REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

SHANTILAL Appellant

V/S

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SHEELA BARSE'S [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA VS. RAMBALAK SINGH BALAK:RAMBALAK SINGH BALAK [REFERRED TO]
BALCHAND JAIN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN JAIPUR VS. BALCHAND ALIAS BALIAY [REFERRED TO]
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GURBAKSH SINGHSIBBIA SARBAJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. JAIRAM [REFERRED TO]
OLGA TELLIS VAYYAPVRI KUPPUSAMI VS. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA BISWAROOP CHATTERJEE ACHINTA KUMAR BISWAS NABENDU BOSE LAXMI NARAYAN VS. TULSIRAM PATEL:SADANAND JHA:G P KOUSHAL:UNION OF INDIA:STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED VS. BROJO NATH GANGULY / TARUN KANTI SENGUPTA [REFERRED TO]
O P BHANDARI VS. INDIAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPN LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
R S DASS MRS K GOYAL PRITAM SINGH AJIT SINGH NAGPAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
K K JAJODIA VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
SHEIKH SALIM SHEIKH BABOO VS. STATE OF M P [REFERRED TO]
Gulab Chand VS. State of M.P. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under S.438 of the Criminal P.C. 1973 (for short 'the Code') for grant of anticipatory bail.

(2.) Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner reasonably apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 98/88 of P.S. Petlawad relating to an offence under S.49A of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 (for short 'the Act') and he deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the prosecution opposes the petitioner's application. He contends that under S.59 of the Act all offences punishable thereunder are bailable within the meaning of the Code and the applicability of the provision under S.438 of the Code for grant of anticipatory bail is attracted only in cases on non-bailable offences. It is next contended that in view of the provision in S.49-B(i) of the Act, application for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be entertained at all. It is further urged that in addition to the provision there is the prosecution's opposition to the petitioner's prayer for bail and this, under law, is conclusive on the question of grant of bail.

Click here to view full judgment.

SHANTILAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address