Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 November, 2019
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-39471-2019
(MAHENDRA RAWAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated :23/11/2019
Shri Ajay Bhargava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Purushottam Pandey, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
Case diary perused.
The applicant has filed this first application u/S.439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Civil Lines, District Datia (M.P.), in connection with Crime No.192/2004 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/Ss.302, 201, 147, 148, 149, 120B of IPC & u/S. 11/13 of MPDVPK Act & Section 25/27 of Arms Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. He has not committed the offence in any manner. The applicant is in custody since 11.07.2019. It is further submitted that all other accused person have been acquitted by learned trial court vide judgment of acquittal dated 10-9-2008 and no appeal has been preferred by the State against the same and the order attained finality. It is further submitted that applicant has not been declared as an absconder by the prosecution at any point of time. He was not having the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-39471-2019 (MAHENDRA RAWAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) knowledge regarding pendency of criminal case against him, therefore, he could not cooperate in the investigation at the relevant time. However, he was arrested on 11.7.2019 and since then he is in custody. He has drawn attention of this Court to the para-6 of the judgment passed learned trial Court and has argued that all the witnesses have turned hostile. He has further relied upon the order dated 15.11.2019 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 47088/2019 (Matre @ Brijesh Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh), wherein similar circumstances this Court has allowed the application. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and contended that the offence was registered in the year 2004 and he has remained absconded almost 15 years. It is further submitted that there are specific allegations against the present applicant in the statement of witness Natthu but he fairly accepts that Natthu was not examined by prosecution and was given up by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the order passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.47088/2019 is not applicable to the case and has prays for rejection of the application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-39471-2019 (MAHENDRA RAWAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) diary.
Considering the submissions advanced by the counsel for the applicant and on perusal of the case diary it is seen that the other co- accused have been acquitted by the Special Judge Datia, District Datia on 10.9.2008. From para-6 of the judgment, clearly shows that eight witnesses were examined who have turned hostile in the matter. Copy of the statements have also been produced. Natthu whose statement has been read over by counsel for the State is not being produced by prosecution witness before Court and was given up by the prosecution. That this Court in the case of Ramdas Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2007) 3 MPWN 16 and in the case of Iqbal Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2008 (1) CriLR 862 has dealt with similar issue and has allowed the application. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.15091/2019 (Smt. Ramraja Vs. State of M.P.) wherein the similar circumstances, the Court has allowed the bail application u/S.438 of Cr.P.C. and extended the benefit of anticipatory bail on 16.4.2019.
It is further seen that the an FIR was got registered in the year 2004 accused has been arrested on 11.07.2019 after the considerable THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-39471-2019 (MAHENDRA RAWAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) delay of 15 years he has remained absconded. It is also true that the co-accused have already acquitted by the trial Court vide its judgment of acquittal dated 10.9.2008. The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Iqbal (supra) has considered the aforesaid proposition and also the full Bench judgment of Calcatta High Court reported in 2003 Cr. L.J.2815 (Shamim Ahmed and Ors. vs. State and Ors.) observed as under;
"Of course, it cannot be laid down a universal principle that merely because other co-accused persons have been acquitted by the trial Court, the absconder is entitled, ipso facto, to grant of anticipatory bail. ' After all, every case would be decided on peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. However, the court would be conscious of the effect that in case the other co- accused have been acquitted by the trial Court, the chances of acquittal of petitioner is equally high; the trial would be more of formality than a regular, legal and vigorous trial culminating in the conviction of the petitioner. Furthermore, liberty of a citizen is prime concern according to the constitutional mandate, which should not be compromised by denying of anticipatory bail especially when the chances of an absconder being convicted are rather slim. ;"
The Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Ramdas (supra) the Court has granted the bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, considering the order passed in the case of Ujagar Singh (supra) and Sirornani Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2001 (II) MPWN 25. In the present case also the similar facts and circumstances available. Thus, considering the fact that the co-
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-39471-2019 (MAHENDRA RAWAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) accused have already been acquitted in Special Case No.17/2005, vide judgment of acquittal dated 10.9.2008, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this application in the following terms.
It is hereby directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees 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 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 him 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, in case the applicant indulges himself in any other criminal case the benefit of bail as extended by this Court shall automatically cancelled.
5. The 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 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-39471-2019 (MAHENDRA RAWAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) be;
7. The applicant shall mark his attendance before the concerned police station in the first week of every month, till conclusion of investigation (pending if any) and if charge sheet is being filed, he will mark his presence as per the directions issued by the concerning trial Court.
In event of failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions, the State Authorities will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
It is very sorry state of affairs, that the main witness in the case are being given-up by the prosecution before the learned trial court. In the present case, the prosecution witness Natthu has deposed with respect to commission of offence but he has not been examined by the prosecution. After passing of judgment of acquittal dated 10.9.2008, no efforts have been made by State authorities to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal. There is nothing on record to show that ever the proceedings under Section 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. were initiated against the present applicant. It appears that just to extend the benefit to the accused the prosecution is being dealt with in such a manner. Considering the aforesaid, it is observed that directions be issued all the ADPOs and DPOs and Public Prosecutor dealing into the cases with respect to recording of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-39471-2019 (MAHENDRA RAWAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) evidences in criminal cases should take utmost care and caution and not to give up the material witnesses. All possible efforts should made by them to get the material witness examined before the learned trial court, failing which they will be held responsible for dereliction of their duties.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Vishal Mishra)
vpn Judge
VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
2019.11.28
17:38:20 +05'30'