Pramod Borkar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This is first bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.293/2020 for offences under sections 304 and 201/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Tirodi, District Balaghat.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and a social worker aged about 50 years. The applicant's one kidney has already been removed. In present Covid-19 era, if he is arrested and sent in judicial custody, it will be difficult for him to remain safe, considering his health condition.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the prosecution story, country made illegal liquor was being prepared at the agricultural field of the present applicant. In order to protect the said activity from animals, etc. the said place was fenced by using live electricity wires, the deceased Vikas entered the area and died because of electrocution. There is no incriminating material which connects the applicant with the commission of crime except the fact that (i) the land wherein the incident had taken place belongs to the applicant and (ii) there exists a Section 27 of the Evidence Act memorandum of Laxmichand and Sachin on the strength of which the applicant has been falsely implicated. The applicant has no criminal record in relation to M.P. Excise Act. As per ( 2007) 10 SCC 792 [State of Rajasthan vs. Chhittarmal], at best the allegation attracting section 304-A of IPC, can be levelled against the applicant. The said offence is a bailable offence and it is triable by the Judicial Magistrate.  Shri Patne urged that a careful reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court  in Chhittarmal (supra) will show that the present case is almost similar.  Indeed, in the case of Chhittarmal (supra), there was previous animosity between the parties which, as per prosecution story, is absent in the instant case.

This Court in M.Cr.C No.19092/2015 decided on 2.11.2015 granted anticipatory bail to the applicant therein in a case of electrocution.  The applicant will participate and cooperate with the investigation and trial (if any).

He will not tamper with the evidence and material. Hence, the applicant may  be granted anticipatory bail.

Prayer is opposed by learned P.L. by contending that the land in which  the activity was going on, admittedly belongs to the present applicant.  The electricity wire which was used in the commission of the crime is recovered from Laxmichand. That Laxmichand and Sachin in their statement recorded in the memorandum prepared under section 27 of the Evidence Act, have taken the name of the present applicant. Although the applicant does not have any criminal antecedent, he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the objector borrowed the argument of the learned counsel for the State and prayed for rejection of the bail application.

I have heard the parties at length on this aspect.

Considering the health condition of the applicant, absence of criminal record and nature of the incident coupled with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chhittarmal (supra), without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it proper to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant subject to conditions that he will cooperate with the investigation and trial (if any), he shall not leave the town without giving prior intimation to the local Police Station and he will not influence the evidence/material etc. in any manner.

Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the applicant Pramod Borkar be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand only) along with o n e surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer for his appearance before the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation as and when directed. Conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. shall also apply on the applicant during currency of bail.

M.Cr.C. is allowed.

C.C. as per rules.