Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aniruddha Bhattacharjee vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2020
Author: B. K. Shrivastava
Bench: B. K. Shrivastava
1 MCRC-15116-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-15116-2020
(ANIRUDDHA BHATTACHARJEE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 16-10-2020
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Surendra Singh, Senior counsel, with Shri Anurag Gohil, counsel
for the applicant.
Shri Yashovardhan Shukla, Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/State.
Heard on application filed on 27.5.2020 under section 439 and 167(2) of CrPC on behalf of applicant Aniruddha Bhattacharya, who is confined in custody since 20.9.2019 in connection with the Crime No.1054/2019, registered at Police Station Kolar Road, Bhopal, under section 304 of IPC and section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act.
This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. It appears from the record that previously first M.Cr.C.No.47304/2019 was dismissed on merits on 25.2.2020.
It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the applicant that the challan was filed on 22.10.2019. The applicant is confined in custody since 20.9.2019. The applicant is a young boy, aged about 23 years, who is confined in custody for a long time. The trial will take sufficient time. Due to circumstances arising out from COVID-19, the early trial is not possible. Therefore, the applicant should be enlarged on bail.
The Learned Counsel for Applicant placed reliance upon para 14 and 28 of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2012 S. C. 830. The Court said that :-
"14. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every Signature SAN Not man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. From the earliest Verified Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 2020.10.19 13:48:05 IST 2 MCRC-15116-2020 times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, 'necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.
28. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge-sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI."
On the other side, the counsel for State strongly opposed the application. It is submitted by the State that challan has been filed and sufficient evidence is available against the applicant. It is found that he was in drunken condition and due to his rash and negligent driving two persons named Ajay Shrivastava and Roshani Jaiswal have been expired . Therefore, bail should not be granted.
The Law is well settled regarding the Bail. In the case of State of M.P. V/s. Maniklal Shah, 1994 JLJ 436, the court said that bail is a valuable right of accused but bail should be granted by the court on solid grounds and after consideration of the relevant circumstances and facts related to crime. Justice with one could not be the result of injustice to another. At the Signature SAN Not Verified time of granting the bail judicial discretion should be exercised in the light Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 2020.10.19 13:48:05 IST 3 MCRC-15116-2020 of the rights of the both parties.
In State of Maharashtra Vs. Anand Chintaman Dighe, AIR 1990 SC 625 = 1990 Cri.L.J 788 = (1990)1 SCC 397 the Apex court also said that there are no hard and fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on its own merits. The matter always calls for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court. Where the offence is of serious nature the Court has to decide the question of grant of bail in the light of such considerations as the nature and seriousness of offence, character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of presence of the accused not being secured at the trial and the reasonable apprehension of witness being tampered with, the larger interest of the public or such similar other considerations.
In Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and others, 2002 CRI. L. J. 1849[S.C.] = AIR 2002 SC 1475 = 2002 AIR SCW 1342 the court again said that the nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for grant of bail. More heinous is a crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however dependent on the factual matrix of the matter. Some of the other relevant considerations are: -
(a) While granting bail the Court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.
(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the Court in the matter of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not accepted to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.
(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.
In Mansab Ali Vs. Irsan and anr., AIR 2003 SC 707 = 2003 Cri.L.J 871 = (2003) 1 SCC 632, the court observed that the jurisdiction is discretionary, therefore it is required to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general.
Signature SAN Not Verified The Full Bench of Apex court again said in Jayendra Saraswathi Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 2020.10.19 13:48:05 IST 4 MCRC-15116-2020
Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005 CRI. L. J. 883 [S.C.] [F.B] that the considerations which normally weigh with the Court in granting bail in non-bailable offences are the nature and seriousness of offence; the character of the evidence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Again in Anwari Begum v. Sher Mohammad, AIR 2005 S.C. 3530 = 2005 AIR SCW 4641 the Apex Court said that though detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court while passing orders on bail applications, yet a Court dealing with the bail application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima facie case. There is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where an accused was charged of having committed a serious offence. It is necessary for the Courts dealing with application for bail to consider among other the following circumstances:
(1) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence;
(2) Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(3) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. Any order dehors of such reasons suffers from non-application of mind.
Same proposition also followed in Gajanand Agrawal vs. State of Orissa AIR 2006 SC 3248 and Lokesh Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr. AIR 2009 S.C. 94.
It appears from the record that the incident was happened on 19.9.2019. The applicant was driving Honda City Car No.MH 04 CJ 7429. The applicant was under in heavily drunken condition, who dashed the motorcycle driven by Ajay Shrivastava. Roshani Jaiswal was the pillion rider. Thereafter the car dashed with the divider and then turned turtle upon motorcycle. Ajay Shrivastava expired on the spot and Roshani Jaiswal expired in the hospital. The detailed medical examinations of the applicant was also conducted, wherein the alcohol contained was found 83.8 mg upon 100 ml. Therefore prima facie it appears that the applicant was in heavy drunken condition.
Signature Not SAN Verified Dhananjay Naidu is the eye witness of the case, who lodged the FIR.
Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 2020.10.19 13:48:05 IST5 MCRC-15116-2020 Gaffar Khan and Bhupendra Singh Rajput are also the eyewitnesses of the incident. Looking to the statements of aforesaid three persons, it is clearly established that the applicant is responsible for causing the aforesaid accident b y driving the car in drunken condition. These types of offences are increasing day-by-day.
Therefore, looking to overall circumstances of the case, in view of this Court, no any changed circumstance is found for taking a different view. The matter was already considered in details on 25.2.2020 and the application was dismissed on merits.
Hence, the present application is dismissed.
(B. K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE TG /-
Signature SAN Not Verified Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 2020.10.19 13:48:05 IST