Sonu Meena vs State Of M.P

In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by

the Government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being

represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/ physical distancing in letter and spirit.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

This fourth appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter

would be referred as “the Actâ€​) against the order dated 19.02.2020 passed by Special Judge, Guna, whereby the bail application of the appellant

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C has been rejected.

The appellant is in custody since 03.08.2019 in connection with Crime No.140/2019 registered at Police Station Mragwas, District Guna for the

offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325, 294, 307, 506 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (,l), 3 (2) (Ogh), 3 (1) (Ogh-,-) of the Atrocities Act.

It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that earlier appeals were rejected on merits with direction to the trial Court to expedite the proceedings.

Appellant is in custody since 03.08.2019 and all the material witnesses have been examined. Only Police witnesses have been required to be examined

but due to Covid-19 pandemic scenario trial court is not functioning regularly, therefore, witnesses could not be examined. It is submitted that looking

to the nature of injuries, offence under Section 324 could be made out against the present applicant. He relied upon the Shivkumar Singh Vs. State of

M.P. as reported in 2016 (2) MPLJ(Cri) 172 and has argued that the under the circumstances the court has considered the aspect and has opined that

the offence under Section 324 of IPC can be made out. He further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhausaheb

Nagu Dhavare Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2001 (3) Crimes 410. It is submitted that applicant is in custody for almost one year. The appellant is ready

to abide by all the terms and conditions which may be imposed by this court while considering the application for grant of bail. The appellant has

shown his willingness to contribute an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the PM Care Fund. There is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with

the prosecution case. Counsel for the appellant prays for grant of bail to the appellant.

Per contra, counsel for the State opposed the application stating that earlier applications were dismissed on merits but the factum of of period of

custody and the nature of injuries are not disputed.

The Hon'ble Supreme by order dated 23.03.2020 passed in the case of IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS in SUO MOTU

W.P. (C) No.1/2020 has directed all the States to constitute a High Level Committee to consider the release of prisoners in order to decongest the

prisons. The Supreme Court has observed as under :-

“The issue of overcrowding of prisons is a matter of serious concern particularly in the present context of the pandemic of Corona Virus (COVID â€" 19).

Having regard to the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it has become imperative to ensure that the spread of the Corona Virus within the prisons is

controlled. We direct that each State/Union Territory shall constitute a High Powered Committee comprising of (i) Chairman of the State Legal Services Committee, (ii)

the Principal Secretary (Home/Prison) by whatever designation is known as, (ii) Director General of Prison(s), to determine which class of prisoners can be released on

parole or an interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate. For instance, the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been

convicted or are under trial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or without fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser

number of years than the maximum.

It is made clear that we leave it open for the High Powered Committee to determine the category of prisoners who should be released as aforesaid, depending upon

the nature of offence, the number of years to which he or she has been sentenced or the severity of the offence with which he/she is charged with and is facing trial

or any other relevant factor, which the Committee may consider appropriate.â€​

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Bhausaheb Nagu Dhavare Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2001 (3) Crimes 410, and the fact that there is no specific allegation of inflicting injury by the

present applicant to the injured, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this application. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

The appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing his personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000,/-(Rs.Fifty Thousand Only) with one

solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer/trial Court, as the case may be with submission of written undertaking

and the appellant will abide by all terms and conditions of the different circulars, orders as well as guidelines issued by the Central Government, State

Government as well as Local Administration for maintaining social distancing, hygiene etc to avoid Novel Corona Virus (COVID -19) pandemic and

he will have to install Arogya Setu App, if not already installed.

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

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

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

The appellant 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused.

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

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

The appellant shall deposit Rs.10,000/- in PM CARE Fund having Account Number : 2121PM20202, IFSC Code: SBIN0000691,

SWIFT Code : SBININBB104, Name of Bank & Branch : State Bank of India, New Delhi Main Branch within seven days from today.

The appellant will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned Police Station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of

the Counsel for the State to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station as well as Superintendent of Police, District Guna who shall

inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.

Application stands allowed.

In view of the COVID-19, jail authorities are directed that before releasing the appellant, medical examination of appellant shall be undertaken by the

jail doctor and on prima facie, if it is found that he is having the symptoms of COVID-19, then consequential follow up action including the

isolation/quarantine or any test if required, be ensured, otherwise appellant shall be released immediately on bail and shall be given a pass or permit for

movement to reach his place of residence.

E-copy of this order be provided to the appellant and E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance. It is made clear that E-

copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.

Â