARD TO BAIL UNDER THE NDPS ACT WITH REFERENCE TO A PERSON ACCUSED under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A and also for OFFENCES INVOLVING 'COMMERCIAL QUANTITY' + + + +

9. It is no longer res nova that in view of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, refusal of bail is the rule and its grant an exception and, that too after, inter alia, providing the Public Prosecutor an opportunity to oppose the application for such release. The law with regard to grant of bail in matters under the NDPS Act is quite well settled. However, some of the principles may be summarized as follows:- +

+
+ +
+ +

13. When the State of Madhya Pradesh, whose police made the arrest of the appellant in connection with the M.P. case on 7-8-1998, admitted that after arrest he was not produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, its inevitable corollary is that detention made as a sequel to the arrest would become unlawful beyond the said period of 24 hours." +

+

v) Liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is uncalled for. +

+

Then, in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Kajad5, the Supreme Court was considering an appeal against an order of the High Court allowing the second bail application of the respondent who was accused under the NDPS Act (as it stood prior to its amendment in the year 2001). The Supreme Court held: +

+
+ +
+ +
22. We may further like to observe that the learned Single Judge has failed to record a finding mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act which is a sine qua non for granting bail to the accused under the NDPS Act. +
+
23. The submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that in Crime No. 14/2018, the bail has been granted to the other accused persons(A-1 to A-4), and no steps have been taken by the prosecution to challenge the grant of post-arrest bail to the other accused persons, is of no consequence for the reason that the consideration prevailed upon the Court to grant bail to the other accused persons will not absolve the act of the accused respondent(A-5) from the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_171010802.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_171010802.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..500ffd8375f63168c7603f5edf8781b19ac0e4f0 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_171010802.html @@ -0,0 +1,523 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Dinesh Kumar @ Billa vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 6 July, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

c) In Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2018) 13 SCC 813, a bench of three +judges of Supreme Court directed that since the quantity involved was + + + + + + + + + + +commercial, as such High Court could not have and should not have passed the +order under sections 438 or 439 CrPC, without reference to Section 37 of the +NDPS Act. +

+

. +

+

d) In Narcotics Control Bureau v Kishan Lal, 1991 (1) SCC 705, Supreme +Court holds, +

6. Section 37 as amended starts with a non-obstante + + + + + + clause stating that notwithstanding anything contained in + the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no person accused + of an offence prescribed therein shall be released on bail + unless the conditions contained therein were satisfied. The + Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act is a + + + + + + special enactment as already noted it was enacted with a + view to make stringent provision for the control and + regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs and + psychotropic substances. That being the underlying object + and particularly when the provisions of Section 37 of + + Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act are in + + negative terms limiting the scope of the applicability of the + provisions of Criminal Procedure Code regarding bail, in + our view, it cannot be held that the High Court's powers to + grant bail under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code are + not subject to the limitation mentioned under Section 37 of + + + Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. The + non-obstante clause with which the Section starts should + be given its due meaning and clearly it is intended to + restrict the powers to grant bail. In case of inconsistency + + + + + between Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code and + Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic +Substances Act, 1985 Section 37 prevails. +

+
+ +
+

involved, the accused would indulge in activities which are + + + + + + lethal to the society. Therefore, it would certainly be in the + interest of the society to keep such persons behind bars + during the pendency of the proceedings before the Court, + and the validity of Section 37(1)(b) having been upheld, + + + + + + we cannot take any other view. +

+

f) In Bijando Singh v. Md. Ibocha, 2004(10) SCC 151, Supreme Court +holds, + + + + + +

3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Special Court + (NDPS), releasing the accused on bail, the appellant + moved the Guwahati High Court against the said order on + the ground that the order granting bail is contrary to the + provisions of law and the appropriate authority never + + noticed the provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs + + And Psychotropic Substances Act. The High Court, + however, being of the opinion that if the attendance of the + accused is secured by means of bail bonds, then he is + entitled to be released on bail. The High Court, thus, in our + opinion, did not consider the provisions of Section 37 of + + + the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. +

+
+ +
+

limited purpose and is confined to the question of + + + + + + releasing the accused on bail. +

+

k) In Union of India v. Niyazuddin & Anr, (2018) 13 SCC 738, Supreme + + + + + +Court holds, +

7. ...Section 37 of the NDPS Act contains special + provisions with regard to grant of bail in respect of certain + offences enumerated under the said Section. They are :- +

(1) In the case of a person accused of an offence + + + + + + punishable under Section 19, (2) Under Section 24, (3) + Under Section 27A and (4) Of offences involving + commercial quantity. The accusation in the present case is + with regard to the fourth factor namely, commercial + quantity. Be that as it may, once the Public Prosecutor + + opposes the application for bail to a person accused of the + + enumerated offences under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, + in case, the court proposes to grant bail to such a person, + two conditions are to be mandatorily satisfied in addition to + the normal requirements under the provisions of the + Cr.P.C. or any other enactment. (1) The court must be + + + satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing + that the person is not guilty of such offence; (2) that + person is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. +
+
+ +
+

12. We, however, feel that some stringent conditions will + have to be imposed upon the appellant. +

+

SUM UP: +

+
22. From the summary of the law relating to rigors of S.37 of NDPS Act, while +granting bail involving commercial quantities in the NDPS Act, the following +fundamental principles emerge: +
+ ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2020 20:21:46 :::HCHP + 13 +
a) The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of + granting bail arises on merits. [Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva + Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549]. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_171428687.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_171428687.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..20df2b2b76af960b4bcf153ad6deafce5de2de98 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_171428687.html @@ -0,0 +1,432 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Atul Aggarwal vs Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence on 21 December, 2021 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

accused/Paramjit Singh Gulati, before the Ld. Trial Court on + 04.08.2012. +

c) Mr. Gonsalves, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the + Petitioner herein, refers to Section 37 of the NDPS Act which + entails the requirements for bail under the NDPS Act, and + argues that the requirements have been satisfied in the instant + case and that there is no bar or embargo on bail per se. Mr. + Gonsalves cites Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC + + + + + + + + + 713, to submit that in that case, the Supreme Court had held that + statutory restrictions like the one imposed by Section 43-D (5) + of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, did not + necessarily mean that the very ability of constitutional courts to + grant bail would be ousted as the same would entail a violation + of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He states that as this + judgement had been recently pronounced, the Ld. Trial Court + had not been able to take the same into consideration while + hearing the bail application of the Petitioner herein. +

+
+ +
+ +
(2)The limitations on granting of bail specified in + clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the + limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, + 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in + force, on granting of bail.]" +
+

9. A reading of Section 37 of the NDPS Act indicates that bail can be + granted only when there are reasonable grounds for believing that the + accused is not guilty of an offence and that he is not likely to commit any + offence when released on bail. The parameters for grant of bail to an accused + + + + + + + + + have been laid down in a number of judgements of the Supreme Court. In + Collector of Customs v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549, the + Supreme Court had observed as under: +

+
+ +
+

10. Similarly, in Union of India v. Rattan Mallik, (2009) 2 SCC 624, the + Supreme Court had held that while considering an application for grant of + bail under the NDPS Act, the Court was not called upon to record a finding + of "not guilty", but to see whether there was any reasonable ground for + believing that the accused was not guilty of the offence(s) that he was + charged with and further that he was not likely to commit an offence under + the said Act while on bail. The relevant portion of the aforementioned + judgement reads as follows: +

+
+ +
+ + BAIL APPLN. 2477/2021 Page 17 of 21 +Signature Not Verified +Digitally Signed +By:RAHUL SINGH +Signing Date:22.12.2021 +15:59:27 +

Therefore, the consequences of dealing of drugs and drug abuse can be + experienced across the board, from causing economic issues to societal + disintegration. The purpose of enacting the NDPS Act was to curb this + menace, and this purpose must be borne in mind while considering the grant + of bail pertaining to the NDPS Act. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_174268577.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_174268577.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ff28182b32c575c50d891316f5eda3f52b684515 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_174268577.html @@ -0,0 +1,639 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Teru Majhi & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 3 April, 2014 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
Is a Special Court under Section 36 of the NDPS Act (deemed + +Sessions Court) competent to entertain the pre-arrest bail + +petition under Section 438 CRPC? +
+
+ + +Brother Debangshu Basak, J in his judgment opined that a special + +Court constituted under Section 36 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is + +competent to entertain a pre-arrest bail petition under Section 438 + +CRPC. I fully subscribe to such view and concur with his + +conclusion. At the same time, in the light of our unanimous + +opinion, in our answer to the reference, it is also required to be + +clarified that such jurisdiction of the designated Judge to exercise + +power under Section 438 CRPC relating to offences punishable + +under the NDPS Act is exclusive and was never vested with the + +Sessions Judge. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + +QUESTION IN THE REFERENCE + +The question of law framed by the learned Judge was as follows:- + + +
"Is Special Court constituted under Section 36 of the NDPS Act + +(deemed Sessions Court) competent to entertain the pre-arrest bail + +petition under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code?" + + + + +

The learned Judge, Special Court under the NDPS Act, 1985 framed + +the question of reference by his Order dated September 10, 2013. + +While discussing the necessity to refer the question to this Hon'ble + +Court the learned Judge considered 2013 Criminal Law Journal + +page 3503 (Rakesh Kumar alias Kukka v. State of Himachal + +Pradesh), 2001 Criminal Law Journal page 117 + +(Superintendent, Narcotic Central Bureau, Chennai v. R. + +Paulsamy), 1985 Criminal Law Journal page 1664 (Pijush Kanti + +Dey v. State) and 2003 Volume 3 Gauhati Law Report page 130 + +(Balajit Singh v. State of Assam). He noted that Balajit (Supra) + cited before him was unreported. He also considered 2003 volume + +1 Gauhati Law Times page 107 (Suresh Dutta v. State of + +Tripura). The learned Judge explained his views requiring the + +reference to be made. In his view, Special Court constituted under + +the NDPS Act, 1985 was a Court of first production and was, + +therefore, not competent to entertain and hear an application under + +Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to + +him, provisions of Section 12AA(1)(d) of the Essential Commodities + +Act, 1973 were absent in the NDPS Act, 1985 and, therefore, the + +ratio of Pijush Kanti Dey (Supra) was not applicable. He noted the + +divergent views of the Gauhati High Court in the cases of Balajit + +Singh (Supra) and Suresh Dutta (Supra). He found that, a reference + +was made to the Larger Bench of the Gauhati High Court for + +examining the matter. The decision of the Larger Bench of the + +Gauhati High Court on such reference was not placed before him. + + + +AMICUS CURIAE + +By an Order dated November 25, 2013 we requested Mr. L.K. + +Gupta, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. Sekhar Bose, learned + +Senior Counsel to assist us in the matter as Amicus Curiae. + VIEW OF THE PETITIONER + +Mr. Milon Mukherjee learned Advocate for the petitioner before the + +Trial Court submitted that, a petition under Section 438 of the Code + +of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable before the Special + +Court trying offences under the NDPS Act, 1985. He referred to + +Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which provided + +that, the provisions of any special Act would apply in addition to the + +provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 if such Special + +Act declared it to be so. He contended that, the Special Court under + +the NDPS Act, 1985 was constituted under the provisions of Section + +36 of the NDPS Act, 1985. A Special Court constituted under + +Section 36 of the NDPS Act, 1985, according to him, was a Court of + +Session. According to him, Section 36C of the NDPS Act made the + +Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applicable to proceedings before + +it, save as otherwise provided in the NDPS Act, 1985. He submitted + +that, save as otherwise provided in the NDPS Act, 1985 all + +provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 including the + +provisions as to bails and bonds would apply to the proceedings + before a Special Court. The NDPS Act, 1985, according to him, did + +not take away the provisions as to bails apprehending arrest of the + +Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 from the purview of the Special + +Court constituted under the NDPS Act, 1985. The Special Court + +had the jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of petition under + +Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. + + + + +He submitted that Section 12AC of the Essential Commodities Act, + +1955 as it stood with the coming into effect of the Essential + +Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 was pari materia with + +that of Section 36C of the NDPS Act, 1985. He submitted that, on a + +reference as to the question whether the Court of Sessions and the + +Special Court constituted under the Essential Commodities Act, + +1955 as amended by the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) + +Act, 1981 had concurrent jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail + +under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 to a + +person apprehending arrest on an allegation of having committed + +an offence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or not the + +Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in 1985 Criminal Law + Journal page 1664 (Pijush Kanti Dey v. State) held that, the + +power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 + +could be exercised by the Special Court constituted under the + +Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in respect of offences keeping in + +view of proviso to Clause 1(d) of Section 12AA of the Essential + +Commodities Act, 1955. +

+
+ +
+

He next contended that, a Special Court under the NDPS Act, 1985 + +was established for the purpose of trial only. Therefore, in his + +submission, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 + +which were not directly related either to inquiry or trial could not be + +presumed to be conferred on the Special Court in absence of + +express mention. Provisions relating to bail and pre-arrest bail were + +two such instances which were not allied to the general provisions + +of inquiry or trial. Therefore, both such provisions were required to + +be incorporated expressly under the NDPS Act, 1985. According to + +him, Section 36C of the NDPS Act, 1985 incorporated the provisions + +of bail without mentioning pre-arrest bail. Therefore, in his + +submission, a Special Court constituted under the NDPS Act, 1985 + +did not have power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal + +Procedure, 1973 to grant pre-arrest bail. +

+
+ +
+ +

+ + +They submitted that a Special Court under the NDPS Act, 1985 was + +recognized under Section 26(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, + +1973. Its function, power and authority were recognized in Section + +4(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They relied on Section + +5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which provided that + nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would affect such + +law. +

+

+ + +They went on to discuss the meaning of "save as otherwise provided + +in this Act" used in Section 36C of the NDPS Act, 1985. According to + +them, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 + +including the provisions as to bails and bonds would apply + +proceedings under the NDPS Act, 1985. The words "otherwise + +provided" according to them, would not mean implied bar on the + +application of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The words + +"including provisions" were a legislative certification on the + +application of the provisions of Chapter XXXIII of the Code of + +Criminal Procedure,1973 to proceedings under the NDPS Act, 1985. + + + + +They next referred to the transitional provisions enumerated in + +Section 36D of the NDPS Act, 1985. Referring to such transitional + +provisions they submitted that, a Sessions Court acted as the Court + +of trial during the transitional period and after the constitution of + +the Special Court it remained there as a Special Court designated + under the NDPS Act, 1985. They sought to support this view of + +theirs by referring to Section 36B of the NDPS Act, 1985. Orders of + +the Special Court, they pointed out were appealable to or revisable + +by the High Court. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_174434346.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_174434346.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..df2f1832d962175d2e50305ecb37626553d3fa0b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_174434346.html @@ -0,0 +1,430 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Inder Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 13 December, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

21. The expression "reasonable grounds" means +something more than prima facie grounds. It +contemplates substantial probable causes for believing +that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The +reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires +the existence of such facts and circumstances as are +sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the +accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on +hand, the High Court seems to have completely +overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 that in +addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC, or +any other law for the time being in force, regulating the +grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail +under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for." +

+
+ +
+

(emphasis supplied) +

23. Based on the above precedent, the test which the High +Court and this Court are required to apply while granting +bail is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe +that the accused has not committed an offence and +whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail. +

22 +

( 2024:HHC:14450 ) + + + + Given the seriousness of offences punishable under the + NDPS Act and in order to curb the menace of drug + trafficking in the country, stringent parameters for the + grant of bail under the NDPS Act have been prescribed." +

+
+ +
+

18. It was held in Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh, 2023 + +SCC OnLine SC 346 that the bail cannot be granted without + +complying with the requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It + +was observed: +

+
4. This apart, it is noticed that the High Court, in passing + the impugned order of bail, had lost sight of Section 37 of + the NDPS Act, which, inter alia, provides that no person + accused of an offence involving commercial quantity shall + be released on bail unless the twin conditions laid down + therein are satisfied, namely, (i) the public prosecutor has + been given an opportunity to oppose the bail application; +
+
+ +
+

(ii), NDPS Act. Further, it was held that in case one of the + + ( 2024:HHC:14450 ) + + + + two conditions thereunder is not satisfied, the ban for + granting bail would operate. +

8. Thus, the provisions under Section 37(1)(b) +

(ii) of the NDPS Act and the decisions referred + supra reveal the consistent view of this Court that + while considering the application for bail made by + an accused involved in an offence under NDPS + Act a liberal approach ignoring the mandate under + Section 37 of the NDPS Act is impermissible. + Recording a finding mandated under Section 37 of + the NDPS Act, which is a sine qua non for granting + bail to an accused under the NDPS Act, cannot be + avoided while passing orders on such + applications." opportunity to oppose the + application for such release, and +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_178891375.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_178891375.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1ce1fdb6ec2d730fd78ad4d8211f3845b73772df --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_178891375.html @@ -0,0 +1,505 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Om Parkash vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 July, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

d) In Narcotics Control Bureau v Kishan Lal, 1991 (1) SCC 705, + Supreme Court holds, +

6. Section 37 as amended starts with a non-obstante + + + + + + clause stating that notwithstanding anything contained + in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no person + accused of an offence prescribed therein shall be + released on bail unless the conditions contained therein + + were satisfied. The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic +Substances Act is a special enactment as already noted + + it was enacted with a view to make stringent provision + for the control and regulation of operations relating to + narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. That being + the underlying object and particularly when the + + + provisions of Section 37 of Narcotic Drugs And + Psychotropic Substances Act are in negative terms + limiting the scope of the applicability of the provisions of + Criminal Procedure Code regarding bail, in our view, it + + + + + cannot be held that the High Court's powers to grant + bail under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code are + not subject to the limitation mentioned under Section 37 + + + + + + of Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. + The non-obstante clause with which the Section starts + should be given its due meaning and clearly it is + + + + + + intended to restrict the powers to grant bail. In case of + inconsistency between Section 439 Criminal Procedure + Code and Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and + Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 37 prevails. +

