Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 September, 2020
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1 M.Cr.C. No.28850/2020
(Dharmendra Jatav Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior Bench:Dated -01.09.2020
Shri Prabhat Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Sohit Mishra, learned PL for the respondent/State.
Matter is heard through Video Conferencing. The applicant has filed this fourth bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 10.09.2018, by Police Station- Kampoo, District Gwalior, in connection with Crime No.388/2018, registered for offence under Sections 377, 506-34 of IPC, Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 67-A of I.T. Act.
At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant informed this Court that applicant is suffering incarceration since 10.09.2018 and almost two years has been completed in confinement. Recently, his brother has been murdered, therefore, no earning member exists to feed his parents. Beside that all material prosecution witnesses have been examined, therefore, chance of tampering the with the evidence / witness is remote. Looking to the challenging situation of COVID-19 pandemic, his case may be considered for bail. Confinement amounts to pretrial detention. He undertakes to cooperate in trial as well as investigation and would be available as and when required. He HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 M.Cr.C. No.28850/2020 (Dharmendra Jatav Vs. State of M.P.) would not move in the vicinity of complainant party in any manner. He would not be a source of embarrassment or harassment to the complainant. He further undertakes to install Arogya Setu App. Under these grounds, prayer for bail has been made.
Learned PL for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for its dismissal.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them.
Considering the period of incarceration and the fact that chance of early conclusion is a bleak possibility as well as the fact that material prosecution witnesses have been examined, without commenting on the merits of the case, this application is allowed. It is hereby directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. He further undertakes to install Arogya Setu App., if not already installed.
In view of COVID-19 pandemic, the jail authorities are directed that before releasing the applicant, his preliminary Corona Virus test shall be conducted and if he is found negative, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 M.Cr.C. No.28850/2020 (Dharmendra Jatav Vs. State of M.P.) then the concerned local administration shall make necessary arrangements for sending the applicant to his house, and if he is found positive then the applicant shall be immediately sent to concerned hospital for him treatment as per medical norms. If the applicant is fit for release and if he is in a position to make him 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 COVID-19. 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 her in custody and would sent her 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 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 M.Cr.C. No.28850/2020 (Dharmendra Jatav Vs. State of M.P.) 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 he would not move in the vicinity of complainant party.
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
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.
8. The applicant shall not commit similar nature of offence in future and shall not involve in the any criminal activity.
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.
(Anand Pathak) Judge Rashid Digitally signed by RASHID KHAN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT Of M P BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, RASHID KHAN st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=23377d7d214c811801fc322b576ca4ed1954237f6324416af3985 b5e9940ed42, serialNumber=111cc474a72b078dc9a89f3cb13bb668fd8e0e91beda3cb 721bbd836d768b09c, cn=RASHID KHAN Date: 2020.09.02 11:31:33 +05'30'