IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Agarwal, J.
Raj @ Kaluram – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 14415 of 2022
Decided On : 30-03-2022
Bail - Criminal Procedure - The court allowed the bail application of the applicant, who was in custody for offences under IPC and POCSO, considering that he had been previously granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of the Court and subject to certain conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for offences under IPC and POCSO. The applicant had been in custody since 22/02/2022 and was aggrieved by the refusal of bail by the Special Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the bail application, considering the applicant's previous grant of bail by a Coordinate Bench of the Court and subject to certain conditions, including the payment of Rs.50,000 and compliance with bail conditions.
Issues: Bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C, refusal of bail by the Special Judge, applicant's previous grant of bail, delay in trial due to the applicant's absence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the applicant's previous grant of bail by a Coordinate Bench of the Court and allowed the bail application, subject to certain conditions, including the payment of Rs.50,000 and compliance with bail conditions.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application, directing the release of the applicant on bail subject to payment of Rs.50,000 and compliance with specified conditions.
JUDGMENT
Vivek agarwal, J. - This is second application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity "Cr.P.C") for grant of bail to the applicant-Raj alias Kaluram, S/o Devisingh Parasiyaravanshi, who is in custody since 22/02/2022 in connection with Crime No.44/2015 registered at Police Station Parasiya, District Chhindwara for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 377 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for brevity "I.P.C") and also under Section 4/6, POCSO.
applicant is aggrieved of order dated 23/02/2022 passed by learned Special Judge (PaCSO act), Chhindwara refusing to accept bail furnished by the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier a Coordinate Bench of Justice S.K. Gangele had enlarged the applicant on bail vide order dated 13/05/2016 passed in M.Cr.C. No.8054/2016. applicant is working at Bangalore, therefore, due to lack of communication between him and his counsel, he could not appear before the trial Court. Hence, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Learned Dy.Govt. advocate for the non-applicant/State opposes the application and submits that applicant remained absent from 27/02/2017 and was brought on 22/02/2022 after serving permanent warrant on the applicant. He was absent for four and half years resulting delay in trial.
after hearing counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that applicant was earlier enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited before the trial Court, this application is allowed.
I t is directed that applicant shall be released on bail subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited before the trial Court and out of which 50% amount will be given to prosecutrix and also on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Court on the dates given by the concerned Court during pendency of trial, the applicant is given benefit of bail on the following terms and conditions :
(i) applicant shall not leave the local area without written order of the trial Court;
(ii) applicant shall appear before Police Station, Rithi, Distt. Chhindwara on every 1st and 16th day of a month during pendency of trial.
It is further directed that the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437(3) of the Cr. P. C.
This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump and breach of any of the pre-condition of bail, it shall become ineffective.
In view of the outbreak of new mutant Omicron of COVID-19, the jail authorities and the State Government are directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Health Ministry in the wake of Novel Corona Virus before and after releasing the applicant.
Certified copy as per rules.
The court may consider a previous grant of bail by a Coordinate Bench of the Court when deciding a subsequent bail application, subject to specified conditions.
The lack of Test Identification Parade and the basis of the applicant's accusation influenced the court's decision to grant bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to grant bail based on the completion of investigation, the time trial would take, and the lack of requirement for custodial....
Prolonged detention without trial is unjust, and the right to a speedy trial must be upheld, leading to the granting of bail.
The court established that delays in filing an FIR and the absence of explanations can be critical factors in determining bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The absence of the applicant's name in the complainant's statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and in the FIR, and the length of time the applicant had been in custody, were key factors in ....
The court granted bail to the applicant based on the prosecutrix's statement indicating her affection towards the applicant and the absence of allegations of force or coercion in their relationship.
Bail should not be denied without specific evidence against the accused, and the absence of prior animosity supports the case for bail.
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.