Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 751 (MP)

Chhotu Kushwah v. State of M. P.

2021-11-23

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI

body2021
ORDER 1. At the outset, learned Public Prosecutor apprised this Court that complainant has been informed with regard to pendency of this appeal as required under section 15A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short- the ActÂ). 2. This third criminal appeal has been preferred under section 14A(2) of the Act against the impugned order dated 22.3.2021 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities Act), Guna (M.P.), whereby appellant's application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected by the Court below. First criminal appeal was dismissed as withdrawn vide order date. 30.4.2021 passed in Cr.A. No.2598/2021. Second criminal appeal was dismissed on merits vide order date. 28.6.2021 passed in Cr.A. No.3559/2021. 3. The appellant has been arrested on 24.12.2020 by Police Station Cantt, District Guna, in connection with Crime No.1362/2020 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 302, 323, 34, 201, 394, 404 of IPC, sections 3(1)(dh) 3(2) (va) of SCST Act. 4. Allegation against the appellant and other co-accused persons, in short, is that a complaint was lodged to the effect that on 20.12.2020 at about 9.40 p.m. Shivani called deceased Arvind Lodhi and took him alongwith her. Shivani and Arvind were in illicit relation, therefore, husband of Shivani and four other persons came there and the husband of Shivani and two other persons caught hold of Arvind Lodhi and pressed his neck and all of them started beating him with lathies and dandas, due to which he received injuries and started screaming. After hearing the voice, watchman came there and thereafter watchman and other person took him to the hospital for treatment, where Arvind Lodhi died. On the basis of the aforesaid, crime has been registered. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in the case. He is in custody since 24.12.2020. Charge sheet has been filed, therefore, no further custodial interrogation is required in the matter. It is further submitted that after rejection of earlier application, complainant Omprakash (P.W.1), Jaswant Singh (P.W.2) and Arvind Kushwah (P.W.3) have been examined, who turned hostile and did not support the version of prosecution. He is in custody since 24.12.2020. Charge sheet has been filed, therefore, no further custodial interrogation is required in the matter. It is further submitted that after rejection of earlier application, complainant Omprakash (P.W.1), Jaswant Singh (P.W.2) and Arvind Kushwah (P.W.3) have been examined, who turned hostile and did not support the version of prosecution. It is further submitted that trial is held up due to COVID-19 and there is no possibility of completing the trial in near future and the appellant cannot be kept in custody for an unlimited period without any substantial reason. It is also submitted that in view of outbreak of COVID 19, detention of the appellant in already congested prison may be detrimental. Appellant is permanent resident of District Guna and there is no likelihood of absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this Court. With the aforesaid submissions prayer for grant of bail is made. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor 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 and prays for rejection of appeal. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that trial is not likely to conclude in near future and prolonged pre-trial detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the appellant. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this appeal is allowed and it is directed that the appellant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/committal Court for his appearance on the dates given by the concerned Court. 9. The appellant shall also furnish a written undertaking that he will abide by the terms and conditions of various circulars, as well as, orders issued by the Central Government, State Government and local administration from time to time such as maintaining social distancing, physical distancing, hygiene etc. to avoid proliferation of Corona virus. 10. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant:- 1. to avoid proliferation of Corona virus. 10. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant:- 1. The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him; 2. The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be; 3 . The appellant will not indulge 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 appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; 5. The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be. 6 . If the appellant commits any offence while being on bail, then this order shall automatically stand cancelled without reference to the Court. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. A copy of this order be sent to the Court below, if possible, by the office of this Court.