Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bharat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 June, 2020
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
\
M.Cr.C. No.12793/2020
( Bharat Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh )
(1)
Gwalior, dated : 05.06.2020
Shri D.S.Tomar, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Gurjar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Case diary perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. The applicant has filed this first application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested by Police Station- Basoda Shahar, District- Vidisha in connection with Crime No.651/2019 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 of the IPC.
Prosecution story, in short, is that on 21/10/2019, when co- accused Rajkumar was passing through the agricultural field of Shivraj (deceased) driving a Tractor, then complainant and Shivraj stopped him. At that time, some altercation took place between the applicant alongwith co-accused and complainant. On that, applicant inflicted lathi blow on the head of Shivraj, due to which, Shivraj fell down on the ground and become unconscious. Thereafter, the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR \ M.Cr.C. No.12793/2020 ( Bharat Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh ) (2) complainant took Shivraj to hospital where doctor declared Shivraj dead. On the basis of aforesaid, crime has been registered against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. He is in custody since 15/1/2020. It is further submitted that according to the postmortem report, cause of the death of Shivraj is cardiac failure as a result of coronary insufficiency and its complication. There is no allegation of beating the deceased by the applicant. The applicant had no knowledge that deceased was heart patient. The case of the applicant does not fall within exceptions as enumerated under Section 300 of IPC. It is further submitted that offence under section 34 of IPC is not attracted in the case since common intention is absent. Charge sheet has been filed and no further custodial interrogation is required in the matter. Counsel for the applicant submits that in view of COVID-19, outbreak detention of applicant in already congested prisons may be detrimental. The applicant is the permanent resident of Village Bhasooda, Tahsil Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha and there is no likelihood of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence, if released on bail. Similarly placed co-accused Rajkumar has already been given the benefit of bail vide order dated 19/2/2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.4718/2020 and the applicant deserves parity in treatment. The applicant is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. With the aforesaid HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR \ M.Cr.C. No.12793/2020 ( Bharat Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh ) (3) submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that the applicant and other co-accused persons had shared common intention and as per section 34 of IPC, when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone and on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out and on such grounds prays for rejection of bail application.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant volunteered to deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) with Collector Vidisha, for utilization in preparation of food and its distribution to downtrodden persons including migrant labours, by any Government Agency/NGO in and round the city of Vidisha.
However, it would not be desirable to enter into the merits of the rival contentions at this juncture.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that trial is not likely to conclude in near future and prolonged pre-trial detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR \ M.Cr.C. No.12793/2020 ( Bharat Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh ) (4) namely - Bharat be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the trial Court/committal Court for his appearance on the dates given by the concerned Court.
It is made clear that benefit of bail shall be extended to the applicant only on depositing an amount of Rs.25,000- (Rupees Twentyfive thousand) with Collector Vidisha and obtaining receipt. The office of Collector shall maintain a separate account (for production of the record as and when directed for) and utilize the amount so deposited for disbursement of food packets to the downtrodden people including migrant labours in and around the city of Gwalior through any Government agency/NGO. The applicant shall submit an attested photocopy of such receipt before the concerning court for placing the same on record.
The applicant shall also furnish a written undertaking before the concerned court that he will abide by the terms and conditions of various circulars, as well as, orders issued by the Central Government, State Government and local administration from time to time such as maintaining social distancing, physical distancing, hygiene etc. to avoid proliferation of Corona virus.
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.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR \ M.Cr.C. No.12793/2020 ( Bharat Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh ) (5)
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 any other offence during pendency of the trial, failing which this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to the Bench.
5. The applicant shall install Arogya Setu App (if not already installed) in his mobile phone;
6. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
7. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
Learned Panel Lawyer is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and necessary action.
E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible by the office of this Court.
Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.
(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge SP SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE 2020.06.05 17:43:15 +05'30'