Roshan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Roshan vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jun 06, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1049950

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/1049950
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jun 06, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Roshan

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....last time her father had gone along with present applicant roshan, but later on 18th december, 2012 near about a lapse of 14 days, in the statement recorded under section 161 of cr.p.c.it has been stated by mamta that his father had gone along with roshan. except this, there is no evidence against the present applicant. although, one shirt of applicant was seized, but fsl has not been produced before this court. considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 19/12/2012, charge- sheet has already been filed and the trial is not likely to be concluded at an early date and prolong pretrial detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty, this court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant / accused. accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of rs.30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his regular appearance before the trial court on the condition that he shall remain present before the trial court during the trial and shall also comply by the conditions enumerated under section 437 (3) of cr.p.c. and so also as imposed by the trail court. it is made clear that if any condition of bail bond is violated by the applicant, then this bail order will automatically be treated as cancelled and further steps, in accordance with law, may be taken by the trial court against the applicant / accused as well as against the surety, without seeking any order / direction from this court. a copy of this order be sent for compliance to the court concerned. cc as per rules. (b.d.rathi) vacation judge sj/-

Full Judgment

M.Cr.C.No.4425/2013 Roshan vs State of M.P.06/06/2013 Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Govt.

Advocate for the respondent/ State.

Arguments heard and case diary perused.

This is fiRs.application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

on behalf of the applicant.

The applicant has been arrested on 19/12/2012 in connection with Crime No.255/2012 registered at Police Station Sultanpur, District Raisen (MP) for the offence punishable under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC.

Learned Govt.

Advocate submits that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out and prays for rejection of this application.

It reveals from perusal of the case diary that there is no direct evidence against the present applicant.

Mamta, daughter of the deceased Inder Singh lodged one Gumsudgi report of her father on 04/12/2012.

In that report, it was not mentioned that last time her father had gone along with present applicant Roshan, but later on 18th December, 2012 near about a lapse of 14 days, in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.it has been stated by Mamta that his father had gone along with Roshan.

Except this, there is no evidence against the present applicant.

Although, one shirt of applicant was seized, but FSL has not been produced before this Court.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 19/12/2012, charge- sheet has already been filed and the trial is not likely to be concluded at an early date and prolong pretrial detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant / accused.

Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court on the condition that he shall remain present before the trial court during the trial and shall also comply by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.

and so also as imposed by the trail court.

It is made clear that if any condition of bail bond is violated by the applicant, then this bail order will automatically be treated as cancelled and further steps, in accordance with law, may be taken by the trial Court against the applicant / accused as well as against the surety, without seeking any order / direction from this Court.

A copy of this order be sent for compliance to the Court concerned.

CC as per rules.

(B.D.Rathi) Vacation Judge SJ/-

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