Madhav Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

I.A.No.1667/20, an application filed u/S. 301(2) CrPC is taken up, considered and allowed.

Case diary is perused.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

This is 4th repeat application u/S.439 CrPC filed by the petitioner for grant of bail after dismissal of earlier one as withdrawn after arguing for

sometime.

Petitioner has been arrested on 03.01.2018 by Police Station Jigna District Datia (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.199/2017 registered in relation to

the offences punishable u/S.302, 147, 148, 149, 294, 341 of IPC and 25, 27 of Arms 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.

New ground raised herein is that all the main PWs have been examined.

However, learned counsel for the victim informs that Judge Pratap Singh is also one of the main witnesses who is yet to be subjected to examination

and cross-examination.

Perusal of statement of Judge Pratap Singh reveals that he had heard the sound of gunshot from a distance but did not witness the incident. On his

arrival at the place of incident, he saw the deceased lying on the ground and therefore did not see the actual assault taking place. Hence, he is not an

eye-witness.

Looking to the period of custody which is more than two years, prejudice has been caused to the petitioner on account of delayed trial. Petitioner has

criminal antecedents.

In view of above and looking to the fact that early conclusion of the trial is a bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention being an anathema to

the concept of liberty and the material placed on record does not disclose the possibility of the petitioner fleeing from justice, though this Court is

inclined to extend benefit of bail to the petitioner but with certain stringent conditions looking to the criminal antecedents of petitioner.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner-Madhav Singh

Bundela be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each of

Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court.

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

The petitioner will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

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

The petitioner 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 or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

The petitioner will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

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

The petitioner shall render community service at the hospital/Community Health Centre/Primary Health Centre situated at or in the vicinity of

village/Tehsil of residence of the petitioner for three (3) hours everyday including Sunday till the conclusion of trial.

The nature of community service shall be decided and allotted in writing by the CMO/Head of the hospital/Community Health Centre/Primary Health

Centre situated in close vicinity to the place of residence of petitioner. Compliance of this condition shall be ensured and verified by issuing certificate

to be jointly signed by head of hospital/Community Health Centre/Primary Health Centre and Sarpanch/Councilor of the Gram Panchayat/Municipality

concerned. This certificate shall be filed before the Registry of this Court once in every month.

If the Registry finds that either the compliance report is not filed once in a month or there is something amiss in the compliance report filed then the

case be listed as PUD before appropriate Bench.

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned and as well as Chief Medical Officer of concerned District for compliance.

C.c as per rules.