+
+ +
+ +

f) In Bijando Singh v. Md. Ibocha, 2004(10) SCC 151, Supreme Court + + holds, +

3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Special Court + (NDPS), releasing the accused on bail, the appellant + + + moved the Guwahati High Court against the said order + on the ground that the order granting bail is contrary to + the provisions of law and the appropriate authority + never noticed the provisions of Section 37 of the + + + + + Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. The + High Court, however, being of the opinion that if the + attendance of the accused is secured by means of bail + + + + + + bonds, then he is entitled to be released on bail. The + High Court, thus, in our opinion, did not consider the + provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs And + + + + + + Psychotropic Substances Act. +

+
+ +
+ +

k) In Union of India v. Niyazuddin & Anr, (2018) 13 SCC 738, Supreme + + + + Court holds, +

7. ...Section 37 of the NDPS Act contains special + provisions with regard to grant of bail in respect of + + + + + certain offences enumerated under the said Section. + They are :- (1) In the case of a person accused of an + + + + + + offence punishable under Section 19, (2) Under Section + 24, (3) Under Section 27A and (4) Of offences involving + commercial quantity. The accusation in the present + case is with regard to the fourth factor namely, + + + + + + commercial quantity. Be that as it may, once the Public + Prosecutor opposes the application for bail to a person + accused of the enumerated offences under Section 37 + of the NDPS Act, in case, the court proposes to grant + bail to such a person, two conditions are to be + mandatorily satisfied in addition to the normal + requirements under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. or any + other enactment. (1) The court must be satisfied that + there are reasonable grounds for believing that the + person is not guilty of such offence; (2) that person is + not likely to commit any offence while on bail. +

+
+ +
+ +

SUM UP: +

+
20. From the summary of the law relating to rigors of S.37 of NDPS Act, + while granting bail involving commercial quantities in the NDPS Act, the + + following fundamental principles emerge: +
+
a) The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question + of granting bail arises on merits. [Customs, New Delhi v. + Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549]. +
b) In case the Court proposes to grant bail, two conditions are to be + + + mandatorily satisfied in addition to the standard requirements + under the provisions of the CrPC or any other enactment. [Union of + India v. Niyazuddin & Anr, (2018) 13 SCC 738]. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_181919288.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_181919288.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c0414b1edf255d2cd78e8f5f792ce888eea4ca2b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_181919288.html @@ -0,0 +1,500 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Reserved On: 9Th January vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

-2- 2025:HHC:2991 + +Sections 15, 18 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and + +Psychotropic Substances Act (referred to as the NDPS + +Act). +

+

FACTUAL MATRIX IN BAIL PETITION: +

+

2. Case as set up by Mr. Rakesh Kumar + +Chaudhary and Mr. Panku Chaudhary, Learned + +Counsel (s) is that the petitioner has been falsely + +implicated and entire story has been fabricated + +and concocted. It is averred that bail petitioner is + +in detention, for the last more than one year and + +eight months now. It is averred that the Respondent + +intends to examine 25 PWs but only 4 witnesses + +have been examined on as on day. It is averred + +that despite the rigors of Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS + +Act, petitioner cannot be made to undergo prolonged + +incarceration, which is violative of Article 21 of the + +Constitution of India when the trial is likely to + +take considerable time for its conclusion. It is averred + +that the bail petitioner has no previous criminal + +history. It is averred that the inventory has been +

+
+ +
+

8. In the aforesaid background, this Court + +proceeds to examine the claim of the bail petitioner + +[Om Prakash], for bail, in view of the statutory + +mandate of Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act and + +on other grounds carved by way of exceptions to + +the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act, in terms of + +the mandate of law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, + +hereinbelow. +

+

[A]. CLAIM FOR BAIL UNDER SECTION 37(1) (b) OF NDPS + ACT: +

+

9. Learned Counsel for bail petitioner, during + +the course of arguments, submits that recovery of + +[poppy straw-churapost-bhukki] weighing 54.760 Kgs. + +from cow-shed cannot form the basis for inferring + +the accusation and guilt against the bail petitioner + +when, the cow-shed did not belong to the petitioner. +

+
+ +
+

- 17 - 2025:HHC:2991 + +highly improbable, at this stage and therefore, in + +these circumstances, neither any accusation nor any + +guilty could be inferred against bail petitioner, at + +this stage. +

+

9(i). Status Report filed by State Authorities + +do not spell out any material to show that the + +bail petitioner has resorted to any activities, so as + +to invoke the provisions of Sections 15, 18 and 20 + +of NDPS Act against the bail petitioner. In these + +circumstances, the bail petitioner appears to be not + +guilty, at this stage, and therefore, the bail petitioner + +deserves to be extended the benefit of bail. + +[B]. NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING REPITITION OF + OFFENCE AFTER BAIL: +

+
+ +
+ +

+

10. Status Reports filed by State Authorities + +have not placed any cogent and convincing material + +on record revealing any apprehension of repetition of + +offence after being released on bail. However, still + +this Court, safeguards the interests of the State by +

- 18 - 2025:HHC:2991 + +imposing stringent bail conditions in later part of + +this bail order. +

+

Taking into account the entirety of the + +facts and circumstances, including the Status Report + +this Court is of the considered view, that there + +are no reasonable grounds to believe that the bail + +petitioner is guilty and nothing exists that the + +petitioner is likely to repeat the offence after release + +on bail and, therefore, even by applying the twin + +principles in Section 37(1) (b) of the NDPS Act, the + +bail petitioner [Om Prakash] is entitled to be enlarged + +on bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_18996790.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_18996790.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f3cf98335da6f8db98f1ec2dbd8cc2e28736d045 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_18996790.html @@ -0,0 +1,481 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Announced On: 11Th April vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 11 April, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

7. In the aforesaid background, this Court + +proceeds to examine the claim of the bail petitioner + +[Missu Ram] for bail, in view of the statutory mandate + +of Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act and also, by + +taking into account, the exceptions carved out by + +the Honble Supreme Court to rigors of Section 37 + +(1) (b) of NDPS Act, hereinbelow. +

2025:HHC:10266 +

- 11 - +

+

[A]. CLAIM FOR BAIL UNDER SECTION 37(1) (b) OF + NDPS ACT: +

+
+ +
+ +

8. This Court proceeds to examine the claim for + +bail in view of the rigours in Section 37 of the NDPS + +Act hereinunder; +

+

8(i). Perusal of Status Report and the material + +on record indicates that neither any prima facie case + +nor any reasonable grounds exist to believe that the + +bail petitioner is guilty of the offence in the instant + +case, at this stage. +

+

8(ii). Status Report filed by the State Authorities + +does not spell out any material to show that the + +bail petitioner has resorted to any activities, so as + +to invoke the provisions of Section 20 of NDPS + +Act, against the petitioner, at this stage. In these + +circumstances, the bail petitioner appears to be not guilty, + +in view of inherent discrepancies and grave contradictions + +in the statements of PWs, at this stage and therefore, the + +bail petitioner deserves to be granted concession of bail. + +8(iii). Section 29 of NDPS Act, alleging abatement + 2025:HHC:10266 +

+
+ +
+

- 13 - +

+

37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, the bail petitioner [Missu Ram] + +deserves to be enlarged on bail. +

+

[C] CLAIM FOR BAIL ON OTHER EXCEPTIONAL GROUNDS + AND CIRCUMSTANCES: +

+

10. Notwithstanding, the rigours in Section 37 + +(1) (b) of NDPS Act [supra], yet in view of the + +exceptions carved out by the Honble Supreme Court + +as detailed hereinunder and other circumstances, + +the bail petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail + +for the following reasons:- +

+
+ +
+
- 23 - +
+

of Enforcement, has mandated that rigors in Special + +Enactments, including Section 37 of NDPS Act, will + +melt down when, there is no likelihood of the trial + +being completed in a reasonable time and in view + +of prolonged incarceration, so as to prevent deprivation + +of curtailment of personal liberty and right to speedy + +trial in terms of Article 21 of Constitution of India, + +in the following terms:- +

+
"24. There are a few penal statutes that make a + departure from the provisions of Sections + 437, 438, and 439 of the Code of Criminal + Procedure, 1973. A higher threshold is + provided in these statutes for the grant + of bail. By way of illustration, we may + refer to Section 45(1)(ii) of PMLA, proviso + to Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities + (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 37 + of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic +Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'NDPS + Act'). The provisions regarding bail in some + of such statutes start with a non obstante + clause for overriding the provisions of + Sections 437 to 439 of the CrPC. The + legislature has done so to secure the object + of making the penal provisions in such + enactments. For example, the PMLA provides + for Section 45(1)(ii) as money laundering + poses a serious threat not only to the + country's financial system but also to + its integrity and sovereignty. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_191237800.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_191237800.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..235ddcb3f1d4b8c8ddc990baa1040a431bf892d4 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_191237800.html @@ -0,0 +1,448 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Maninder Singh Alias Mani vs National Investigation Agency on 12 October, 2022 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
The appellants have been challaned under different provisions + +of IPC, NDPS Act and UAPA. The allegations of commission of offence + +punishable under IPC are not much serious, however, allegations of + +commission of offence punishable under NDPS Act and UAPA are serious. + +The provisions qua bail under NDPS Act as well UAPA are very strict. As + +per Section 37 of NDPS Act and 43 of UAPA, bail can be granted subject to + +compliance of twin conditions. For the sake of convenience, different + +provisions of NDPS Act and UAPA which are relevant for adjudication of + +the present appeals are reproduced as below:- +
+
+ +
+
persons who are in touch with members of HM and (iii) third layer: who are + +in touch with second layer of accused and involved in activities relating to + +drugs. +
+
Recently, a coordinate bench of this court in Bikram Singh + +Majithia Vs State of Punjab (CRM-M-21391-2022 decided on + +10.08.2022) has granted bail where period of custody of accused was about + +6 months, petitioner was alleged to have committed offences punishable + +under Sections 25, 27A and 29 of NDPS Act. The coordinate bench has + +granted bail after noticing judicial precedents relating to bail in case of + +allegation of commission of offence punishable under NDPS Act and factual + +matrix. +
+
+ +
+

The appellants herein are slapped with different provisions of + +UAPA apart from IPC and NDPS. Identical twin stringent conditions of bail + +are prescribed under both UAPA and NDPS, with slight difference that + +under UAPA findings qua possibility of involvement of accused in similar + +offence while on bail, is not required to be recorded. In the present case, + +UAPA is invoked against appellants, however, we prime facie find that + +appellants before us are not guilty of commission of offence under UAPA, + +though other accused like A-1, 11 and 13 who are members of HM may be. + +

+
+ +
+

45 of 48 + + CRA-D-217-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases -46- + +under NDPS Act. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be released on bail. + +A-9 Gursant Singh: +

+
There is allegation that he had made huge property from + +proceeds of crime and he prior to present crime was involved in the + +commission of similar crimes under NDPS. +
+
The appellant in FIR No. 122 dated 18.3.2020 was released on + +bail noticing the fact that he had been arrested on 2.7.2020 on the basis of a + +disclosure statement after bringing him from Central Jail, Barnala on the + +basis of production warrant. He had been acquitted in FIR No. 289 of + +22.12.2004 under Sections 15, 61 and 85 of the NDPS read with Sections + +411, 471 and 279 IPC on 25.2.2022 (Annexure A-4). In FIR No. 28 dated + +18.2.2015, he has been released on interim bail vide order dated 17.4.2015. + +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_23535777.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_23535777.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cdd2c5d4c2a064f43dba6a3ffc5f5b45bd5cb200 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_23535777.html @@ -0,0 +1,423 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Amarjeet vs State Of Haryana on 29 January, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
1. FIR No.33 dated Recovery of 75 Pending under trial and is fixed + 19.01.2018 u/s grams Heroin from for 11.12.2023 for Prosecution + 21b/61/85 of petitioner (in Evidence + NDPS Act, Police custody) + Station City + Fatehabad + +
2. FIR no.255 dated Recovery of 51 Pending under trial and is fixed + 10.07.2018 u/s grams Heroin from for 20.11.2023 for Prosecution + 21b/61/85 of petitioner (on Bail) Evidence + NDPS Act, Police + Station Sadar + Fatehabad + +
+
+ +
+
3. FIR no.324 dated Petitioner had Pending under trial and is fixed + 16.08.2018 u/s supplied 75 grams for 02.01.2024 for Appearance + 21b/61/85 of (in custody). As bail +NDPS Act, Police of the petitioner was + Station Sadar cancelled on + Fatehabad 02.03.2022 due to + non-appearance + +
4. FIR no.441 dated Recovery of 90 Pending under trial and is fixed + 09.08.2018 u/s grams Heroin from for 07.11.2023 for Prosecution + 21b/61/85 of petitioner (On bail) Evidence + NDPS Act, Police + Station City + Fatehabad + +
+
+ +
+

6. FIR no.664 dated Petitioner had Pending under trial and is fixed + 28.11.2018 u/s supplied 15 grams for 31.01.2024 for Prosecution + 21b/61/85 of (On Bail) Evidence + NDPS Act, Police + Station City + Fatehabad + +

7. FIR No.279 dated Petitioner had Pending under trial and is fixed + 16.07.2019 u/s supplied 18 grams for 18.12.2023 for Appearance + 21b/61/85 of (In custody). As bail +NDPS Act, Police of the petitioner was + Station Sadar cancelled on + Fatehabad 20.01.2023 due to + non-appearance + +

+
+ +
+

8. FIR No.168 dated Petitioner had Pending under trial and is fixed + 02.10.2019 u/s supplied 5 grams for 09.11.2023 for Prosecution + 21b/29/61/85 of (On bail). Evidence + NDPS Act, Police + Station Jhanir + (Mansa) + +

9. FIR No.186 dated Recovery of 50 Pending under trial and is fixed + 07.05.2018 u/s grams Heroin from for 06.11.2023 for Prosecution + 21c/61/85 of petitioner (On Bail) Evidence + NDPS Act, Police + Station City + Tohana + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_244250.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_244250.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3989b3e31a6fab946e2691c82089f7e7d2350cde --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_244250.html @@ -0,0 +1,372 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ram Dayal vs Central Narcotic Bureau on 3 September, 1992 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

12. Although Rajnikant (supra) is an earlier decision and yet not cited in Kishanlal (supra), there is no conflict at all between the two. To be candid and categorical, it is to be stated atonce that in Rajnikant, provisions of NDPS Act whether of Section 36A or of Section 37 were not at all considered or interpreted as it was a pre-amendment case and, therefore, it had no occasion to do so. The decision is rendered on the provisions of Sections. 167(2), 437, 439, Cr. P.C. On facts, however, that was also a case of a person accused under NDPS Act. The Magistrate had released the accused on 29-7-88 (before NDPS Act was amended) in terms of proviso (a) to Section 167(2) but after the charge-sheet was filed the High Court ordered his re-arrest by cancelling his bail; that order was upheld, relying on Raghubir Singh's holding that once prosecution's default which entitled the accused to be released was purged as a result of the charge-sheet being filed, "the prosecution may seek to have the bail cancelled on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence". It is Kishanlal (supra) that deals squarely with the question of such an accused's right to bail and Delhi High Court's D. B. decision that High Court's bail power under Section 439, Cr. P.C. is not controlled by Section 37, NDPS Act was reversed. The decision clearly and firmly establishes the premises that Section 37, NDPS is sole repository of the bail power, whether of the "Special Court" or of the High Court, and defuses effectively the controversy mooted in Question No. 1. +

+
+ +
+ +

14. Long pre-trial detention is an anathema but it is not unconstitutional, nor even it is a novelty. Under Section 20(4), Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, for short, TADA, even one year's ceiling is contemplated and is made inexorable; the provisions of Sub-sections (8) and (9) thereof are in pari materia with Section 37, NDPS Act. Article 21 of the Constitution regulates State power in terms of the requirement of "resonable procedure"; the Constitution does not make the State impotent, unable to defend itself and its peace-loving citizens against any view of clandestine organised activities, overtly violent or covertly so, impinging on public safety and security of State. The anti-drug traffic Covenants of United Nations of 1961, 1971 and 1988 have international community's support and sanction. They derive authority from Art. 25 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and Art. 12 of the International Covenant on Economical, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966. As a member-State of United Nations, India has implemented the 1988 Covenant by amending the NDPS Act and incorporating therein the new bail provisions and also other stringent provisions aforestated. The judicial discretion contemplated in terms of Section 37, NDPS Act has to be exercised independently irrespective of any other consideration except of the "limitations" expressly prescribed. Without reference to the requirement of submission of charge-sheet, the discretion can be exercised by the Court to order release of a person accused of an offence under the Act at any stage of the pre-trial detention if the Court is not satisfied that, as contended by the prosecution, the accused is guilty of an offence or is likely to commit any offence while on bail. There is no cause, therefore, to be unduly sceptic or despondent. +

+
+ +
+

17. In the Orissa case Sanatan Sahu, (supra), facts were similar to that of Rajni-kant in that validity of cancellation of the bail had to be examined and that was done following Rajnikant's ratio. The view taken was that bail before charge-sheet could be granted in terms of Section 167(2) proviso to fulfil the legislative "command". No reasons are given except that another decision of the Court is cited as holding Section 167(2) proviso to be applicable to a proceeding under NDPS Act. In the Karnataka case Kamlabai, (supra) the question was of High Court's bail power and that was traced to Section 439, Cr. P.C., outside Section 37 NDPS Act, upon holding that High Court was not "Court" within the meaning of the term employed in Section 37. Both decisions, in our view, are affected by Apex Court's KishanlaPs holding because, as has been held at the Summit level, even High Court cannot grant bail outside Section 37 NDPS Act by invoking Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. This Court's Division Bench decision in Kalika Prasad (supra) is based squarely on Section 167(2), Cr. P.C. It does not refer to any provision of NDPS Act and no reason is given for the view summarily taken that Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. is invokable by a person arrested under NDPS Act praying for bail to High Court. We overrule Kalika Prasad because the view taken is untenable in the face of Apex Court's decision in Kishanlal's case. +

