Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 832 (MP)

Mannu Singh v. State of M. P.

2020-08-28

ANAND PATHAK

body2020
ORDER 1. The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 9.5.2020 by Police Station Dehat, District Bhind, in connection with Crime No. 313/2008 for the offence punishable under sections 307, 147,148,149 of IPC. 2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is suffering confinement since 9.5.2020 and after more that 110 days, charge-sheet has not been filed yet, whereas; charge-sheet had to be filed within 90 days (as matter pertains to section 307 of IPC), but since the charge-sheet has not been filed within stipulated period, therefore, as per section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., applicant is entitled for compulsive / default bail. In support of his submissions he relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the matter of Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67 and submits that even oral prayer is maintainable so far as benefit of default bail is concerned because it pertains to personal liberty of an individual. 3. He further relied upon the decision of apex Court in the matter of Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 5 SCC 453 and submits that even if charge-sheet has been filed after accrual of right of default bail and during pendency of application even then the benefit of section 167(2) Cr.P.C. deserves to be given and individual is entitled to get such compulsive /default bail because it is a matter of personal liberty which is to be construed accordingly. He also relied upon the recent decision of apex Court in the matter of S.Kasi Vs. State through The Inspector of Police, Samaynallur Police (Cr.A.No. 452/2020) and submits that default bail is the right of an individual and the limitation arrested for different provisions under Code of Criminal Procedure due to Covid-19 by apex Court does not include provisions of default bail under section 167 of Cr.P.C., because it is indefeasible right regarding personal liberty. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon the decisions of Apex Court in the matter of Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Nirlay Yadav, (2014) 9 SCC 457 and Achpal alias Raswaroop v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) Cr.L.R.(SC) 961 in support of his arguments. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon the decisions of Apex Court in the matter of Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Nirlay Yadav, (2014) 9 SCC 457 and Achpal alias Raswaroop v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) Cr.L.R.(SC) 961 in support of his arguments. He further undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions of guidance, circulars and directions issued by Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration regarding measures in respect of COVID-19 Pandemic and maintain hygiene in the vicinity while keeping physical distancing. In totality of circumstances prevailing at present of Covid-19, his case be considered sympathetically. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the bail on the ground that it is a matter in which co-accused have been tried and convicted; however, he fairly submits that date of arrest of applicant is 9.5.2020 in the case and application for bail has been filed on 14.8.2020. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them. 7. In the case in hand, applicant was arrested on 9.5.2020 by the police although in a stale matter of year 2008; however, as per the provisions of section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., police had to file the charge-sheet within 90 days as stipulated but in the case in hand, police failed to do so. As per the instructions of government counsel, charge-sheet has not been filed yet. By today, i.e. 28.8.2020, 110 days have been passed therefore, effect of provisions under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. comes into play; whereby, police had to file the charge-sheet within 90 days. Since it is related to the personal liberty of an individual, therefore, it is to be construed in light of that perspective and considering the judgments of apex Court in different cases referred above, this Court is of the considered opinion that applicant made out the case for grant of compulsive / default bail. 8. As this Court is not in a position to consider the facts of the case in detail, however, without commenting on the merits of the case, it is hereby directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) along with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.. 9. 9. In view of COVID-19 pandemic, the jail authorities are directed that before releasing the applicant, his preliminary Corona Virus test shall be conducted and if he is found negative, then the concerned local administration shall make necessary arrangements for sending the applicant to his house, and if he is found positive then the applicant shall be immediately sent to concerned hospital for his treatment as per medical norms. If the applicant is fit for release and if he is in a position to make his personal arrangements, then he shall be released only after taking due travel permission from local administration. After release, the applicant is further directed to strictly follow all the instructions which may be issued by the Central Govt./State Govt. or Local Administration for combating the Covid19. If it is found that the applicant has violated any of the instructions (whether general or specific) issued by the Central Govt./State Govt. or Local Administration, then this order shall automatically lose its effect, and the Local Administration/Police Authorities shall immediately take him in custody and would sent him to the same jail from where he was released. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be; 4. The applicant would not be a source of embarrassment or harassment to the complainant party in any manner and shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused; 5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; 6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; and 7. The applicant will inform the SHO of concerned police station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station for information. 8. The applicant will inform the SHO of concerned police station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station for information. 8. The applicant shall mark his appearance before the concerned police station on every first day of every month at 10.30 am till filing of charge-sheet and thereafter every month before the concerned trial Court till conclusion of trial. Application stands allowed and disposed of. E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible for the office of this Court. Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.