MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)
Vishal Mishra, J.
Resho Bai - Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. - Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 35555 of 2020
Decided On : 25-09-2020
COVID-19 Bail Application - Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. - IPC 498-A, 323, 326, 307, 34 and Dowry Prohibition Act - S.439 Cr.P.C., Ss. 498-A, 323, 326, 307, 34 of IPC, Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - S.439 Cr.P.C., Ss. 498-A, 323, 326, 307, 34, 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The incident took place in 2005, and the other co-accused had already been acquitted. The applicant, a mother-in-law, had been absconded for 15 years and was arrested in 2020. The applicant sought bail citing her age and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the Supreme Court's directive to decongest prisons due to COVID-19 and the acquittal of other co-accused. It deemed it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the applicant, and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Issues: Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., consideration of COVID-19 pandemic, and the acquittal of other co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the Supreme Court's directive to decongest prisons due to COVID-19, the acquittal of other co-accused, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was directed to be released on bail with specific conditions related to compliance with bond terms, cooperation in investigation/trial, and adherence to COVID-19 guidelines.
JUDGMENT
Vishal Mishra, J. - In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/ physical distancing in letter and spirit.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The applicant has filed this first application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 22.08.2020 by Police Station Ambah District Morena (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.478/2005 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/Ss. 498-A, 323, 326, 307 and 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that as per the allegation of the prosecution, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2005. All the other co-accused have already been acquitted by the trial Court on 26.09.2006 parting it to be a case of no evidence. The judgment of acquittal is filed alongwith application i.e. S.T.No.110/2006 judgment dated 26.09.2006. It is submitted that the statement of the complainant was also got recorded wherein she has totally denied the incident. She was examined as PW/3 in the incident in the trial. It is submitted that the early negative aspect of the present applicant who is the mother-in-law is that she has remained absconded since from the year 2005 i.e. almost for a period 15 years and now she has been arrested and she is in custody since 22.08.2020 and there is no allegation of inflicting any injury by the present applicant. The other co-accused have already been acquittal by the trial Court. It is argued that looking to the age of the present applicant coupled with the present Covid-19 scenario, it would not be feasible to remain her in custody. Counsel for the applicant has argued that heavy condition may be imposed. The applicant is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this court while considering the application for grant of bail. The applicant has further shown his willingness to contribute an amount of Rs.25000/- in the account of High Court Bar Association, Gwalior for benefit of the lawyers during this COVID-19 scenario. There is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for bail to the applicant during this Covid-19 pandemic scenario.
5. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant has remained absconded for almost 15 years. Now, the applicant has been arrested and she is in custody since 22.08.2020. Owing to her conduct, unnecessary trial is to be conducted before the trial Court again, but he fairly submits that the other co-accused have already been acquitted by the trial Court.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme by order dated 23.03.2020 passed in the case of IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS in SUO MOTU W.P. (C) No.1/2020 has directed all the States to constitute a High Level Committee to consider the release of prisoners in order to decongest the prisons. The Supreme Court has observed as under :-
"The issue of overcrowding of prisons is a matter of serious concern particularly in the present context of the pandemic of Corona Virus (COVID 19). Having regard to the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it has become imperative to ensure that the spread of the Corona Virus within the prisons is controlled. We direct that each State/Union Territory shall constitute a High Powered Committee comprising of (i) Chairman of the State Legal Services Committee, (ii) the Principal Secretary (Home/Prison) by whatever designation is known as, (ii) Director General of Prison(s), to determine which class of prisoners can be
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.