Madhya Pradesh High Court
Danish Ali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 February, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 4th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 592 of 2022
Between:-
DANISH ALI S/O LATE SHRI ROSHAN ALI ,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRIVATE JOB HOUSE NO. 4 SIKANDARI
SARAY RAILWAY STATION BAJARIYA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SOURABH SHRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
P.S. TILAJAMALPURA BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI TAPAN BATHRE, PANEL LAWYER)
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
This Second application coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
This is the second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C filed by the applicant for grant of bail. Earlier bail application was dismissed vide order dated 24.11.2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.42838/2021.
T h e applicant has been arrested on 18.07.2021 by Police Station Tilajamalpura Bhopal, District Bhopal (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.183/2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 294 & 34 of IPC.
It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated int he case and he has not committed any offence in any manner. Statement of injured Mohd. Sameer has been recorded before the trial Court, wherein he has categorically stated that the present applicant was not present at the place of commission of offence, however, in the statement recorded under Section Signature Not Verified SAN 161 of Cr.P.C., it is stated by him that the present applicant was present on Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Date: 2022.02.05 12:29:38 IST 2 the spot. Main allegation of inflicting injury by firing gun shot is against co- accused Naseem Banee Khan. The applicant is under custody since 18.07.2021 and there is no further requirement of custodial interrogation of the present applicant.
As far as criminal past is concerned, the prosecution has shown a long criminal history of 21 cases against the present applicant. It is submitted that he has never been convicted in any of offence till date and all the offence are for minor offence and one or two offence are Section 326 of IPC. Seven prevented proceedings action have been taken against the present applicant, making it to be 21 in all, but he has never been convicted in any of the offence till date. He is ready to abide by all terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while considering this bail application; therefore, prays for grant of bail.
P er contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer stating that principal accused Naseem Banee Khan is still absconding in the matter and has not surrendered till date. Even the applicant remains absconded for a considerable period. But, he could not dispute the fact that the injured has not supported the case of the prosecution to the extent of the present applicant and has specifically denied his presence at the place of commission of offence. It is contended that he is having a long criminal history of 21 cases and no order-sheet pertaining to acquittal of the present applicant has been filed by the applicant's counsel. He has prayed for dismissal of the application.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and placing reliance upon the statement made by counsel that the applicant has not been convicted in any of the cases till date and maximum cases are for minor offence and some preventive actions have been taken against the present applicant, without commenting upon the merits of the case, subject to verification of the aforesaid statement made by the counsel for the applicant before this Court, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Date: 2022.02.05 12:29:38 IST 3 application. The applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
I n view of the COVID-19, jail authorities are directed that before releasing the applicant, medical examination of applicant shall be undertaken by the jail doctor and on prima-facie, if it is found that they are having the symptoms of COVID-19, then consequential follow up action including the isolation/quarantine or any test if required, be ensured, otherwise applicant shall be released immediately on bail and shall be given a pass or permit for movement to reach his place of residence.
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 involve any other offence in future and in case the applicant indulge in any other criminal case in future, 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 be;
7. The applicant will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned Police Station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Date: 2022.02.05 12:29:38 IST 4 police station as well as Superintendent of Police concerned who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.
Application stands allowed and disposed of.
From the record, it is seen that the statement recorded under Section 161 of the complainant/injured Mohd. Sameer, he has categorically stated before the police authorities that the present applicant also came alongwith other co-accused and was involved in the incident for which the FIR registered against him and he was taken into custody on 18.07.2021, now in his cross-examination before the trial Court, he has resiled from his earlier statement and has contended that the present applicant was not present at the place of commission of offence. As he has totally resiled from his earlier statement, in such circumstances, the trial Court is directed to take cognizance in the matter and if it deem appropriate to register a case of perjury against the complainant.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE sj Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Date: 2022.02.05 12:29:38 IST