Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(MP) 771

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Anil Verma, J.
Narendra – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 13722 of 2023
Decided On : 29-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Sudeel Yadav, Advocate, Vishal Sanothiya, Advocate
Final Result : Allowed

The court may grant bail based on the lack of criminal antecedent, the period of custody, and the ground of parity with co-accused, considering the possibility of delay in the conclusion of the trial.

Headnote:
Bail Application - Offence under Section 420, 406/34 of IPC - The court granted bail to the accused based on the ground of parity with co-accused, lack of criminal antecedent, and the possibility of delay in the conclusion of the trial.
Fact of the Case:

The applicant was in jail for the commission of offence punishable under Section 420, 406/34 of IPC. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused had taken a tractor on a rental basis but had not paid the rent amount or returned the tractor for two years.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the applicant had no criminal antecedent, had been in custody for a significant period, and that the possibility of delay in the conclusion of the trial could not be ruled out. Based on the ground of parity with co-accused, the court granted bail to the applicant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the nature of the allegation, the period of custody, and the possibility of delay in the conclusion of the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the lack of criminal antecedent, the period of custody, and the ground of parity with co-accused as the basis for granting bail to the applicant.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant on bail with specific conditions.

JUDGMENT

Anil Verma, J. - Applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He is in jail since 27.5.2022 in connection with Crime No.18/2022 registered at P.S. - Kalukheda, Ratlam (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 420, 406/34 of IPC.

2. As per the prosecution story, on 4.1.2022 complainants lodged the written report at the police station by stating that the applicant Narendra Singh and co-accused Kailash have taken the tractor from the complainants for rental basis, but for last two years they have not paid the rent amount and also not returned the tractor to the complainant. On that basis police registered the complaint. During investigation the police arrested the co-accused persons and recovered the tractor, which is involved in the crime. On the basis of memorandum given by co- ccused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act the present applicant has been implicated in this offence.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this offence. There is no legal evidence available on record to connect the applicant with the aforementioned offence. Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required.. No weapon has been recovered from his possession. Co-accused Sunil has been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 05/07/2022 passed in MCRC no. 31337/2022 and co-accused Krishna and Shankar have been enlarged on regular bail by ths Court vide order dated 05/07/2022 passed in MCRC no. 20434/2022 and vide order dated 15/07/2022 passed in MCRC no. 34491/2022 in similar circumstances. Applicant is in custody since 10/01/2023. He is permanent resident of District- Ratlam. There is no apprehension of his fleeing away from the court of justice. Final conclusion of trial shall 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.

4. Per-contra, learned PL for respondent - State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection stating that the applicant remained absconded for more than one year, but he fairly admits that no criminal antecedent has been found against him.

5. Perused the impugned order of the trial Court as well as the case dairy.

6. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by both the parties, nature of allegation as also taking note of the fact that he is in custody since 10/01/2023; he has no criminal antecedent; investigation is over therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required and possibility of delay in conclusion of the trial cannot be ruled out, co-accused Krishna, Shankar and Sunil have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in similar circumstances, therefore, on the ground parity, I deem it proper to release the accused / applicant on bail.

7. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 75,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five Thousand 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.

8. He shall abide by all the conditions enumerated u/S. 437(3) Cr.P.C.,

9. It is made clear that if the applicant is again found to be involved in any other offence during the trial, this order shall stand cancelled automatically without reference to the Court and the police will be at liberty to arrest the applicant in the present case also. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

10. Certified copy, as per Rules.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document