Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anand Nikhra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 February, 2016
Mcrc.2436.2016
Anand Neekhra Vs. State of M.P.
29.02.2016
Shri Sarvesh Sharma, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Prabal Solanki, Public Prosecutor, for the respondent/State.
Perused the case diary.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. The petitioner has filed this fifth repeat application u/S 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The petitioner has been arrested by Police Station Dabra, District Gwalior (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.962/2014 registered in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A, 34 of IPC.
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 repeat bail application has been filed after rejection of the earlier ones including the one on the ground that scribe of the dying declaration Tahsildar has not made the statement before the trial court. New and different consideration raised herein is the recording of statement of Tahsildar, namely, Smt. Sharda Pathak as PW-6 on 25.01.2016 who has confirmed the authenticity of the dying declaration. Dying declaration, Exh.P-13, indicates that there was some altercation in regard to the illness of the daughter between petitioner (husband) and the deceased (wife) where the petitioner in a fit of rage asked his wife to go to hell and to die. Piqued by the said altercation, the deceased is said to have poured kerosene on her own and burnt herself. None of the other prosecution witnesses have supported the story of the prosecution.
Since fifteen more prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, the petitioner having suffered incarceration of one year and three months, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and right to speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of Mcrc.2436.2016 Anand Neekhra Vs. State of M.P. India appears to have been breached, this Court is though inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the petitioner, however, with certain stringent conditions looking to the nature of offence.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner 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 of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the petitioner :-
1. The petitioner will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. The petitioner will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The petitioner 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 petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
5. The petitioner will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. The petitioner will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
7. The petitioner will mark his attendance at the concerned trial Court once a fortnight.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(Sheel Nagu) Judge pd