Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 450 (MP)

Girraj Singh v. State of M. P.

2014-04-23

SHEEL NAGU

body2014
ORDER 1. The first bail application has been filed under section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 3.4.2012 by Police Station Noorabad, District Morena in connection with Crime No.47/2012 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of IPC and sections 25/27 of Arms Act. 2. Learned Government Advocate for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out. 3. The sole ground raised herein is prejudice on account of delayed trial. The applicant is said to be in custody since date of arrest and only 10 out of 28 prosecution witnesses have been examined and the last prosecution witness was examined on 2.8.2013 whereafter no other prosecution witness has been examined and trial is getting adjourned for the reasons not attributed to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that similarly placed co-accused Barelal and Sarnam have since been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 9.2.2015 and 11.3.2015 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Cases No. 11170/2014 and 1962/2015 respectively. 4. From perusal of order-sheets of the hearings which have been filed by the applicant right from 15.5.2014 till 13.2.2015, it is evident that no prosecution witness has been examined. 5. Even on the dates after 13.2.2015, i.e., 9.3.2015, no prosecution witness appeared. Thereafter on 6.4.2015, one prosecution witness appeared, but he was given up by the prosecution and the case is now fixed for 20.5.2015. 6. Out of 28 prosecution witnesses only 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. The trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future. 7. Considering the lethargic attitude of the prosecution in conducting speedy trial and the fact that the applicant is in custody since date of his arrest, the fundamental rights of speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India appears to have been breached. 8. In view of above, the applicant is entitled to get benefit of bail, but with certain stringent conditions in view of nature of offence and criminal antecedents. 9. 8. In view of above, the applicant is entitled to get benefit of bail, but with certain stringent conditions in view of nature of offence and criminal antecedents. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and 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 two solvent sureties each of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. 10. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :- 1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him; 2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be; 3. The applicant 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be; 4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused; 5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and 6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be. 7. Looking to the nature of offence and criminal antecedents, the applicant will mark his attendance at the concerned trial Court once in a week. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance. ................