Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prashant Parashar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 5 October, 2017
(1)
M.Cr.C. No. 10881/2017
(Prashant Parashar Vs. State of M.P.)
5/10/2017
Shri Prashant Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. The applicant has filed this repeat application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The earlier one was dismissed on merits vide order dated 1/9/17 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.9720/2017.
After being arrested in connection with Crime No.87/2017 registered at Mahila Police Station Padav, District Gwalior (MP) for the offences punishable under sections 354C and 507 read with 34 of the IPC, sections 11(ii), 11(v), 12, 13 and 15 of the POCSO Act and sections 67(A) and 67(B) of the IT Act, the applicant is in judicial custody since 19/8/17.
Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that he along with other co-accused persons not only coerced the daughter of complainant, aged about 13 years, for sending a nude pic on Facebook by threatening her with dire consequences, but later, viralled the same on Internet.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the earlier application was dismissed primarily on the ground that investigation was pending and further custodial interrogation would be necessary. However, thereafter the investigation has been completed and Challan has been filed in the (2) M.Cr.C. No. 10881/2017 (Prashant Parashar Vs. State of M.P.) competent Court. He submits that no technical/IT evidence forms part of the Challan to substaniate the allegations that span into the domain of information technology. According to him, considerable time would be required for the trial to conclude. Moreover, the applicant is a permanent resident of District Gwalior and there is no likelihood of his absconsion if released on bail. With the aforesaid submissions pertaining to changed circumstances, prayer for grant of bail is made to the applicant.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.
However, it would not be desirable to enter into the merits of the rival contentions at this juncture. Considering the change in circumstances after the dismissal of previous application 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, 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 Prashant Parashar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance on the dates given by the concerned Court.
(3) M.Cr.C. No. 10881/2017(Prashant Parashar Vs. State of M.P.) 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/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
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge (and)