Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rohit Prajapati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 August, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 MCRC-38815-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-38815-2021
(ROHIT PRAJAPATI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 13-08-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned senior counsel with Shri Narunaditya
Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Akhilendra Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
This is second bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The first bail application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 28.06.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.30742/2021.
Petitioner is in custody since 09.05.2021 in connection with Crime No.17/2021 registered at P.S.-STF, District-Bhopal (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 188 of IPC, Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act and Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and Section 5/13 of M.P. Drugs Control Act.
As per the prosecution case, on 09.05.2021, on the basis of information received from an informant, police officials reached on the informed place where the present applicant was standing. Constable Shivbhan was sent to present applicant for negotiating purchase of Remdesivir injection at Rs.25,000/-. Thereafter, present applicant went from there and returned back after 15-20 minutes having an injection. While demanding of Rs.25,000/- by the applicant, the police caught hold him. The applicant was not having any valid document for keeping said life saving injection.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case whereas he has not committed any offence. She submits that the applicant was working as Technician in Central Hospital Bhopal. On the day of incident, co-accused Maqsood Alam who was working as Technician at Chirayu Hospital Bhopal called him and while their Signature Not Verified SAN meeting, the police official caught hold the applicant. Indeed, the said Digitally signed by KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Date: 2021.08.13 17:38:55 IST 2 MCRC-38815-2021 injection was seized from the possession of co-accused but improperly it is shown to have been seized from the possession of present applicant. There is no criminal antecedent against the present applicant. It is further submitted that the co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.07.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.35228/2021 so the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. He is in custody since 09.05.2021. Charge sheet has been filed. It is time of Covid-19, due to which, conclusion of trial will take time for its final disposal. There is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence. Petitioner/accused is breadwinner of his family, if he is kept in custody for unlimited period, then future of his family will be spoiled. On these grounds, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner/accused.
Per-contra, learned G.A. for the respondent/State opposes the bail application.
Considering the contentions of counsel for both the parties and the fact that petitioner/accused has no previous criminal antecedent, he is a student aged about 23 years, the case of petitioner is akin to the case of co-accused, co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.07.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.35228/2021, he is in custody since 09.05.2021, charge sheet has been filed, it is time of COVID-19 Pandemic, due to which, conclusion of trial will take time for final disposal, there is no probability of his absconding or tampering with the evidence of the prosecution.
In view of the aforesaid, it would not be appropriate to keep the petitioner/accused in jail during whole trial. Therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, this second bail application of the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seems to be acceptable. Consequently, it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that petitioner-Rohit Prajapati be released on bail on Signature Not Verified SAN his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) Digitally signed by KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Date: 2021.08.13 17:38:55 IST 3 MCRC-38815-2021 with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court. It is directed that the petitioner shall comply with the provisions of Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the petitioner shall also comply the rules and norms of social distancing. Further, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto W.P.No.1/2020, it would be appropriate to issue the following direction to the jail authority:-
1. The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the petitioner by the jail doctor before his release.
2. The petitioner shall not be released if he is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'. For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.
3. If it is found that the petitioner is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing him in appropriate quarantine facility.
M.Cr.C. stands disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE kafeel Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Date: 2021.08.13 17:38:55 IST