Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(MP) 785

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Anil Verma, J.
Vikas Mittal – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 13988 of 2023
Decided On : 03-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Avinash Sirpurkar, Advocate, Yogesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate, Hemant Sharma, Advocate

The central legal point established in the judgment is that the court may grant bail considering the time spent in custody, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the likelihood of a long trial, without commenting on the merits of the case.

Headnote:
Bail Application - Criminal Law - The court granted bail to the applicant who had been in custody for more than 6 years out of the maximum sentence of seven years prescribed for offences under Sections 420, 406, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court considered the nature and gravity of the offence, the time already spent in custody, and the likelihood of a long trial in reaching its decision to grant bail.
Fact of the Case:

The applicant filed the Eleventh bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking bail in connection with a case registered for offences under Sections 420, 406, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The applicant had been in custody since 28.03.2017 and had earlier bail applications dismissed.
Finding of the Court:

The court, after considering the arguments of both parties and perusing the case diary, granted bail to the applicant. The court took into account the time already spent in custody, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the likelihood of a long trial. The court emphasized that the decision to grant bail did not comment on the merits of the case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the time spent in custody, the nature of the offence, and the likelihood of a long trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to grant bail was influenced by the time already spent in custody, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the likelihood of a long trial, as well as the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a similar case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with the condition to abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

Anil Verma, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

2. This is the Eleventh bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail. The applicant is in custody since 28.03.2017 in connection with Crime No.804/2016, registered at Police Station Neelganga, District Ujjain (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Applicant's earlier 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th and 10th bail applications have been dismissed vide order dated 03/05/2017, 10/01/2018, 14/03/2018, 14/11/2018, 28/07/2021, 25/02/2022 and 12/12/2022, respectively.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant firm i.e. M/s Om Sai Om Developers entered into an agreement with the complainant for sale of flat no. B-504 and received some of Rs. 24 lakhs from the complainant and later on said flat has been sold to some other person and against said sum of Rs. 24 lakhs no agreement was executed and only a receipt was given for said amount to the complainant.

5. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this offence. He is in custody since 28.03.2017 and suffered jail incarceration for more than 6 years out of the total prescribed sentence for the aforesaid offence which is of seven years. He is facing trial for offence under Sections 420, 406, 120-B of IPC and suffered more than 90% of the maximum sentence. Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2022 Live Law SC 577 in support of his contention. Final conclusion of the trial is likely to take sufficient long time. Under the above circumstances, prayer for grant of bail may be considered on such terms and conditions, as this Court deems fit and proper.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that earlier applications of the applicant have been dismissed on merits and thereafter, there is no material change in circumstances in which the present application be considered. Perused the impugned order of the trial Court as well as the case diary. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence and also taking note of the fact that the applicant has suffered more than 6 years out of the maximum sentence of seven years prescribed under the aforesaid offences, and final conclusion of the trial will take sufficient long time and in the light of the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra), I deem it proper to release the applicant on bail. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.

7. It is directed that applicant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court, as and when required. He shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

8. Certified copy as per rules.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document