Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul @ Kanja vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 September, 2020
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.34348/2020
(Rahul @ Kanja Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated:-23/09/2020
Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Devendra Pathak, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Matter is heard through video conferencing. I.A. No.15361/2020, an application for urgent hearing, is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.
The applicant has filed this third bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 14/01/2020 by Police Station Kotwali Distt. Morena (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.837/2013 registered for offence under Sections 399, 400 and 402 of IPC, Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and Section 25/27 of Arms Act.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant- Rahul @ Kanja that the applicant has not committed any offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case. Applicant is in custody since 14/01/2020, i.e. for more than eight months. The applicant was granted interim bail for a period of 60 days by this Court vide order dated 03/07/2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.14580/2020 (second bail application) and he has not misused the liberty of interim bail so granted to him. First bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 19/03/2020 passed in M.Cr.C. 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.34348/2020 (Rahul @ Kanja Vs. State of M.P.) No.8178/2020 by considering the fact that case of the present applicant was not in parity with the co-accused Goga @ Gogendra as 22 criminal cases were registered against the present applicant. It is further submitted that with regard to criminal antecedents of the present applicant, now report has been received wherein most of the cases, present applicant has been acquitted. The case of the present applicant is on the better footing as the custody period of the present applicant is more than the custody period suffered by the co-accused Goga @ Gogendra, who has already been granted bail. It is also submitted that due to present COVID-19 condition, trial is held up and there is no possibility of commencement of trial in near future. Hence, learned counsel seeks parity with co-accused Goga @ Gogendra and prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. He further undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions of guidance, circulars and directions issued by Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration regarding measures in respect of COVID-19 Pandemic and maintain hygiene in the vicinity while keeping physical distancing.
Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the application and has submitted that first bail application was rejected on merits by this Court after considering all the facts advanced today by learned counsel for the applicant. Now there is no changed circumstance 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.34348/2020 (Rahul @ Kanja Vs. State of M.P.) under which present repeat bail application could be considered. Hence, prayed to reject the same.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the case diary.
The Supreme Court by order dated 23-3-2020 passed in the case of IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS in SUO MOTU W.P. (C) No. 1/2020 has directed all the States to constitute a High Level Committee to consider the release of prisoners in order to decongest the prisons. The Supreme Court has observed as under :
"The issue of overcrowding of prisons is a matter of serious concern particularly in the present context of the pandemic of Corona Virus (COVID
- 19).
Having regard to the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it has become imperative to ensure that the spread of the Corona Virus within the prisons is controlled. We direct that each State/Union Territory shall constitute a High Powered Committee comprising of (i) Chairman of the State Legal Services Committee, (ii) the Principal Secretary (Home/Prison) by whatever designation is known as, (ii) Director General of Prison(s), to determine which class of prisoners can be released on parole or an interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate. For instance, the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are under trial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.34348/2020 (Rahul @ Kanja Vs. State of M.P.) without fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser number of years than the maximum. It is made clear that we leave it open for the High Powered Committee to determine the category of prisoners who should be released as aforesaid, depending upon the nature of offence, the number of years to which he or she has been sentenced or the severity of the offence with which he/she is charged with and is facing trial or any other relevant factor, which the Committee may consider appropriate."
In view of the aforesaid, looking to the custody period of the applicant and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the fact that due to present COVID-19 pandemic there is no possibility of commencement of trial in near future, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is hereby directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned for his regular appearance before the trial Court concerned on the dates fixed it.
In view of COVID-19 pandemic, the jail authorities are directed that before releasing the applicant, his Corona Virus test shall be conducted and if it is found negative, then the concerned local administration shall make necessary arrangements for sending the applicant to his house, and if his test is found positive then the 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.34348/2020 (Rahul @ Kanja Vs. State of M.P.) applicant shall be immediately sent to concerning hospital for his treatment as per medical norms. If the applicant is fit for release and if he is in a position to make his personal arrangements, then he shall be released only after taking due travel permission from local administration. After release, the applicant is further directed to strictly follow all the instructions which may be issued by the Central Govt./State Govt. or Local Administration for combating the Covid19. If it is found that the applicant has violated any of the instructions (whether general or specific) issued by the Central Govt./State Govt. or Local Administration, then this order shall automatically lose its effect, and the Local Administration/Police Authorities shall immediately take him in custody and would send him to the same jail from where he was released.
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 them 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 move in the vicinity of complainant party and applicant will not seek 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.34348/2020 (Rahul @ Kanja Vs. State of M.P.) 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 will inform the SHO of concerned police station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station for information.
Application stands allowed and disposed of. E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for information.
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) Judge Shubhankar* SHUBHANKAR MISHRA 2020.09.23 17:50:53 +05'30'