Santosh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Submissions were made on 6th repeat bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail. The applicant has been implicated in crime no.437/2016, registered at police station Kanadiya, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 201, 404, 34 of IPC and under Sections 25/27 of Arms Act. He is in custody since 3.11.2016.

This Court vide order dated 13.8.2020 had directed for filing of copies of bail order of other 4 co-accused persons who have already been granted bail. It has been noted down in the order dated 13.8.2020 that this Court vide another order dated 17.1.2020 has issued a direction to expedite the trial of the case within six months. The aforesaid order dated 17.1.2020 is placed on record which has been passed in M.Cr.C.No.54156/2019.

Learned public prosecutor for State submits that he has received a status report in this matter as per which the order dated 17.1.2020 was filed in the trial court only on 7.6.2020. This is a matter of great indignation and worry that the order passed by this court could not reach the concerned trial court based at Indore even after a period of five months. The aforesaid lapse needs to be inquired into.

The Principal Registrar shall submit a report regarding such lapse identifying the person responsible and the action taken in this respect of the person in employee of High Court Bench at Indore.

In the aforesaid status report, it has been mentioned that 14 witnesses so far have been examined and 4 remain to be examined. The aforesaid status report is not placed on record. A copy of the same be provided by this court to learned counsel for the State, so that matter may be enquired as aforesaid.

The prosecution story in short was that a body of deceased Mukesh was found floating in a well and it transpired that co-accused Mahendra and Ankit ran a property dispute with Mukesh and they hatched a conspiracy to murder Mukesh and for that they employed co-accused Deepak and the present applicant to commit the crime of murder. These two persons obtained a gun from another co-accused Shyam Singh. In this matter Mahendra, Ankit, Shyam Singh and Deepak have been granted bail. The present applicant was not granted bail because the aforesaid gun was seized from his possession.

Learned counsel submits that the seizure witnesses have turned hostile. However, he fairly admits that this aspect was available while considering the fifth bail application. Learned counsel submits that the trial has not been concluded within six months as ordained by this court vide order dated 17.1.2020 and in the present Covid 19 situation further progress in the trial remains uncertainty in the near future. Hence, bail has been sought and learned counsel submits that a strict conditions may be imposed.

Learned public prosecutor was heard.

As already found, the order of this Court dated 17.1.2020, did not reach the trial court for as many as five months for which an enquiry has been ordered as stated earlier. Had the aforesaid order reached in time, the aforesaid period of six months would have mattered.

Learned public prosecutor for State submits that despite the fact that the aforesaid order did not reach the trial court, the trial court has made endeavour in its part and has issued bailable warrant against the witnesses. The present case is a case of serious crime, ie., Section 302 of IPC. All submissions which could have been made have already been made in earlier bail application. The only submissions could have been was that the trial was not concluded in the designated time period. However, as referred to above, there was lapse due to which the trial court could not conduct the trial as directed by this Court. The benefit for which cannot accrue to the applicant. Hence, there is no substance in this bail application. Due to seriousness of the offence, the applicant cannot be enlarged on bail because of Covid 19 pandemic situation.

Learned counsel at this point of time has prayed that a temporary bail for 60 days be allowed in this matter. However, the aforesaid prayer cannot be also allowed in view of the fact that applicant does not come into category of person who can be granted bail as per the Resolution of SLSA, which has been resolved as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the recommendation by SLSA, a person who is below 50 years of age can be given the benefit of temporary suspension of sentence only when he suffers from some terminal disease, which is not the case here. Hence, the aforesaid prayer cannot be condescended into. However, it is made clear that once the Court's reopen and trial commences, the trial in the present matter must be conducted strictly as per mandate of Section 309 of Cr.P.C and the outside limit for completion of trial and pronouncement of judgment would be six months from the date when the trial commences.

A copy of this order be sent immediately to the trial court.

The bail application stands disposed of in above terms as dismissed.