Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Namdeo vs The State Of M.P. on 10 November, 2020
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 MCRC-44366-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-44366-2020
(RAJESH NAMDEO Vs THE STATE OF M.P.)
Jabalpur, Dated : 10-11-2020
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Gopal Jaiswal, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.
This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of bail.
The applicant is in custody since 19.10.2020 in connection with Crime No.398/2018 registered at Police Station-Stationganj for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 109 and 279 of Indian Penal Code, Sections 184 and 66/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 34 (2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
As per the prosecution story, on 12.07.2018 on information of the informant, the police party have stopped the vehicle Swaraj Mazda No.MP20- GA-0175 loaded with illicit liquor near bypass road. The said vehicle was overturned and the police seized 2656 bulk litres liquor from the said vehicle.
The applicant has been made as an accused on the basis of backdated forged rent agreement, which has been shown to be executed between the applicant and co-accused Nikunj Vyas, who was alleged to drive the vehicle when it was overturned.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the crime. It is further submitted that nothing has been seized from the possession of the applicant. The applicant was made as an accused being owner of said vehicle but it was given on rent to co-accused who was driving when it was overturned. No case of similar nature has previously been registered against the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of District-Jabalpur. He is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all terms and conditions imposed upon him. There is no chance of his 2 MCRC-44366-2020 absconding or tampering with the evidence. Other similar situated co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court. There is no probability of his absconding or tampering with the evidence of the prosecution. The applicant is ready to furnish bail as per the order, abiding with all conditions imposed by the Court. Besides the above, he further submits that his wife is suffering from brain tumor and no male member in his family to look after her, he has also two daughter aged 7 years and 3 years respectively. On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the bail application and submitted that the alleged vehicle in which the illicit liquor was transported belongs to the applicant. He further submits that applicant has also prepared backdated agreement in the name of co- accused to escape from criminal liability. Therefore, he prays for rejection of this bail application.
On perusal, applicant was not found present on the spot and nothing has been seized from his possession. Applicant is made as an accused only on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused and being registered owner of said vehicle. The applicant submits that he has given the said vehicle to co-accused on rent after executing rent agreement, however, co-accused stated in his memorandum that applicant has prepared forged backdated agreement to impose criminal liability upon him.
Prima facie, it appears that liquor was not seized from the possession of present applicant and authenticity of rent agreement is subject matter of trial. Applicant in jail since 19.10.2020 and no custodial interrogation seems to be required in the case. Further, due to ongoing of COVID-19 pandemic, further proceedings of trial is withheld and will take sufficient time for its conclusion. There is no other material available on record which shows that the present applicant has either criminal past or previously convicted for the offence under Excise Act, hence, there is no probability to commit any such type of offence in future. Other co-accused has already been released on bail 3 MCRC-44366-2020 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
Therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, application of the present applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seems to be acceptable. Consequently, it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that applicant-Rajesh Namedo be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court. It is directed that the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the applicant shall also comply with the rules and norms of social distancing. Further, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto W.P.No.1/2020 , it would be appropriate to issue the following direction to the jail authority :-
1. The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the applicant by the jail doctor before his release.
2. The applicant shall not be released if he is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'. For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.
3. If it is found that the applicant is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing him in appropriate quarantine facility.
Certified copy as per rules (RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE sp Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2020.11.10 16:52:53 +05'30'