Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1160 (MP)

Neeraj v. State of M. P.

2012-11-07

S.R.WAGHMARE

body2012
ORDER 1. This common order shall govern with M.Cr.C. No.7974/2012 since they arise out of the same incident. 2. By this application filed under section 439 of the CrPC applicants Neeraj and Mahendra Kumar Mishra have moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in Crime Nos.799/12 registered by Police Station Bhanwarkuan, Indore, for offence under section 306/34 of the IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. 3. Counsel for the applicants have vehemently urged the fact that it is a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, counsel submitted that the applicants were Government servants and both are teachers, basically; althoughy, they were working on the post of Superintendent and Warden in the hostal. Counsel submitted that infact, the deceased Tejpal Singh committed suicide by hanging himself because he was agitated with the reprimand by the present applicants. Counsel submitted that the deceased along with other students had hoisted the flag on 15th August 2012 without any permission of the hostel management, contrary to establishment procedure and there was no malice in the reprimand issued by the applicants since they were in-charge of the hostel and it was their duty to do so. Moreover, counsel submitted that the deceased along with other ten students were not even entitled to stay in the hostel, infact the accused applicants had supplied their names to management committee of the hostel and the applicants were thus well within their jurisdiction since it was their nature of their duty to do so, infact the victim Tejpalsingh was over-sensitive to whole matter and if at all he committed suicide due to depression. Counsel submitted that thus the applicants cannot be held responsible for instigating and abetting the suicide. Counsel prayed that the application may be allowed since the applicants are responsible Government servants and their reputation is being unnecessarily maligned and their career are destroyed. Counsel placed reliance on Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation [ AIR 2012 SC 830 ], to state that the object for granting bail is secure the appearance of the accused at his trial. Counsel placed reliance on Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation [ AIR 2012 SC 830 ], to state that the object for granting bail is secure the appearance of the accused at his trial. It is neither punitive nor preventative and the relative factors that are to be taken into consideration are that on releasing the accused would interfere with the trial or temper with the evidence and whether detention of under-trial prisoners are detained in jail to an indefinite period longer than the period of detention on conviction is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, it is not in the interest of justice that the accused should be in jail for an indefinite period. Counsel prayed that the application may be allowed. 4. Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submission of the counsel for the applicants. She has, however, candidly submitted that there are no other previous cases recorded against them and they have a good track record although there was agitation by the students against the applicants immediately after the incident. She, however, candidly admitted that the suicide note indicates that student, deceased Tejpalsingh had been disturbed against the reprimand issued by the applicants. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application. 5. On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations and fact that both the applicants are Government servants and their track record is completely clean then the incident should not be allowed to dislodge the same, they had an equal right to their defence. The applicants are in jail since 24-25.8.2012, and placing reliance on Sanjay Chandra (supra), I find that applicationneeds to be allowed in the interest of justice. The application is, therefore, allowed. 6. It is ordered that the applicants be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five thousand only) each with one suretyof like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial. 7. It is also directed that the applicants shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) of the CrPC. 8. 7. It is also directed that the applicants shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) of the CrPC. 8. Original order is retained in M.Cr.C. No.7970/12 and a copy of this order be placed in the connected M.Cr.C. No.7974/2012.