Madhya Pradesh High Court
Virendra Dhakad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2021
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
MCRC-32527-2021
(Virendra Dhakad Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated : 01/07/2021
Heard Through Video Conferencing.
Shri Yash Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri P.P.S. Bajeeta, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. The applicant has filed this first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 09/06/2021 by Police Station- Bahodapur, District- Gwalior (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.325/2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 269 and 270 of IPC and Sections 53 and 57 of Disaster Management Act and Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act and Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Sections 5 and 13 of M.P. Drugs Control Act, 1949.
Prosecution story, in short, is that the complainant's relative was found to be Corona positive and he was in need of Remdesivir injection. The complainant searched the said Remdesivir injection in the market and between the same, the complainant met the co-accused-Chhotu Parihar who claimed that he was medical representative and could arrange the said two Remdesivir injections at Rs.12,000/- and the 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR MCRC-32527-2021 (Virendra Dhakad Vs. State of M.P.) complainant agreed and both of them decided to meet at Bahodapur Chauraha where the co-accused told the complainant that the applicant and another co-accused- Deepak are also medical representatives and they had strong connections in many hospitals and through the same connections, he could make available him two Remdesivir injections. Later on, the complainant gave cash of Rs.4,000/- to the co-accused Chhotu Parihar in advance and co-accused Chhotu Parihar handed over two Remdesivir injections the complainant with a promise that remaining amount would be paid later. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the FIR to the effect that black marketing of Remdesivir injections is being made by the applicant and other co-accused persons. On the basis of aforesaid, crime has been registered against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is aged about 33 years and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since 09/06/2021. Investigation is at the verge of completion. It is further submitted that the applicant has been implicated in the case on the basis of memorandum of co-accused recorded under Section 27 of Evidence Act which has no evidentiary value and no recovery has been made from the applicant. It is further submitted that there is no eye- witness who saw the applicant to hand over the said injections to the complainant. Name of the applicant does not find place in the FIR. 3
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR MCRC-32527-2021 (Virendra Dhakad Vs. State of M.P.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of outbreak of COVID-19, detention of applicant in already congested prisons may be detrimental. The applicant is permanent resident of District- Sheopur (M.P.) and there is no likelihood of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made out.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out. It is further submitted that the applicant and co-accused Chhotu belong to the same village and they are medical representatives and all the three accused were making black marketing of the said injections and earning money when the people were in crisis. The applicant and other co-accused persons played active role in the offence, therefore, prayer for rejection of the bail application is made.
However, it would not be desirable to enter into the merits of the rival contentions at this juncture.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that trial is not likely to conclude in near future and prolonged pre-trial detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty, 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR MCRC-32527-2021 (Virendra Dhakad Vs. State of M.P.) 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/- (Rupees One Lac Only) with two local solvent sureties each of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance on the dates given by the concerned Court. The applicant shall also furnish a written undertaking before the concerned Court that he will abide by all the terms and conditions of various circulars, as well as, orders issued by the Central Government, State Government and local administration from time to time such as maintaining social distancing, physical distancing, hygiene etc. to avoid proliferation of Corona virus.
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 5 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR MCRC-32527-2021 (Virendra Dhakad Vs. State of M.P.) to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
5. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
6. The applicant shall not commit any other offence during pendency of the trial, failing which this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to the Bench.
A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.
Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge rahul Digitally signed by RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=eac942476567cd1b39b3da46068403462fdf82ab676d0cd e4dee473fe77953f5, cn=RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Date: 2021.07.02 15:59:25 -07'00'