Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jenulaabedin @Zainulabedin vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 March, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10971
1 MCRC-10295-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 7 th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10295 of 2025
JENULAABEDIN @ZAINULABEDIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sandeep Mahawar - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri C.K. Mishra - Govt. Advocate for respondent State.
ORDER
Though the previous application for bail was decided by some other
Bench; however, the case is taken up for hearing in terms of the
Administrative Order dated 13.02.2025, which has been issued in pursuance
of the judgment of the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 55/2025
- Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ Shekhar Kushwaha v. Registrar General,
Jharkhand High Court.
2. This is fourth application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of
the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) for
grant of regular bail relating to FIR/Crime No.269/2024 dated 26.05.2024
registered at Police Station Moghat Road District Khandwa for the offence
punishable under Sections 25(1-B)A, 25(1- AA) of Arms Act. First
application of the applicant was dismissed vide order dated 5.7.2024 in
M.Cr.C No. 26646/2024 as withdrawn, second application was dismissed on
merit by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.11.2024 passed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10971
2 MCRC-10295-2025
in M.Cr.C. No.36342/2024 and third application was dismissed on merit vide
order dated 4.3.2025 in M.Cr.C No. 9615/2025.
3 . Learned counsel for the applicant contends that after dismissal of
previous application, now there exists change in circumstances inasmuch as,
initially a case under Sections 25(1-B)(a), 25(1-a, a) and 25(1)(I) of Arms
Act was registered against the applicant which is evident from the rejection
order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on previous occasion
subsequently, charge has been framed under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms
Act only and not under the other sections in which, the case was initially
registered. It is also contended by the counsel that the seizure witnesses have
turned hostile. In the present case, the applicant's implication is based on
memorandum of the co-accused, there is no seizure from the present
applicant and accordingly, in such circumstances, the applicant who is in
custody since 26.5.2024 deserves to be enlarged on bail. It is further
contended by the counsel that present applicant was arrested in connection
with Crime No.247/2024, he was already in custody and later on, in the
present case his arrest is being shown on 26.05.2024. It is contended by the
counsel that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, in view of the
change in circumstance.
4. Per contra, the counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and
submitted that the applicant is claiming himself to be licensed dealer;
however, there is allegation of selling the air gun by the applicant to the co-
accused and those air guns were later on converted into fire arms. Hence
looking to the nature of offence no case for grant of bail is made out.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10971
3 MCRC-10295-2025
5. Heard the submissions and perused the case diary.
6. Having considered the submissions, perusal of record reflects that
the applicant used to supply air guns to other co-accused, who in turn
converted the same into fire arms. charge-sheet in the matter has been filed.
The charge has now been altered into under Section 25 (1) of the Arms Act.
The applicant is in custody since 25.06.2024 and the charge-sheet in the
matter has already been filed.
7. Thus, taking into considering the totality of the circumstances of the
case, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the
applicant on bail. Therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of
the case, the application is allowed.
8. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court
concerned for his appearance before the said Court on all such dates as may
be fixed in this regard during the pendency of trial.
9. It is further directed that the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Section 480 (3) of the BNSS.
10. Accordingly, M.Cr.C. stands disposed of.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
VKT
