Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 96 (MP)

MONU @ KATLE @ IRFAN v. STATE OF M. P.

2021-02-02

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI

body2021
ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri Sushil Goswami, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh Chauhan, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State. 2. In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government. 3. I. A. No. 3014/2020, an application for urgent hearing is considered and allowed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Case diary perused. 6. The applicant has filed this fourth application under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of bail. First application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dt. 6-1-2020 passed in M. Cr. C. No. 53508/2019. Second and third applications were dismissed on merits vide orders dt. 13-3-2020 and 22-7-2020 passed in M. Cr. C. No. 11296/2020 and M. Cr. C. No. 18440/2020 respectively. 7. The applicant has been arrested on 18-11-2019 by Police Station Lahar, District – Bhind (M.P.), in connection with Crime No. 367/2019 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 307, 294 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and added section 427 of Indian Penal Code and sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. 8. Prosecution story, in short, is that on 14-11-2019, at about 2 AM while the complainant was returning home and was passing by Sneh Nagar Colony, co-accused-Yogendra Singh @ Pappu, armed with a 2 gun, co-accused Dheerendra Singh with stone, and co-accused Chhotu Singh with a gun and present applicant Monu Katle Khan with a country made pistol, who were waiting since before, shouted to stop the vehicle. When complainant did not stop, the co-accused Dhirendra pelted a stone which fell on Driver side of the vehicle causing crack in its window pane. Co-accused-Yogendra Singh not only filthily abused and exhorted to kill, but also with an intention to kill, fired at the complainant which hit at driver’s gate. Besides, present applicant Monu Katle and co-accused Chhotu Rajput also fired from behind. The incident was witnessed by Brajendra Singh and Vijay Pratap Singh Rajawat who were sitting in the vehicle. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. Applicant is in custody since 18-11-2019. Besides, present applicant Monu Katle and co-accused Chhotu Rajput also fired from behind. The incident was witnessed by Brajendra Singh and Vijay Pratap Singh Rajawat who were sitting in the vehicle. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. Applicant is in custody since 18-11-2019. It is submitted that charge-sheet has been filed and no further custodial interrogation is required in the matter. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant claims party with Yogendra @ Pappu who has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 11-1-2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 50800/2020. The witnesses are not turning up and there is delay in trial due to COVID 19. Charges have not been framed, therefore, applicant cannot be kept in jail for an indefinite period. Counsel for the applicant submits that in view of COVID-19, outbreak detention of applicant in already congested prisons may be detrimental. Applicant is a permanent resident of District Bhind and there is no likelihood of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence and he is ready to abide by the terms and conditions as may be imposed. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prays for its rejection contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out. 11. However, it would not be desirable to enter into the merits of the rival contentions at this juncture. 12. 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 applicant. 13. 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. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/committal Court for his appearance on the dates given by the concerned Court. 14. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/committal Court for his appearance on the dates given by the concerned Court. 14. The applicant shall also furnish a written undertaking before the concerned Court 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. 15. 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 any other offence during pendency of the trial, failing which this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to the Bench. 5. The applicant shall install Arogya Setu App (if not already installed) in his mobile phone; 6. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and 7. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be. 16. Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and necessary action. 17. E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible by the office of this Court. Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.