The court considered the pandemic situation of COVID-19 and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar case to guide its decision on the anticipatory bail application.

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. I.A. No. 19296/2020, an application for exemption from filing of vakalatnama along with Bar Stamp Fees and certified copy of the impugned order and affidavit in support of petition.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. The applicant has filed this first application under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

6. The present first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for anticipatory bail as he has an apprehension of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 223/2019 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Distt. Datia for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 294 and 506 of IPC.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case and he has not committed any offence in any manner.

8. Allegation punishable under Section 354 of IPC appears to be against the co-accused person. He is ready to cooperate with the investigation and prayed that application may be allowed in terms of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 . He has shown his willingness to contribute an amount of Rs.5,000/- in the account of High Court Bar Association, Gwalior for benefit of the lawyers during this COVID-19 scenario.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application, but he fairly submits that there is no criminal antecedents against the present applicant.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

11. The Supreme Court by order dated 23-3-2020 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 released on parole or an interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate. For instance, the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are under trial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or without fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser number of years than the maximum.

It is made clear that we leave it open for the High Powered Committee to determine the category of prisoners who should be released as aforesaid, depending upon the nature of offence, the number of years to which he or she has been sentenced or the severity of the offence with which he/she is charged with and is facing trial or any other relevant factor, which the Committee may consider appropriate."

12. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the pandemic situation of COVID-19 and coupled with the fact that he is a first offender in the case and also looking to the fact that since the offence in question att