AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
17 paragraphs · 733 wordsGurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J
This sixth application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of bail. The fifth application was dismissed by order dated 21.06.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 30090/2022.
The applicant has been arrested on 15.11.2020 in connection with Crime No.707/2020 registered by Police Station Civil Line District Morena for offence punishable under Sections 366, 376-D, 342, 120-B of IPC.
It is submitted by counsel for applicant that although the prosecutrix has supported the prosecution case, but since the prosecution has failed to keep its witnesses present, therefore, this Court by order dated 16.08.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No.37996/2022 has granted bail to co-accused Chhotu @ Aashik Khan. The case of applicant is identical to that of co-accused Chhotu @ Aashik Khan. The trial is likely to take sufficiently long time and there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with prosecution case.
Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. However, he could not point out any reason as to why the police is not showing any interest in executing the summons/bailable warrant/warrants.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The co-accused Chhotu @ Aashik was granted bail on 16.08.20222 with following observations :
Considering the fact that under-trial cannot be permitted to languish in jail at the mercy of the prosecution and in spite of repeated anguish shown by the trial, the prosecution agency did not improve its functioning in executing the summons/bailable warrants/warrants, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant deserves to be released on bail mainly on the ground of failure of the prosecution to execute summons/bailable warrants/warrants issued against the witnesses. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Committal Court to appear before the Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.
From the order sheets of the Trial Court, it is clear that even after the co-accused-Chhotu @ Aashik was released on bail, the District Police Morena did not wake up and even on 27.08.2022, the witnesses did not appear and the bailable warrant issued against S.I. Nepa Swami was returned back as unserved.
This Court is unable to understand as to why the Police Authorities are not in a position to serve their own police personnel specifically when the place of posting of their police personnel are known to it. Therefore, it is clear that the police is not interested in keeping its own witnesses present before the Trial Court. The Police must realize that filing of charge-sheet is not the end of their duty, but cooperation in the trial by producing witnesses without any delay is also the paramount duty of the prosecution.
The Supreme in case of Mahendra Chawla & Ors. Vs. Union of India reported in (2018) 15 SCALE 497, after considering the plight of the witnesses and in order to protect them from any threat has also formulated a witness protection scheme. Neither the Police Authorities are providing any protection to the witnesses nor is taking any pain to get them served as early as possible. It is the high time for the police department to introspect themselves.
Be that whatever it may.
One thing is clear that only the District Police Morena is responsible for the delay.
Under these circumstances, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Committal Court to appear before the Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.
This order shall remain effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Aparna Bhat and others Vs. State of M.P. Passed on 18.03.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 329/2021, the intimation regarding grant of bail be sent to the complainant.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police for necessary information and further action.