Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ranu @ Shivanand Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 November, 2021
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-50038-2021
Ranu @ Shivanand Sharma Vs. State of M.P.
Gwalior, Dated : 11/11/2021
Shri B.S. Gaur, Counsel for applicant.
Shri A.K. Nirankari, Counsel for State.
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has been filed
seeking modification of order dated 06.09.2021 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.43781/2021 by which the applicant has been granted bail on
furnishing cash surety of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs. One Lac Fifty Thousand
Only).
It is submitted by Counsel for applicant that applicant is in jail
from 12.06.2021 and since the condition of furnishing cash surety of
Rs.1,50,000/- is harsh, therefore, the applicant could not furnish the
cash surety and he is still in jail.
Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by Counsel
for State. It is submitted that the applicant has a criminal history and
two more criminal cases under the M.P. Excise Act as well as one
offence under the Public Gambling Act were registered against the
applicant, and therefore, considering criminal antecedents of
applicant, this Court had imposed the stringent condition of
furnishing the cash surety.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
According to prosecution case, the applicant was found in
possession of 4 bulk liters of country made liquor which was alleged
2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-50038-2021
Ranu @ Shivanand Sharma Vs. State of M.P.
to be harmful for human consumption.
At the time of arguments, it was pointed out by Counsel for
State that applicant has criminal history and out of three criminal
cases, two cases were registered under the M.P. Excise Act and one
case was registered under the Public Gambling Act.
Looking to the criminal antecedents of applicant, this Court had
granted bail to the applicant on furnishing cash surety of
Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs. One Lac Fifty Thousand Only) as it was fairly
conceded by Counsel for applicant that applicant is ready and willing
to abide by any stringent condition which may be imposed by the
Court including that of furnishing cash surety. However, the
contention of applicant is that since applicant is short of funds,
therefore, he could not furnish cash surety and he is in jail from
12.06.2021.
Looking to the criminal antecedents of applicant, the order of cash surety cannot be recalled. However, in the light of the order dated 06.09.2021 passed by the Supreme Court in case of Sharo @ Shahrukh vs. The State of M.P. in SLP (Cri.) No.6321/2021, a further liberty is granted to the applicant that instead of furnishing cash surety, if the applicant deposits his own original title-deed(s) [not Rin Pustika], then by keeping those original title deeds in the record of the trial Court, the applicant can be released on bail. 3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-50038-2021 Ranu @ Shivanand Sharma Vs. State of M.P. Accordingly, the order dated 06.09.2021 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.43781/2021 is modified and it is directed that either the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing cash surety of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs. One Lac Fifty Thousand Only) as directed by order dated 06.09.2021 or the applicant shall be released on depositing his original title-deed(s) [not Rin Pustika] of the immovable property of worth more than Rs.1,50,000/-.
With aforesaid modification, the application is finally disposed of.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Aman AMAN TIWARI 2021.11.11 18:10:52 +05'30'