Nandkishore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3060 MP

                                              1
                                                                        MCRC No.21558/2021

           HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
                              BENCH AT INDORE
            S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Subodh Abhyankar
         Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.21558/2021
                          (Nandkishore s/o Ganesh Ram Meghwal
                                          Versus
                              The State of Madhya Pradesh)



                              (Case was heard on 30th June, 2021)


Counsel for the Parties   :   Mr. Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
                              Mr. Anendra Singh Parihar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respon-
                              dent / State of Madhya Pradesh.
Whether approved for :        Yes
reporting
Law laid down             :          In case of issuance of summons / warrants against
                                     government employee / officer, the prosecution fails
                                     to procure their presence in Court, their salary /
                                     pension, as the case may be, can be withheld, if it is
                                     found that the government official is avoiding the
                                     summons / warrants.

Significant paragraph :       From 06 to 09
numbers

                                    ORDER

Post for

07.07.2021

(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge

MCRC No.21558/2021

High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.21558/2021 (Nandkishore s/o Ganesh Ram Meghwal Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh)

***** Mr. Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Anendra Singh Parihar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State of Madhya Pradesh.

***** ORDER (Passed on this 7th day of July, 2021)

This is the applicant's repeat (seventh) bail application

under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. He is

implicated in connection with Crime No.230/2014 registered at

Police Station Birlagram, District Ujjain (MP) for offence punishable

under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860. His earlier bail applications have already been

dismissed by this Court on merits. The applicant is in jail since

25.10.2018.

2. The allegation against the applicant is that he committed

murder of Satish s/o Ramkirshna.

3. Counsel for the applicant has submitted in fifth bail

application of the applicant being Miscellaneous Criminal Case

No.46754/2019, this Court vide order dated 20.11.2019 while

dismissing the repeat bail application as withdrawn, directed the

learned Judge of the trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude the

MCRC No.21558/2021

same as early as possible. Counsel has further submitted that the

applicant is in jail since 29.08.2014 and till date, the trial has not

concluded, despite the specific order passed by this Court. Thus,

taking into account the period of incarceration, which is around

seven years' incarceration, the application be allowed.

4. Counsel has also cited various judgments of this Court

in the case of Phool Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh in

Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.36488/2020, order dated

01.10.2020 (Gwalior Bench); Rambahor Saket & others v. State of

Madhya Pradesh in Miscellaneous Criminal Cases No.32718,

25031 and 17896 of 2018, order dated 04.12.2018 (Main Seat at

Jabalpur); Monu @ Katle @ Ifran v. State of Madhya Pradesh in

Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.5459/2021 vide order dated

02.02.2021 (Gwalior Bench) and in the case of Surendra Patel v.

State of Madhya Pradesh in Miscellaneous Criminal Case

No.3556/2019 and Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.37749/2018

on 20.10.2020 (Main Seat at Jabalpur) as well as the judgments of

the Supreme Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon & others v.

Home Secretary, State of Bihar reported as (1980) 1 SCC 81,

Vivek Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported as (2000) 9 SCC

443 to substantiate his point, that the applicant cannot be allowed to

languish in jail, when the prosecution is not able to lead its entire

evidence within a reasonable period of time.

MCRC No.21558/2021

5. Counsel for the respondent / State, on the other hand,

has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for grant of

bail is made out, as his earlier bail applications have already been

dismissed on merits.

6. This Court has also called for the report regarding the

status of the case from the trial Court; and as per the status report,

nine witnesses have already been examined and only two

prosecution witnesses are remained to be still examined and they are

Dr. Shiv Kumar Saimil (the doctor who performed the postmortem)

and the Investigating Officer of the case Sub Inspector Narendra

Yadav. It is also mentioned in the status report that the presence of

these two witnesses could not be procured despite issuance of

warrants against them.

7. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of

the case and considering the gravity of the offence, although this

Court does not find it to be a fit case to grant bail to the applicant at

this juncture, however, looking to the fact that the applicant is in jail

since 29.08.2014, learned Judge of the trial Court is directed to

conclude the trial preferably within a further period of six months

and if the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the

applicant can renew his prayer for grant of bail. So far as the

judgments cited by the counsel for the applicant are concerned, the

same are not relevant at this stage.

MCRC No.21558/2021

8. Taking note of the conduct of the official prosecution

witnesses, this court finds it rather surprising that the prosecution has

not been able to procure the presence of two official witnesses, who

are on government payroll, even after issuing arrest warrants against

them. In such circumstances, it is directed to the Principal Secretary,

General Administration Department, State of Madhya Pradesh,

Bhopal and the Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Bhopal to

withhold the salary of these employees, viz., Dr. Shiv Kumar Saimil

(the doctor who performed the postmortem) and the Investigating

Officer of the case Sub Inspector Narendra Yadav if they are still

employed with the government; and if they are already retired, their

pension be withheld with immediate effect until they appear before

the concerned Court for recording of their statement in the matter.

9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Principal

Secretary, General Administration Department, State of Madhya

Pradesh, Bhopal and the Secretary, Department of Home (Police),

Bhopal who are also directed to furnish its compliance report to the

Registry of this Court within a period of ten days from the date of

receipt of certified copy of this order.

10. With the aforesaid observation and direction,

Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.21558/2021 stands disposed of.

(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge Pithawe RC

RAMESH CHANDRA PITHWE 2021.07.07 18:56:27 +05'30'