Arpit Yadav. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J

This is first bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The petitioner is in custody since 24.06.2021 in connection with Cri me No.384/2021 registered at P.S.-Gwarighat, District-Jabalpur (M.P.) for the

offence punishable under Sections 353, 186, 294, 509, 354 and 354(A) of IPC Prosecuti on story, in short, is that on 23.06.2021 complainant/Akriti

Rajpoot was posted as lady constable at Police Station-Gwarighat, District-Jabalpur. At the time of incident, she was on duty. When sand was illegal

transporting by the tractor, she was chasing the said tractor. At that time present petitioner/accused stopped her and tried to outrage her modesty by

making caught hold her hand and also obstructed her to discharge her duty.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that petitioner/accused has been falsely implicated in this case. Actually, complainant/Akriti

Rajpoot beat the petitioner/accussed, he objected then petitioner/accused has falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner/accused has not been

previously convicted. Petitioner/accused is in custody since 24.06.2021 Investigation is complete, no further custodial interrogation is required in this

case. Petitioner/accused is breadwinner of his family, if he is kept in custody for unlimited, then future of his family will be spoiled. It is time of

COVID-19 pandemic, due to this, trial will take time for its final disposal. There is no probability of his absconding or tampering with the evidence of

D prosecution witness. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for allowing this bail application.

Per-contra, learned Panel Lawyer opposes the bail application.

Considering the contention of both the parties and perused the case diary, it appears that some injury is found on the head of petitioner/accused,

petitioner/accused is in custody since 24.06.2021, investigation is complete, no further custodial interrogation is required in this case, petitioner/accused

is breadwinner of his family, it is time of COVID-19 pandemic, due to this, trial will take time for its final disposal, there is no probability of his

absconding or tampering with the evidence of prosecution witness.

 In view of the aforesaid, it would not be appropriate to keep the petitioner/accused in jail during whole trial. Therefore, without commenting on

merits of the case, application of the petitioner under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seems to be acceptable. Consequently, it is hereby allowed.

 It is directed that petitioner- Arpit Yadav be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on the

dates given by the concerned Court. It is directed that the petitioner shall comply with the provisions of Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. In view of the

outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the petitioner shall also comply the rules and norms of social distancing.

Further, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court i n suo motto W.P.No.1/2020, it would be appropriate to issue the following

direction to the jail authority :-

The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the petitioner by the jail doctor before his release.

 2 . The petitioner shall not be released if he is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'. For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.

 3 . If it is found that the petitioner is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing him

in appropriate quarantine facility.

Certified copy as per rules.