Vijay Kumar Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1980 MP

1                                               M.Cr.C. No.21568/2021

         The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
                        M.Cr.C. No.21568/2021
            Vijay Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P.

Indore, Dated:17.05.2021

      Heard through video conferencing.

      Shri. Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for applicant.

      Shri.S.Karanjawala,       learned    Panel     Lawyer       for
respondent/State.

With the consent heard finally.

This is the VII bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.172/2017 registered at Police Station, Raoji Bazar, Indore for the offences registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 & 34 of IPC. The applicant is in custody since 8/2/2019.

Learned counsel for applicant submits that; (i) The applicant has no criminal record; (ii) The prosecution intends to produce 103 witnesses out of which only one has partially deposed his statement; (iii) Conclusion of trial in this pandemic era will take time; (iv) the applicant remained in jail already for a considerably long time; (v) Co-accused Ansh, Lavkush Pandey and Jitendra were already granted bail; (vi) Supreme Court has granted bail to co-accused Deepak Jaiswal on property security of almost 50% of the amount alleged against him and the applicant is ready to furnish similar property security of same proportion. Shri Rathi further submits that although SLP(Cr.) No.5251/2020 was dismissed as withdrawn on 19/1/2021, this application can be entertained in the light of judgment reported in (2003) 12 SCC 615 [Parvindersingh Vs. State of Punjab].

Prayer is opposed by Shri Karanjawala, learned PL. However, he fairly admitted that applicant has no criminal record and conclusion of trial will take time.

Considering the aforesaid, I find no impediment in entertaining this application because aforesaid SLP was not dismissed on merits indeed it was permitted to be withdrawn. The Apex Court in Parvindersingh (supra) opined that High Court can always consider fresh circumstances and subsequent events. At the cost of repetition, 103 witnesses are listed out of which only one has been examined partially. Conclusion of trial in this Covid 19 scenario is not possible in near future. Other co-accused persons have been granted bail.

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances as also the order passed by Supreme Court in Deepak Jaiswal (supra), I deem it proper to grant bail to applicant.

Accordingly, it is directed that the applicant Vijay Kumar Shrivastava be released on bail on his furnishing a property security of Rupees Three Crore and a personal bond for the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for securing his presence before the said court regularly on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C.

C.C. as per rules.

(SUJOY PAUL) Judge

vm

Digitally signed by SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Date: 2021.05.18 10:35:39 +05'30'