Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2957 MP
Judgement Date : 5 July, 2021
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.32197/2021
(Kalu @ Balkishan vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated : 05.07.2021
Heard through videoconferencing.
Shri Sanjay Gupta, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Manish Nayak, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Shri Atul Gupta, counsel for the complainant.
Heard on I.A. No.19656/2021, which is an application under
Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C. for permitting the learned counsel for the
complainant to assist the Public Prosecutor.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is
allowed and the counsel for the complainant is permitted to assist the
State counsel.
Case diary is available.
The applicant has filed this third application u/S 439 Cr.P.C. for
grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Purani
Chawani, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.378/2020
registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 341,
294, 323, 324, 427, 506, 34, 325, 326, 307 of IPC. First application was
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 3.3.2021 in M.Cr.C.
No.1398/2021 and second application was rejected on merits vide order
dated 22.04.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.19273/2021.
It is alleged that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He
has not committed the offence in any manner. It is submitted that the
repeat application has been filed on the ground of custody period of the
applicant that he is in custody since 16.11.2020. Charge sheet has
already been filed. Looking to the nature of allegations against the
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.32197/2021 (Kalu @ Balkishan vs. State of M.P.)
present applicant, he prays for grant of bail. There is no further
requirement of custodial interrogation of the present applicant. He has
placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Pashora Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 SC
1256 and has argued that in similar circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has found that no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out.
He has further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of
Sakharam vs. State of M.P. reported in 2016 1 SCC Cri. 52 as well as
in the case of Bhausaheb Nagu Dhavare v. State of Maharashtra &
Anr. reported in 2001(3) Crimes 410. wherein looking to the nature of
offence and the custody period the applicant was enlarged on bail. He
has further placed reliance on para 12 of the judgment passed in the
case of State of Kerala Vs. Raneef, AIR 2011 SC 340 to substantiate
his arguments. He has further pointed out that there is no bony injury
seen on the head of the injured. The allegation against the present
applicant is inflicting injury to Sandeep on his head whereas in the
medical no bony injury was found on the head, therefore, at the most
offence under Section 325 of IPC would be made out against the
present applicant. He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions
that may be imposed by this Court and has further shown his
willingness to render his services during this COVID 19 pandemic for
the help of the needy. Looking to the present scenario of COVID 19
pandemic, he prays for grant of bail.
Per contra, counsel for the State as well as the complainant have
opposed the application stating that there is active participation of the
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.32197/2021 (Kalu @ Balkishan vs. State of M.P.)
applicant in commission of offence. The applicant is said to have
inflicted injury on the head of the injured Sandeep in specific and
omnibus allegations regarding inflicting injury to Uday also. But they
fairly submit that no bony injuries found in the medical report.
Counsel for the complainant has contended that the case laws
which are relied upon by the counsel for the applicant are not attracted
in the facts and circumstances of the present case because in all those
cases the doctor has not given a specific opinion regarding the injuries
to be dangerous to life whereas in the present case the doctor has
specifically opined that the injuries were dangerous to life and it was
very difficult for the doctors to save the life of the injured.
At this stage, counsel for the applicant has pointed out that AIR
1993 SC 1256 (supra) also was a case under Section 307 of IPC and
looking to the custody period the bail was granted.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on
7.5.2021 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No.1/2020 and by
the Division Bench of this Court on 17.05.2021 in SUO MOTU W.P.
(C) No.9320/2021 regarding decongestion of prisoners and taking
aid of the judgment passed by the Supreme court in the case of
Bhausaheb Nagu Dhavare (supra), this Court deems it
appropriate to allow this application. Accordingly, the application is
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.32197/2021 (Kalu @ Balkishan vs. State of M.P.)
allowed. The applicant is directed to 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
Investigation Officer /trial Court, as the case may be with submission
of written undertaking and he will abide by all terms and conditions of
the different circulars, orders as well as guidelines issued by the Central
Government, State Government as well as Local Administration for
maintaining social distancing, hygiene etc to avoid Novel Corona Virus
(COVID -19) pandemic and he will have to install Arogya Setu App,
if not already installed.
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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the
Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence
of which he is accused;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the
trial; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.32197/2021 (Kalu @ Balkishan vs. State of M.P.)
the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
7. The applicant will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned
Police Station about his residential address in the said area and it would
be the duty of the State counsel to send E-copy of this order to SHO of
concerned police station as well as Superintendent of Police concerned
who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.
8. In case of involvement of the applicant in any other offence, the
bail granted by this Court shall stand rejected automatically.
Application stands allowed and disposed of.
In view of the COVID-19, jail authorities are directed that before
releasing the applicant, medical examination of applicant shall be
undertaken by the jail doctor and on prima facie, if it is found that he is
having the symptoms of COVID-19, then consequential follow up
action including the isolation/quarantine or any test if required, be
ensured, otherwise applicant shall be released immediately on bail and
shall be given a pass or permit for movement to reach his place of
residence.
E- copy of this order be provided to the applicant and E-copy of
this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance. It is
made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy
for practical purposes in respect of this order.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE van SMT VANDANA VERMA 2021.07.07 12:48:15
-07'00'
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!