Hariom @ Hariram @ Banti vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Cra 3591.2021 (Hariom alias Hariram Vs. State of M.P. & another) Gwalior dated 09.07.2021

Shri Rajiv Budholiya, learned counsel for appellant.

Shri K.S. Tomar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.

The victim despite having been served no appears on her behalf.

Heard through video conferencing.

Case-diary is read over by State counsel.

Present appeal filed u/S. 14(A)(2) of the Act assails the order dated 09.04.2021 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Morena (M.P.) whereby the application preferred by the appellant herein u/S.439 of Cr.P.C. came to be rejected.

The appellant is in custody since 30/10/2020 in connection with Crime No.170/2020 registered by Police Station Rithorakalan, District Morena (M.P.) in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss.302, 394, 395, 396. 397, 412, 120-B/34 IPC, Sec. 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and Sec. 3(ii)(v-a) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, prayed for dismissal of the appeal by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.

2 Cra.3591.2021

Appellant is alleged with murder.

Prosecution story reveals that while indulging in theft of buffalo appellant and co-accused are said to have assaulted deceased Hari Singh. Injury sustained on head of deceased is said to be the cause of death as per postmortem report.

There is no eye-witness to the incident which is based predominantly on suspicious that appellant happens to be friend of co-accused Pawan Jatav who had eliminated deceased Hari Singh (father-in-law) of Preeti Jatav who had come to protest against his wife Sabobai, who was resisting the theft. It is further alleged that co-accused Pawan Jatava had illicit relationship with Preeti Jatav who happens to be daughter-in-law of Sabobai. The prosecution story therefore appears to be based more on suspicion than substantive evidence. Silver ring, two iron chain and bamboo stick which were used in commission of offence were recovered from the petitioner. Co-accused Halim Khan has been extended benefit of bail by order dated 11.06.2021 passed in CrA 3114/2021.

However without commenting on merits and considering the fact that about 7-8 months have elapsed since arrest of appellant and that material placed on record does not disclose the possibility of the appellant fleeing from justice and trial is not likely to conclude in the near future and prolonged pre-trial detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty and especially looking to second wave of Covid-19 pandemic, though this court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the appellant but with certain stringent conditions looking to the gravity of offence.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, present appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.04.2021 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Morena (M.P.) is quashed by directing that the appellant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned available Magistrate.

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 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 appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

5. The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

6. The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the concerned available Magistrate/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

7. The appellant shall appear and mark his presence before concerned trial Court once every fortnight.

8. The learned concerned available Magistrate and the prosecution are directed to ensure following of Covid-19 precautionary protocol prescribed from time to time by the Supreme Court, the Central Govt. and as well as the State Govt during release, travel and residence of the appellant during period of bail as a consequence of this order.

9. Petitioner shall plant 10 saplings of indigenous fruit bearing or shady trees on the side of the road/street of the place of residence of petitioner or at any other place in the district which is earmarked by the Collector/Revenue Authority for planting trees and shall take care of the trees for the next one year by watering the plants and by installing tree guards at her own expenses. In case the petitioner is unable to afford incurring of such expenses, then he would obtain saplings/tree guard from the forest authorities (the concerned Forest Range Officer of the area) free of cost or at concessional/nominal rates available under any beneficial scheme of the Government. Petitioner shall file an affidavit disclosing compliance of this condition within 30 days in the Registry, failing which this

court may consider cancellation of bail.

On complying with condition No.9 aforesaid, the petitioner is directed to inform the location of plantation made to the Forest Range Officer of the area concerned who will pass on this information to the DFO concerned.

For effective implementation of this order in the interest of betterment of ecology of the area concerned, the District Magistrate of district within which the petitioner resides is directed to assist the petitioner/accused to comply with condition No.9 by extending all possible financial and material assistance to the petitioner admissible under any of the beneficial scheme for afforestation of the State.

The DFO of the concerned District is directed to file verification report before the trial Court concerned after carrying out inspection personally or through any other officer of the Forest Dept duly authorised in that behalf disclosing as to whether petitioner has complied with condition No.9 or not, and if yes to what extent?

The learned trial Judge on receiving report of noncompliance of condition No.9 shall forthwith communicate the same to the Registry of this Court.

The Registry on receiving any such report from the trial Court disclosing default shall put up the matter before appropriate Bench in shape of PUD.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.

Let a typed copy of this order be also supplied to the counsel for the State for compliance of the aforesaid directives.

A copy of this order be furnished by the Registry of this Court to the concerned District Magistrate and the DFO having territorial jurisdiction over the place of residence of the petitioner for execution of the order in the interest of the ecology.

For the time being this case stands disposed of.

C.c as per rules.

(Sheel Nagu) Judge