IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA nd ON THE 2 OF DECEMBER, 2022 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 45682 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

RAMESH S/O BHUVANSINGH BHILALA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MAZDURI, R/O: GRAM SHYAMPURA, TAHSIL UDAYNAGAR, DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY MR. VIJAY GULANI, ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION BALWADA, DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY MS. HARSHLATA SONI, LEARNED PL)

This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

01. This is third bail application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. His first application bearing MCRC No.8781/2017 was dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 23.08.2017 and second application bearing MCRC No.55808/2021 was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 22.06.2022. The applicant is implicated in connection with Crime No.12/2017 registered at Police Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI Station- Balwada, District- Khargone (MP) for offence punishable under Section 392 and 201 of the Code of Indian Penal, 1860. The applicant is in custody since 20.09.2020.

02. Upon being arrested the applicant was granted the benefit of bail by the trial Court itself by order dated 09.12.2017. Thereafter, the applicant appeared before the trial Court up to 24.05.2018 but thereafter absented himself and upon arrest warrant being issued against him he has been arrested on 20.09.2020 and is in custody since then.

03. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after being granted bail by the trial Court he continued to appear before it for quite sometime but thereafter could not appear because he is a labourer and had to go out in search for work. For that reason he could not even communicate with his counsel as a result of which arrest warrant has been issued against him. The applicant undertakes to co-operate in the trial and assures that there shall not be any further lapse on his part. On such ground prayer for grant of bail to the applicant had been made.

04. The aforesaid prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/State submitting that due to absence of the applicant the trial in the matter has been unnecessarily delayed, hence, he is not to be enlarged for bail.

05. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

06. Upon being arrested the applicant was released on bail by the trial Court itself by order dated 09.12.2017 and continued to appear for sometime but thereafter absented himself on and from 24.05.2018. He is stated to be a labourer and had gone for search of work due to which he could not also communicate with his counsel. The applicant has assured Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI co-operation in the trial and has undertaken that there shall not be any lapse on his part in the future. He is in custody since 20.09.2020. Thus, in my opinion, the applicant deserves to be released on bail, hence, the application is allowed.

07. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial. It is also directed that the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

Certified copy as per rules.

(PRANAY VERMA)

JUDGE Anushree Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI