Madhya Pradesh High Court
Subhash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 August, 2020
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1 M.Cr.C.No.23024/2020
(Subhash Vs. State of M.P. )
Gwalior Bench: Dated 14/08/2020
Shri Heerendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri C.P.Singh, learned Panel lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Matter is heard through Video Conferencing. The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 24.6.2020 by Police Station, Aswar, District Bhind, in connection with Crime No.24/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506/34, 327, 329 of IPC.
It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that false case has been registered against him and he is suffering confinement since 24.6.2020 and charge-sheet has already been filed. It is further submitted that ingredient of offence under Section 329 of IPC is not available in the present case because applicant along with his friends (co-accused) demanded Rajshri Gutka (scented tobacco) and when the complainant refused to give said product, then they have beaten him and caused grievous hurt to him, but since asking for a product is not an offence, therefore, ingredient of Section 329 of IPC is not available. It is further submitted that it was a minor scuffle which converted into ugly event. It is further submitted that co-accused Harendra Tyagi HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 M.Cr.C.No.23024/2020 (Subhash Vs. State of M.P. ) has been granted benefit of bail vide order dated 4.8.2020 in M.Cr.C.No.23542/20. Looking to the challenging times of covid- 19 pandemic and the period of custody as well as the fact that no previous criminal record of the applicant exists, his case be considered sympathetically. He undertakes to perform community service. On these premises, he prayed for bail.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submits that offence under Section 329 of IPC is made out because applicant and other co-accused tried to seek product namely Rajshri Gutka (scented tobacco) from the complainant who is a small time vendor and said product is prohibited by different orders specially order dated 16.4.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhind, whereby the use of any prohibited item like Gutka was punishable under Sections 268 and 269 of IPC with six months imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/-. Beside that, it was offence under Section 188 of IPC also. Therefore, asking for product which was otherwise prohibited is an illegal act as per Section 43 of IPC. He relied upon the judgments in the cases of Ameen and another vs. State of M.P., 2001 (2) M.P.H.T. 144 and Virendra Kumar Gun Sagar Shrivastava vs. State of M.P., 1998(1) M.P.L.J. 511.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 M.Cr.C.No.23024/2020 (Subhash Vs. State of M.P. ) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them.
So far as the submission of learned counsel regarding Section 329 of IPC is concerned, same appears to be misplaced prima facie because the applicant sought product (Gutka) which was otherwise prohibited by the district administration and availability of same could have caused the complainant to face proceedings under Sections 268 and 269 of IPC or Section 188 of IPC. Therefore, compelling him to commit an illegal act appears to come under the scope of Section 329 of IPC prima facie, although trial shall unfold the evidence conclusively.
However, considering the period of custody as well as the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed and this was the first offence of the applicant, therefore, it is expected that applicant shall reform himself and looking to the covid-19 pandemic situation, but without expressing any opinion 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) along with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court and that he will have to install Arogya Setu App, if not already HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 M.Cr.C.No.23024/2020 (Subhash Vs. State of M.P. ) 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, 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 his treatment as per medical norms. If the applicant is fit for release and if he is in a position to make his 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 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 in custody and would sent him to the same jail from where he was released.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 M.Cr.C.No.23024/2020 (Subhash Vs. State of M.P. ) 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 them 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. Applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during 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 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.,rn~ }kjk ;g funZsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkosnd 5 ikS/kks dk jksi.k ¼ Qy nsus okys isM+ vFkok uhe@ihiy½ vius fuoklLFkku ;k Ldwy tgka og i<krk gS djsxk rFkk mls vius vkl iMksl esa isM+ dh lqj{kk ds fy, ckM+ yxkus dh O;oLFkk djuh gksxh rkfd ikS/ks lqjf{kr jg ldsA vkosnd dk ;g drZO; gS fd u dsoy ikS/kksa dks yxk;k tk,s] cfYd mUgsa iks"k.k Hkh fn;k tk,A ^^o`{kkjksi.k ds lkFk] o`{kkiks"k.k Hkh vko';d gSA^^ vkosnd fo'ks"kr% 6&8 QhV ÅWaps ikS/ks@isM+ksa dks yxk;sxk rkfd os 'kh?kz gh iw.kZ fodflr gks HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 6 M.Cr.C.No.23024/2020 (Subhash Vs. State of M.P. ) ldsaA vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djus ds fy,] vkosnd dks fjgk fd;s tkus dh fnukad ls 30 fnuksa ds Hkhrj lacaf/kr fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k o`{kksas@ikS/kksa ds jksi.k ds lHkh QksVks çLrqr djuk gksxsa A rRi'pkr~] fopkj.k ds lekiu rd gj rhu eghus esa vkosnd ds }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k izxfr fjiksVZ çLrqr dh tk,xh A o`{kksa dh çxfr ij fuxjkuh j[kuk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk drZO; gS D;ksafd i;kZoj.k {kj.k ds dkj.k ekuo vfLrRo nkao ij gS vkSj U;k;ky;
vuqikyu ds ckjs esa vkosnd }kjk fn[kkbZ xbZ fdlh Hkh ykijokgh dks utj vankt ugh dj ldrk gSA blfy, vkosnd dks isM+ksa dh çxfr vkSj vkosnd }kjk vuqikyu ds laca/k esa ,d fjiksVZ çLrqr djus ds fy, funZsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa vkonsd }kjk fd;s x;s vuqikyu dh ,d la{kfIr fjiskVZ bl U;k;ky; ds le{k izR;sd rhu ekg esa ¼vxys N% eghuksa ds fy,½ j[kh tk;sxh ftls fd ^^funsZ'k ^^ 'kh"kZ ds varxZr j[kk tk,xkA o`{kkjksi.k esa ;k isM+ksa dh ns[kHkky esa vkosnd dh vksj ls dh xbZ dksbZ Hkh pwd vkosnd dks tekur dk ykHk ysus ls oafpr dj ldrh gSA vkosnd dks viuh ilan ds LFkku ij bu ikS/kksa@isMksa dks jksius dh Lora=rk gksxh] ;fn og bu jksis x;s isMksa dh Vªh xkMZ ;k ckM+ yxkdj j{kk djuk pkgrk gS] vU;Fkk vkosnd dks o`{kksa ds jksi.k ds fy, rFkk muds lqj{kk mik;ksa ds fy, vko';d [kpsZ ogu djuk gksxsaA bl U;k;ky; }kjk ;g funsZ'k ,d ijh{k.k izdj.k ds rkSj ij fn, x, gSa rkfd fgalk vkSj cqjkbZ ds fopkj dk izfrdkj] l`tu ,oa izd`fr ds lkFk ,dkdkj gksus ds ek/;e ls lkeaktL; LFkkfir fd;k tk ldsA orZeku esa ekuo vfLrRo ds vko';d vax ds :i esa n;k] lsok] izse ,oaa d:a.kk dh izd`fr dks fodflr djus dh vko';drk gS D;ksafd ;g ekuo thou dh ewyHkwr izo`fr;ka gSa vkSj ekuo vfLrRo dks cuk, j[kus ds fy, budk iquthZfor gksuk vko';d gSA ^^;g iz;kl dsoy ,d o`{k ds jksi.k dk iz'u u gksdj cfYd ,d fopkj ds vadqj.k dk gSA^^ Application stands allowed and disposed of.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 7 M.Cr.C.No.23024/2020 (Subhash Vs. State of M.P. ) 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 ms/-
Digitally signed by MADHU MADHU SOODAN PRASAD DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF SOODAN MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=d6b55bd7b8b095e45b0d5 PRASAD 8a876e9dd057f98aa4a26968acc4ea 58035d05b0084, cn=MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Date: 2020.08.17 12:18:46 -07'00'