Pappu @ Jaikaran Yadav vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19

outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.

The necessary parties have effectively been represented by their respective counsels.

Case diary perused.

The applicant has filed this first application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

The applicant has been arrested by Police Station-Dharampur, District Panna, in connection with Crime No.13/2009 registered in relation to the

offences punishable under sections 307, 394 R/w 34 of IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act and under Section 11/13 of M.P. Dakaiti Aur

Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra, Adhiniyam, 1981.

The allegation against the present applicant is that on the date of incident i.e. on 20.02.2009, when the complainant and his son were going on the

motorcycle, three persons stopped them and shot complainant in the abdomen and looted ornaments.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complainant and his son have recorded evidence before the trial Court in Special Case No.5/2019,

wherein they have stated that they did not recognize the present applicant nor have they seen him during the incident. It is further submitted that the

rest of the co-accused have already been acquitted by the trial Court in Case No.59/2009 vide impugned judgment dated 28.02.2011.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail application. However, he fairly submits that both the witnesses have turned hostile and did

not identify the present applicant. However, he submits that the present applicant was absconding for last 10 years and has been arrested only on

07.10.2019 and he has criminal antecedents also.

Considering that the complainant and his son have deposed before the trial Court and have not identified the present applicant involved in the incident

of 2009, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, 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) to the satisfaction of the trial Court/committal Court for his

appearance on the dates given by the concerned 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 any other offence during pendency of the trial, failing which this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically

without further reference to the Bench.

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.

The learned concerned Magistrate and the prosecution are directed to ensure following of Covid-19 precautionary protocol prescribed from time to

time by the Supreme Court, the Central Govt. and as well as the State Govt. during release, travel and residence of the petitioner during period of bail

as a consequence of this order.

A typed copy of this order be forwarded by the Registry to the Office of the Advocate General and to Mr. Sheetal Tiwari, Panel Lawyer, on their

respective email addresses, for intimation to the police station concerned.

Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.