Surendra Kumar Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Surendra Kumar Patel vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Feb 21, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1038859

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1038859
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Feb 21, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Surendra Kumar Patel

Advocate Shri. A.P. Singh

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

..... for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. he has no criminal past. as per prosecution, the coaccused lukky patel, mister patel and guddu patel exhorted the money from the complainant. the applicant is not find place in the fir. the applicant is u.d.t and the event of arrest, his services would be adversely affected, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. learned counsel for the state has objected the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. considering the contentions raised on behalf of the parties along with facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, i am of the view that present is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. the application is allowed. it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of rs.25,000/ (rs. twenty five thousand only) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer. the applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated in subsection (2) of section 438 cr.p.c.this order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days. during this period, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for regular bail before the competent court, which shall be considered by that court in accordance with law. c.c. as per rules. (g.s.solanki) judge ravi

Full Judgment

M.Cr.C. No.701/2013 21.2.2013 Shri A.P. Singh, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Puneet Shroti, PL for the respondent/State.

Heard.

This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail.

Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 95/2012 registered at Police Station, Raipur Karchuliyan District Rewa for offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 327, 323, 506B, 34 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He has no criminal past. As per prosecution, the coaccused Lukky Patel, Mister Patel and Guddu Patel exhorted the money from the complainant. The applicant is not find place in the FIR. The applicant is U.D.T and the event of arrest, his services would be adversely affected, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the State has objected the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Considering the contentions raised on behalf of the parties along with facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that present is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The application is allowed.

It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/ (Rs. Twenty five Thousand only) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer.

The applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated in subSection (2) of Section 438 Cr.P.C.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days. During this period, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court, which shall be considered by that Court in accordance with law.

C.C. as per rules.

(G.S.Solanki) JUDGE ravi

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Surendra Kumar Patel vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education