+
+ +
+ +

18. We conclude now and answer question No. 1 in the negative. We reiterate that Section 167(2) proviso, Cr. P.C., is not applicable to a proceeding under NDPS Act. We hold that even if charge-sheet is filed after 90 days of the arrest of the accused on that ground itself the person charged under Section 18 NDPS Act is not entitled to get bail from the High Court.' Indeed, "Special Court" and High Court are equally placed in respect of competence under Section 37 NDPS Act in the matter of grant of bail to a person accused of an offence under the said Act. Irrespective of the date of submission of the charge-sheet it will be open always to the "Special Court" and the High Court to consider the prayer under Section 37 and both Courts are required to dispose of the prayer in terms only of the said provision because no power outside that is invokable by a person accused under the Act to get released on bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_33299956.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_33299956.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b9a82ed38e1135064223cb1f9d85a4df92bd7a4d --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_33299956.html @@ -0,0 +1,480 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Shri Bikash Ray vs The State Of Tripura on 10 November, 2021 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

+[6] Opposing the contention of Mr. Lodh, learned counsel, Mr. R. + +Datta, learned P.P. contends that the CDR analysis demonstrates that + +the petitioner was in regular touch with the carrier of the contraband + +namely, Selvaraj K and the other accused persons involved in the case. + +Learned P.P submits that he is the principal accused of this case against + +whom there are genuine materials with regard to his involvement in the + +case. It is contended by Mr. Datta, learned P.P that he is also involved + +in Manu PS case No. 2021/004 for similar offence in which he has been + +charge sheeted. Learned P.P submits that the racket consisting of the + + + +present petitioner and the other accused of this case is the most active + +racket in the state involved in drug peddling within the state and drug + +smuggling across the border. Learned P.P. submits that serious charges + +have been brought against the petitioner and therefore the petitioner + +does not deserve the extra ordinary relief under section 438 Cr.P.C. + +Learned P.P further refers to section 37 of the NDPS Act which puts + +strict restrictions with regard to grant of bail under the NDPS Act. In + +support of his contention, Mr. Datta, learned P.P has relied on the + +decision dated 22.09.2021 of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. + +1043 of 2021 (Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, + +Lucknow Vs. Md. Nawaz Khan) wherein the Apex Court has held as + +under: +

+
+ +
+ +

[7] Learned P.P urges that in view of the stringent parameters + +laid down by the Apex Court with regard to grant of bail under NDPS + +Act, petitioner does not deserve pre-arrest bail in this case. + + +[8] The detailed submissions of learned P.P and the defence + +counsel were also recorded by this court when similar application of bail + + + +was considered by this court in A.B 66 of 202, relevant extract of which + +is as under: +

+

+

"[6] Mr.J.Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the + petitioner contends that there is no material to justify arrest + and detention of the present petitioner. The petitioner is not + even named in the FIR. Only from the submission of the + learned PP in the course of hearing of AB No.58 of 2021 his + name transpired when learned PP submitted before the court + that the investigating agency was also looking for the present + petitioner. Therefore, petitioner Bikah Roy is apprehending his + arrest in the case for which he has moved this application + under Section 438 Cr.P.C. +
+
+ +
+ +
[9] Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in STATE OF + KERALA AND OTHERS Versus RAJESH AND OTHERS + reported in (2020) 12 SCC 122, Mr.Datta, learned PP + submits that in the said case the Apex Court has succinctly + held that liberal approach in the matter of bail under NDPS + case is indeed uncalled for. Counsel submits that where the + offence involves commercial quantity, Section 37 of the NDPS + Act will come into play and the restrictions put under Section + 37 of the Act with regard to grant of bail shall apply. + According to learned PP, the Apex Court has laid down broad + + + +parameters with regard to grant of bail in NDPS cases in the +said judgment which are as under: +
+
+ +
+ +

[10] Also relying on the decision of the Apex Court in SATPAL +SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB reported in (2018) 13 +SCC 813, Mr.Datta, learned PP contends that in view of the +restrictions under Section 37 NDPS Act, bail cannot be +granted to an accused under NDPS Act involving commercial +quantity without recording the required level of satisfaction of +the court about the innocence of the accused. Counsel has +relied on paragraph 14 of the judgment which is as under: + +

"14. Be that as it may, the order dated 21- + 09-2017 passed by the High Court does not + show that there is any reference to Section + 37 of the NDPS Act. The quantity is + reportedly commercial. In the facts and + circumstances of the case, the High Court + could not have and should not have passed + the order under Section 438 or 439 CrPC + without reference to Section 37 of the NDPS + Act and without entering a finding on the + required level of satisfaction in case the + Court was otherwise inclined to grant the + bail. Such a satisfaction having not being + entered, the order dated 21-09-2017 is only + to be set aside and we do so." +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_34169062.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_34169062.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d2a046075a884bfe10f82f887a616a33bcb0b9eb --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_34169062.html @@ -0,0 +1,490 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sri Ashish Sarkar vs The State Of Tripura on 23 July, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

16. From the above discussions, it is apparent that there are two + +important limitations and fetters imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS + +Act. These limitations tentamount to negative pre-condition which are + +authoritatively binding and would curtail discretion to bail. The + +Supreme Court in Narcotic Control Bureau vs. Kishanlal and + + + + + +others reported in (1991) 1 SCC 705 has accentuated on the + +importance of non-obstantive mandate of Section 37 notwithstanding + +anything contained in the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The + +accused facing prosecution under the NDPS Act for the offence + +mentioned in Clause (b) of sub-section 1 of Section 37 should be + +released on bail only when the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS + +Act are strictly satisfied. The NDPS Act, a special enactment + +incorporating stringent conditions for the control and punishment of + +the crimes relating to narcotic and psychotropic substances. The + +stipulations in Section 37 of the NDPS Act are negative for them intend + +to restrict the power to grant bail under the code of Criminal + +Procedure. Subsequent decision in Union of India vs. Ram Samujh + +and another reported in (1999) 9 SCC 429 affirms and reiterate this + +ratio. Thus, grant of bail when an accused is charged with specified + +offences under the NDPS Act, is impaired and circumscribed by the + +rigorous negative pre-conditions adumbrated in Section 37 of the + +NDPS Act. +

+
+ +
+ +

+

17. A Division bench of Delhi High Court in Athar Parvez vs. State + +of Delhi (Crl. Ref. 1/2005, judgment dated 26.02.2016) has + +observed which may gainfully reproduced hereinbelow: + +

"An order granting bail to a person facing prosecution under the specified offence + under NDPS Act must abide and confirm the said ratio. It should satisfy the positive + condition in Section 439 of the Code and also the negative stipulation of Section 37 of + the NDPS Act". +
+

18. In this regard, it may be apposite to refer to some related + +decisions of different High Courts while granting bail involving offences + +under the NDPS Act. In Rashid Khan alias Rashid and others vs. + + + + + +The State, reported in 1993 Cri.L.J. 3776, a learned Single Judge of + +Rajasthan High Court in paragraph 7 has held as under: +

+
+ +
+
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in + addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any + other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. +

This matter can be judged from another angle also. The object of NDPS Act is to make + stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs + and psychotropic substances etc. The recent Amending Act No. 2 of 1989 was enacted with a + solemn object to curtail and restrict the powers to grant bail as the Legislature felt that on + technical grounds drug offenders were being released on bail. It is also noteworthy + that Section 36A and Section 37 have been substituted by the Amending Act which clearly + demonstrates the legislative intent that whatsoever may be the provisions in the Code of + Criminal Procedure, an offender of the offence under NDPS Act should not be released on + bail unless the two conditions contained in Section 37 are satisfied. The underlying object of + the Amending Act, and particularly when the provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act are in + negative terms limiting the scope of the applicability of the provisions of Cr.P.C. regarding + bail, it can be safely held that all provisions contained in the Code to grant bail are subject to + the limitations mentioned in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The non obstante clause with + which the section starts should be given its due meaning and clearly it is intended to restrict + the powers to grant bail of the Special Court and the High Court. Similar view has been + taken by the Bombay High in Prahlad vs. State of Maharasthra, reported in 1991 Cri.L.J. 537; + Calcutta High Court in Mabia Bibi vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 1992 (3) Crimes 762; + Orissa High Court in Banka Das vs. State of Orissa, reported in (1992) II CCR 1803 and by the + Rajasthan High Court in Jarin Khan vs. State of Rajasthan in Cr. Misc. Bail Application no. + 1694 of 1992 decided on October, 16, 1992". +

+
+ +
+ +

+

19. Again, if I make a glimpse at the facts of Kishanlal (supra), I + +find that in that case the accused had sought for bail due to the + +reason that the charge sheet was filed at a belated stage and they + +were entitled to be released on bail as required under Section 167(2) + +of the Cr.P.C. as well as on the ground of illness. The bail was granted + +by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court holding that the limitation + +placed on the Special Court under Section 37(2) of the NDPS Act + +cannot be read as fetter on the High Court in exercise of the powers + +under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for granting bail. Considering section + +37(2) of the NDPS Act as negative form of legislation, the Supreme + +Court has cancelled the bail granted by the Delhi High Court. Thus, + +period of detention in jail custody cannot be the determining factor to + +release an offender accused of committing such offence on bail. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_37204498.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_37204498.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d8eff79b42c770c5cac4692fa3ce22e01bff48bc --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_37204498.html @@ -0,0 +1,465 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Vikram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

14(iii). Even a suspect or an accused under NDPS + +Act does not have any vested right or an automatic + +claim for pre-arrest bail or regular bail, merely on + +the ground, that the quantity of contraband, allegedly + +involved, is either small or intermediate. However, while + +considering the prayer for bail, even in offences under + +the NDPS, relating to small or intermediate quantity, + +still the claim is required to be tested in the backdrop + +of Section(s) 438 or 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure +

- 28 - +

+
+ +
+

2025:HHC:2977) + + + + +{herein, Cr.P.C.}, and also in the context of the broad + +parameters mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, + +as referred to above. +

+

14(iv). In the above backdrop, the general principle + +is that when, a bail petitioner approaches a Court for + +bail {pre-arrest or regular bail} under NDPS Act and + +a Court, forms a prima facie opinion on the basis of + +available material, that there is a prima facie case + +or reasonable grounds pointing towards the accusation of + +an offence, be it relating to a small or intermediate + +quantity of contraband therefore, such an accused has + +neither any automatic right nor can the privilege of + +bail be extended as a rule. +

+
+ +
+
15(i) Status Report(s) and the material on record + +do not point out any prima-facie case or reasonable + +grounds to believe the accusation against the bail + +petitioner(s), as referred to above. +
+
15(ii) Status Report(s) filed by State Authorities, + +does not indicate anything to show that the + +bail petitioners are involved in offenceunder Section 21 + +of the NDPS Act. Even Learned State Counsel has not + +placed on record any material to show that bail + +petitioners are involved in commission of offence under + +Section 21 of NDPS Act. In these circumstances, plea of + +the bail petitioners for bail has carries weight and the + +same is accordingly accepted. +
+
+ +
+ +
 BAIL   WHEN      NO         RECOVERY     FROM       BAIL
+           PETITIONERS:
+                              - 36 -
+                          2025:HHC:2977)
+
+
+
+
+15(iii)     Status Report(s) unambiguously admits that
+
+
contraband weighing 12.06 grams of Chitta/Herion was + +recovered from the main accused [Prikshit Dhani]. +
+
Once even as per the Status Report(s) neither any + +recovery was affected from bail petitioners nor any + +material has been placed on record to reveal that the bail + +petitioners have indulged in acts or omissions under + +Section 21 of NDPS Act, therefore, the plea for bail has + +merit and the same is accordingly accepted. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_40597195.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_40597195.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cafbd5aabbf1c212811707af6960086cb017245d --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_40597195.html @@ -0,0 +1,475 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rakesh Umar Vaishya vs State Of Chhattisgarh 32 Cra/1122/2014 ... on 4 August, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
21. The expression "reasonable grounds" means something + more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial + probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of + the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in + the provision requires existence of such facts and + circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify + satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged + offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems to have + completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 + that in addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC, + or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the + grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under + the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for." +
+
+ +
+ +

17. Now, the question for consideration would be, whether on the principle + + of parity, the accused persons / applicants are entitled to be released on + + bail? +

+

18. A careful perusal of the order passed in M.Cr.C.No.1099/2020 being + + bail application of co-accused Pran @ Shiv Kumar Baghel, would show + + that the limitations imposed in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act + + were not brought to the notice of the Court while the said bail + + application was considered, consequently, there is no consideration of + + the limitations contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the said Act. The + + principle of parity has been pressed into service in these bail + + applications. As it flows from Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, + + statutory requirement of recording a finding that there is no reasonable + + ground for believing that the accused has not committed the offence and + + he is not likely to commit offence while on bail are mandatory + + requirements and unless those statutory requirements are fulfilled by the + + court granting bail, in case the accusation is of commercial quantity, in + + + my considered opinion, bail cannot be granted unless the statutory + + requirements contained in Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act are met- + + out and the principle of parity cannot be pressed into service by the + + applicants in breach of the statutory provisions contained in Section + + 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. +

+
+ +
+ +

20. As already noticed herein-above, in Rattan Mallik's case (supra), the + + Union of India filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the + + order of the Allahabad High Court in suspending the sentence awarded + + by the trial Court to the accused for having committed offences under + + Sections 8 read with Section 27-A and 8 read with Section 29 of the + + NDPS Act and granting bail, considering the limitation imposed in clause +

(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and it was held + + that grant of bail without considering Section 37 of the NDPS Act + + clearly violates the mandatory requirement of Section 37 and the bail + + + order was set-aside with liberty to decide afresh in the light of the + + limitation imposed. +

+
+ +
+ +

22. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court rejected the plea of parity in + + respect of grant of bail governed by Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS + + Act in the matter of Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab8 by holding that in + + cases covered under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, dehors it, bail + + cannot be granted on the principle of parity, and observed as under: - +

"Leave granted. The appellant Satpal Singh (in Crl. + Appeal. No. 462 of 2018) is before this Court, challenging + the order dated 4-10-2017 passed by the High Court of + Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Sat Pal Singh v. State of + Punjab9 rejecting his application for anticipatory bail. The + High Court took note of the fact that the appellant was an + accused in FIR No. 0053 dated 11-6-2017 under Sections + 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic +Substances Act, 1985 (in short "the NDPS Act"), registered + at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala. Though it was + argued that a coordinate Bench of the High Court had + granted anticipatory bail to the co-accused, namely, Beant + Singh and Gurwinder Singh, who are brothers of the + appellant, as per order dated 21-9-2017 10, the learned + Judge was not inclined to accept the contention since there + was no question of parity as far as the bail is concerned and + in view of the fact that the coordinate Bench had not taken + note of the limitations under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. + In our view, the learned Judge is perfectly right in his + approach and in declining the protection under Section 438 + of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "CrPC"). +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_43098247.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_43098247.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..977219c819653b033437e31f87baf26823caf008 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_43098247.html @@ -0,0 +1,535 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs State Of Punjab on 4 January, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

53. In Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2018) 13 SCC 813, (Decided on 27-03-2018) a +bench of three judges of Supreme Court directed that since the quan$ty involved was +commercial, as such High Court could not have and should not have passed the order +under sec$ons 438 or 439 CrPC, without reference to Sec$on 37 of the NDPS Act. +

+

54. In State of Kerala v. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122 (Decided on 24-01-2020), the While +canceling the post-arrest bail granted to the accused, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held +that any concession of release granted sans no$cing the mandate of sec. 37(1)(b)(ii) is +bad in law. While discussing the broad parameters laid down for grant of bail in the +NDPS case, the Court has held that the expression "reasonable grounds" means +something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substan$al probable cause +for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Hon'ble Supreme Court +holds, + [21]. The expression "reasonable grounds" means something more than + prima facie grounds. It contemplates substan$al probable causes for + + + 21 of 35 + + Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000100 + + + + +CRM-M-52458-2023 + + believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The + reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of + such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to jus$fy + sa$sfac$on that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the + case on hand, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the + underlying object of Sec$on 37 that in addi$on to the limita$ons + provided under the CrPC, or any other law for the $me being in force, + regula$ng the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the maJer of bail under + the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for. +

+
+ +
+

[13]. The expression "reasonable ground" came up for discussion in + "State of Kerala and others v. Rajesh and others" (2020) 12 SCC 122 and + this Court has observed as below: +

"20. The expression "reasonable grounds" means + something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates + substan$al probable causes for believing that the accused + is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief + contemplated in the provision requires existence of such + facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to + jus$fy sa$sfac$on that the accused is not guilty of the + alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems + to have completely overlooked the underlying object of + Sec$on 37 that in addi$on to the limita$ons provided + under the CrPC, or any other law for the $me being in + force, regula$ng the grant of bail, its liberal approach in + the maJer of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled + for." +
+
+ +
+ +

63. In Ankush Kumar @ Sonu v. State of Punjab, (2018) SCC Online P&H 1259, a +single bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court observed, + [43]. However, more problem lies with the second part of Sec$on 37 (1) +

