Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neeraj Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 18 June, 2018
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No. 20104/2018
(Neeraj Sharma Vs. The State of M.P.)
Gwalior, dated : 18.06.2018
Shri Atul Gupta, Advocate for applicant.
Shri Yogesh Singhal, Public Prosecutor/Panel Lawyer for
Respondent/State.
Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. The applicant has filed this 6th repeat application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail after rejection of earlier ones on merits and as well as with liberty to come again for examination of witnesss vide order order dated 9-2-18 in M.Cr.C.No.5307/18 The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Bahodapur District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.219/17 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss 304 B/498 A of IPC 3/4Dowry Probhibition Act.
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.
This sixth repeat bail application has been filed after rejection of the earlier ones including the last which was dismissed on merit by order dated 7-3-2018 passed in M.Cr.C.No.5307/2018 with liberty to come again after examination of principal prosecution witness .
New ground raised herein is that all the main prosecution witness including mother,father, brother and paternal uncle of the deceased have been examined before the trial court in shape of PWs nos. 1 to 4 on 14.5.18 and 23.5.18 respectively, copies of which have been placed on record.
Since all the main Prosecution witnesses have been 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No. 20104/2018 (Neeraj Sharma Vs. The State of M.P.) examined and the applicant who is the husband of the deceased is in custody since last one year two months, no useful purpose would be served to continue incarceration of the applicant. Consdering the above facts and that the early conclusion of the trial is a bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention is anathema to the concept of liberty and that there are no criminal antecedents of the applicant and the material placed on record does not discloses the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice,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.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac only) with two solvent sureties, each of Rs.50,000/-, to the satisfaction of the concerned trial 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 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 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No. 20104/2018 (Neeraj Sharma Vs. The State of M.P.)
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.
(Sheel Nagu) Judge binu BINU PILLAI 2018.06.18 18:51:28 -07'00'