Rahul Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5344 MP

                             1

        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
               Writ Petition No. 12764/2021
         (Rahul Vishwakarma Vs. The State of MP)

Indore, Dated: 13/9/2021
      Shri Vijay Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri Vivek Dalal, learned AAG for State.
      Heard on interim relief.
      During the course of hearing, learned court for the parties
fairly submitted that one of questions involved in this petition is
already referred for adjudication before a Larger Bench and
decision of said Bench is awaited.
      The petitioner is detained in a single stroke for a period
beyond three months which is one of the question referred to the
Larger Bench. In WP No. 11548/2021 preferred by co-accused
Sudheer Soni, this Court has stayed the detention order on certain
conditions. The petitioner may be treated at par.
      The prayer is opposed by Shri Vivek Dalal, learned AAG. But
he did not dispute that the present petitioner is co-accused in the
same crime number in which petitioner of WP no. 11548/21 was
given benefit of interim order.
      This Court in WP No. 11548/2021 by order dated 18.8.2021
recorded as under:-
      "Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the
     petitioners.
      Shri Milind Phadke, learned counsel for the Union of
     India.
      Shri Vivek Dalal, learned AAG for the
     respondent/State.

Heard on IA Nos.7202/2021 and 7203/2021, seeking interim release of the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this

court by order dated 16.08.2021 referred two questions for consideration of larger bench. The larger bench is yet to be constituted. The petitioner has raised various points out of which some have been referred for consideration of larger bench.

As per prevailing legal situation based on the judgment of the Apex Court in Cherukuri Mani Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Andra Pradesh and Ors reported in (2015) 13 SCC 722, which was consistently followed by various Division Benches of this Court, the detention order passed by District Magistrate at a stretch for a period of more than three months becomes illegal and void from its inception. The constitution of larger bench and its decision may take time. Considering the similar situation, Principal Seat of this court in Kamal Khare Vs. State of MP passed in WP Nos.22290/2020 on 18.02.2020 and Lalchand Dasani Vs. State of MP passed in WP No.1298/2021 on 09.02.2021 granted benefit of interim release. The prayer is opposed by the learned AAG for the respondent/State by contending that in the case of Kamal Khare (supra), the applicant therein remained in custody for more than three months, whereas, in the present case, the applicant has not completed the said period.

The basic reason, in our opinion for granting the benefit of interim release in those two matters was that constitution of the larger bench may take time, and therefore, the detenue deserves interim release. Accordingly, it is directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh) with a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Registrar of this Court, the detenue be released from the detention with the further direction to appear before the Registry of this Court on 09.09.2021 and on such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Office in that behalf, till final disposal of the present writ petition."

Applying the principles of parity, the present petitioner shall get the same benefit on same terms. The detenue is directed to

appear before the Registry of this Court on 27.9.2021 and on such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Office in that behalf till final disposal of the present writ petition.

List this matter for final hearing after two weeks.

      (Sujoy Paul)                              (Anil Verma)
          Judge                                   Judge
BDJ



  Digitally signed by
  BHUVNESHWAR DATT JOSHI
  Date: 2021.09.14 10:45:55
  +05'30'