MANTOLE @ PRATIPAL v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 2024-01-08. MANTOLE @ PRATIPAL v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV th ON THE 8 OF JANUARY, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 58069 of 2023 BETWEEN:- MANTOLE @ PRATIPAL S/O SHRI RAMBABU @ YOGENDRA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O VILLAGE ATARSUMA P. S. UMARI DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH) ..... APPLICANT (BY SHRI R. K. SHARMA - ADVOCATE ) AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION UMARI, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH) ..... RESPONDENT (BY SHRI DINESH SAVITA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ) This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following: ORDER This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the CrPC for grant of bail relating to FIR No. 216 of 2023 registered at Police Station Umari, District Bhind (M. P. ) for the offence under Sections 324, 323, 294, 506 and 326 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
It is further argued that the injury is not caused on vital part of the body. The incident occurred all of a sudden. The is in custody since 20. 12. 2023. Investigation has already been completed by filing of Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR Signing time: 09-01-2024 11:30:29 AM charge-sheet, therefore further custodial interrogation is no more required. The applicant is permanent resident of District Bhind. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time and there is no likelihood of his absconsion, if released on bail. On these grounds, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and prayed for its dismissal. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary available on record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a 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 the trial Court/committal Court. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:- 1) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him; 2) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be; 3 ) The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be; 4) The applicant will not commit any other offence or will not repeat the offence in future.
In case, if he/she is found involving in the offence of same nature, this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to the Bench. 5) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR Signing time: 09-01-2024 11:30:29 AM 6 ) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be. Learned State counsel is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and necessary action. E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible, by the office of this Court. Certified copy as per rules. (SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE vpn Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR Signing time: 09-01-2024 11:30:29 AM
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.