High CourtsSingle Bench

Kalu S/o. Rupaji vs State Of M.P

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 9 July 2020 · Citation: (2020) 07 MP CK 0120

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vivek Rusia, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304, 304A · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 17616 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 434 words
1.

This is a repeat (3rd) application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant â€" Kalu S/o. Rupaji, who is under arrest since 2.12.2019 in Crime No.206/2019,

registered at Police Station Balwada, District Khargone for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the I.P.C.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties through Video Conferencing and perused the case diary.

3.

As per the prosecution story, the applicant is the owner of agriculture land, in which he erected fencing and connected it with the electricity supply. On 12.02.2019,

near about at 5.00 p.m., Vikram died due to electrocution and a criminal case was registered against the applicant.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 2.12.2019 and there is no progress in the trial due to the lock-down. He has placed

reliance over the judgment of this Court in the case of Abid Hussain V/s. State of M.P. : 2003(2) MPWN 67 in which, in the similar facts and circumstances, this Court

has held that at the most the offence u/s. 304-A is made out. He also submits for the said offence, there is no minimum sentence provided and offence is punishable

by fine also. He further submits that father of the deceased has also filed an affidavit to the effect that his son did not die due to the negligence of the applicant, but

due to the lock-down, his Court statement could not be recorded so far. He, therefore, prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

6.

Learned Panel Advocate opposes the bail application and prayed for dismissal of the same.

7.

Keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of Abid Hussain (supra) I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

8.

Accordingly, the application is hereby allowed. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond by the applicant in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand

only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make

himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.

Before releasing the applicant from the custody the jail authorities are directed to medically examine him to rule out the possibility of COVID -19 infections and shall

comply with the direction given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition No. 1/2020.

Â