(b)(ii), which requires the Court to be sa$sfied that there are reasonable + grounds for declaring that the accused is not likely to commit 'any + offence' while on bail. This part of Sec$on 37(1)(b)(ii) militates against + the ra$onale and reasoning considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in + the above said case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah's case (supra), wherein it + has implied that if such language extends in opera$on not only to the + offence under the special Act but also to any offence under any other + legal provision where such condi$ons are not required to be applied for + grant of bail then such language enters the realm of uncons$tu$onality. + Therefore, this language is also arbitrary on that count because it + requires the Court to sa$sfy itself that the pe$$oner is not likely to + commit any offence on the earth while on bail. Had this Sec$on restricted + the requirement of the sa$sfac$on of the Court that the accused is not + likely to commit any offence under NDPS Act, then probably it could have + some ra$onal behind it. However, since the language of the second part + has been thrown open the en$re criminal arena to be considered by the + Court before grant of bail under NDPS Act, therefore, this language does + not have even the nexus to the object to be achieved by NDPS Act. + [44]. Moreover, a Court of law would always be well advised to keep in + mind that 'prophesy is not thy domain'. No Court, howsoever trained, can + be "reasonably" sa$sfied that a person would not commit any offence, + may be even under NDPS Act, aNer coming out of the custody. It can only + be a guess-work, which may or may not turn out to be correct. However, + it is not the guess-work which is mandated, but it is 'reasonable + sa$sfac$on'. It can occur to mind that if a person is a first offender then + he is not likely to commit an offence again or that if a person has + commiJed, say; ten offences then he is more likely to commit offence + again. But it has to be kept in mind that the second, third, fourth and the + Nth offence is always commiJed by an accused only aNer first, having + commiJed the first offence. Likewise, there cannot be any 'reason' and, + + + 26 of 35 + + Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000100 + + + + +CRM-M-52458-2023 + + therefore, the 'reasonable ground' to believe that if a person has + commiJed ten offences, he is again likely to commit the offence. + Examples galore in daily life when a criminal calls it a day, say, aNer 10th + crime also. ANer all scriptures do tell us as to how Maharishi Balmiki + turned into a "Maharishi" and created that Epic, which became a trea$es + of one of the biggest religion of the world. Furthermore, as observed + above, an offence is a conduct of a person as reflected into facts or set of + facts made punishable by law, the Court cannot grope into approxima$on + and to arrive at any degree of sa$sfac$on as to whether a person would + indulge in set of facts aNer coming out of the custody. The crime being + based on mens-rea is a func$on of mental state of an individual, which + cannot be guessed by any Court in advance, by any means. Moreover, as + observed above, it is not the guess-work by Court qua possibility of future + conduct and mental state of accused, which is required under second + part of Sec$on 37(1)(b)(ii). It is the reasonable 'sa$sfac$on' on the basis + of the material on record which is required. By extension of any human + logic, it cannot be said that the Court can record, any degree of + sa$sfac$on, based on some reasonable ground, as to whether a person + would commit an offence or whether he would not commit an offence + aNer coming out of the custody. Neither the Court would be able to + record a sa$sfac$on that the accused would, likely, commit the offence + aNer coming out of the custody, nor would the Court be able to record a + sa$sfac$on that the accused would not commit any offence aNer coming + out of the custody. Hence, the second part of Sec$on 37(i)(b) (ii) requires + a humanly impossible act on the part of the Court. Since the second part + of Sec$on 37 (1)(b)(ii) requires a sa$sfac$on of the Court, which is + impossible by extension of any human logic, therefore, this is an + irra$onal requirement. There is no ra$onal way for a Court to record its + sa$sfac$on or to arrive at this sa$sfac$on qua possible future conduct + and mental state of an accused. Any record rela$ng only to the past + conduct of a person cannot be reasonably made a basis for future + reasonable predic$on, as against the guess work, regarding the possible + mental state or possible conduct of that person. Even the sophis$cated + psychological theories of human behaviour, using sophis$cated sta$s$cal + tools of factoriza$on, based on common minimum behavioural factors in + large number of people, are s$ll struggling to find a credible answer in + this regard. +

+
+ +
+ +

69. The pe$$oner's custodial interroga$on did not lead to the recovery of any other +incrimina$ng evidence, and once an accused has already been subjected to custodial +interroga$on, the parameters to assess the evidence collected so far are different than +while dealing with an an$cipatory bail because the accused in such a situa$on was not +subjected to the custodial interroga$on, which is undoubtedly more produc$ve to + + + 29 of 35 + + Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000100 + + + + +CRM-M-52458-2023 + +gather evidence. Given this background, the calls between the pe$$oner and his PSO, +PA, and the handler from UK; the dispropor$onate money which the Enforcement +Directorate has already seized; absence of any recovery or any incrimina$ng evidence +during the pe$$oner's custodial interroga$on; and the eviden$ary value of a disclosure +statement made by a co-accused, whose pardon has been approved, and the absence of +any other evidence connec$ng the pe$$oner, it can be inferred at this stage that for the +purpose of sa$sfying the rigors of sec$on 37 of NDPS Act, the pe$$oner cannot be said +to be primafacie guilty for any allega$ons, and its most likely effect on the final outcome +would be sufficient for sa$sfac$on of condi$ons of Sec$on 37 of NDPS Act. Any detailed +discussions about the evidence may prejudice the case of the prosecu$on, pe$$oner, or +the other accused. Regarding the second rider of S. 37, this Court will put very stringent +condi$ons in this order to ensure that the pe$$oner does not repeat the offence. Given +the above, once the pe$$oner has sa$sfied the riders of sec$on 37 of the NDPS Act, the +bail has to be dealt with under CrPC, 1973, and there is no jus$fica$on to deny bail. +Suffice it to say that due to the reasons men$oned above, and keeping in view the +nature of the allega$ons, the pe$$oner has sa$sfied the twin condi$ons of sec$on 37 +and has crossed the hurdles, jus$fying the disrup$on of any further pretrial +incarcera$on. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_45620310.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_45620310.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..66509d2f80d9b434909cba3114af5ad8eddfe634 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_45620310.html @@ -0,0 +1,457 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Athar Pervez vs State on 26 February, 2016 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

Two important limitations and fetters imposed by Section 37 of the + NDPS Act are; (i) there should be reasonable grounds for believing + that the accused is not guilty of such offence, and (ii) the accused is + not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The negative pre- + conditions are authoritatively binding and would curtail the discretion + to grant bail. +

4. The Supreme Court in Narcotic Control Bureau vs. Kishan Lal & + Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 705, has accentuated on the importance of the + non-obstante mandate of Section 37, notwithstanding anything + contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Code" for short). + An accused facing prosecution under NDPS Act for the offences + mentioned in clause (b) to sub-section 1 to Section 37 should be + released on bail only when the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS + Act are strictly satisfied. NDPS Act, a special enactment + incorporating stringent provisions for the control and punishment of + crimes relating to narcotics and psychotropic substances, incorporate + particular and purpose built conditions. The stipulations in Section 37 + of the NDPS Act are negative for they intend to restrict the power to + grant bail under the Code. Subsequent decision in Union of India vs. + Ram Samujh & Anr., (1999) 9 SCC 429, affirms and reiterates this + ratio. Thus, grant of bail, when an accused is charged with the + specified offences under the NDPS Act, is impaired and circumscribed + by the rigorous negative pre-conditions adumbrated in Section 37 of + the NDPS Act. +

+
+ +
+ +Crl.Ref.No.1/2015 Page 3 of 15 +

5. An order granting bail to a person facing prosecution under the + specified offences under the NDPS Act must abide and confirm the + said ratio. It should satisfy the positive conditions in Section 439 of + the Code and also the negative stipulations of Section 37 of the NDPS + Act. The question which would still arise is whether the term 'bail' + used in Section 37 of the NDPS Act would include "interim" bail and, + therefore, by necessary implication "interim" bail cannot be granted + unless the negative stipulations in Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not + satisfied. Is "interim" bail different from regular bail? And whether + requisites of Section 37 would equally apply and bind a Court when it + considers a prayer for grant of "interim" bail? +

+
+ +
+ +

Rejecting the contention that Section 32A would completely + and entirely control the grant of parole, it was held that Section 32A + takes away the right of the Court to suspend the sentence awarded to a + convict, but it would not affect the power and authority of the Court to + grant parole or furlough even when a person is convicted and + sentenced under the NDPS Act, and his appeal has been dismissed. A + convict can apply for parole and his prayer should be considered and + disposed of in accordance with the statutory provision, if any; Jail + Manual, or government instructions, without strictly applying Section + 32A of the NDPS Act. To articulate and pronounce the said axiom, the + Supreme Court referred to the distinction between "parole" and "bail" + to hold that "parole" cannot be equated with "bail" and "suspension of + sentence" for the said terms have acquired different meanings. If a + person applies for suspension of sentence or bail, he has to comply + with Section 32A or 37 of the NDPS Act, as the case may be. The + aforesaid decision clearly illustrates that the bar of section 32A, would + not prohibit grant of "parole" when it is justified and necessary and + parole applications should be dealt with and examined in accordance + with the statutory framework or Jail Manual or Government + Instructions. The aforesaid decision was referred to in Atik Ansari + + (supra) and "interim bail" was granted to the applicant for a period of + two weeks from release. The Single Judge in the reference order has + highlighted the counsel's contention that when a convict under the + NDPS Act can be granted parole, there is no reason or justification to + hold that an accused or convict under the NDPS Act cannot be granted + "interim" bail. +

+
+ +
+

16. In the light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, right or discretion to grant + regular bail is exactingly restricted, for the specified offences under + the NDPS Act have serious repercussions on the society and are + pernicious. The balance, therefore, mandates that regular bail should + not be granted unless the negative stipulations of Section 37 of the + NDPS Act are satisfied and mere satisfaction of conditions of Section + 437 of the Code are not sufficient. However, we must accept that + there can be, at times, circumstances where even in cases of grave and + serious offences covered by the NDPS Act, where the accused or the + convict should be granted a limited indulgence by way of "interim" + bail. The extenuating and extreme circumstances may somewhat tilt + the balance. On this aspect reference can be made to Dadu @ Tulsidas + (supra), which interprets Section 32A of the NDPS Act and upholds + right to parole even when an accused stands convicted. Courts are + bound by statutes which regulate their exercise of discretion and + power to grant bail, and they equally interpret these statutes, when + + + + there is an ambiguity and doubt regarding their application, restriction + etc.. Interpretation must elucidate the meaning which should be given + to the statutory provisions, keeping in view the language used in the + provision and if necessary adopt purposive interpretation when the + language is capable of different interpretations. Legal interpretation is + required in consonance with the statute and also the principles of bail + jurisprudence. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_48158288.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_48158288.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d865d3944a236042d11b144d3845e7d85d73cb43 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_48158288.html @@ -0,0 +1,449 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Reserved On: 16.01.2026 vs Of on 23 January, 2026 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

23. Based on the above precedent, the test which the High + Court and this Court are required to apply while granting + rt + bail is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that + the accused has not committed an offence and whether he + + is likely to commit any offence while on bail. Given the + seriousness of offences punishable under the NDPS Act and + in order to curb the menace of drug trafficking in the + country, stringent parameters for the grant of bail under + + + + the NDPS Act have been prescribed." +

+
+ +
+ +

15. It was held in Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh, 2023 + + + + + SCC OnLine SC 346, that bail cannot be granted without complying + + + + + + with the requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It was + + + + + + observed: +

+
4. This apart, it is noticed that the High Court, in passing + the impugned order of bail, had lost sight of Section 37 of + the NDPS Act, which, inter alia, provides that no person + accused of an offence involving commercial quantity shall + be released on bail unless the twin conditions laid down + therein are satisfied, namely, (i) the public prosecutor has + been given an opportunity to oppose the bail application; +
+
+ +
+ +

of +

7. In the decision in State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020) 12 SCC + 122, after reiterating the broad parameters laid down by + this Court to be followed while considering an application + rt + for bail moved by an accused involved in offences under the + NDPS Act, in paragraph 18 thereof this Court held that the + scheme of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would reveal that the + + exercise of power to grant bail in such cases is not only + subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 of + the Code of Criminal Procedure, but also subject to the + + + limitation placed by Section 37(1)(b)(ii), NDPS Act. Further, + it was held that in case one of the two conditions + thereunder is not satisfied, the ban on granting bail would + + + + + operate. +

+
+ +
+

8. Thus, the provisions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the + + + + + + NDPS Act and the decisions referred supra reveal the + consistent view of this Court that while considering the + application for bail made by an accused involved in an + + + + + + offence under the NDPS Act, a liberal approach ignoring the + mandate under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is impermissible. + Recording a finding mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS + Act, which is a sine qua non for granting bail to an accused + under the NDPS Act, cannot be avoided while passing + orders on such applications." +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_55559678.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_55559678.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..567a0c89e42a52daab0d1776b7a3a03dbc1e8905 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_55559678.html @@ -0,0 +1,448 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Decided On : 10Th January vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
8. In the aforesaid background, this Court + +proceeds to examine the claim of the bail petitioner + +[Purba Sherpa] for bail, in view of the statutory + +mandate of Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act and also, + +by taking into account, the exceptions carved out by + +the Honble Supreme Court to rigors of Section 37 + +(1) (b) of NDPS Act, hereinbelow. +
+

[A]. CLAIM FOR BAIL UNDER SECTION 37(1) (b) OF + NDPS ACT: +

+
9. This Court proceeds to examine the claim + +for bail in view of the rigours in Section 37 of the NDPS + +Act hereinunder; +
+
+ +
+ +

[B]. NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING REPITITION + OF OFFENCE AFTER BAIL: +

+
10. Status Reports filed by the State Authorities + +have not expressed any apprehension of repetition of + +offence after being enlarged on bail hereinafter. +
+

Taking into account the entirety of facts + +and circumstances, including the Status Reports, this + +Court is of the considered view, that there are no + +reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner + +is guilty and that the petitioner is likely to repeat + +the offence after being released on bail and therefore, + +by applying the twin-tests as mandated in Section + +37 (1)(b) of the NDPS Act, the bail petitioner [Purba + +Sherpa] deserves to be enlarged on bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
"24. There are a few penal statutes that make a + departure from the provisions of Sections + 437, 438, and 439 of the Code of Criminal + Procedure, 1973. A higher threshold is + provided in these statutes for the grant + of bail. By way of illustration, we may + refer to Section 45(1)(ii) of PMLA, + proviso to Section 43D(5) of the + Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, + 1967 and Section 37 of the Narcotic +Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, + 1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act'). The + provisions regarding bail in some + of such statutes start with a non obstante + clause for overriding the provisions of + Sections 437 to 439 of the CrPC. The + legislature has done so to secure the object + of making the penal provisions in such + enactments. For example, the PMLA + provides for Section 45(1)(ii) as money + laundering poses a serious threat not only +
+
+ +
+ +
"The petitioner is an accused for the alleged + offences punishable under Sections 8/22 + and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and + Psychotropic Substances Act. His bail + application was dismissed by the High + Court. He has already undergone about + one year and four months in jail. The + petitioner and com accused were found in + possession of 80 grams of MD powder each + of which commercial quantity is 50 grams. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_56259537.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_56259537.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5aea0f4876a45470d9623e4849b81b9b762497b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_56259537.html @@ -0,0 +1,447 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sandeep Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 15 July, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
8. On the contrary, Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate + General, contends that the Police have collected sufficient evidence by + tracing frequent calls made by the bail petitioner, the main accused, and the + + + + + seller of charas, which prima facie points out towards his involvement. He + + + + + + also relies upon the decision of this Court in CrMPM 126 of 2018, Manohar + Lal v. State of H.P., and CrMPM 1084 of 2020, Om Parkash v. State of H.P. + + + + + +
9. Ld. Amicus Curiae, Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Sr. Advocate duly assisted + by Ms. Shweta Joolka, Advocate has drawn the attention of this Court to the + concepts of 'Due Process of Law,' 'reasonableness,' and 'satisfaction of the + conscience of the Court,' while considering bails under NDPS Act, involving + the commercial quantity of substance. +
+
+ +
+ +

20. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON S. 37 OF NDPS ACT: +

+
a) In Union of India v. Merajuddin, (1999) 6 SCC 43, a three Judges + Bench of Supreme Court while cancelling the bail, observed in Para 3, as + follows, + + + + + + The High Court appears to have completely ignored the + mandate of Sec. 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and + Psychotropic Substances Act while granting him bail. +

The High Court overlooked the prescribed procedure." +

+

b) In Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549, a + three Judges Bench of Supreme Court holds, +

+
+ +
+ +

g) In Bijando Singh v. Md. Ibocha, 2004(10) SCC 151, Supreme Court + holds, +

3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Special Court + (NDPS), releasing the accused on bail, the appellant + moved the Guwahati High Court against the said order + on the ground that the order granting bail is contrary to + + + + + + + + + + + the provisions of law and the appropriate authority + never noticed the provisions of Section 37 of the + Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. The + High Court, however, being of the opinion that if the + + + + + . +

+
+ +
+

12. We, however, feel that some stringent conditions + will have to be imposed upon the appellant. +

+

SUM UP: +

+
21. From the summary of the law relating to rigors of S.37 of NDPS Act, + while granting bail involving commercial quantities in the NDPS Act, the + following fundamental principles emerge: +
+
a) The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question + of granting bail arises on merits. [Customs, New Delhi v. +

Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549]. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_66312280.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_66312280.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..256217fe05be0429e67d35b24bcc0d3e8d35ca78 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_66312280.html @@ -0,0 +1,371 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Abdul Mohammed Shaikh vs Union Of India And Anr on 5 May, 2021 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

(i) Bail Application No.102 of 2020 is allowed. +

(ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in + connection with NDPS Special Case No. 12 of 2016 + investigated by Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai on + executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with + one or more sureties in the like amount; +

(iii) The applicant shall report to Narcotics Control Bureau, + Mumbai, once in three months on first Saturday of the + + + + This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 13/05/2021 + +Ethape 22 18-BA-102-2020 + + + month between 11.00 am. to 1.00 pm. till further + orders; +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_67850225.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_67850225.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..48fa1149ff5152f21e1f9ecda69e3692b671df35 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_67850225.html @@ -0,0 +1,475 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ____________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

In the aforesaid background, this Court + +proceeds to examine the claim of the bail petitioner + +[Praveen Kumar], for bail, in view of the Statutory + +mandate of Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act and + +on other grounds available by way of exceptions to + +the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act, as carved out + +and mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as + +discussed here-in-below. +

