The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh (SONUPAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

25-02-2021 Gwalior, Dated :

Shri S.S. Rajput, Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Rohit Mishra, Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

Case diary is perused.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

The applicant has filed this first application u/S. 438, Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.1167/2020 registered at Police Station Cantt, District Guna (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 414 of the IPC and Sections 21(1), 4(A) of the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957, Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 247 (7) of the Land Revenue Code.

Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that he committed theft of sand and was involved in its illegal transportation without paying any royalty. On the basis of aforesaid, crime has been registered against the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted that in accordance with the Madhya Pradesh Sand (Mining, Transportation, Storage and Trading) Rule, 2019, fine has already been imposed by the Collector to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and the same has been deposited by him. Moreover, offences under Sections 379 and 414 of the IPC are not made out against the present applicant as there is no allegation of theft against him. Besides, the said offences under the IPC are punishable with 3 years' imprisonment or fine. Co-accused Rajesh Pal has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 05.02.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.6623/2021.

Counsel for the applicant submits that in view of COVID-19, outbreak detention of applicant in already congested prisons may be detrimental. The applicant is permanent resident of District Guna (M.P.) and there is no likelihood of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence and he is ready to abide by the terms and conditions as may be imposed. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. In response, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State opposed the anticipatory bail application and prays for its rejection.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

The application is, accordingly, allowed and it is hereby directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority.

The applicant shall also furnish a written undertaking that he will abide by the terms and conditions of various circulars, as well as, orders issued by the Central Government, State Government and local administration from time to time such as maintaining social distancing, physical distancing, hygiene etc.

to avoid proliferation of Corona virus.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-

1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court tor to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4 . The applicant shall not commit any other offence during pendency of the trial, failing which this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically, without further reference to the Bench;

5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permiss