Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sharukh Khan vs State Of Mp on 7 June, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC.No.26706/2021
(Sharukh Khan Vs. The State of M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated : 07.06.2021
Shri Ashish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pramod Pachauri, learned Govt. Advocate for the State.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties through Video
Conferencing.
The applicant has filed this first application u/S.438 Cr.P.C. for
grant of anticipatory bail as she has apprehension of his arrest in
connection with Crime No.163/2021 registered at Police Station Fkkuk
cklkSnk nsgkr, District Vidisha (M.P.) for the offence punishable under
Sections 307, 294, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC.
It is alleged by the counsel for the applicant that as per the
prosecution story, allegation against the present applicant is of abusing
the complainant party. No allegation of inflicting any injury is against
the present applicant. The main allegations is against the co-accused
Rohit Khan and Sharif Khan. The co-accused Rohit Khan is already in
custody. Counsel for the applicant undertakes that other co-accused
Sharif Khan will surrender within seven days. The applicant is a first
offender and he is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that
may be imposed by this court while considering the application for
grant of anticipatory bail. There is no possibility of his absconding or
tampering with the prosecution case. Looking to the present scenario
of Covid-19, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of
2
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC.No.26706/2021
(Sharukh Khan Vs. The State of M.P.)
anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Per contra, learned Govt. Advocate for the State has opposed the
anticipatory bail application stating that the investigation is pending in
the matter and there is active participation of the present applicant in
commission of offence as he has accompanied with the other
co-accused who have inflicted the injuries. But he fairly submits that
there is no allegation of inflicting injury on the present applicant. The
applicant being a first offender is also not disputed by the State
counsel.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and
the undertaking given by the counsel for the applicant that other
co-accused Sharif Khan will surrender within seven days coupled with
the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme by order dated 23.03.2020 passed in
the case of IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN
PRISONS in SUO MOTU W.P. (C) No.1/2020 has directed all the
States to constitute a High Level Committee to consider the release of
prisoners in order to decongest the prisons. The Supreme Court has
observed as under :-
"The issue of overcrowding of prisons is a matter of
serious concern particularly in the present context of
the pandemic of Corona Virus (COVID - 19).
Having regard to the provisions of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, it has become imperative to
ensure that the spread of the Corona Virus within the
prisons is controlled. We direct that each State/Union
Territory shall constitute a High Powered Committee
3
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC.No.26706/2021
(Sharukh Khan Vs. The State of M.P.)
comprising of (i) Chairman of the State Legal Services
Committee, (ii) the Principal Secretary (Home/Prison)
by whatever designation is known as, (ii) Director
General of Prison(s), to determine which class of
prisoners can be released on parole or an interim bail
for such period as may be thought appropriate. For
instance, the State/Union Territory could consider the
release of prisoners who have been convicted or are
under trial for offences for which prescribed
punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or without
fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser
number of years than the maximum.
It is made clear that we leave it open for the
High Powered Committee to determine the category of
prisoners who should be released as aforesaid,
depending upon the nature of offence, the number of
years to which he or she has been sentenced or the
severity of the offence with which he/she is charged
with and is facing trial or any other relevant factor,
which the Committee may consider appropriate."
and in the light of the Division Bench has recently passed the
judgment in the case of In Reference (Suo Moto) Vs. Union of India
and Others vide dated 23.04.2021 in W.P.No.8820/2021, this Court
deems it appropriate to allow this application.
The application is allowed subject to verification of the fact that
there is no criminal antecedent against the present applicant. In the
event of arrest, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing surety bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only)
with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Arresting Officer.
The applicant shall submit written undertaking that he will abide
by all terms and conditions of different circulars, orders as well as
4
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC.No.26706/2021
(Sharukh Khan Vs. The State of M.P.)
guidelines issued by 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 move in the vicinity of complainant party
and the applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the
trial;
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission
of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
7. The applicant will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC.No.26706/2021
(Sharukh Khan Vs. The State of M.P.)
Police Station about him residential address in the said area and it
would be the duty of the Govt. Advocate to send copy of this order to
SHO of concerned police station as well as the concerning
Superintendent of Police who shall inform the concerned SHO
regarding the same.
Application stands allowed.
E-copy/certified copy as per rules/directions.
(Vishal Mishra)
AK/- Judge
ANAND KUMAR
2021.06.08
10:48:54
+05'30'
