Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bharat Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 January, 2020
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-49988-2019
(BHARAT SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Indore, Dated : 14-01-2020
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.S. Darbar, learned public prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Shri Mitesh Jain and Shri R.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the objector.
Shri Pawan Singhal, SHO, police station - Sadalpur, District - Dhar is present in person.
Compliance has been done. Considering the reasons, he is discharged.
This is first application of petitioner Bharat Singh under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of temporary bail in Crime no. 263/2015 registered at police station - Sadalpur. District - Dhar under sections 307, 302, 294, 323, 326, 324, 429, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and sections 25, 27 and 30 of the Arms Act on the ground of need of operation of his 17 years lod deaf and dumb son.
Reports has been received from the Medical Board comprising three senior doctors of M.Y. Hospital, Indore. After examining the son of the petitioner, they have opined that cochlear implant operation of deaf and dumb son of the petitioner may be beneficial for him to regain speech and listening power.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that all the three sons of the petitioner were deaf and dumb. Two of them have been cured by such operation as benefited earlier, therefore, he is very much hopeful that his third son may also be cured by the operation suggested by the doctors.
The complainant side has vehemently opposed the prayer stating that it is a case of double murder, in which gun shots were fired indiscriminately, even on cattle. After unsuccessful in getting regular bail, several accused persons are repeatedly filing applications for temporary bail on one or the other ground. The Medical Board has opined that the operation at the age of six would have been generated better result and possibility of cure at the age of 17 is less and the son of the petitioner to be operated is now 17 years, therefore, this is only concocted cause for getting temporary bail and the same be not granted.
On considering rival contentions of the parties and going through the reports of the Medical Board comprising senior doctors of M.Y. Hospital, Indore, only on humanitarian ground, I deem it proper to allow the temporary bail for a month.
Consequently, without commenting on merits of the case, present application for temporary bail is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner be temporarily released for a period of one month i.e. from 17/01/2020 to 17/02/2020 upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. It is made clear that the petitioner shall surrender before the trial Court concerned on 17/02/2020 and the trial Court shall send him to the concerned jail. In case of failure to surrender by the petitioner on 17/02/2020, then the learned trial Court shall take appropriate action to secure the presence of the petitioner, in accordance with law. The petitioner shall abide by the conditions enumerated in section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE Digitally signed by AMOL N MAHANAG Date: 2020.01.14 17:58:57 +05'30'