- 15 - +

+

[A] CLAIM OF BAIL PETITIONER FOR BAIL UNDER + SECTION 37(1) (b) OF NDPS ACT: +

+
+ +
+ +

10(iv). Status Report filed by the State Authorities + +does not spell out any material to show that the + +bail petitioner has resorted to any activities, so as + +to invoke the provisions of Section 20 of NDPS Act, +

- 18 - +

+

against the bail petitioner. Nothing has been placed + +on record that the bail petitioner had produced, + +manufactured, possessed, sold, transported, imported, + +exported or used contraband as alleged in instant + +case. Presumption of guilty cannot be permitted to + +be inferred when, the accusation, if any, is yet + +to be tested, examined and proved during the trial. + +In these circumstances, the bail petitioner appears + +to be not guilty, at this stage, and therefore, the + +bail petitioner deserves to be granted concession of + +bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
10(vi). Status Reports filed by the State Authorities + +have not expressed any apprehension of repetition of + +offence after being enlarged on bail hereinafter. +
+
Taking into account the entirety of facts + +and circumstances, including the Status Reports, this + +Court is of the considered view, that there are no + +reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner + +is guilty and that the petitioner is likely to repeat + +the offence after being released on bail and therefore, + +by applying the twin-tests as mandated in Section + +37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, the bail petitioner [Parveen + +Kumar] deserves to be enlarged on bail. +
+
+ +
+ +

RIGOURS IN SPECIAL ENACTMENTS [SECTION + 37 OF NDPS] TO GIVE WAY FOR BAIL BASED + ON PROLONGED INCARCERATION & TRIAL TO + TAKE CONSIDERABLE TIME: +

+
15. While dealing with the claim for bail under + +Special Enactments and rigors of Section 45 (1) (ii) +
- 30 - +
+

of MPLA and proviso to Section 43-D (5) of Unlawful + +Activities [Prevention] Act, 1967 and Section 37 of + +NDPS Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal + +Appeal No. 4011 of 2024, in V. Senthil Balaji + +versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of + +Enforcement, has mandated that rigors in Special + +Enactments, including Section 37 of NDPS Act, will + +melt down where there is no likelihood of trial + +being completed in a reasonable time and prolonged + +incarceration so as to prevent the deprivation of + +curtailment of personal liberty and right to speedy + +trial in terms of Article 21 of Constitution of India, + +in the following terms:- +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_7210451.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_7210451.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c369fe7cc593d97491073242c3832edfc6f7b2ce --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_7210451.html @@ -0,0 +1,481 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Paras Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh 20 ... on 1 July, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
21. The expression "reasonable grounds" means something + more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial + probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of + the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in + the provision requires existence of such facts and + circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify + + + satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged + offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems to have + completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 + that in addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC, + or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the + grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under + the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for." +
+
+ +
+

20. Now, the question for consideration would be, whether on the principle + + of parity, the accused / applicant is entitled to be released on bail? + +

21. A careful perusal of the order passed in M.Cr.C.No.331/2020 (Ganga + + Prasad Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh) and M.Cr.C.No.825/2020 + + Bolbam v. State of Chhattisgarh), both being bail applications of co- + + accused, would show that the limitations imposed in Section 37(1)(b) + +

(ii) of the NDPS Act were not brought to the notice of the Court while + + their bail applications were considered, consequently, there is no + + consideration of the limitations contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the + + said Act. The principle of parity has been pressed into service in this + + bail application. As it flows from Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, + + + statutory requirement of recording a finding that there is no reasonable + + ground for believing that the accused has not committed the offence and + + he is not likely to commit offence while on bail are mandatory + + requirements and unless those statutory requirements are fulfilled by the + + court granting bail, in case the accusation is of commercial quantity, in + + my considered opinion, bail cannot be granted unless the statutory + + requirements contained in Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act are met- + + out and the principle of parity cannot be pressed into service by the + + applicants in breach of the statutory provisions contained in Section + + 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. +

+
+ +
+ +

23. As already noticed herein-above, in Rattan Mallik's case (supra), the + + Union of India filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the + + order of the Allahabad High Court in suspending the sentence awarded + + by the trial Court to the accused for having committed offences under + + Sections 8 read with Section 27-A and 8 read with Section 29 of the + +NDPS Act and granting bail, considering the limitation imposed in clause +

(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and it was held + + that grant of bail without considering Section 37 of the NDPS Act + + clearly violates the mandatory requirement of Section 37 and the bail + + order was set-aside with liberty to decide afresh in the light of the + + limitation imposed. +

+
+ +
+ +

25. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court rejected the plea of parity in + + respect of grant of bail governed by Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS + + Act in the matter of Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab 10 by holding that in + + cases covered under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, dehors it, bail + + cannot be granted on the principle of parity, and observed as under: - +

"Leave granted. The appellant Satpal Singh (in Crl. + Appeal. No. 462 of 2018) is before this Court, challenging + the order dated 4-10-2017 passed by the High Court of + Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Sat Pal Singh v. State of + Punjab11 rejecting his application for anticipatory bail. The + High Court took note of the fact that the appellant was an + accused in FIR No. 0053 dated 11-6-2017 under Sections + 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic +Substances Act, 1985 (in short "the NDPS Act"), registered + at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala. Though it was + argued that a coordinate Bench of the High Court had + granted anticipatory bail to the co-accused, namely, Beant + Singh and Gurwinder Singh, who are brothers of the + appellant, as per order dated 21-9-2017 12, the learned + Judge was not inclined to accept the contention since there + +10 (2018) 13 SCC 813 +11 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 3802 +12 Beant Singh v. State of Punjab, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 3801 + + + was no question of parity as far as the bail is concerned and + in view of the fact that the coordinate Bench had not taken + note of the limitations under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. + In our view, the learned Judge is perfectly right in his + approach and in declining the protection under Section 438 + of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "CrPC"). +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_75044948.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_75044948.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fef8e70e8609e459a87e88244ff431ebb14e634d --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_75044948.html @@ -0,0 +1,433 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ebera Nwanaforo vs Ncb on 31 May, 2022 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

32. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the applicants on the + verdict in Thana Singh V. Central Bureau of Narcotics; (2013) 2 + SCC 603 wherein the observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in + the NDPS cases at the stage of consideration of the question of grant + of bail to an accused facing trial under the NDPS Act in Supreme + Court Legal Aid Committeee Representing Undertrial Prisoners V. + Union of India & Ors. (supra) were referred to and in terms thereof it + was observed in relation to a case under Section 8 read with Section + 29 of the of the NDPS Act, 1985, where the accused was languishing + in Jail for a period of 12 years as under: +

+
+ +
+
4. Time and again, this Court has emphasised + the need for speedy trial, particularly when the + release of an undertrial on bail is restricted + under the NDPS Act. While considering the + question of grant of bail to an accused facing + trial under the NDPS Act in Supreme Court + Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India this + Court had observed that though some amount of + deprivation of personal liberty cannot be + avoided in such cases, but if the period of + deprivation pending trial becomes unduly long, + the fairness assured by Article 21 of the + Constitution would receive a jolt. It was further + observed that after the accused person has + suffered imprisonment, which is half of the + maximum punishment provided for the offence, + any further deprivation of personal liberty + would be violative of the fundamental right + visualised by Article 21. We regret to note that + despite it all, there has not been visible + improvement on this front. +
+
+ +
+

drugs on society, and how the menace of drug addiction did not + only have the ability of destroying the life of just one individual, + but how it could destroy the lives of generations to come. + Therefore, the consequences of dealing of drugs and drug abuse + can be experienced across the board, from causing economic + issues to societal disintegration. The purpose of enacting the + NDPS Act was to curb this menace, and this purpose must be + borne in mind while considering the grant of bail pertaining to + the NDPS Act. +

+
+ +
+

41. It is essential to observe that the question raised in Re;Sanawar + + Ali (supra) was to the effect: +

+
― 1. An interesting question is raised in this bail + application:- Whether restrictions imposed by + Section 37 of the NDPS Act are over ridden by the + operation of the directions given by the Hon'ble + Apex Court in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee + vs. Union of India MANU/SC/0877/1994: (1994) 6 + SCC 731 in the matter of grant of bail to undertrials + in NDPS cases.‖ + + + + +Signature +Not Verified +Digitally Signed +By:SUMIT GHAI +Signing +Date:02.06.2022 +11:27:59 +This file is +digitally signed by + +PS to HMJ ANU +MALHOTRA. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_7544572.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_7544572.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..82dd5bf154eadefbc7d35c114aea7fc9b5f0c889 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_7544572.html @@ -0,0 +1,465 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Vikram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

14(iii). Even a suspect or an accused under NDPS + +Act does not have any vested right or an automatic + +claim for pre-arrest bail or regular bail, merely on + +the ground, that the quantity of contraband, allegedly + +involved, is either small or intermediate. However, while + +considering the prayer for bail, even in offences under + +the NDPS, relating to small or intermediate quantity, + +still the claim is required to be tested in the backdrop + +of Section(s) 438 or 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure +

- 28 - +

+
+ +
+

2025:HHC:2977) + + + + +{herein, Cr.P.C.}, and also in the context of the broad + +parameters mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, + +as referred to above. +

+

14(iv). In the above backdrop, the general principle + +is that when, a bail petitioner approaches a Court for + +bail {pre-arrest or regular bail} under NDPS Act and + +a Court, forms a prima facie opinion on the basis of + +available material, that there is a prima facie case + +or reasonable grounds pointing towards the accusation of + +an offence, be it relating to a small or intermediate + +quantity of contraband therefore, such an accused has + +neither any automatic right nor can the privilege of + +bail be extended as a rule. +

+
+ +
+
15(i) Status Report(s) and the material on record + +do not point out any prima-facie case or reasonable + +grounds to believe the accusation against the bail + +petitioner(s), as referred to above. +
+
15(ii) Status Report(s) filed by State Authorities, + +does not indicate anything to show that the + +bail petitioners are involved in offenceunder Section 21 + +of the NDPS Act. Even Learned State Counsel has not + +placed on record any material to show that bail + +petitioners are involved in commission of offence under + +Section 21 of NDPS Act. In these circumstances, plea of + +the bail petitioners for bail has carries weight and the + +same is accordingly accepted. +
+
+ +
+ +
 BAIL   WHEN      NO         RECOVERY     FROM       BAIL
+           PETITIONERS:
+                              - 36 -
+                          2025:HHC:2977)
+
+
+
+
+15(iii)     Status Report(s) unambiguously admits that
+
+
contraband weighing 12.06 grams of Chitta/Herion was + +recovered from the main accused [Prikshit Dhani]. +
+
Once even as per the Status Report(s) neither any + +recovery was affected from bail petitioners nor any + +material has been placed on record to reveal that the bail + +petitioners have indulged in acts or omissions under + +Section 21 of NDPS Act, therefore, the plea for bail has + +merit and the same is accordingly accepted. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_85364900.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_85364900.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dcc5cf1503457755201b614d0a9c87e484b3221e --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_85364900.html @@ -0,0 +1,385 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Vinay Kumar Mishra vs Union Of India Thru. Its Zonal Director, ... on 24 July, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

Sri Awasthi in support of his submissions has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ramsamujh reported in 1999 (9) SCC 429, Union of India Vs. Ratan Malik reported in 2009 (2) SCC 264 and State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 81. +

+

The Court has considered the rival submissions and has also perused the material available on record and the case laws cited by the both parties. +

+

The primary submission of Sri A.P. Mishra revolves around the non-compliance of Section 42 and Section 50 of the NDPS Act. While advancing his submissions, Sri Mishra has urged that the record does not indicate that there has been any compliance of Section 42 (1) or 42 (2) of the NDPS Act. It has been submitted that the applicant has taken a specific plea in paragraph 17 of the bail application in respect of non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. It has been submitted by Sri Mishra that in paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit a reply to the paragraph 17 of the Bail Application has been given and it has been alleged and stated that the information available with the Officer in-charge was passed to Sri Narendra Kumar, Intelligence Officer empowered under Section 42 (1) of the NDPS Act and who reduced the same in writing and put up the same before the Zonal Director to proceed further, thus, the provision of both Section 41 (1) and 42 (2) of the NDPS Act have been duly complied with, while no document has been annexed indicating the recording of the information and forwarding the same to the superior officer, as required in law. +

+
+ +
+ +

Now, at this stage, this Court relegates itself to Section 37 of the NDPS Act to ascertain its mandate while considering an application for bail. Section 37 of the NDPS Act, as substituted by Act 2 of 1989 with effect from 29-5-1989 with further amendment by Act 9 of 2001 reads as follows: +

+
"37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),-- +
+
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; +
+
+ +
+ +

This legislative mandate is required to be considered by the Court while considering an application for bail under the NDPS Act. The aforesaid provision has been the subject matter of interpretation and consideration in large number of cases and is very well settled. +

+

In the case of Union of India Vs. Ram Samujh and Another reported in 1999 (9) SCC 429, the Apex Court in paras 6 to 8 has held as under:- +

+
6. The aforesaid section is incorporated to achieve the object as mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for introducing Bill No. 125 of 1988 thus: +
+
+ +
+ +

13. The expression "reasonable grounds" has not been defined in the said Act but means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence he is charged with. The reasonable belief contemplated in turn, points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence (vide Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari [(2007) 7 SCC 798 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 505] ). Thus, recording of satisfaction on both the aspects, noted above, is sine qua non for granting of bail under the NDPS Act. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_86092987.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_86092987.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..64737a96b84be623c28bacd8c0a0ae85eb6a253c --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_86092987.html @@ -0,0 +1,413 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Sovraj vs State Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi on 8 July, 2024 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

16. He submitted that the matter is still at the stage of prosecution + evidence. He relied upon the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme + Court in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) : 2023 SCC OnLine + SC 352 to submit that grant of bail is not fettered by Section 37 of the + NDPS Act in case of undue delay in trial. +

+

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION +

17. Per contra, the Additional Standing Counsel for the State + opposed the bail application. He submitted that the case pertains to + recovery of commercial quantity of contraband from the possession of + accused therefore the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be + attracted. He submitted that Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be + given liberal interpretation on the justification that it affects the + personal liberty of a citizen who is yet to be tried. +

+
+ +
+
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of + sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of + Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the + time being in force, on granting of bail." +
+

25. The accusation in the present case is with regard to the + recovery of commercial quantity of contraband. Once the rigours of + Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted, as provided under the + Section, the Court can grant bail only when the twin conditions + stipulated in Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act are satisfied in + addition to the usual requirements for the grant of bail - (1) The court + must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that + the person is not guilty of such offence; and (2) That the person is not + likely to commit any offence while on bail. +

+
+ +
+
d) Delay in trial. +
+

Delay in filing application under Section 52A of the NDPS Act & + delay in sending samples to FSL +

27. The learned counsel for the applicant has pressed the present + bail application primarily on the ground of delay in filing of + application under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. He submitted that the + same entitles the applicant to bail. Section 52A of the NDPS Act reads + as under: +

+
+ +
+

88. The said question, in the opinion of this Court, can only be + determined after the conclusion of the trial and it would be premature + to comment on the same while considering the application for bail. +

89. The second threshold under Section 37 of the NDPS Act which + provides for grant of bail includes the hurdle of the Court having + reasonable ground to believe that the applicant has not committed the + offence. While the prosecution cannot be given undulated power + where their version is treated as the gospel truth, unless ancillary facts + suggest suspicious activity or tampering with the contraband, at the + stage of consideration of bail, the benefit of an alleged procedural + anomaly would not entitle the applicant to bail. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_861489.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_861489.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..40e7ba88c8584f5d13b717ab5ba85a18b4572d8b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_861489.html @@ -0,0 +1,378 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Tamizharasi And Another vs Assistant Director, Narcotic Control ... on 14 December, 1994 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

5. Mr. B. Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the concerned petitioner, in each one of these habeas corpus petitions, submitted, that Courts do not possess any inherent power to remand and if at all it must be traced to statutory provisions. According to him, the source of power to grant bail even under the provisions of the NDPS Act will have to be traced to S. 437 or 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the case may be, and not to S. 37 of the NDPS Act, which tends to contemplate further limitations, while considering the plea for bail, made by a person allegedly involved in the commission of an offence, under the NDPS Act. Mr. B. Kumar emphatically submitted, that on the default committed by the prosecution, in not laying a complaint within 90 days from the date of arrest of the person accused of an offence under the NDPS Act, if such person was prepared to and does furnish bail, he shall have to be released on bail, under the said sub-section thereby putting an embargo on the power of the Magistrate to grant further extension of remand. He urged, that there should not be any linkage between the merits of the case and entitlement of a person accused of an offence punishable under the provisions of the NDPS Act, to be released under the proviso to S. 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submitted that S. 37 of the NDPS Act, can have no role to play, in that contingency, for the person concerned was sought to be released on bail on the ground of default committed by the prosecution. He further added, that if this was not the test, the whole section would become unconstitutional, in view of the provisions of Art. 21 of the Constitution, for a person allegedly involved in commission of a crime under the NDPS Act can be kept in prison indefinitely. Nextly, he submitted, that the non obstante clause, either in S. 36A of the Act or S. 37 of the Act, does not exclude operation of the provisions of S. 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If it were to be held otherwise, apparently the Magistrate will have no power of remand. Several decisions rendered by various Courts have been placed for our scrutiny by Mr. B. Kumar, which we will refer to and consider at the appropriate time. +

+
+ +
+ +
(i) The Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and + + +
(ii) Where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail." +
+

