Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jeetu @ Sandeep vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 November, 2019
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-49277-2019
(Jeetu @ Sandeep Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated : 27/11/2019
Shri Sushil Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. The applicant has filed the first application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station- Maharajpura, District- Gwalior in connection with Crime No.500/2018 registered in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 224, 225, 332, 353, 395, 397, 120-B of the IPC and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and Section 25/27 of Arms Act.
Prosecution story, in short, is that on 07/12/23018 at about 6:30 AM, in order to facilitate taking of accused- Bheema @ Jitendra Yadav from Central Jail Bhopal for his appearance before District Court at Bhind, the co-accused -Sonpal @ Sohanpal Baghel Constable No.3471 who is nephew of the accused -Bheema @ Jitendra Yadav brought a Bolero vehicle and took accused -Bheema @ Jitendra Yadav along with police party to the Railway Station. Along with the Co-accused -Sonpal, the co-accused Vicky was also present in the bolero vehicle. The police party along with accused-Bheema @ 2 Jitendra Yadav boarded A.P. Express for coming to gwalior and co
-accused Vicky also sat in the train with them. When the police party and accused -Bheema @ Jitendra Yadav alighted at Gwalior, co- accused- Vicky arranged for a Scorpio vehicle for taking them to District Court Bhind while he himself stayed back at Gwalior station. The police party presented the accused -Bheema @ Jitendra Yadav before the Court of ADJ, at Bhind. While returning, the driver of the Scorpio stopped the vehicle near an old building on the pretext of easing himself. At that time, a white coloured vehicle came and stopped besides the Scorpio vehicle, from where 7-8 miscreants came out. They threw chilly powder in the eyes of police party. They also gave butt blows of rifle on the heads and faces of the constables and when the complainant who is also a constable tried to intervene, he was also pushed aside. In the scuffle, magzine of rifle of constable Vivek Sharma got broken. At this juncture, accused- Bheema @ Jitendra Yadav alighted from the vehicle and after snatching rifle of constable- Vivek Sharma sat in the nearby vehicle along with another accused person who had snatched rifle of constable- Hakim Khan. They also took Constable- Pramod Yadav and fled in the white coloured vehicle. Thereafter, the black Scorpio also followed them leaving police party behind. On the aforesaid basis, crime has been registered.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has falsely been implicated in the matter. The applicant is not concerned with the 3 case directly or indirectly. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is not named in the FIR and he has been implicated on the basis of memorandum under Section 27 of Evidence Act which has no evidentiary value. Charge-sheet has also been filed in the matter. It is further submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of District- Jhansi (U.P.). There is no likelihood of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence, if he is released on bail. The applicant is in jail since 15/03/2019 without any substantial reason and early conclusion of the trial is a bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention is an anathema to the concept of liberty. Co-accused Naresh, Devendra, Ehtishamuddin and Awnish Yadav have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 29/07/2019, 21/08/2019, 08/11/2019 and 20/09/2019 passed in MCRC Nos.27761/2019, 34604/2019, 39965/2019 and 37933/2019, therefore, the applicant claims parity with the co-accused persons. The applicant is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for grant of bail.
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.
After hearing aforesaid arguments and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of 4 the case, this application is allowed but with certain stringent conditions and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) with two local solvent sureties each of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) 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/her 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; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.5
7. Till conclusion of the trial, the applicant shall appear and mark his attendance before the trial Court once in every month, failing which this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to the Bench.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge rahul RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR 2019.11.28 18:23:41 +05'30'