Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prashant Sikarwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 September, 2020
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
MCRC-31101-2020
(Prashant Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated : 01/09/2020
Shri R.S. Bansal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rohit Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General 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.
Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. The applicant has filed this first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.
Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.255/2020 registered at Police Station- Bhitarwar, District- Gwalior (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 414 of IPC and Sections 4(A), 21(1) of Mines and Minerals Act.
Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that he alongwith co-accused committed theft of the sand and was involved in illegal transportation of the same by a truck without paying any royalty whereby violating the provisions of Mines and Minerals Act . On the basis of 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR MCRC-31101-2020 (Prashant Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P.) aforesaid, crime has been registered against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 29 years of age who has no criminal past alleged against him and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is not concerned with the case directly or indirectly. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that offence under Section 379 of IPC is not made out against the applicant as the alleged sand was taken by paying royalty and he did not excavate the sand from the river, therefore, it can not be treated as illegal transportation. It is further submitted that offence under Sections 4(A) and 21(1) of Mines and Minerals Act almost provide for fine. Attention has also been invited to the guidelines issued to all the States and Union Territories by the Apex Court for de-congesting the prisons in suo motu W.P. (C) No.1/2020 (IN RE: CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS) to consider release of prisoners who have been convicted or are under trial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less by constituting a High Powered Committee. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that in view of COVID-19 outbreak, detention of applicant in already congested prisons may be detrimental. The applicant is a permanent resident of District- Gwalior and there is no possibility of his fleeing if he is released on 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR MCRC-31101-2020 (Prashant Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P.) anticipatory bail. He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. With the aforesaid submissions, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned Additional Advocate General for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is hereby directed that in the event of arrest of applicant, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority. The applicant shall also furnish a written undertaking that he will abide by all 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. 4
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR MCRC-31101-2020 (Prashant Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P.) This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-
1. The applicant shall install Aarogya Setu App (if not already installed) in his mobile phone.
2. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
3. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
4. 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;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
7. If the applicant commits any offence while being on anticipatory bail, then this order shall 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR MCRC-31101-2020 (Prashant Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P.) automatically stand cancelled without reference to the Court.
Learned Additional Advocate General 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.
Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge rahul RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR 2020.09.01 18:00:37 +05'30'