Amardeep Singh And Anr. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Case dairy is not available and therefore, the case is being decided based on copy of order of lower court and copy of charge-sheet filed by the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

This is 1st bail application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners for grant of bail.

Petitioners have been arrested on 13.09.2019 by Police Station Dimni District Morena (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.135/19 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/S.34(2) and 47-A of Excise Act.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.

Charge-sheet has been filed as is evident from the copy of the same filed by the petitioner alongwith document No. 9970/2019. Petitioner is alleged with recovery of 77 litres of illicit liquor. Since investigation is over, further custodial interrogation may not be necessary.

Though arrest memo filed by the petitioners does not disclose presence of antecedents but since the case is being decided in the absence of case diary, the same are being presumed to exist.

Considering the said facts and that the prosecution story discloses alleged offence u/S. 34 (2) of Excise Act which prescribes for maximum punishment of three years and looking to the fact that material placed on record does not disclose the possibility of the petitioners fleeing from justice and trial is not likely to conclude in the near future and prolonged pre-trial detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty, this Court though is inclined to extend benefit of bail to the petitioners but with certain stringent conditions in view of the presumed criminal antecedents.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that Petitioner No.1-Amardeep Singh and Petitioner No.2-Ramveer Jatav be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court.

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

The petitioners will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by them;

The petitioners will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

The petitioners will not indulge themselves 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 or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused;

The petitioners will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

The petitioners will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;

The petitioners shall appear and mark their presence before the concerned trial Court once every fortnight;

The petitioners shall plant 25 saplings of indigenous fruit bearing or shady trees each on the side of the road/street of the place of residence of petitioners or at any other place in the district which is earmarked by the Collector/Revenue Authority for planting trees and shall take care of the trees for the next one year by watering the plants and by installing tree guards at their own expenses. In case the petitioners are unable to afford incurring of such expenses, then they would obtain saplings/tree guard from the forest authorities (the concerned Forest Range Officer of the area) free of cost or at concessional/nominal rates available under any beneficial scheme of the Government. The petitioners shall file an affidavit disclosing compliance of this condition within 30 days in the Registry, failing which this court may consider cancellation of bail.

On complying with condition No.8 aforesaid, the petitioners are directed to inform the location of plantation made to the Forest Range Officer of the area concerned who will pass on this information to the DFO concerned.

For effective implementation of this order in the interest of betterment of ecology of the area concerned, the District Magistrate of district within which the petitioners reside is directed to assist the petitioners/accused to comply with condition No.8 by extending all possible financial and material assistance to the petitioner admissible under any of the beneficial scheme for afforestation of the State.

The DFO of the concerned District is directed to file verification report before the trial Court concerned after carrying out inspection personally or through any other officer of the Forest Dept duly authorised in that behalf disclosing as to whether petitioners have complied with condition No.8 or not, and if yes to what extent?

The learned trial Judge on receiving report of non-compliance of condition No.8 shall forthwith communicate the same to the Registry of this Court.

The Registry on receiving any such report from the trial Court disclosing default shall put up the matter before appropriate Bench in shape of PUD.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.

Let a typed copy of this order be also supplied to the counsel for the State for compliance of the aforesaid directives.

A copy of this order be furnished by the Registry of this court to the concerned District Magistrate and the DFO having territorial jurisdiction over the place of residence of the petitioners for execution of the order in the interest of the ecology.

For the time being this case stands disposed of.

C.c as per rules.