Sonu @ Arvind Pandey vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

1 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-51131-2021 Sonu @ Arvind Pandey Vs. State of MP

Gwalior, Dated: 23-10-2021

Shri Vivek Mishra, Counsel for the applicant.

Shri BPS Chauhan, Counsel for the State.

Case Diary is available.

This fifth application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of bail mainly on the ground of delay in trial.

The applicant has been arrested on 26.12.2018 in connection with Crime No.171/2018 registered at Police Station Phoop Distt. Bhind for offence under Sections 304-B, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. He had married the deceased on 18.04.2017, who committed suicide on 09.07.2018. The applicant was taken into custody on 26.12.2018 and thus he has completed a period of two years and eight months. It is further submitted that he has filed the order-sheets of the Trial Court, which indicate that charges were framed on 29.05.2019 and thereafter on certain dates, summons/bailable warrants were executed, but the witnesses did not appear. It is further submitted that except by interim bail, which was granted by this Court by order dated 11.06.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.27710/2021, the applicant was

2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-51131-2021 Sonu @ Arvind Pandey Vs. State of MP

never released on temporary parole in the wake of first and second wave of Covid-19 Pandemic. It is further submitted that after the period of temporary bail was over, the applicant has surrendered before the Trial Court on 14.08.2021 which is evident from the ordersheet which has been placed at page No. 41. The Trial is likely to take sufficiently long time and there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. However, it is fairly conceded that on certain dates, the witnesses did not appear in spite of service of bailable warrants.

Considering the conduct of the witnesses in not appearing before the Trial Court as well as considering the period of detention, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. 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) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Committal Court to appear before the Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.

This order shall remain effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-51131-2021 Sonu @ Arvind Pandey Vs. State of MP

In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Aparna Bhat and others Vs. State of M.P. Passed on 18.03.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 329/2021, the intimation regarding grant of bail be sent to the complainant.

Certified copy as per rules.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge

Abhi

3