High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 11 MP CK 0099

Mohammad Arafat And Others vs State Of M.P

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 20 November 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prakash Shrivastava, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 45697 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

22 paragraphs · 383 words

.

Prakash Shrivastava, J

Heard on the question of grant of bail.

This is an application made by the applicants under Section 439 Cr.P.C.for grant of bail during trial.

Notice of this application was served on the State counsel. Case diary as per the direction of this Court has been produced and it has been perused.

Learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission to withdraw the bail application at the instance of the applicant no.2-Mohammad Adil.

Prayer is allowed.

M.Cr.C. at the instance of applicant no.2-Mohammad Adil is dismissed as withdrawn.

The applicant is facing trial for offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506, 34 and 307 of IPC registered with Police Station Mahankal,

District Ujjain in Crime No.793/2020.

Pressing the bail application of applicant no.1-Mohammad Arafat, learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially no offence under Section 307

of IPC was registered against the applicant and the said offence under Section 307 of IPC has been added later on on the basis of the injuries and

query report about the said injuries which were received by Farukh. He further submits that as against the present applicant there is no allegation of

causing injury to Farukh and the said allegation is as against the co-accused Rafat. He further submits that in the FIR omnibus allegations have been

made and that the applicant is in custody since 12.10.2020, matter is under investigation and the trial is likely to take time.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application for grant of bail.

On perusal of the case diary and considering the circumstances of the case, I find prima facie force in the submissions made by the counsel for

applicant. Hence, I am of the considered view that the application for grant of bail deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.

The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/-(Rupees Thirty Five Thousand) with one

surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.

The applicant will attend each hearing of his trial before the Trial Court out of which this bail arises. Any default in attendance in Court would result in

cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.