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.

Shyamlal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Shyamlal vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Apr 15, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1046106

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
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shyamlal

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....has assaulted the complainant by ballam on his head but no fracture was found on the head of complainant however, it is alleged that applicant kamlesh assaulted the complainant on his hand by using a stick but same is not a deadly weapon therefore, at the most the only offence u/s 325 of ipc may be made out against kamlesh. it is submitted that applicants were initially enlarged on bail and they have not misused the liberty granted to them. under such circumstances, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants. learned counsel for the state opposes the application. considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case alongwith the nature of allegation made against these applicants, i am of the view that it is a fit case to release them on anticipatory bail. therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicants shyamlal and kamlesh shall be enlarged on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of rs.25,000/- (rs.twenty five thousand only) each with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer. applicants are directed to join the investigation and fully cooperate with the investigating agency. it is further directed that applicants shall abide by the conditions enumerated in section 438 (2) of the cr.p.c.this order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days. in the meantime, the applicants if so desire, may apply 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 navin

Full Judgment

M.Cr.C.No.3423/2013 15/04/2013 Shri A.K.Rawat, Advocate for the applicants.

Shri Vivek Lakhera, PL for the respondent/State.

Heard finally.

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

Applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.38/13, registered at police station Jatara, District Tikamgarh for the offence punishable under section 294, 323, 324, 325, 326, 506- B, 34 of IPC.

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

It is further submitted that initially the offence was registered u/s 294, 323, 324, 325, 506-B, 34 of IPC against these applicants and they have been released on bail.

Later on, learned Magistrate took the cognizance u/s 326 of IPC and issued a warrant of arrest against these applicants.

As per prosecution itself it is alleged that applicant Shyamlal has assaulted the complainant by ballam on his head but no fracture was found on the head of complainant however, it is alleged that applicant Kamlesh assaulted the complainant on his hand by using a stick but same is not a deadly weapon therefore, at the most the only offence u/s 325 of IPC may be made out against Kamlesh.

It is submitted that applicants were initially enlarged on bail and they have not misused the liberty granted to them.

Under such circumstances, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case alongwith the nature of allegation made against these applicants, I am of the view that it is a fit case to release them on anticipatory bail.

Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicants Shyamlal and Kamlesh shall be enlarged on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand Only) each with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting officer.

Applicants are directed to join the investigation and fully cooperate with the Investigating Agency.

It is further directed that applicants shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days.

In the meantime, the applicants if so desire, may apply 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 navin

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial