Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Babunder Saket Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Babunder Saket vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Aug 07, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1042521

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Right to Information

Case Summary

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

Right to Information

Key legal issue
Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Babunder Saket

Advocate Shri. Y.P.Sharma

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

m.cr.c.no.7827/2012 7.8.2012 shri y.p.sharma, counsel for the applicants. shri a.k.singh, ga for the respondent/state. heard. this is the firs.bail application filed by the applicants under section 439 of the cr.p.c.for grant of bail. the applicants have been arrested in connection with crime no.185/12 registered at p.s.waidhan, singrouli for the offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 332, 307, 382, 323 of ipc and section 25, 27 of the arms act. learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are in custody since 13.6.12. they have been falsely implicated in this case. the main allegation in regard to use the firearm is against the co-accused munna. co-accused monu soni @ manot soni has already been released on bail by this court vide order dated 29.6.2012 passed in m.cr.c.no.6073/2012. charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to conclude finally, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to applicant. learned counsel for the state opposes the prayer. on due consideration of the contentions raised by the counsel for 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 it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicants. their applications are allowed. it is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on their each furnishing a personal bond in the sum of rs.35,000/- (rupees thirty five thousand) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the committal court/trial court concerned, for their appearance before the said court and on all such other dates as given in this regard by the said court during trial. c.c.as per rules. (g.s.solanki) ravi judge

Full Judgment

M.Cr.C.No.7827/2012 7.8.2012 Shri Y.P.Sharma, counsel for the applicants.

Shri A.K.Singh, GA for the respondent/State.

Heard.

This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail.

The applicants have been arrested in connection with Crime No.185/12 registered at P.S.Waidhan, Singrouli for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 332, 307, 382, 323 of IPC and Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are in custody since 13.6.12.

They have been falsely implicated in this case.

The main allegation in regard to use the firearm is against the co-accused Munna.

Co-accused Monu Soni @ Manot Soni has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 29.6.2012 passed in M.Cr.C.No.6073/2012.

Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to conclude finally, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to applicant.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer.

On due consideration of the contentions raised by the counsel for 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 it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicants.

Their applications are allowed.

It is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on their each furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Committal Court/Trial Court concerned, for their appearance before the said Court and on all such other dates as given in this regard by the said Court during trial.

C.C.as per rules.

(G.S.Solanki) ravi JUDGE

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial