Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kariya @ Rohit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 January, 2019
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 3573-2019
(Kaariya @ Rohit Vs. State of M.P.)
(1)
Gwalior, dated : 29-1-2019.
Shri Anshu Gupta, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri J.M.Sahani, Learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. The applicant has filed this third application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The first application has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 31-8-2018 passed in M.Cr.C.No.34869/2018 and the second application was rejected on merits vide order dated 30-10-2018 in M.Cr.C.No.42878-2018.
The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Kumbhraj, District Guna, in connection with Crime No.258/2018 registered in relation to the offence punishable under section 394 of the IPC.
Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that the applicant along with co-accused person on the point of weapon had snatched the bag containing cash worth Rs.92,278/- along with cheque book, bank pass book, collection sheet, sticker, raincoat, identity card, two mobile phones from the complainant and fled away from the spot of incident. On the basis of aforesaid, the applicant has been implicated in the present case.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated. He is a reputed citizen of the locality aged 20 years, who has no criminal antecedents alleged against him. The offence alleged is not made out against the applicant. The FIR was registered against the unknown persons and even though TIP was conducted by prosecution, the applicant was not identified by the complainant. The charge sheet THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 3573-2019 (Kaariya @ Rohit Vs. State of M.P.) (2) has since been filed and further custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be required. The applicant is in custody since 25/8/2018 and early conclusion of trial is bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention is an anathema to the concept of liberty. Under these grounds, applicant prays for grant of bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor 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 bail is made out.
However, it would not be desirable to enter into the merits of the rival contentions at this juncture. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, period of custody of applicant and that charge sheet has been filed, 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 be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/committal Court for his appearance on the dates given by the concerned Court.
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 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 3573-2019 (Kaariya @ Rohit Vs. State of M.P.) (3) 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 an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
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.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge (binu) BINU PILLAI 2019.01.29 18:29:47
-08'00'