Bhoora Singh @ Bhoora vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2019

[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Bhoora Singh @ Bhoora vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2019

This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in Sessions Trial No.2/2017 pending on the file of Special Judge (MPDVPK Act) Dabra, District Gwalior, which is registered against him at Police Station Dabra, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Section 392 of IPC and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.

It is alleged by the counsel for the applicant that he is in custody since 04.11.2019. She has drawn attention of this Court to the order sheets of the trial Court and has submitted that all the witnesses have turned hostile in the matter. It is further argued that the co-accused have already been acquitted by the learned trial court in Sessions Trial No.2/12 vide judgment of acquittal dated 21.01.2015. She has further relied upon the order passed by this Court in the case of Matre @ Brijesh Singh vs. State of M.P. and Ors. dated 15.11.2019 passed in M.Cr.C.47088/2019 whereby in similar circumstances the bail application of the co-accused was allowed. It is further submitted that the aspect of absconding by the accused and acquittal of the co-accused in the same offence has been considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ujagar Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2000 (1) MPWN 12 while considering the application under section 439 of 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.48622/2019 (Bhura Singh @ Bhura vs. State of M.P.) Cr.P.C., wherein it is held that although the applicant has absconded in the matter for a considerable period and should now being tried for the aforesaid offence but the fact remains that there is unchallenged legal judicial verdict regarding the acquittal of the other two co-accused persons. That judgment has become final on the factual aspects of the incident in question. Considering the aforesaid, the bail application was allowed.

He has further relied upon the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramdas Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2007) 3 MPWN 16 and in the case of Iqbal Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2008 (1) CriLR 862, wherein under the similar circumstances the Court has considered and granted the benefit of bail. He has further brought to the notice of this Court the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C.15091/2019 (Smt. Ramraja Vs. State of M.P.) wherein the similar circumstances, the Court has allowed bail application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. and extended the anticipatory bail on 16-4-2019. It is a alleged that the applicant is in custody since 04.11.2019. Therefore, she has prayed that similar relief be extended to the present applicant.

Per contra, counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the bail application and has contended that the applicant has remained absconded for a considerable period and has not supported the prosecution. He was declared absconder and only after issuance of arrest warrant he could have been arrested in the matter. He was declared 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.48622/2019 (Bhura Singh @ Bhura vs. State of M.P.) absconder on 2.8.2013. He has prayed for dismissal of the application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. Considering the submissions advanced by the counsel for the applicant and on perusal of the case diary it is seen that an FIR was got registered in the year 2010 and accused has been arrested on 04.11.2019 after the considerable delay of 8 years he has remained absconded. It is also true that the co-accused have already acquitted by the trial Court vide its judgment of acquittal dated 21-01-2015. The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Iqbal vs. State of Rajastha reported in 2008 (1) CriLR 862 has considered the aforesaid proposition and also the full Bench judgment of Calcatta High Court observed as under;

"Of course, it cannot be laid down a universal principle that merely because other co-accused persons have been acquitted by the trial Court, the absconder is entitled, ipso facto, to grant of anticipatory bail. ' After all, every case would be decided on peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. However, the court would be conscious of the effect that in case the other co- accused have been acquitted by the trial Court, the chances of acquittal of petitioner is equally high; the trial would be moreof formality than a regular, legal and vigorous trial culminating in the conviction of the petitioner. Furthermore, liberty of a citizen is prime concern according to the constitutional mandate, which should not be compromised by denying of anticipatory bail especially when the chances of an absconder being convicted are rather slim. ;"

The Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Ramdas vs. State of M.P. reported in (2007) 3 MPWN has granted the bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, considering the order passed in the case of Ujagar Singh (supra) and Sirornani Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2001 (II) MPWN 25. In the present case also the 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.48622/2019 (Bhura Singh @ Bhura vs. State of M.P.) similar facts and circumstances available. Thus, considering the fact that the co-accused have already been acquitted in Sessions Trial No.2/2012, vide judgment of acquittal dated 21.01.2015, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this application in the following terms.

It is hereby directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lac Only) with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-

1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused.

5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;

7. The applicant shall mark his attendance before the concerned police station in the first week of every month, till conclusion of investigation (pending if any) and if charge sheet is being filed, he will mark his presence as per the directions issued by the concerning trial Court.

In event of failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions, the State Authorities will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Vishal Mishra) Judge van SMT VANDANA VERMA 2019.12.04 10:14:00 +05'00'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court