Harsh Sisodiya Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) 16 Dec 2021 Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.61974 Of 2021 (2021) 12 MP CK 0049
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.61974 Of 2021

Hon'ble Bench

Vivek Rusia, J

Advocates

Ranjeet Sen

Final Decision

Allowed

Acts Referred
  • Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 437(3), 439
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 394, 395, 397
  • Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25

Judgement Text

Translate:

Vivek Rusia, J

This is the second bail application filed by the under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. He is in custody since 09/02/2021 in connection with Crime No.122/2021

registered at Police Station â€" Bhawarkua, Indore (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Section 394, 395 and 397 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

read with Section 25 of the Arms Act.

As per prosecution Story, six accused persons have committed loot of Rs.09 Lacs from Suresh Goyal (PW-2) on 08/02/2021 near about 09:00 PM.

On the said day Suresh Goyal was returning from is office in his Car and Laxminarayan Sharma (PW-1) was driving his car. In parking lot accused

persons assaulted Suresh Goyal and snatched his bag in which he kept Rs.09 Lacs, cheque book and Aadhar Card of his son. After registration of

FIR, all the accused persons were arrested and from their possession all the looted articles were recovered including the cash. From the possession of

the present applicant Rs.1,63,000/- were recovered.

Prosecution has examined Suresh Goyal (PW-2), his driver Laxminarayan (PW-3) and Aaryan Pawar (PW-1), in which they did not identify the

present applicant. According to them there was dark and therefore, they could not identify the applicant. However, Suresh Goyal has taken back the

looted amount by way of Supurdginama from the Court. The applicant did not object the aforesaid withdrawal of the amount. Learned counsel further

submits that the applicant is youth of 21 years of age and is in custody with the hardened criminals for the longer period which may effect his mental

status and future. On such premise, prays for grant of bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application by submitting that the looted articles including

amount so looted was recovered from the possession of the present applicant and therefore, he is not entitled for enlargement on bail.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence collected against the applicant, without further commenting anything

upon the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail.

Accordingly, bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/-

(Rupees Forty Thousand Only) with separate solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before

the trial Court during the trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during the trial and shall also abide by the

conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

Before releasing the applicant from custody the jail authorities are directed to medically examine him in order to rule out the possibility of COVID-19

infections and shall comply with the direction given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition No.01/2020.

Certified copy as per rules.

From The Blog
Delhi High Court Grants Default Bail: Extension of NDPS Investigation Without Notice Violates Article 21
Dec
15
2025

Court News

Delhi High Court Grants Default Bail: Extension of NDPS Investigation Without Notice Violates Article 21
Read More
Madras High Court: Honour Killing Still Plagues Society, Bail Must Be Rare in Grave Offences
Dec
15
2025

Court News

Madras High Court: Honour Killing Still Plagues Society, Bail Must Be Rare in Grave Offences
Read More