Rahul @ Kallu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6436 MP

                                 1                 Mcrc 37119-2021

                THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           Mcrc.37119-2021
                    (Rahul @ Kallu Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior Dt. 05.10.2021

      Shri Ram Kishore Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner.

      Shri A.P.S.Tomar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent-State.

Case diary is perused.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

This is 1st application u/S.439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner

for grant of bail.

The petitioner has been arrested on 13.03.2021 by Police Station

Ron District Bhind (M.P.) in connection with crime No.154/2020

registered in relation to the offence punishable u/S. 392, 341 of IPC and

11/13 of MPDVPK Act.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the application and prayed

for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the

material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.

Robbery is alleged against petitioner. Certain pieces of jewelry

have been recovered from petitioner. TIP, which was held nearly four

months after the incident, has led to recognition. The probative value of

the said TIP is under doubt considering the interregnum period between

the date of arrest and holding of TIP.

State counsel informs that petitioner has large number of offences

constituting criminal antecedents.

Petitioner has brought on record judgments showing that he has

been acquitted in four cases.

Considering the period of custody which is about seven months 2 Mcrc 37119-2021

and the fact that early conclusion of the trial is a bleak possibility and

prolonged pre-trial detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty

and the material placed on record does not disclose possibility of

petitioner fleeing from justice, though this Court is inclined to extend

benefit of bail to the petitioner but with certain stringent conditions in

view of criminal antecedents of petitioner.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case,

this application is allowed and it is directed that Petitioner-Rahul @

Kallu be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of

Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties of the

like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Trial Court.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the

following conditions by the petitioner :-

1.The petitioner will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2. The petitioner will cooperate in the trial ;

3. The petitioner 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

5. The petitioner will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

6. The petitioner will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

3 Mcrc 37119-2021

7. The petitioner shall appear and mark his presence before concerned trial Court once in every fortnight, till conclusion of trial.

8. The learned concerned Magistrate and the prosecution are directed to ensure following of Covid-19 precautionary protocol prescribed from time to time by the Supreme Court, the Central Govt. and as well as the State Govt during release, travel and residence of the petitioner during period of bail as a consequence of this order.

9. Petitioner shall plant 10 saplings of indigenous fruit bearing or shady trees on the side of the road/street of the place of residence of petitioner or at any other place in the district which is earmarked by the Collector/Revenue Authority for planting trees and shall take care of the trees for the next one year by watering the plants and by installing tree guards at his own expenses. In case the petitioner is unable to afford incurring of such expenses, then he would obtain saplings/tree guard from the forest authorities (the concerned Forest Range Officer of the area) free of cost or at concessional/nominal rates available under any beneficial scheme of the Government. Petitioner shall file an affidavit disclosing compliance of this condition within 30 days in the Registry, failing which this court may consider cancellation of bail.

On complying with condition No.9 aforesaid, the petitioner is directed to inform the location of plantation made to the Forest Range Officer of the area concerned who will pass on this information to the DFO concerned.

For effective implementation of this order in the interest of betterment of ecology of the area concerned, the District Magistrate of district within which the petitioner resides is directed to assist the petitioner/accused to comply with condition No.9 by extending all possible financial and material assistance to the petitioner admissible under any of the beneficial scheme for afforestation of the State.

4 Mcrc 37119-2021

The DFO of the concerned District is directed to file verification report before the trial Court concerned after carrying out inspection personally or through any other officer of the Forest Dept duly authorised in that behalf disclosing as to whether petitioner has complied with condition No.9 or not, and if yes to what extent? The learned trial Judge on receiving report of non- compliance of condition No.9 shall forthwith communicate the same to the Registry of this Court.

The Registry on receiving any such report from the trial Court disclosing default shall put up the matter before appropriate Bench in shape of PUD.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.

Let a typed copy of this order be also supplied to the counsel for the State for compliance of the aforesaid directives. A copy of this order be furnished by the Registry of this Court to the concerned District Magistrate and the DFO having territorial jurisdiction over the place of residence of the petitioner for execution of the order in the interest of the ecology.

For the time being this case stands disposed of.

C.c as per rules.

YOGENDR                                                       (Sheel Nagu)
A OJHA
2021.10.0                                                        Judge
5 19:45:02
             ojha
+05'30'