Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 June, 2018
1 MCRC-16688-2018
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-16688-2018
(PAN SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
6
Jabalpur, Dated : 27-06-2018
Mr.Sourabh Bhusahn Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr.C.K.Mishra, learned Govt.Advocate for the respondent/State.
This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed to assail the order dated 15.3.2018 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No.114/2018, whereby the order dated 01.3.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal in Criminal Case No.9914208/17, rejecting the application under section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been affirmed.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner is in custody since 27.9.2017 in the above Criminal Case, for offences under sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the appellant/accused was a Guard and was working with the Team who were putting money in the ATM machine. The other co-accused, namely, Surjeet Singh was working with Secured Value ATM Machines and was assigned to put currency notes in the ATM machine. Because he was knowing pass-word, he alongwith the petitioner jointly misused the same and committed theft of Rs. 13,15,000/-currency notes from ATM machine. With the help C.C.T.V footage the accused person have been nabbed
3. The case was first listed for evidence after framing of charge on 26.12.2017. But, after 60 days when the prosecution evidence was not closed, the petitioner moved an application under section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court on 01.3.2018. Criminal Revision No.114/2018 was filed before the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal. Vide order dated 15.3.2018 the order of the trial Court has been affirmed and the petitioner has been denied the benefit of releasing on bail. Therefore, the present petition.
4. On behalf of the petitioner, it is claimed that the petitioner is in custody since 27.9.2017. The evidence is yet not concluded, even after 60 days of first fixed for evidence, as mandated under the provisions of sub-secction (6) of Section 437 Cr.P.C., therefore, the petitioner is 2 MCRC-16688-2018 entitled to be released on bail.
5. On behalf of the respondent/State it is contended that no doubt the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, but keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of provision enshrined under sub-section (6) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C.
6. Perused the record. The earlier application has been dismissed on the ground that co-accused had knowledge of the pass-word and, therefore, they misused the same and committed theft of the currency notes from the ATM machine. The petitioner was working as SAF Guard. The petitioner has no criminal background.
7. In the case of Devraj Maratha @ Dillu vs. State of M.P. [M.Cr.C.No.2668/2018] the Division Bench of this Court has held that passing an order under section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. is mandatory, but not grant of bail. However, the Magistrate is vested with the power to consider the nature of allegations, whether the delay is attributable to the accused or to the prosecution and criminal antecedents of the accused.
8. The delay is not attributable to the petitioner in the present case. Nor he has any criminal antecedent. The petitioner was Security Guard and the co-accused was having the knowledge of the pass-word. Therefore, chance of repetition would not occur. Otherwise also, normally after the incident pass-words are changed. Hence, it would not be not proper to deny the benefit of bail to the petitioner.
9. Considering the above, this petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to following conditions:-
1. The petitioner will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. He will co-operate in the trial;
3. The petitioner will not indulge 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;
4. The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence;
5. The petitioner will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial.
(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) 3 MCRC-16688-2018 Digitally signed by RAJESH T JUDGE RM MAMTANI Date: 2018.07.04 17:56:38 +05'30'