Skip to content


Babu Mulla and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1978CriLJ1846; 1978MPLJ623
AppellantBabu Mulla and ors.
RespondentState of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1890.section 306 :[dalveer bhandari & harjit singh bedi,jj] abetment of suicide deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - ocular evidence was sketchy - dying declaration recorded by tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence held, though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - 10,000/- each and enter into a personal recognizance (bond) of like amount......the bail. in such cases as a general rule bails should be granted. it is against all concepts of human liberty that in such circumstances the applicants should be refused bail. for inability of the court, the under-trial accused persons should not be and cannot be permitted to be kept in judicial custody.3. accordingly, i deem it fit to direct that the applicants be released on bail, if the applicants furnish solvent security to the satisfaction of the iind additional sessions judge, guna, for an amount of rs. 10,000/- each and enter into a personal recognizance (bond) of like amount.4. the applicants will appear before the learned iind additional sessions judge, guna on 1-1-1979 and also on such other dates as may be fixed for the purpose by him or any other court who happened to try.....
Judgment:
ORDER

H.G. Mishra, J.

1. Shri B. L. Bhargava, counsel for the applicant and Shri M. N. Pendharkar, learned panel lawyer for the State are heard on the question of grant of bail.

2. The state has no right to oppose the hail application in view of the fact that the applicants have to wait for commencement of the trial up to 1st Jan., 1979. If the State cannot provide for adequate machinery for dispensing justice quickly, the State cannot be heard to say that the applicants should be kept in custody without trial up to such a long time. The remedy can be by way of increasing the strength of Judges competent to try such cases, but certainly, paucity of the time with the existing judicial machinery to try the accused expeditiously can be no ground for refusal of the bail. In such cases as a general rule bails should be granted. It is against all concepts of human liberty that in such circumstances the applicants should be refused bail. For inability of the Court, the under-trial accused persons should not be and cannot be permitted to be kept in judicial custody.

3. Accordingly, I deem it fit to direct that the applicants be released on bail, if the applicants furnish solvent security to the satisfaction of the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- each and enter into a personal recognizance (bond) of like amount.

4. The applicants will appear before the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Guna on 1-1-1979 and also on such other dates as may be fixed for the purpose by him or any other Court who happened to try the case.

5. Before parting with the other, it is being clarified that it is expected of the learned Judges to grant bail in similar circumstances, so that rushing of the applicants to this Court may not be necessitated every now and then.

6. A certified copy of the order be given today to the counsel for the applicant on payment of necessary charges.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //