Balram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5113 MP

M.Cr.C. No.33142/2021                                                1



  HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE

                     M.Cr.C. No.33142/2021
       Balram S/o Bagdiram v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh
Indore, dated 07.09.2021
        Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the
applicant.
        Shri Valmik Sakargayen, learned Government Advocate
for the respondent / State.

With the consent, finally heard.

This is the third application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.172/2017 registered at Police Station - Raoji Bazar, District - Indore for the offences registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 212, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant is in custody since 18.10.2017.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially name of the applicant was not there in the F.I.R. Applicant's name was included subsequently. By placing reliance on the final report dated 09.01.2021, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant and one Abhishek Sharma were employees of the main accused. Abhishek Sharma was granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.23222/2021. The applicant is similarly situated. As per trial programme, there are 103 witnesses out of which only one has been examined. The conclusion of trial in this pandemic era will take time. Hence, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

The prayer is opposed by the learned Government Advocate for the respondent / State. However, he did not dispute that applicant is otherwise similarly situated qua Abhishek Sharma. It is pointed out that as per prosecution story applicant was holding liquor licence.

This Court in Abhishek Sharma (supra) opined as under:-

"This is the third 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, Rauji Bazar, Indore for the offences registered under Sections 420, 120-B, 212/34, 406, 468, 471 & 467 of IPC.

Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 28th September, 2018. Thus, he remained in jail for more than two years eight months. The previous applications applications were dismissed solely on the ground that applicant could not deposit the amount relating to the alleged loss caused to the State exchequer. Learned counsel for applicant submits that in the initial complaint lodged by the learned Collector on 8/8/2017 and consequential FIR dated 11/8/2017 the name of applicant does not find place. Subsequent thereto, two supplementary charge sheets were filed on 9/1/2018 and 9/12/2018 respectively. For the first time, in second supplementary charge sheet applicant's name was mentioned. By taking this Court to the said supplementary charge sheet, learned counsel for applicant submits that a plain reading of the relevant portion makes it clear that the main accused was Ansh and two other persons namely Lavkush Pandey and Jitendra Shivram. Applicant was merely an accountant/employee of ATM group owned by main accused Ansh. Interestingly Ansh, Lavkush Pandey and Jitendra Shivram are already enlarged on bail by this Court. Another co-accused Deepak Jaiswal could succeed from the Supreme Court in SLP(Cr.) No.8401/2018. The Apex Court granted him bail subject to depositing property security of Rupees 1.25 crore. The applicant is willing to deposit a security of adequate

amount as deemed fit by this Court. The applicant may be enlarged on bail considering the fact that conclusion of trial in this pandemic era in near future is a bleak possibility. As many as 103 witnesses are to be examined out of which only one witness has been partially examined till date. The incriminating material is already in possession of prosecution. The apex Court in its recent judgment reported in (2021) 2 SCC 779 Dilip Singh Vs. State of MP came to hold that in a bail proceeding the Court is not obliged to act as a recovery agent for a party. In this back drop and considering the order passed by Supreme Court in the case of co-accused Deepak Jaiswal (supra), the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

Shri Karanjawala, learned PL for State has opposed the bail application. However, he did not dispute that applicant is the first offender and out of 103 witnesses only one could be partially examined. He further submits that since applicant is already succeeded in getting temporary bail, this application has lost its significance.

No other point is pressed by learned counsel for parties.

The applicant was granted temporary bail for the reason that his one family member died because of Covid and many others were suffering from Covid. Resultantly, grant of temporary bail, by no stretch of imagination will frustrate his main application for grant of bail.

It is seen that his previous applications were rejected solely on the ground that he could not deposit the amount. Since learned counsel for applicant has shown willingness to furnish property security of an appropriate amount, I deem it proper to follow the course adopted by Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Jaiswal (supra).

Accordingly, it is directed that the applicant Abhishek Sharma be released on bail on his furnishing a property security of Rupees One 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."

In view of the said order passed in Abhishek Sharma and in absence of any distinguishing feature which makes case of present applicant different than the case of Abhishek Sharma (supra), I deem it proper to enlarge the applicant on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

The applicant is directed to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance as and when directed. He shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.

The applicant will attend each hearing of his trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises. Any default in the attendance in Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.

With the aforesaid, the application stands disposed of. Certified copy, as per Rules.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE Ravi Digitally signed by RAVI PRAKASH Date: 2021.09.08 10:47:07 +05'30'