CHHIDDU Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE application was moved under section 438 Cr.P.C. but during the pendency of the application, the applicant was arrested, on 15.2.93 the applicant submitted that the application filed under section 438 Cr.P.C. be considered under section 439 Cr.P.C. but as the diary was not available and there was nothing on record to show that the applicant was really taken into custody, it was ordered that this aspect shall be considered on the next date of hearing when the case diary is produced. From the case diary produced today, it is apparent that the applicant was arrested on 25.1.93 and has been remanded to judicial custody. The other co - accused namely, Sunil Kumar, has been enlarged on bail by this Court on 28.1.93 in Cr. Misc. Case No. 2844/92.

(2.) SHRI M.K. Jain, appearing for the State, submits that the applicant has a very bad record. The case diary contains a list of cases registered against the applicant as Crime No. 30/87, for the offences under sections 452, 323 and 426 I.P.C. Crime No. 95/83, under sections 456 and 426 I.P.C. Crime, No. 28/91 under section 39;3 I.P.C. 'Crime No. 101/92 under section 393/3.t and 394I.P.C. The other cases are under the Police Act and section 323 I.P.C.

(3.) IN view of the nature of the allegations made against the applicant, the application is allowed.