IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the potential for witness intimidation and the accused's influence over law enforcement and prison authorities are critical factors in determining bail eligibility, particularly for public figures facing serious charges.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. The applicant before this Court is a sitting Member of Legislative Assembly from Mau Assembly Seat no. 356. He has been arraigned as an accused in Case Crime No. 88 of 2023 under Sections 387, 222, 186, 506, 201, 120-B, 195-A and 34 I.P.C. and Sections 7, 8 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 42 (b), 54 of Prisons Act, 1894 and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, P.S. Karvi Kotwali Nagar, District Chitrakoot along with other named persons and some other unknown persons.

2. However, a charge sheet bearing No. 1 of 2023 dated 10.04.2023 has been filed wherein the applicant has been charged under Sections 387, 506, 201, 120-B, 195-A, 186, 511 and 34 I.P.C. and Section 8 of P.C. Act, 1988, Sections 42 (b) and Section 54 of Prisons Act and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act as stated in para 5 of the affidavit in support of the bail application.

3. A supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant on 24.04.2024 is taken on record.

4. The genesis of the instant matter is lodging of the First Information Report on 11.02.2023 at 04:20 hours stating that the present applicant who is a member of the Legislative Assembly was lodged in District Jail, Chitrakoot. His wife for the past several days has been visiting the applicant in the Jail along with her driver and co-accused Niyaz. She is said to spend 3 to 4 hours inside the Jail without any restrictions. The applicant is alleged to have used the mobile phones of his wife to threaten the witnesses and officials who were connected with the prosecution of the applicant. From the very same mobile, the applicant is alleged to have threatened various persons to extort money and posse of men who are loyal to the applicant would collect the money and bring it to the applicant.

5. It has further been alleged that the wife of the applicant frequently visited the jail without complying with the formalities and the prescribed restrictions and the applicant was being provided all sorts of benefits during his incarceration for which the officials of the jail were paid both in cash and kind. It is also alleged that the driver of the applicant’s wife namely Niyaz along with the officials of the Jail were planning to stage an escape the applicant from the Jail.

6. Upon the information received from the informant, the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police in civil clothes and in a private vehicle made a surprise inspection of the Jail. The applicant was not found in his barrack rather he is said to be in the room right adjacent to the room of the Jail Superintendent along with his wife. Upon opening and entering the said room, the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police found applicant’s wife but the applicant was not there.

7. The police personnel posted on the Gate of the jail informed that the applicant had moved from the said room to his barrack a few minutes ago. However, the wife of the applicant was searched and from her bag, two mobile phones, certain ornaments, cash of Rs. 21,000/- and foreign currency of 12 Riyals was recovered.

8. The police authorities required the applicant’s wife to give the passwords to open the two phones which were confiscated, however, she did not cooperate and rather gave incorrect passwords which resulted in the two phones being locked.

9. It is further alleged that upon further questioning, it was informed that the applicant’s wife along with the other accused and police officials were planning to stage an escape for the applicant. Certain witnesses were threatened and in case if they did not cooperate with the applicant i.e. if they did not turn hostile, they were to be eliminated.

10. It is also alleged that on the applicant’s instructions, his posse of loyalist were to create an atmosphere of terror so that the said alleged witnesses may not give their testimony and they would abide by the demands for money made by the applicant as extortion money.

11. Sri Arun Sinha,