Skip to content


Manju Mehra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Decided On

Appellant

Manju Mehra

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt:


.....grant of anticipatory bail. learned counsel for the state opposes the application for grant of anticipatory bail. on due consideration of the contention raised on behalf of the parties alongwith facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, i am of the view that it is fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. the application is allowed. it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail on their each furnishing a personal bond in the sum of rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand ) with a solvent surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of arresting officer subject to compliance of terms and conditions as enumerated in section 438(2) of cr.p.c.it is further directed that applicants shall join the investigation and fully co-operate with the investigating agency. this order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days. during this period, if the applicants so desire, 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

Judgment:


M.Cr.C.No.1584/2013 18.3.2013 Shri Pramod Thakre, counsel for applicants.

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

Heard.

This is the fiRs.bail application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail to applicants.

The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.349/2012 registered at Police Station Garhakota, District Sagarfor the offence punishable under Section 451, 323, 294, 506- B, 147, 148, 149, 324, 34, 326 and 452 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the case.

They have no criminal past.

They are ready to co-operate during investigation.

Initially the offences punishable under Sections 451, 323, 294, 506-B, 147, 148, 149, 324, 34 of IPC have been registered against the applicants.

They have already enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Thereafter, on the basis of medical report the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 452 of IPC have been added against the applicants.

They have not misused the liberty granted to them during bail earlier.

They are reputed persons of the society and in the event of arrest, their reputation would be tarnished., therefore they prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the application for grant of anticipatory bail.

On due consideration of the contention raised on behalf of the parties alongwith facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

The application is allowed.

It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail on their each furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand ) with a solvent surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer subject to compliance of terms and conditions as enumerated in Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.It is further directed that applicants shall join the investigation and fully co-operate with the Investigating Agency.

This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days.

During this period, if the applicants so desire, 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


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //