Mangal Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Sujoy Paul, J.—This is third bail application u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 843/13 registered by Police Station Gwalior, District Gwalior for the offences under sections 302, 366, 342, 327, 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the last bail application was rejected by this Court on 16.5.2014. Thereafter, the wife, daughters and brother of deceased have deposed their statement in the trial. Taking this Court to those statements, it is urged that nothing has been said against the applicant and, therefore, there is no justification in keeping the applicant in custody.

The said prayer is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor by placing reliance on the statement of PW1 Suresh Singh Parmar.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

The wife of deceased has turned hostile. I have also perused the statements of witnesses, who have deposed their statement before the trial court.

Suresh Singh Parmar (PW1) stated that when he went to the hospital and met with Anek Singh (deceased), he informed him that under the influence of liquor he erroneously consumed acid.

Shri Atul Gupta submits that the star witnesses of prosecution have already deposed their statement. In view of their statements, there is no justification in keeping the applicant in custody.

The question is whether this can be a ground for grant of bail in the third bail application.

The Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar etc. Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Another, opined as under:-

It is trite law that personal liberty cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Personal liberty is a constitutional guarantee. However, Article 21 which guarantees the above right also contemplates deprivation of personal liberty by procedure established by law. Under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of offences which are non-bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with the law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21 since the same is authorized by law. But even persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the court concerned comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him and/or if the court is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that in spite of the existence of prima facie case there is a need to release such persons on bail where fact situations require it to do so. In that process a person whose application for enlargement on bail is once rejected is not precluded from filing a subsequent application for grant of bail if there is a change in the fact situation. In such cases if the circumstances then prevailing require that such persons be released on bail, in spite of his earlier applications being rejected, the courts can do so.

In Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, the Apex Court opined as under:-

In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earlier times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilt.

In the light of aforesaid judgments, it is clear that in view of change of circumstances, this Court is not precluded from considering the subsequent bail application. Since there is a change in the fact situation, the third bail application can be entertained.

In view of statements of aforesaid witnesses, in my opinion, the applicant can be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court.

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

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

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

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

The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

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

Looking to the criminal antecedents, the applicant will mark his attendance at the concerned Police Station once in a fortnight.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

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

C.c. as per.