A combined reading of these two provisions indicates that these are almost similar in nature and expected operation. Before we refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hitendara Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra , it will be better to dispose of the contention of Mr. Asokan, that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Narcotic Control Bureau v. Kishan Lal, , the power to grant bail under any of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure must necessarily be subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In Narcotic Control Bureau v. Kishan Lal, , the Supreme Court, has stated, that only limited question to be decided was, whether the view taken by the High Court, that the limitations placed on the Special Court under Section 37(2) of the NDPS Act, cannot be read as fetters on the High Court, in exercise of powers under Section 439, Cr.P.C. for granting bail, was right or wrong. The Supreme Court has further stated, that leave was granted only to that limited extent. Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the powers of the High Court to grant bail under Section 439, Cr.P.C. were subject to the limitations contended in the amended Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the restrictions placed on the powers of the Court under the said section were applicable to the High Court also in the matter of granting bail. While disposing of the two appeals, the Supreme Court, had no occasion to consider the power of remand under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the entitlement to bail, of the persons sought to be prosecuted under the NDPS Act, on default committed by the prosecution. As a matter of fact, while limiting the question for consideration, the Supreme Court has made it clear, that though the petitioners had filed, Writ as well as criminal miscellaneous petitions, seeking bail firstly on the ground that they were entitled to be released on bail as required under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as charge sheet was filed at a belated stage and secondly on the ground of illness, it had chosen to restrict its decision, only to the specific question referred to earlier. Nowhere in the judgment, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the power of remand vis-a-vis grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Emphasis was laid by Mr. Asokan, on the following observations of the Supreme Court : +

+
+ +
+ +
On the otherhand, Mr. S. Lal, appearing for the respondent contended that even when the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. are to be involved this Court has to consider the conditions stipulated under Section 37 of the Act. The release would not be automatic. That the NDPS Act was amended to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to NDPS. In fact Section 37 starts with a non-obstante clause stating therein that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no person, accused of an offence prescribed therein shall be released on bail unless the conditions contained therein were satisfied. The NDPS Act is a special enactment and will override the general provision contained in Cr.P.C. This Act was enacted with a view to make stringent provision, therefore the underlying object is in negative terms limiting the scope of the applicability of the provision of code of Criminal Procedure regarding bail. Therefore, even if the petitioners are asking to be released on bail because of the default of the prosecution, still the limitation under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will apply. In this regard he has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishan Lal . +
+
+ +
+ +

26. In Ram Dayal v. Central Narcotic Bureau, 1993 Crl LJ 1443, a Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that Section 167(2) proviso, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was not applicable to a proceeding under the NDPS Act. Even if a charge sheet stood filed after 90 days of the arrest of the accused, on that ground itself, the person charged under the NDPS Act was not entitled to get bail from the High Court. Indeed, the Special Court and the High Court are equally placed in respect of competence under Section 37 of the NDPS Act in the matter of grant of bail to a person accused of an offence under the said Act. Irrespective of the date of submission of the charge sheet, it will be open always to the Special Court and the High Court to consider the prayer under Section 37 and both the Courts are required to dispose of the prayer only under the said provision, because no power outside that is invokable by a person accused under the Act to get released on bail. Observations of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in paragraphs 9 and 10 of its judgment may have to be extracted. They are, as hereunder at Page 1448. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_88370417.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_88370417.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..051a4d435db77210b0c4cb857ece3094e0a109f1 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_88370417.html @@ -0,0 +1,542 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ankush Kumar @ Sonu vs State Of Punjab on 9 August, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has vehemently + +submitted that since the intoxicating powder weighing 300 grams, + +containing Alprazolam, a prohibited substance, is recovered from the + +petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. It is + +further contended by the counsel that, in any case, before ordering the + +release of the petitioner on bail, this Court has to take into consideration the + +rigorous provisions of granting bail; as contained in Section 37 of NDPS + + + + 6 of 46 + + CRM-M-30643 of 2018 (O&M) -7- + + + +Act. It is contended that the `object' of the Act is of immense importance to + +the Society. Therefore, the right of bail can be restricted for this object. + +Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in + +2017(4) RCR (Criminal) 644 - Union of India v. Niyazuddin Sk. & + +Another, as well as another judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in + +2018(5) SCALE 519 - Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab, to contend that + +unless the Court applies its mind to the conditions for grant of bail, as + +prescribed in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court cannot order the + +release of the petitioner on bail. Counsel for the respondent- State has also + +produced on record the custody certificate of the petitioner; which shows + +that the petitioner has been in custody for one year four months and sixteen + +days. The custody certificate also shows that the petitioner was earlier also + +accused of an offence under NDPS Act. However, he stands acquitted of + +the charge by the Special Court on 05.04.2017. +

+
+ +
+ +

The judgment of the Supreme Court in case Nikesh Tarachand + +Shah's case (supra) shows that one of the grounds for holding the + +provision of Section 45 of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as unconstitutional + +was that there was no prohibition in the Money Laundering Act for grant of + +anticipatory bail. Therefore, a person could be granted anticipatory bail + +under Section 438 Cr.P.C without adverting to the conditions prescribed + +under Section 45 of Money Laundering Act and he can continue on bail + +without the Court recording its satisfaction qua the conditions prescribed + +under Section 45 of the Money Laundering Act. However, if a person is + + + + 31 of 46 + + CRM-M-30643 of 2018 (O&M) -32- + + + +somehow arrested then he cannot be released on bail except after recording + +of the satisfaction by the Court as to the conditions specified in Section 45 + +of the Money Laundering Act. Therefore, the conditions prescribed under + +Section 45 of the Money Laundering Act were held to be discriminatory and + +arbitrary. In the present case also, there is no prohibition under NDPS Act + +for grant of anticipatory bail. Furthermore in case 1995(2) RCR + +(Criminal) 531 - Union of India Vs. Thamishrasi, the Hon'ble Supreme + +Court while considering applicability of Section 37 of NDPS Act at the time + +of releasing an accused on bail under Section 167(2), held that before + +challan is filed and material is supplied to the accused, Section 37 cannot be + +applied. Therefore, a person can get the anticipatory bail irrespective of + +compliance or consideration of conditions prescribed under Section 37(i)(b) + +

+
+ +
+ +

However, more problem lies with the second part of Section 37 + +(1)(b)(ii), which requires the Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable + +grounds for declaring that the accused is not likely to commit `any offence' + +while on bail. This part of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) militates against the + +rationale and reasoning considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the + +above said case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah's case (supra), wherein it has + +implied that if such language extends in operation not only to the offence + +under the special Act but also to any offence under any other legal provision + +where such conditions are not required to be applied for grant of bail then + +such language enters the realm of unconstitutionality. Therefore, this + +language is also arbitrary on that count because it requires the Court to + +satisfy itself that the petitioner is not likely to commit any offence on the + + + + 39 of 46 + + CRM-M-30643 of 2018 (O&M) -40- + + + +earth while on bail. Had this Section restricted the requirement of the + +satisfaction of the Court that the accused is not likely to commit any offence + +under NDPS Act, then probably it could have some rational behind it. + +However, since the language of the second part has been thrown open the + +entire criminal arena to be considered by the Court before grant of bail + +under NDPS Act, therefore, this language does not have even the nexus to + +the object to be achieved by NDPS Act. +

+
+ +
+ +

Although there are judgments from the Courts to say that + +before a Court exercises power to grant bail under NDPS Act, it has to + +apply its mind to the conditions prescribed under Section 37(i)(b)(ii). All + +the Courts have invariably held that unless the Court so applies its mind and + +arrive at a satisfaction qua the conditions prescribed by Section, the Court + +cannot grant bail to an accused. However, in none of the judgments, any + +adequate determining principles have been spelled out for the Court to be + +guided with, in exercise of such a power qua further possible events. In + +fact, there can be none, if the Court is to record this satisfaction in a + +`reasonable' manner and on the basis of the `available record' only; and it is + +not to delve into a pure guess-work. And if the adequate determining + +principles are not prescribed or decipherable under the Act or cannot be + +gathered even by human logic then such a procedure has to be treated to be + +an irrational, undue and unfair procedure for the purpose of inviolability of + +the right to life and liberty of an individual. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_91622010.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_91622010.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..09da4e6b13d71c46c0aa8bcab8968c8ad9640249 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_91622010.html @@ -0,0 +1,496 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Reserved On: 9.12.2025 vs Of on 20 December, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

23. Based on the above precedent, the test which the High + Court and this Court are required to apply while granting + + + + + bail is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that + the accused has not committed an offence and whether he + + + + + + is likely to commit any offence while on bail. Given the + seriousness of offences punishable under the NDPS Act and + in order to curb the menace of drug trafficking in the + + + + + + country, stringent parameters for the grant of bail under + the NDPS Act have been prescribed." +

+
+ +
+

7. In the decision in State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020) 12 SCC + 122, after reiterating the broad parameters laid down by + + + + + this Court to be followed while considering an application + for bail moved by an accused involved in offences under the + + + + + + NDPS Act, in paragraph 18 thereof this Court held that the + scheme of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would reveal that the + exercise of power to grant bail in such cases is not only + + + + + + subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 of + the Code of Criminal Procedure, but also subject to the + limitation placed by Section 37(1)(b)(ii), NDPS Act. Further, + it was held that in case one of the two conditions + thereunder is not satisfied, the ban on granting bail would + operate. +

+
+ +
+

8. Thus, the provisions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the + NDPS Act and the decisions referred supra reveal the + consistent view of this Court that while considering the + application for bail made by an accused involved in an + offence under the NDPS Act, a liberal approach ignoring the + + + + + + + + 2025:HHC:44783 + + mandate under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is impermissible. + Recording a finding mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS + Act, which is a sine qua non for granting bail to an accused + under the NDPS Act, cannot be avoided while passing + + + + + . +

+
+ +
+

24. It was submitted that the bail is a Rule and Jail is an + + + + + + exception, and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this + + + + + + consideration. This submission will not help the petitioner, as he + + is prima facie involved in the commission of the offence + + + + + of + punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act involving the + + commercial quantity. Therefore, the provisions of the NDPS Act, + rt + being the Special Act, would override the general provision of the + + bail, and the petitioner cannot claim to be released on bail unless + + he satisfies the twin conditions laid down under Section 37 of the + + + + NDPS Act. In the present case, the petitioner prima facie has not + + satisfied the twin conditions laid down under Section 37 of the + + + + + NDPS Act, and he cannot be held entitled to bail because bail is + + + + + + the rule and jail is an exception. It was laid down by the Hon'ble + + + + + + Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, (2024) 11 SCC + + 372: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3848 that in cases under the NDPS Act + + involving the commercial quantity, the negation of bail is the rule + + and its grant an exception. It was observed at page 381: +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/NDPS_96847588.html b/hc_bulk/NDPS_96847588.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d9cac5e2ce43d4a590e0a25dc8b6deb51b12f71b --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/NDPS_96847588.html @@ -0,0 +1,463 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ____________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 January, 2025 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

- 16 - ( 2025:HHC:2996 ) + +vs B. Ramu, SLP (Criminal) No.8137 of 2022 decided + +on 12.02.2024. +

+

8. In the aforesaid background, this Court + +proceeds to examine the claim of the bail petitioner + +[Tilak Raj] for bail, in view of the statutory mandate + +of Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act and also, by + +taking into account, the exceptions carved out by + +the Honble Supreme Court to rigors of Section 37 + +(1) (b) of NDPS Act, hereinbelow. +

+

[A]. CLAIM FOR BAIL UNDER SECTION 37(1) (b) OF + NDPS ACT: +

+
+ +
+ +

9. This Court proceeds to examine the claim for + +bail in view of the rigours in Section 37 of the NDPS + +Act hereinunder; +

+

9(i). Perusal of Status Report and the material + +on record indicates that neither any prima facie case + +nor any reasonable grounds exist to believe that the + +bail petitioner is guilty of the offence in the instant + +case, at this stage.

+
+9(ii).    Status Report filed by the State Authorities
+                                - 17 -       ( 2025:HHC:2996 )
+
+

does not spell out any material to show that the + +bail petitioner has resorted to any activities, so as + +to invoke the provisions of Section 20 of NDPS + +Act, against the petitioner, at this stage. In these + +circumstances, the bail petitioner appears to be not + +guilty, in view of inherent discrepancies and grave + +contradictions in the statements of PWs, at this stage + +and therefore, the bail petitioner deserves to be granted + +concession of bail. +

+
+ +
+

- 18 - ( 2025:HHC:2996 ) + +

10. Status Reports filed by the State Authorities + +have not expressed any apprehension of repetition of + +offence after being enlarged on bail hereinafter. + +

Taking into account the entirety of facts + +and circumstances, including the Status Reports, this + +Court is of the considered view, that there are no + +reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner + +is guilty and that the petitioner is likely to repeat + +the offence after being released on bail and therefore, + +by applying the twin-tests as mandated in Section + +37 (1)(b) of the NDPS Act, the bail petitioner [Tilak + +Raj] deserves to be enlarged on bail. + +[C] CLAIM FOR BAIL ON OTHER EXCEPTIONAL GROUNDS + AND CIRCUMSTANCES: +

+
+ +
+ +
"The petitioner is an accused for the alleged + offences punishable under Sections 8/22 and + 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic +Substances Act. His bail application was + dismissed by the High Court. He has already + undergone about one year and four + months in jail. The petitioner and com + accused were found in possession of 80 + grams of MD powder each of which commercial + quantity is 50 grams. +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/POCSO_121983541.html b/hc_bulk/POCSO_121983541.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6005c7397c47d19edbc4360584ef96e5492fbc5d --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/POCSO_121983541.html @@ -0,0 +1,389 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Radhika (Juvenile) vs State Of U.P. on 5 August, 2019 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

(c) APPEAL NO. 4467 OF 2019 + + (Raju Alias Raj Kumar) + +Present appeal has been filed against the bail rejection order dated 21.06.2019 whereby Special Judge, POCSO Act has rejected the bail application of the appellant bearing No. 1735/2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 313/2018 U/s 147, 302, 201, 34 I.P.C. Police Station Shergarh, District Mathura. The FIR came into existence by one Shri Makhan, who lodged the present FIR on 23.09.2018 for the incident said to have taken place on 18.09.2018 naming as many as 7 persons including the appellant. Contended by the counsel that the case hinges upon last scene and circumstantial evidence. +

+
+ +
+ +

(d) APPEAL NO. 2702 OF 2019 + + Aqil (Juvenile) + +Aggrieved by the order, rejecting the bail application no. 2019/2018 of the appellant dated 04.07.2018 whereby Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Budaun rejected the bail arising out of Case Crime No. 304/2017 U/s 376D and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act. The genesis of the case starts from lodging of the FIR from one Eikta Devi (the victim herself) on 9.10.2017 for the alleged incident of gang rape upon her by Wahid, Aqil (the appellant) and Latoori. In this incident the accused/appellant intercepted her and thereafter stuffing her mouth, committed gang rape upon her one by one. In 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statements, she has attributed role of gang rape upon her by all the 3 accused persons whereby in 164 Cr.P.C. statement, she has reiterated the story mentioned in 161 Cr.P.C. statement. +

+
+ +
+ +

(e) APPEAL NO. 4518 OF 2019 + + (Aman) + +This appeal is being filed after getting the bail application No. 2438/2019 rejected by Special Judge, POCSO Act, Meerut arising out of Case Crime No. 787/2018 U/s 377, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act. Kundan Singh has lodged FIR at P.S. Nauchandi Meerut against the appellant Aman, with the allegation that Chhotu and Aman (appellant) have committed unnatural sex/sodomy with one Harsh on 1.2.18. The age of victim Harsh was barely 10 years. +

+

The appellant Aman has claimed juvenility and his claim was examined by Juvenile Justice Board who vide order dated 30.3.19 have found that on the date of incident, the delinquent was 16 years, 10 months and 4 days (less than 18 years). Bedsides this, the Juvenile Justice Board conducted a preliminary assessment of the delinquent in pursuant to Section 15(1) of J.J. Act and he was put before Dr. Bhagat Singh, Psychologist, who opined that the delinquent/juvenile is mentally mature boy and understands result of the conduct and taking into account the Psychologist report and report of District Probation Officer, Meerut, the records of the case was transmitted to Children Court/Special Judge, POSCO Act, pursuant to the mandate of late U/s 18(3) of J.J. Act to be tried as an adult. The appellant has moved the bail application before Special Judge, POCSO Act, Meerut and the court concern has rejected the bail application on 07.06.2019. Hence the Appeal U/s 101(5) of the Juvenile Justice Act. +

+
+ +
+ +

[22] This appellate order passed by the learned Sessions Judge could be challenged before the High Court under Section 102 of Act whereby it has empowered High Court that either on its own motion or an application received in this behalf, call for the record of any proceeding in which any Committee or Board or Children's Court or Court has passed an order for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit. +

+

[23] Thus, the scheme of the Act of 2015 for consideration of bail application of delinquent juvenile clearly lays down a particular procedure and there cannot be any justification for its deviation. In all the appeals before consideration, after being declared juvenile, by the Board, the delinquent offenders applied for regular bail before Special Judge(POCSO Act) acting as Children Court, who rejected their respective bail applications and after that all, the appellants moved the appeals before this Court U/s 101(5) of the Act, which is clearly violative of the scheme of the Act and cannot be sustained. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/POCSO_147227037.html b/hc_bulk/POCSO_147227037.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9eb71f028bf569d66b517b5aac6ea5f1a8164cdd --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/POCSO_147227037.html @@ -0,0 +1,448 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Arjun Kishanrao Malge vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 8 April, 2021 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

2.CRPILNo.52021.docx + + hearing of an application for bail of a person accused of having + + committed an offence under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section + + 376AB or section 376DA or section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code. + + These are offences under the Indian Penal Code in relation to the + + children. The petitioner contends that considering the mandate of + + Section 40 of the POCSO Act read with Rule 4 of the POCSO Rules, the + + amendment to the provisions of sub-section (1A) of Section 439 of the + + Cr.P.C. are required to be applied mutatis mutandis to the offences + + under the POCSO Act. Such application of these provisions, would + + ensure a fair representation to the victims of child sexual assault, their + + families and the public in general. More particularly, as Rule 4 of the + + POCSO is not restricted to informing the victims/complainants about + + the bail applications moved by the accused, but is also applicable to + + any/ all the applications moved by the accused before the trial Court. + + + +

