Arjun Singh vs State Of M.P

G.S.Ahluwalia, J

This fifth repeat bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

The applicant has been arrested on 30/07/2020 in connection with Crime No.01/2020 registered by Police Station Amayan, District Bhind for offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the father-in-law aged about 59 years and he was arrested on 30/07/2020 and by order dated 07/06/2021 passed in MCRC No.23751/2021, he was granted temporary bail for a period of two months and he has surrendered one day prior to expiry of the said period of temporary bail.

By referring to the order-sheets of the Trial Court, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the prosecution witnesses are not deliberately turning up. The attention of this Court was drawn towards the order-sheet dated 07/04/2021, according to which the prosecution witness was served but in spite of that they did not appear. Similarly, on 08/04/2021, the prosecution witness Ranjana Devi did not appear in spite of the fact that she was served with summons. It is further submitted that on 24/08/2021 none appeared and again the summons were issued. On 16/09/2021, the prosecution witness Ranjana Devi did not appear in spite of the fact that the summons were served. Accordingly, it is submitted that the prosecution witnesses are deliberately avoiding appearing before the Trial Court. The applicant has remained in jail for approximately one year but there is no progress in the trial. Looking to the hostile attitude of the prosecution witnesses in not appearing before the Trial Court, there is every possibility that there would be further delay in the trial. The applicant undertakes to stay away from the prosecution witnesses and he would not tried to tamper the prosecution witness.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. However, the counsel for the applicant could not point out the reasons for absence of witness in spite of service of summons.

Considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties.

The Supreme Court by order dated 23-3-2020 passed in the case of IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS in SUO MOTU W.P. (C) No. 1/2020 has directed all the States to constitute a High Powered Committee to consider the release of prisoners in order to decongest the prisons. The Supreme Court has observed as under :

"The issue of overcrowding of prisons is a matter of serious concern particularly in the present context of the pandemic of Corona Virus (COVID - 19).

Having regard to the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it has become imperative to ensure that the spread of the Corona Virus within the prisons is controlled.

We direct that each State/Union Territory shall constitute a High Powered Committee comprising of (i) Chairman of the State Legal Services Committee, (ii) the Principal Secretary (Home/Prison) by whatever designation is known as, (ii) Director General of Prison(s), to determine which class of prisoners can be released on parole or an interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate. For instance, the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are undertrial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or without fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser number of years than the maximum.

It is made clear that we leave it open for the High Powered Committee to determine the category of prisoners who should be released as aforesaid, depending upon the nature of offence, the number of years to which he or she has been sentenced or the severity of the offence with which he/she is charged with and is facing trial or any other relevant factor, which the Committee may consider appropriate."

Since, prosecution itself is not interested in early disposal of trial and the speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused and the applicant is in jail approximately for more than one year and he is the father-in-law and in spite of the fact that the allegations are that the deceased was died without giving any information to the parents of the deceased, as well as considering the fact that in view of second wave of Covid19 pandemic, it is also necessary to decongest the jail, and without commenting on the merits of the case, it is directed that the applicant be released on bail, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rs. One Lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or C.J.M. or Remand Magistrate (Whosoever is available). The applicant shall also furnish an undertaking that she shall follow all the instructions which may be issued by the Central Govt./State Govt. or Local Administration (General or Specific) from time to time for combating Covid19.

The Supreme Court in the case of IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS by order dated 7-4-2020 has directed as under :

In these circumstances, we consider it appropriate to direct that Union of India shall ensure that all the prisoners having been released by the States/Union Territories are not left stranded and they are provided transportation to reach their homes or given the option to stay in temporary shelter homes for the period of lockdown.

For this purpose, the Union of India may issue appropriate directions under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 or any other law for the time being in force. We further direct that the States/Union Territories shall ensure through Directors General of Police to provide safe transit to the prisoners who have been released so that they may reach their homes. They shall also be given an option for staying in temporary shelter homes during the period of lockdown.

Accordingly, it is directed that before releasing the applicant, the jail authorities shall get the applicant examined by a competent Doctor and if the Doctor is of the opinion that her Corona Virus test is necessary, then the same shall be conducted. If the applicant is not found suspected of Covid19 infection or if his test report is negative, then the concerned local administration shall make necessary arrangements for sending the applicant to her house as per the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS (Supra) , and if she is found positive then the applicant shall be immediately sent to concerning hospital for his treatment as per medical norms. The applicant is further directed to strictly follow all the instructions which may be issued by the Central Govt./State Govt. or Local Administration for combating Covid19. If it is found that the applicant has violated any of the instructions (whether general or specific) issued by the Central Govt./State Govt. or Local Administration, then this order shall automatically lose its effect, and the Local Administration/Police Authorities shall immediately take her in custody and would send her to the same jail from where she was released. The applicant is further directed to supply a copy of this bail order to the police station having jurisdiction over her place of residence.

The other conditions of Section 437, 439 Cr.P.C. shall remain the same.

This order shall remain in force, till the conclusion of Trial. In case of bail jump, or violation of any of the condition(s) mentioned above, this order shall automatically lose its effect.

In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Aparna Bhat & Ors. vs. State of M.P. passed on 18/3/2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 329/2021, the intimation regarding grant of bail be sent to the complainant.

With aforesaid observations, this application is Allowed.