Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Sakhwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC.9341/2021
(Rajendra Sakhwar vs. State of M.P.)
1
Gwalior, dated 23.02.2021
Shri D.S. Tomar, learned counsel with Shri S.K. Mishra, counsel
for the applicant.
Shri Sangam Jain, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-
State.
I.A. No. 5400/2021, an application under Section 301(2) of CrPC filed on behalf of the complainant, is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.
Smt. Deepa Chauhan, Advocate and her associates are permitted to appear on behalf of the complainant to assist State counsel in the prosecution of this bail application.
This is first application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested on 02/2/2021 in connection with Crime No.78/2021 registered at Police Station Ambah, District Morena for offence under Sections 452, 294, 323, 506 and 34-B of the IPC and later added Section 325 of the IPC.
It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant - Rajendra Sakhwar that the applicant has been falsely implicated being the relative of other co-accused persons. He has not committed any offence. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 02/2/2021. Investigation is still pending and offence is triable by the The High Court of Madhya Pradesh MCRC.9341/2021 (Rajendra Sakhwar vs. State of M.P.) 2 Magistrate. Investigation and thereafter trial will take long time to conclude. Hence, prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application and have submitted that the case against the present applicant is registered for offence under Sections 452, 294, 323, 325, 506 and 34-B of the IPC wherein involvement/overt act of the present applicant is clearly reflected from the case diary. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the State that there are three criminal antecedents of the present applicant and in case of grant of bail, applicant will adversely affect the prosecution evidence/witnesses. Hence, prayed for rejection of bail application looking to the criminal antecedents of the applicant as well as alleged offence.
In reply, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that one criminal antecedent is of the year 2003, which was registered for offence under Sections 336, 294 and 323 of the IPC, second is of the year 2005 for offence under Sections 304-A, 279 and 337 of the IPC and there is no case registered against the present applicant at Crime No.115/2010 for offence under Sections 325, 304 and 34 of the IPC, as has been mentioned by the State counsel. It is further submitted that since year 2005, no other case has been registered against the present applicant.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh MCRC.9341/2021 (Rajendra Sakhwar vs. State of M.P.) 3 Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary.
Prosecution has raised objection with regard to consideration of bail on the ground that there are three criminal antecedents against the present applicant and in case of grant of bail, prosecution evidence/witnesses will be adversely affected and looking to the past criminal antecedents of the present applicant, prayed for rejection of bail application, therefore, at this juncture, it would be relevant to discuss about the consideration of criminal past of an accused while deciding his bail application.
It is true that criminal antecedents of the accused is one of the factor while considering the bail application filed under Section 439 of CrPC but it cannot be the sole and decisive factor for deciding the same. Application of judicial mind with regard to criminal antecedents of the accused is germane for considering the bail application. Bail application should not be rejected mechanically simply considering the criminal antecedents of the accused.
In the present case at hand, initially criminal case against the present applicant was registered in the year 2003 for offence under Sections 336, 294 and 323 of the IPC. Thereafter, another case was registered in the year 2005 for offence under Sections 304-A, 279 and 337 of the IPC. So far as third criminal case registered in the year 2010 The High Court of Madhya Pradesh MCRC.9341/2021 (Rajendra Sakhwar vs. State of M.P.) 4 is concerned, the same has been objected by learned counsel for the applicant stating that no case at Crime No. 115/2010 for offence under Sections 325, 304 and 34 of the IPC is registered against the present applicant.
Be that as it may. Even if it is true that third case against the present applicant had been registered in the year 2010 for offence under Sections 325, 304 and 34 of the IPC, however, considering the fact that in the last 10 years, no case has been registered against the present applicant as well as considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on merits of the case, present bail 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 the Court concerned for his regular appearance before the Court concerned.
In view of COVID-19 pandemic, the Jail Authorities are directed that before releasing the applicant, his/her Corona Virus test shall be conducted and if it is found negative, then the concerned local administration shall make necessary arrangements for sending the applicant to his/her house, and if the test is found positive then the applicant shall be immediately sent to concerning hospital for her/his treatment as per medical norms. If the applicant is fit for release and if The High Court of Madhya Pradesh MCRC.9341/2021 (Rajendra Sakhwar vs. State of M.P.) 5 he/she is in a position to make his/her personal arrangements, then he/she 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/her in custody and would send him/her to the same jail from where he/she 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/her;
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The applicant will not indulge herself/himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh MCRC.9341/2021 (Rajendra Sakhwar vs. State of M.P.) 6
4. The applicant shall not commit an 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/her 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.
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/direction. ALOK KUMAR 2021.02.24 09:31:28 -08'00' 11.0.8 (Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) AKS Judge