+
+ +
+ +
iv. Declare Section 40 of the POCSO Act read with Rule 4 of + the POCSO Rules necessarily require that the Legal + Representative of the Child Victim, Parents, or Guardians as + the case may be, is heard before releasing the suspected + offender on Bail; +
+
v. Frame Guidelines / issue directions to the Respondent + No.1, 2 and 3 to ensure strict compliance of Section 439 (1- + A) of the Cr.P.C. and declare that the provisions/practices to + be followed under Section 439 (1-A) of the Cr.P.C. are also + made mutasis mutandis applicable to offences under the + POCSO Act with respect to the bail applications moved by + the Accused/ Offender in such cases; +
+
+ +
+

2.CRPILNo.52021.docx + + amendment made thereto by incorporation of Sub-section (1A) [(by Act + + 22 of 2018) with effect from 21 April 2019] stipulating that " the + + presence of the informant or any person authorised by him shall be + + obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to the + + person under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376AB or section + + 376DA or section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code." It needs to be noted + + that such provisions of the Indian Penal Code referring to sub-section + + (1A) of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. are in relation to the offences under + + sub-section (3) of Section 376 or Section 376AB or Section 376DA or + + Section 376DB of the IPC which relate to children. We thus find + + ourselves in agreement with the contention of the petitioner that akin to + + the offences which fall under the Indian Penal Code as set out in sub- + + section (1A) of Section 439 of Cr.P.C., with respect to applications for + + bail under the POCSO Act, the presence of the informant or any person + + authorised by him shall be made obligatory at the time of hearing of the + + application for bail. This would certainly be in consonance with the + + object of Section 40 of the POCSO Act read with Rule 4(13) and 4(15) + + of the POCSO Rules. To such extent, we also find ourselves, in + + agreement with the directions of the Delhi High Court in its orders as + + noted above. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/POCSO_148617531.html b/hc_bulk/POCSO_148617531.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..79af8a95c5607500298733e05bd492ea681ae128 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/POCSO_148617531.html @@ -0,0 +1,466 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Pramod Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 April, 2021 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

8. We have heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma, learned Senior Advocate + +appearing as amicus curiae, Shri Arpan Shrivastava, learned counsel for the + +appellant, Shri Harpreet Singh Ruprah, Advocate/Secretary, High Court + +Advocates' Bar Association, Jabalpur and Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned + +Additional Advocate General for the State. +

+

9. Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma, learned Senior Advocate submitted that + +there is no conflict between the two judgments passed by the Single Benches + +of this Court in Mohd. Juned (supra) and Smt. Sunita Gandharva (supra). + +The ratio of both the judgments is that the POCSO Act being the latter Act, its + +provisions would prevail over those of the Atrocities Act. In both the + +judgments, the learned Single Judges of this Court have relied on the + +authoritative enunciations of law by the Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh + +and another vs. Kasturi Lal, AIR 1977 SC 265 holding that the latter + +enactment must prevail over the earlier one. It is argued by the learned Senior + + + Criminal Appeal No.5189/2020 + + + +Counsel that both the POCSO Act and Atrocities Act contain non-obstante + +clauses regarding applicability of various provisions of Cr.P.C. The Special + +Courts have been constituted under both the enactments for the purpose of + +taking cognizance, conducting trials etc. However, in Atrocities Act, the + +application for bail is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before the Special + +Court and if the same is refused or allowed then the remedy would be to file + +an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Atrocities Act before this Court. But + +there is no such appeal provided under the POCSO Act and in such an + +eventuality, the regular bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has to be + +filed. The learned Senior Counsel in support of his arguments has placed + +reliance on the following judgments:- +

+
+ +
+ +
"17. Instant case is by way of an application for cancellation of + bail at the instance of complainant and the main objection to the said + application is maintainability itself. Beside that question of interplay of + Atrocities Act and POCSO Act and extent of bail conditions as per Section + 437(3) Cr.P.C. are involved. Therefore, according to this Court Five + Questions are involved in this case, viz.:- +
+
(i) Whether, High Court can entertain an application + under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancelation of + bail granted in exercise of powers conferred under + Section 14-A(2) of Atrocities Act?; +
+
+ +
+ +
(iv) Whether, in a composite offence involving of + provisions of POCSO Act and Atrocities Act, an + order refusing bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. will + be appealable as per Section 14-A(2) of Atrocities + Act or an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. +

simpliciter will lie before the High Court?; and + + + Criminal Appeal No.5189/2020 + + +

+
+ +
+ +

26. The Bombay High Court in Suraj S. Paithankar (supra) where a + +similar question arose, followed most of the judgments which have been + + + Criminal Appeal No.5189/2020 + + + +referred to above and held that in the composite offence involving POCSO + +Act and S.C. S.T. Act, the provision of the POCSO Act will prevail. The trial + +of the case will also be done by Special Court constituted under POCSO Act. + +Similarly, the Rajasthan High Court in Lokesh Kumar Jangid (supra) also + +held that no appeal will lie in a composite offence of POCSO and SC ST Act + +and a regular bail application under Section 439 would be maintainable. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/POCSO_179911835.html b/hc_bulk/POCSO_179911835.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d7e52f5f1903b012c99142534fc0deaebcfb395e --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/POCSO_179911835.html @@ -0,0 +1,513 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + State Of Meghalaya vs Md. Nurul Islam on 11 September, 2015 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+
wherein, it is reported that the accused Police Officer Md. Nurul Islam + +(present accused) was granted bail on 24.06.2015, bail bond was accepted + +and on the same day the bail was cancelled. The said news item was + +brought to the notice of this Court by the Registry. Accordingly, the report + +had been called from the Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong, who passed the + +said bail order for granting bail to the accused Police Officer Md. Nurul Islam. +
+
On receipt of the said report for passing the said bail orders, this Court had + +taken up the matter on judicial side. The learned Special Judge (POCSO), + + + + + + Shillong to whom the charge sheet No.12/2013 dated 06.11.2013 under + +Sections 342/354/376 (2)(a)(i)/506 IPC R/w Section 6/10 of the POCSO Act, + +2012 was submitted on 06.11.2013, had passed the order dated 24.06.2015 + +for granting bail to the accused Police Officer Md. Nurul Islam. No reason + +had been given by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong for + +entertaining the bail application on the very day, the accused Police Office + +Md. Nurul Islam had personally appeared and surrendered before the Court. +
+
+ +
+ +
Also perused the Case Record received from the Court +of District & Sessions Judge, Tura and also the Charge-sheet +No. 12/2013 dated 6.11.2013 u/s 342/354/376 (2) (a) (i)/506 +IPC R/W Section 6/10 POCSO Act. I take cognizance of the +offences and proceed further with the instant case. +
+
Register the case. +
+
Furnish C/D to the prosecution and prepare copies for +defence. +
+
Fix 08.07.2015 for copies. +
+
Sd/- +
Special Judge (POCSO) + Shillong + + Bail Bonds for the Accused person furnished and +accepted. +
+
+ +
+ +

+ +

6. This Court vide order dated 29.07.2015 directed the learned Sr. + +PP appearing for the State to produce the record and also further directed + +the State to file affidavit containing the circumstances leading to the passing + +of the said bail orders by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong and + +also the report from the concerned Police Station regarding the activities of + +the accused Police Officer Md. Nurul Islam. As ordered by this Court, the + +learned Sr. PP produced the record of the said case i.e. Ampati PS Case + +No.34(6) 2013 under Sections 376(2)(a)(i)/506 IPC r/w Section 6/10 of the + +POCSO Act, 2012 maintained by the Ampati P.S. and also the charge sheet. + +This Court also carefully perused the charge sheet as well as the case record + +of the Ampati PS Case No. 34(6) 2013 under Sections 376(2)(a)(i)/506 IPC + +r/w Section 6/10 of the POCSO Act, 2012. On such perusal, it appears that + +there is a prima facie material for establishing the case of the prosecution + +against the accused Police Officer Md. Nurul Islam. However, it is made clear + +that this Court is not making any observation on the merit of the case + +inasmuch as the merit of the case is to be finally decided after full length trial. + +This Court is making this observation only for the limited purpose of bail + +matters. It would be pertinent to mention that the said criminal case against + +the accused Police Officer Md. Nurul Islam is also for the offence under the + +POCSO Act, 2012. Under Chapter VII of the POCSO Act, 2012, which + +consists of 5 (five) Sections more particularly Section 29 of the POCSO Act, + +2012, there should be presumption as to certain offences. Section 29 of the + +POCSO Act, 2012 reads as follows:- +

+
+ +
+
JT (2004) 6 SC 540, and in Anwari Begum v. Sher + Mohd.: (2005) 7 SCC 326: 2005 SCC (Cri) 1669." +
+

10. Keeping in view of the ratio decidendis of the cases discussed + +above and also the guiding principles for granting bail, this Court had given + +anxious consideration of mind to the said impugned bail orders dated + +24.06.2015 and 08.07.2015 and this Court is sorry to say that the learned + + + + + + Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong did not even make a whisper for + +consideration of the guiding principles for granting bail propounded by the + +Apex Court in the cases discussed above in the impugned bail orders and + +also there is no indication in the impugned bail orders dated 24.06.2015 and + +08.07.2015 for considering the materials available on record or the evidence + +collected by the prosecution against the accused Police Officer Md. Nurul + +Islam and also no reason for granting bail by referring to the material + +available on record. In other words, there should be prima facie finding by + +giving reasons not touching merit of the case in the impugned bail orders + +dated 24.06.2015 and 08.07.2015 by referring to the material available on + +record or the prosecution case supported by the material available on record + +for coming to the conclusion that the bail should be granted to the accused + +Police Officer Md. Nurul Islam who is charged for committing a serious + +offence including the offence under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, 2012 + +where there is a provision for presumption as to certain offences. + + + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/POCSO_181418400.html b/hc_bulk/POCSO_181418400.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..36e3bd03da6f2959d8f7a2ae331d16b874c05255 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/POCSO_181418400.html @@ -0,0 +1,385 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Junaid vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 July, 2021 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
(b) What is a reasonable time line to enable various authorities to discharge their statutory functions under the POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020 before the bail application becomes ripe for being placed before the Court? +
+
(c) A decision on the aforesaid issues to resolve the bail conundrum has to ensure that the practices of the bail processual regime are consistent with the POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020, protect the rights of the both victim and the accused, and define the time frame for placing the bail application after its maturation before the Court. +
+
+ +
+ +

33. Section 439 (IA) Cr.P.C. is reproduced below: +

+
"439 (IA). Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.- +
+
"1A. The presence of the informant or any person authorised by him shall be obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to the person under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376AB or section 376DA or section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)." +
+

34. The legislature consciously did not incorporate offences under POCSO Act, 2012 in Section 439(IA) Cr.P.C. Hence the requirement of mandatory presence of persons nominated in Section 439(IA) Cr.P.C., at the hearing of bail application, is confined only to the offences stipulated in the provision namely Section 376(3), Section 376, Section 376 AB, Section 376 DA, Section 376DB of the I.P.C. The said persons (nominated in Section 439(IA) Cr.P.C.) may not be obligated to attend but are certainly entitled to be present at the hearing of the bail application in POCSO Act, 2012 offences. +

+
+ +
+ +

67. The bail maturation process has to be conducive to implementation of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020 and protection of rights of the child under the said enactments. Besides the process should also secure the rights of the bail applicant. +

+

68. The execution of statutory duties by various authorities (discussed earlier) under the POCSO Act, 2012 read POCSO Rules, 2020, are prerequisite acts of bail maturation process. Absent adequate time and opportunity for authorities to discharge the said functions, the implementation of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020, shall be interdicted and rights of the child will be curtailed. +

+
+ +
+ +

80. The Rules of Court, 1952 contemplate an advance notice of two days to the Government Advocate prior to placement of the bail application before the Court. The notice period is to enable the Government Advocate to receive appropriate instructions from the police authorities in the case. +

+

81. Clearly as in the case of SC-ST Act, 1989, the said notice period of two days previous notice to the Government Advocate is insufficient for maturation of a bail application under POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020. This time period has to be enlarged to meet the requirements of POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020. The same was done in similar circumstances in a case pertaining to SC/ST Act, 1989 (See: Ajeet Chaudhary). +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/POCSO_4787542.html b/hc_bulk/POCSO_4787542.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..88480c13bdd0aee1a845ac7fd2fb841cd2e1bc53 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/POCSO_4787542.html @@ -0,0 +1,373 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Yash Anand @ Iddu (Minor) vs State Of U.P. & Another on 14 August, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

7. The Court has to go on a little way more about the proceedings that have led to this revision for the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) did not lay his hands off the matter after declaring the revisionist a juvenile. The revisionist for his part too did not opt out of the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), apparently under wrong legal advice. Despite being declared a juvenile by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), he filed an application for bail, again to all seeming under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) assumed jurisdiction over the bail application made on behalf of the revisionist and decided it on merits by his order dated 21.09.2017. The learned Judge did so even though by his earlier order dated 19.08.2017 he had directed all the judicial, police and other papers relating to the case to be transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board for further proceedings. It is, thus, a little surprising how the learned Judge, thereafter entertained an application for bail by the revisionist. Even if the revisionist did file an application for bail to the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) by mistaken legal advice or for whatever reason, once the learned Judge did not have jurisdiction over the matter, the revisionist having been declared a juvenile under the Act, it is too well settled for a legal proposition that consent of parties would not confer jurisdiction upon a court. +

+
+ +
+ +

16. In the present case after holding the revisionist to be a child in conflict with law, the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) vide his order dated 19.08.2017 directed all proceedings of the case, including police papers and other papers, to be transmitted to the Board as already noticed hereinbefore. Now, thereafter when the revisionist made an application for bail to the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), for one the entire record had already been transmitted or ordered to be transmitted to the Board leaving the case no longer in seisin of the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act). At this stage, therefore, the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) did not have jurisdiction to deal with the revisionist's bail application at all. In fact, he had no case relating to the revisionist before him that he had already ordered to be transmitted to the Board. The learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) ought not to have entertained and dealt with the revisionist's bail application. He could have dismissed the bail application as not maintainable with liberty to the revisionist to file the same before the Board. The order impugned passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) after holding the revisionist to be a juvenile/ child in conflict with law vide his order dated 19.08.2017 and ordering all records of the case to be transmitted to the Juvenile Justice Board is, therefore, a nullity. +

+
+ +
+ +

17. Even if it be assumed that the learned Judge once approached with a bail application by the child in conflict had jurisdiction, though he had adjudged the revisionist a juvenile and transmitted all records to the Board to deal with the bail application on merits, the impugned order is patently fallacious and manifestly illegal. In that contingency too, the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) having held the revisionist a juvenile, he could not have dealt with the revisionist's bail application de hors the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act, including the attendant proviso. The learned Judge, as a perusal of the impugned order would show, has not at all dealt with the bail plea of the revisionist on the parameters adumbrated in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act. He has dealt with the bail plea as if it were a bail application on behalf of an adult and decided it on the parameters of a plea under Section 439 Cr.P.C. This the learned Judge has done, is evident throughout the length and breadth of the order impugned, though he has expressly referred to the revisionist as a child in conflict with law/ juvenile. A juvenile's bail plea cannot be dealt with except in accordance with the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act. On this count assuming jurisdiction to be there with the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), the impugned order is manifestly illegal. However, this is not to say that the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) had jurisdiction to decide the revisionist's bail plea, which in the opinion of the Court, can alone be dealt with in the first instance, by the Juvenile Justice Board. +

+
+ +
+ +

24. In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 21.09.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.8/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Meerut in Bail Application no.4293 of 2017 relating to Case Crime no.417 of 2017, under Sections 354, 376, 511 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Transport Nagar, District Meerut, is held to be a nullity with the direction that it would be open to the revisionist to approach the Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut, and, to make an appropriate application for bail where the case is pending, which if made, shall be dealt with and disposed of by the concerned Board with utmost promptitude. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/POCSO_63679624.html b/hc_bulk/POCSO_63679624.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a2dcd34f4ab6b1a552ddc7b8950724fae2f41ce1 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/POCSO_63679624.html @@ -0,0 +1,427 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Praduman vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 5 October, 2021 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+

7. Investigation is complete and the charge sheet stands filed. The +Petitioner approached this Court for granting regular bail. After hearing +some arguments, this Court vide order dated 23.11.2020 allowed the +Petitioner to withdraw his bail application with liberty to apply for bail at +an appropriate stage. +

8. The Petitioner approached the Special Court, (FSTC) (POCSO) +applying for Bail. The Court denied to enlarge the Petitioner on bail vide +order dated 01.07.2021. The Court recorded the Complainant's stance of not +wishing to go forward with the present case. The Trial Court dismissed the +application in view of the seriousness of the crime. The petitioner has +approached this Court by filing this bail application. +

+
+ +
+

12. Mr. Rana, learned counsel submitted that the Petitioner is a 21 year- +old pursuing his education via open learning mode from Delhi University +and has deep roots in the society. He submits that Petitioner has been in + + + + + jail for a year now and deserves to be enlarged on bail. He submitted the +Petitioner's permanent address is H. No.158, Unouti, Uttar Pradesh which +is his ancestral home. He places reliance on another bail order of this +Court in Dharmander Singh v. State, (2020) SCC Online Del 1267, where +bail was granted to an accused under POCSO charges, this Court exhorted +guidelines that need to be followed in deciding bail where charges of +POCSO have been alleged. +

+
+ +
+ +BAIL APPLN.2380/2021 Page 9 of 15 +

24. In Jayantibhai Babulbhai Alani v. State of Gujarat, (2018) SCC +Online Guj. 1223, the Gujarat High Court dealt with the case of a young +adult charged with Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3 & 4 of the +POCSO Act, the High Court granted bail to the accused therein after +observing the following- +

