Prakash Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Prakash vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Apr 02, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1047528

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/1047528
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Apr 02, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prakash

Advocate Shri. R.K. Pandey

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

m.cr.c.no.2482/2013 2.4.2013 shri r.k. pandey, counsel for the applicant(s).shri a.k. singh, pl, for the respondent/state. heard. the applicant is in custody since 1.12.2012 in connection with crime no.196/2012 registered at p.s. deori, district raisen for the offence punishable under sections 409, 420 of ipc. learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. applicant was the secretary of gram panchayat hathitola tahsil udaypura, district raisen. similarly placed coaccused smt. kalibai, who was the sarpanch at the relevant time, has already been released by the trial court on 7.1.2013. the case of this applicant is similar to her. charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to conclude finally, therefore, prays for grant of bail to applicants. 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. the application is allowed. it is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of rs.30,000/ (rupees thirty thousand) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the committal court/trial court concerned, for his 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.2482/2013 2.4.2013 Shri R.K. Pandey, counsel for the applicant(s).Shri A.K. Singh, PL, for the respondent/State.

Heard.

The applicant is in custody since 1.12.2012 in connection with Crime No.196/2012 registered at P.S. Deori, District Raisen for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant was the Secretary of Gram Panchayat Hathitola Tahsil Udaypura, District Raisen. Similarly placed coaccused Smt. Kalibai, who was the Sarpanch at the relevant time, has already been released by the trial Court on 7.1.2013. The case of this applicant is similar to her. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to conclude finally, therefore, prays for grant of bail to applicants.

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. The application is allowed.

It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/ (Rupees thirty thousand) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Committal Court/Trial Court concerned, for his 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

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Prakash vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education

Education Relevant time trial court The State Has been