Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra @ Pulli Jat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 August, 2020
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-25108-2020
(JITENDRA @ PULLI JAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated :11/08/2020
Shri Pradeep Katare, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Arjun Singh Parihar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent-State.
I.A. No.10192/2020, an application for urgent hearing, is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.
Matter is heard through video conferencing. This is third application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail.
Applicant has been arrested on 17.10.2019 by Police Station Unnav, Distt. Datia (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.7/2020 registered for offence under Sections 363, 366, 368, 506, 34 of IPC and added Sections 346 and 344 of IPC.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant- Jitendra @ Pulli Jat that the applicant has not committed any offence. F irst bail application filed by the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 12/02/2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.6373/2020. Thereafter, second bail application was decided vide order dated 18.06.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.14657/2020, wherein this Court had granted the interim bail to the applicant for a period of 30 days . It is further submitted that after completion of 30 days, the applicant had 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-25108-2020 (JITENDRA @ PULLI JAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) surrendered before the trial Court on 20.07.2020. Meanwhile, the applicant had not misused the liberty granted by this Court. At the time when the first bail application was rejected on merits, charge- sheet was not filed. Now, charge-sheet has been filed, wherein no overt act has been attributed to the applicant. Applicant is not main accused of the case. Only allegation against the applicant is that he had visited the place where the prosecutrix was detained. Hence, prays for grant of bail to the 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- 9 Pandemic and maintain hygiene in the vicinity while keeping physical distancing.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions and has submitted that first bail application was rejected on merits. Thereafter, there is no changed circumstance under which this bail application could be considered. It is further submitted that the offence is registered under Sections 363, 366, 368, 506, 34 of IPC and added Sections 346 and 344 of IPC and t he act is also covered under Section 34 of IPC, therefore, the present 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-25108-2020 (JITENDRA @ PULLI JAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) applicant is also liable for the offence. Hence, prays to reject the bail application of the applicant.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them.
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 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-25108-2020 (JITENDRA @ PULLI JAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or 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 and considering the fact that after rejection of first bail application on merits, charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is not the main accused of the case, 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.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned for his regular appearance before the Court concerned on the dates fixed by 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 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-25108-2020 (JITENDRA @ PULLI JAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) local administration shall make necessary arrangements for sending the applicant to his house, and if his test is found positive then the 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 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-25108-2020 (JITENDRA @ PULLI JAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 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 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; and
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 compliance, if possible for the office of this Court.
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) Judge vpn VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI 2020.08.11 18:39:42 +05'30' VALSALA VASUDEVAN 2018.10.26 15:14:29 -07'00'