"6. This is an unusual case of boy and girl having + affair. As the prosecutrix was minor, the applicant is + sent behind prison because of the complaint lodged by + the father of the prosecutrix. Undoubtedly, a minor girl + is to be protected under law as there are number of + instances of sexual abuses of minor girls and therefore, + there is a special legislation of POCSO in the year + 2012 and amendment in sections 375 and 376 of the + IPC in 2014. The judiciary takes a very serious note of + sexual offences against women and specially against + minor girls. Upon reading of the statement of the + prosecutrix, they both eloped. Further, the trial Court + rejected bail application mainly on the ground that the + girl is minor and her consent is immaterial. +
+
+ +
+

25. This Court in Dharmender Singh v. State (Govt. of NCT) (supra.), +has very definitely laid down parameters that are to be followed when +considering bail of a person accused under the POCSO Act, it has held as +follows- +

+BAIL APPLN.2380/2021 Page 10 of 15 +
"77. Though the heinousness of the offence alleged will + beget the length of sentence after trial, in order to give + due weightage to the intent and purpose of the + Legislature in engrafting section 29 in this special + statute to protect children from sexual offences, while + deciding a bail plea at the post-charge stage, in + addition to the nature and quality of the evidence + before it, the court would also factor in certain real life + considerations, illustrated below, which would tilt the + balance against or in favour of the accused: +
+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/POCSO_68297532.html b/hc_bulk/POCSO_68297532.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fb2cf8327a8bf35f1c0a4c869d78dfa449a49284 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/POCSO_68297532.html @@ -0,0 +1,502 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Smt. Sunita Gandharv vs State Of Mp on 8 October, 2020 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

13. Shri Shrivastava also raised a point involved in the case in + +hand that in a case where offence under the provisions of + +Atrocities Act as well as POCSO Act are involved then the + +procedural law of POCSO Act will apply and Atrocities Act + +would give way to the POCSO Act because POCSO Act is + +subsequent in time and Section 42-A of POCSO Act clearly oust + +the jurisdiction of any other Act and such section makes the + +provision of POCSO Act with overriding effect over other Acts. + +Therefore, looking to its subsequent promulgation and the + +overriding effect as reflected through Section 42-A of POCSO + +Act, the provisions of POCSO Act would apply and therefore, + +instant matter shall be tried by the special designated Judge under + +the POCSO Act and not special designated Judge under the + +Atrocities Act. He relied upon judgment of Division Bench of + +Madras High Court In RE: Registrar (Judicial), High Court of + + +Madras , reported in 2017 Cr.L.J. 4519 (Madras High Court) + +as well as judgment of Hyderabad (erstwhile Andhra Pradesh + +High Court) in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Mandili + +Yadagiri, 2016 Cr.L.J. 1415 to submit that Special Judge, + +POCSO Act will try the case and therefore, any order passed by + +Special Judge of POCSO Act in a bail order shall be challenged + +by the accused by way of Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before the High + +Court being concurrent jurisdiction and High Court may pass an + +order of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on facts and + +circumstances of the case. Therefore, Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. shall + +automatically be available to the complainant, in case situation + +arises so. Therefore, on this count also, procedural law of POCSO + +Act will apply and application under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. + +would be maintainable. +

+
+ +
+ +

14. Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel appearing as Amicus + +Curiae also addressed the Court almost on similar lines. + +

15. Shri V.D.Sharma and Shri S.K.Shrivastava, filed their + +synopses in support of their submissions. +

+

16. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as all Amici + +Curiae through Video Conferencing and perused the case diary / + +documents appended thereto. +

+

17. Instant case is by way of an application for cancellation of + +bail at the instance of complainant and the main objection to the + +said application is maintainability itself. Beside that question of + +interplay of Atrocities Act and POCSO Act and extent of bail + +conditions as per Section 437 (3) Cr.P.C. are involved. Therefore, + + +according to this Court Five Questions are involved in this case, + +viz.:- +

+
+ +
+

35. Under both the Acts, Special Courts are constituted for the + + +purpose of taking cognizance and conduct in trial etc. However, + +with the Amendment Act of 2015 in Atrocities Act with insertion + +of Section 14-A(2), remedy to file an appeal is provided if the + +bail is rejected under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the Special Court, + +but no such appeal has been provided in POCSO Act in case of + +refusal or grant of bail. Therefore, reconciliation of procedure + +prescribed in both the acts deserve consideration especially for + +guidance to Special Courts regarding cognizance and trial etc. + +

+
+ +
+ +

52. Similarly, Hyderabad High Court in the case of State of + +Andhra Pradesh Vs. Mandili Yadagiri, 2016 Cr.L.J, 1415 has + +held while taking into consideration Section 42-A of the POCSO + +Act and applying the test of chronology that POCSO Act being + +beneficial to all and later in point of time vis-a-vis Atrocities Act, + +therefore, provisions of POCSO Act has to be followed for trying + +cases where the accused is charged under both the enactments. + +

53. The Patna High Court in the case of Guddu Kumar + +Yadav Vs. State of Bihar in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. + +52792/2019 after consideration held that in case of order of grant + +or refusal of bail to an accused booked under both the provisions + +of POCSO Act as well as Atrocities Act will be tried by Special + +Judge, POCSO Act and no appeal would lie against the order of + +grant or refusal of bail under Section 14-A (2) of Atrocities Act. + +Bail in terms of Section 439 of Cr.P.C. will be maintainable. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/POCSO_76942728.html b/hc_bulk/POCSO_76942728.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7dc94c31ea8852754d2f39d14e5b5569700ddf7d --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/POCSO_76942728.html @@ -0,0 +1,415 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Monish vs State Of U.P. And 3 Other on 9 February, 2023 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +
a. +
+
Constitutional perspectives + +b. +
+
Parameters of bail under the POCSO Act + + + +IX + +Bails under POCSO Act : Conclusions + +a + +Section 94 of JJ Act, 2015 & bails under the POCSO Act + +b. +
+
Sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act & bails under POCSO Act + + + +X + + Order on bail application + +I. Introduction: +
+

2. The prosecution case is briefly this. The victim is a minor. The applicant committed inappropriate sexual acts with her. The applicant is a major. +

+

3. Shri S. P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant has assailed the age of the victim as shown in the prosecution case and has made these submissions: +

+
+ +
+ +

88. Bails under POCSO Act offences have to be considered under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and in accordance with the settled parameters of grant of bail which include nature and gravity of the offences, and the likelihood of an accused having committed the offence. The possibility of the accused reoffending, influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence or being a flight risk are also relevant factors to be considered while deciding a bail application. +

+

89. In POCSO Act related offences the age of a victim is a critical factor which will influence the decision to grant bail. +

+
+ +
+ +

90. No provisions circumscribing the right of bail can be distilled from the scheme of POCSO Act. The existing norms of bail jurisprudence are sufficient to effectively implement the POCSO Act and to serve justice. Of course, the threshold of satisfaction of the Court while granting bail may vary in the facts and circumstances of each case. +

+

IX. Bails under POCSO Act : Conclusions: +

+
a. Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 & bails under POCSO Act: +
+

91. Applying the provisions of Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, at the stage of bail would result in consequences not intended by the legislature. In bail proceedings curtailing the rights of an accused to assail the age of the victim stated in the prosecution case on the foot of correctness of documents enumerated in Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, would be contrary to the scheme of the POCSO Act and violate the right of bail of the accused. +

+
+ +
+ +
IX. b. Conclusions : Sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act & bails under the POCSO Act: +
+

94. The consideration of presumption of culpable intent under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act and as contemplated in Rajballav (supra) at the stage of bail shall be governed by the principles of evidential law as regard presumptions and the holdings in Tofan Singh (supra), Joy V.S. (supra), Navin Dhaniram Baraiye (supra), Dharmander Singh (supra) and Sahid Hossain Biswas (supra) and shall be made in the following manner: +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/POCSO_79411056.html b/hc_bulk/POCSO_79411056.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cae9fe728ea875197548a56095e4d95591627322 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/POCSO_79411056.html @@ -0,0 +1,389 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Radhika (Juvenile) vs State Of U.P. on 5 August, 2019 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

(c) APPEAL NO. 4467 OF 2019 + + (Raju Alias Raj Kumar) + +Present appeal has been filed against the bail rejection order dated 21.06.2019 whereby Special Judge, POCSO Act has rejected the bail application of the appellant bearing No. 1735/2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 313/2018 U/s 147, 302, 201, 34 I.P.C. Police Station Shergarh, District Mathura. The FIR came into existence by one Shri Makhan, who lodged the present FIR on 23.09.2018 for the incident said to have taken place on 18.09.2018 naming as many as 7 persons including the appellant. Contended by the counsel that the case hinges upon last scene and circumstantial evidence. +

+
+ +
+ +

(d) APPEAL NO. 2702 OF 2019 + + Aqil (Juvenile) + +Aggrieved by the order, rejecting the bail application no. 2019/2018 of the appellant dated 04.07.2018 whereby Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Budaun rejected the bail arising out of Case Crime No. 304/2017 U/s 376D and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act. The genesis of the case starts from lodging of the FIR from one Eikta Devi (the victim herself) on 9.10.2017 for the alleged incident of gang rape upon her by Wahid, Aqil (the appellant) and Latoori. In this incident the accused/appellant intercepted her and thereafter stuffing her mouth, committed gang rape upon her one by one. In 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statements, she has attributed role of gang rape upon her by all the 3 accused persons whereby in 164 Cr.P.C. statement, she has reiterated the story mentioned in 161 Cr.P.C. statement. +

+
+ +
+ +

(e) APPEAL NO. 4518 OF 2019 + + (Aman) + +This appeal is being filed after getting the bail application No. 2438/2019 rejected by Special Judge, POCSO Act, Meerut arising out of Case Crime No. 787/2018 U/s 377, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act. Kundan Singh has lodged FIR at P.S. Nauchandi Meerut against the appellant Aman, with the allegation that Chhotu and Aman (appellant) have committed unnatural sex/sodomy with one Harsh on 1.2.18. The age of victim Harsh was barely 10 years. +

+

The appellant Aman has claimed juvenility and his claim was examined by Juvenile Justice Board who vide order dated 30.3.19 have found that on the date of incident, the delinquent was 16 years, 10 months and 4 days (less than 18 years). Bedsides this, the Juvenile Justice Board conducted a preliminary assessment of the delinquent in pursuant to Section 15(1) of J.J. Act and he was put before Dr. Bhagat Singh, Psychologist, who opined that the delinquent/juvenile is mentally mature boy and understands result of the conduct and taking into account the Psychologist report and report of District Probation Officer, Meerut, the records of the case was transmitted to Children Court/Special Judge, POSCO Act, pursuant to the mandate of late U/s 18(3) of J.J. Act to be tried as an adult. The appellant has moved the bail application before Special Judge, POCSO Act, Meerut and the court concern has rejected the bail application on 07.06.2019. Hence the Appeal U/s 101(5) of the Juvenile Justice Act. +

+
+ +
+ +

[22] This appellate order passed by the learned Sessions Judge could be challenged before the High Court under Section 102 of Act whereby it has empowered High Court that either on its own motion or an application received in this behalf, call for the record of any proceeding in which any Committee or Board or Children's Court or Court has passed an order for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit. +

+

[23] Thus, the scheme of the Act of 2015 for consideration of bail application of delinquent juvenile clearly lays down a particular procedure and there cannot be any justification for its deviation. In all the appeals before consideration, after being declared juvenile, by the Board, the delinquent offenders applied for regular bail before Special Judge(POCSO Act) acting as Children Court, who rejected their respective bail applications and after that all, the appellants moved the appeals before this Court U/s 101(5) of the Act, which is clearly violative of the scheme of the Act and cannot be sustained. +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/POCSO_96419904.html b/hc_bulk/POCSO_96419904.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..69590337cd62b06e5cc2284d8d6a050b128a5137 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/POCSO_96419904.html @@ -0,0 +1,542 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Guddu Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 7 November, 2019 + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+ +

Document Fragment View

+ +
+

Matching Fragments

+ +
+ +

3. It appears from the records of this case that on the + + basis of said Raniganj Police Station Case No. 89 of 2019, + + corresponding Spl. (POCSO) Case No. 11 of 2019 being + + instituted before the 1st Additional Sessions-cum-Special Judge + + (POCSO), Araria. The petitioner moved for grant of bail in Spl. + + (POCSO) Case No. 11 of 2019, which being rejected vide order + + dated 08.05.2019, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions-cum- + + Special Judge, Araria. Thereupon, the petitioner has moved + + before this Court for grant of bail in connection with the said + + case, filing the instant application. +

+
+ +
+ +

4. In course of stamp reporting, the office pointed + + out the defect as under :- +

+
"As per offence u/s of SC/ST act, this petition may + Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52792 of 2019(5) dt.07-11-2019 + + + + + + perhaps be converted into Cr. Appeal (S.J.)." +
+

The learned counsel for the petitioner made an + + application before the Registrar (List), for ignoring the said + + defect pointed out by the Stamp Reporter, stating the reasons + + therein that on the basis of the First Information Report bearing + + Raniganj Police Station Case No. 89 of 2019, corresponding + + Spl. (POCSO) Case No. 11 of 2019 being instituted and pending + + before the Spl. Judge (POCSO) Araria and the prayer for bail + + made on behalf of the petitioner being refused by the 1st + + Additional Sessions-cum-Spl. Judge, Araria, and further + + indicating that the order of rejection of bail of the petitioner + + dated 08.05.2019, in connection with Spl. (POCSO) Case No. + + 11 of 2019, having not been passed by the Special Court + + constituted under SC/ST Act, therefore, appeal as provided + + under Section 14-A of the SC and the ST (Prevention of + + Atrocities) Act, would not be maintainable. + +

+
+ +
+ +

15. He also submitted that while dealing with the + + identical issues the Allahabad High Court in the Case of Rinku + + Versus State of U.P., (Cr. Miscellaneous Bail Application No. + + 33075 of 2018) observed as follows :- +

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52792 of 2019(5) dt.07-11-2019 + + + + + + "7. Now, in this application, since + offences under the SC/ST Act and the POCSO + Act are both charged against the applicant, as + they are in all matters connected to this + application, where there is a competing regime + of Special Courts under the two Acts, claiming + exclusivity of jurisdiction under both Acts, not + only in the matter of their right to try offences + under the respective Acts, but also to + determine bail pleas in relation to offences + under the two statutes, the issue that has + generally arisen is as to which of the two + Special Courts, that is to say, the Special Court + or the Exclusive Special Court established or + notified under the SC/ST Act, or the Special + Court designated under the POCSO Act would + have jurisdiction to determine the bail plea of + the applicant in the first instance. A further + issue that has arisen is that assuming that the + Special Court under the POCSO Act, would + have jurisdiction to determine the bail plea in + the present crime, where offences under the + SC/ST Act are also charged, whether the + finality attached to the order of a Special Court + under the SC/ST Act, granting or refusing bail, + by virtue of Section 14-A(2) thereof, would + also attach to the order of Special Court under + the POCSO Act. The following questions + based on the facts and issues above detailed, + therefore, are required to be determined: +
+
+ +
+

29. Now, this Court thinks it appropriate to clarify one + + more aspect of the matter that the jurisdiction of the Special + + Court under the POCSO Act at pre-cognizance and post- + + cognizance stage including trial of the offences, under both + + statutes as referred above, would invest ipso-facto that court + + power to hear bail application of the accused. For answering the + + second issue that an order of the Special Court POCSO rejecting + + the bail of an accused who also being prosecuted under SC/ST + + Act would be appealable under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST + + Act, or the accused would have a right to apply further for bail + + under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. before the High Court, at this + + juncture this Court would take note of Section 31 of the POCSO + + Act, which contemplates that the provisions of the Code of + + Criminal Procedure, 1973, including the provisions of bail and + + bonds shall apply to the proceeding before a Special Court and + + for the purpose of the said provision the Special Court shall be + + deemed to be a Court of Session. Under Section 31 of the + + POCSO Act, there is fiction that the Special Court for the + + purpose of its proceedings shall be deemed to be a Court of + Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52792 of 2019(5) dt.07-11-2019 + + + + + + Session. Therefore, the Special Court under POCSO Act would + + exercise power to grant or refuse bail under Section 439 of the + + Cr. P.C. There is no fiction under the SC/ST Act or POCSO Act + + that the Special Court constituted under POCSO Act, while + + considering the application for bail in a case where one of the + + offences charged was under the SC/ST Act, would be deemed to + + be a Special Court constituted under the SC/ST Act, for the + + limited purpose of granting or refusing the plea of bail. + + Furthermore, in view of Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, an + + appeal shall lie to the High Court only against an order of the + + Special Court constituted under the Act, granting or refusing + + bail, not against the order granting or refusing bail by the + + Special Court constituted under the POCSO Act. + +

+
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/hc_bulk/madras/2000/case_1.html b/hc_bulk/madras/2000/case_1.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..26b92196722e51896a5593121655e0fe78583a7f --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/madras/2000/case_1.html @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ + +Bail Order + +

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

+

This is a sample bail order.

+

The petitioner seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC.

+

Bail is granted subject to conditions.

+ + diff --git a/hc_bulk/madras/2000/test_case.txt b/hc_bulk/madras/2000/test_case.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e53afe1c5496efdd804f1180bc47a3d38a9646a7 --- /dev/null +++ b/hc_bulk/madras/2000/test_case.txt @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ +Established in 1862, the Madras High Court is one of India's three oldest charter high courts. It exercise jurisdiction over Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Puducherry. +Key Information +Chief Justice: Hon'ble Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava (since 21 July 2025). +Locations: +Principal Seat: Chennai (Indo-Saracenic building completed in 1892). +Permanent Bench: Madurai (established 24 July 2004). +Capacity: Sanctioned strength of 75 judges. +Online Services \ No newline at end of file