Madhya Pradesh High Court
Atar Singh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 June, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
ON THE 6th OF JUNE, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23290 of 2022
Between:-
ATAR SINGH GURJAR S/O SHRI ANGAD SINGH
GURJAR, AGED : 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE, R/O VILLAGE DHOWANI,
POLICE STATION PAHARGARH, TEHSIL JOURA,
DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI RAJMANI BANSAL AND SHRI ANAND PUROHIT -
ADVOCATES)
AND
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION PAHARGARH, DISTRICT
MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI AVDHESH PARASHAR - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is the fourth bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant. Earlier three applications (M.Cr.C.No.63219/2021, 5230/2022 and 13970/2022) were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dt.23.12.2021, 03.02.2022 and 20.04.2022.
The applicant is in custody since 30.09.2021 in connection with Crime No.126/2019 registered at Police Station Pahargarh, Morena (Madhya Pradesh) Chachoda, District Guna (Madhya Pradesh) for the offence punishable under 2 Sections 392, 506, 34 of IPC added Sections 201, 384 of IPC, Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act and Sections 11 and 13 of MPDVPK Act.
As per prosecution story, applicant along with other co-accused persons on 30.08.2019 at about 11 in the night reached the village near the house of Jasua Aadiwasi with deadly weapons. He asked him to collect all the villagers at a particular place failing which he shall suffer dire consequences. Being so threatened, Jasua collected the villagers and reached the place as directed. Applicant along with other co-accused persons initially demanded Rs.2,000/- from each of the villagers but later on agreed for Rs.500/- from each one of them, failing which they were threatened that if the demand is not made they all would suffer homicidal death. Under such circumstances, they brought money and thereafter on 01.09.2019 FIR was lodged and accordingly the case was registered.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The applicant is not required for custodial interrogation as the charge sheet has been filed. It is submitted that second application of the applicant was dismissed vide order dt.03.02.2022 with liberty to revive his prayer after six weeks. Thereafter the third application was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.04.2022 with liberty to revive his prayer after three months. In between, co-accused Balishtar @ Balkatar Gurjar has been granted benefit of bail by this Court vide order dt.04.05.2022 passed in M.Cr.C.No.21191/2022. Learned counsel submits that present applicant also deserves parity and treatment. Even otherwise, the applicant has already suffered jail incarceration since 30.09.2021. Due to long jail incarceration, his family is in penury. He is ready to abide by such terms and conditions as may be deemed fit and proper for his enlargement on bail. Trial is not likely to be 3 concluded early in near future. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made.
Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State opposes the bail application supporting the order impugned and prays for its rejection.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties but without commenting upon the rival contentions touching merits of the case regard being had to the fact that the applicant is in custody since 30.09.2021, in the obtaining facts, the applicant is held entitled to be enlarged on bail but with stringent conditions.
Consequently, the application of the applicant filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is hereby allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and on the condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with following further conditions:
(i) the applicant shall mark his attendance before the concerned police station on second and fourth Saturday every month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon.
(ii) the applicant shall abide by the terms and conditions of various circulars and orders issued by the Government of India and the State Government as well as the local administration from time-to-time in the matter of maintaining social distancing, physical distancing, hygiene, etc., to avoid proliferation of Novel Corona virus (COVID-19);
(iii) the concerned jail authorities are directed that before releasing the 4 applicant, the medical examination of the applicant be conducted through the jail doctor and if it is prima facie found that he is having any symptoms of COVID-19, then the consequential follow up action or any further test required, be undertaken immediately. If not, the applicant shall be released on bail in terms of the conditions imposed in this order;
(iv) on violation of conditions, State is free to apply for cancellation of bail.
(v) in future, if the applicant is found to be involved in such nature of cases or any other similar criminal cases or misuses the bail granted by this Court, this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically.
Learned Panel Lawyer is directed to send an e-copy of this order to all the concerned including the concerned Station House Officer of the Police Station for information and necessary action.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) V. JUDGE SP SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE 2022.06.07 11:14:23 +05'30'