Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bunty @ Sudeep Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 December, 2014
M.Cr.C. No.18598/2014
05/12/2014
Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, Advocate for the
applicant.
Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
This is repeat application on behalf of the present applicant. His first application was dismissed being withdrawn.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant is in custody since 27.9.2014 in connection with Crime No.95/12 registered at Police Station Ghughri District Mandla for the offence punishable under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, Section 67 of IT Act and Section 292 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant submit that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past as such. One false case of offence under Section 302 of IPC was also registered against the applicant, but he was enlarged on bail in that case. The present case is triable by the Court of JMFC and therefore it is not so grave. No firearm etc. has been found with the applicant, and therefore no offence under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act is made out against the applicant. Actually two co-accused persons were found in a vehicle with obscene CDs and thereafter on their information it is alleged that a huge number of CDs and various apparatus were found in the house of mother of the applicant and it was alleged that the applicant was preparing obscene CDs. However, offence under Section 292 of IPC is bailable. The co-accused persons Sanju @ Sannjay Thakur and Tarun Soni were acquitted vide judgment dated 7.1.2014 by the JMFC Mandla. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed his reliance on the order passed by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of "Ujagar Singh Vs. State of MP" [2000(I) MPWN 12] in which it was found that if the co-accused persons were acquitted in the trial, then acquittal was final, and therefore remaining accused persons are entitled for bail. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that no offence under Section 67 of IT Act is made out against the applicant, because no witness could be produced by the police to say that the applicant exhibited, published or transmitted such electronics form of obscene material. In absence of publication and transmission, no offence under Section 67 of IT Act is made out against the applicant. In this connection, the learned counsel for the applicant has also placed his reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of "Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation", [(2012) 1 SCC 40] in which it is held that gravity of offence and severity of punishment prescribed in law, these two parameters ought to have been taken into consideration simultaneously. In public scams, scandals, bail should not be denied to the person with intention to teach a lesson to that person whose offence is yet to be proved. Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the application. He submits that the applicant was absconding since long and he was in habit to prepare such vulgar films of his wife and others with the help of electronic apparatus and thereafter he was in habit to blackmail the various persons. Looking to the gravity of offence he may not be enlarged on bail. He also submits that if the applicant is enalrged on bail, then he may escape.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the order passed by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Ujagar Singh (supra) is an order on the set of particular fact and the same cannot be considered as a precedent in each and every case, otherwise a person shall remain absent during the trial of other co-accused persons and he would terrorize the witnesses and thereafter getting acquittal of other co-accused persons he would take the advantage of his such act. Hence the order passed by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Ujagar Singh (supra) cannot be applied in the present case. However, the present case is triable by the court of JMFC and sufficient time will be required for its disposal. The applicant cannot be kept in the jail for an unlimited period. Under these circumstances, he may be released on bail, but looking to his previous conduct that he absconded for a longer period, he may be released on bail with some tough conditions. Consequently, the present application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.
It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with two surety bonds of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.
This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
Certified copy as per rules.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari