Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amar Mehto vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 October, 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 14th OF OCTOBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23186 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
AMAR MEHTO S/O SHRI SATISH CHANDRA
MEHTO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
LABOUR R/O H. NO.217, JACKO COLONY, P.S.
TEKKO, TATA NAGAR, (JHARKHAND)
(JHARKHAND)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION KOTWALI DISTRICT
BALAGHAT M.P. DISTRICT BALAGHAT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANSHUL MISHRA - PANEL LAWYER)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is the Fourth bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf o f the applicant for grant of bail to the applicant. His earlier two applications were rejected on merits and third application was dismissed as withdrawn.
T h e applicant has been arrested on 08.01.2019 by Police Station - Kotwali, District - Balaghat (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.590 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 456, 395, 397, 120-B and 109 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.
It is submitted that the case is based upon circumstantial evidence and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10/18/2022 10:01:28 AM 2 the present applicant has been roped up by the prosecution only on the basis of a CCTV footage alleging therein that the applicant was clearly visible in the CCTV footage at the place of commission of offence. He has filed a copy of order-sheet of the trial Court dated 29.09.2022 pointing out the fact that the data which has been recovered from the hard disk in a pen drive is not in workable condition. It is argued that even the CCTV footage does not show the presence of the present applicant. The entire statements which have been recorded and the material which has been produced by the prosecution only show that the hard disk is in workable condition, but the fact remains that the applicant's presence as shown by the prosecution is not reflected. Looking to the custody period of the applicant, he prays for grant of bail. The applicant is the first offender and is ready to abide by all terms and conditions that may be imposed of this Court while granting bail to the applicant.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposed the contentions stating that from the material available on record as well as the statements which have been recorded, it is apparently clear that the hard disk which has been recovered from the CCTV camera shows that the same is in workable condition. However, he could not dispute the observations made by the trial Court in the order dated 29.09.2022.
A specific question was raised by the counsel for the State that whether presence of the applicant is reflected in the CCTV footage or not, he prayed for passover the matter and when the matter was taken up in the passover round, the State counsel could not demonstrate any of the document that whether the CCTV footage recovered or the hard disk which has been recovered shows presence of the present applicant at the place of commission of offence. This Court vide order dated 30.09.2022 had directed the State to verify the aforesaid Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10/18/2022 10:01:28 AM 3 aspect, but despite a specific direction by this Court, he could not point out anything from the record of the case diary with respect to presence of the present applicant at the place of commission of offence. In such circumstances, it appears to be a case of circumstantial evidence.
Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of custody of the present applicant, coupled with the fact the applicant is the first offender, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this application. Accordingly, the application is allowed subject to the verification of the fact that the applicant is the first offender. The applicant is directed to be released on bail and on furnishing surety bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one local solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. It is also directed that the applicant shall comply with the conditions as enumerated under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.
In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the concerned jail authorities are directed to follow the directions/guidelines issued by the Government with regard to 'COVID-19' before releasing the applicant.
This order shall remain effective till the end of the trial but in case of bail jump and breach of any of the pre-condition of bail, it shall become ineffective and cancelled without reference to this Bench.
Application stands allowed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE sj Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10/18/2022 10:01:28 AM 4 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10/18/2022 10:01:28 AM