Madhya Pradesh High Court
Basant Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 January, 2019
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC 52764/2018
(Basant Jatav Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior dated 03.01.2019
Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the
applicant.
Shri Avnish Singh, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. This is 1st application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested on 07.06.2018 by Police Station Chinor, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No. 113/2017, registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 394 of IPC and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.
As per prosecution case, the applicant has committed robbery of cash and jewelry of the complainant alongwith co- accused.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the matter. He has not committed any crime. Applicant is reputed citizen of the locality. Investigation in the matter has been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed. Applicant is permanent resident of village Fatehpur, Police station Antari, District Gwalior. On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
Leaned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of allegation and material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.
It is observed in the case of Lallu Vs. State of M.P. reported in 1985 MPWN 486 that " by opposition is not meant, opposition for the sake of opposition. It should only be for The High Court of Madhya Pradesh MCRC 52764/2018 (Basant Jatav Vs. State of M.P.) public purpose, community good and State necessities. The Court has jurisdiction to grant bail even if opposed."
In another judgment pronounced in the case of Gulabchand Kannoolal Vs. State of M.P. Reported in 1982 JLJ 170 (FB) it is observed that " if after investigation is complete there is no prima facie proof in support of the accusation of commission of dacoity or a specified offence against the person arrested, he cannot be properly described to be a dacoit as defined in the Act. In all such cases, the ban on the grant of bail to a dacoit under sub-section (2) will not apply." It is also observed in this case that "the proviso to sub- section (2) deals with a stage before a challan is filed."
In the case of Gorelal Gupta Vs. State of M.P., reported in 1984 MPLJ 361 it is observed that " It is an enactment to curb the menace of dacoity and kidnapping in affected areas of the State in order to protect the public against organized gangs of dacoits. So it deals with special types of people i.e. dacoits and their associates in affected areas in respect of specified offences. It has come to be realized that to stop the menace of dacoits and kidnapping more stringent and speedy measures are necessary and that is why this special enactment. The provisions of the Act are not discriminatory and are not hit by Article 14."
In sub-clause (b) of Section 2 of Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 "dacoit" in relation to a dacoity and kidnapping affected area, means a person who commits or has committed an offence punishable under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860) or a specified offence, or as the case may be, a person accused of commission of any such offence;.
It is also observed in the case of Gulabchand Kannoolal Vs. State of M.P., 1982 MPLJ 7 that the word "dacoity" as The High Court of Madhya Pradesh MCRC 52764/2018 (Basant Jatav Vs. State of M.P.) used in clause (f) is to be understood in the sense as it is defined in the Indian Penal Code, S.391.
In the light of above, 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 his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
This order will remain operative subject to the 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 for compliance to the Court concerned.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) Judge neetu NEETU SHASHANK 2019.01.04 04:17:12 -08'00'