Ghanshyam Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5590 MP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 5590 MP
Judgement Date : 17 September, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ghanshyam Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 September, 2021

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                              1
         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    Cr.A. No. 5481/2021
         Ghanshyam Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and Another

Gwalior, Dated : 17-09-2021

      Shri Pradeep Katare, counsel for appellant.

      Shri C.P. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1/State.

None for the respondent No. 2/complainant.

It is submitted by the counsel for the State that the complainant

has been informed about the pendency of this appeal as required

under Section 15-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short "Act").

Case diary is available.

This first criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the Act has

been filed for grant of anticipatory bail.

The appellant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime

No.21/2021 registered by Police Station Barohi Distt. Bhind for

offence punishable under Sections 302, 465, 467, 471, 166, 166-A,

193, 196, 197, 199, 203, 218, 201 of IPC and Sections 3 (2) (vi), 3

(2) (v) of the Act.

It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that according

to the prosecution case, the deceased Shyamlal Jatav was beaten by

co-accused Lalu Narwariya, Dhaplu @ Omkar Narwariya and

Gajendra Narwariya by lathi and thereafter he was shifted to J.A.

Hospital Gwalior for treatment purposes. The deceased Shyamlal

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 5481/2021 Ghanshyam Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and Another

Jatav was admitted in the hospital by the co-accused persons in the

name of Nathuram, whereas Nathuram had already expired on

08.06.2013 which is evident from various documents. It is alleged

that according to the prosecution case, it appears that appellant has

given a false statement with his affidavit that Nathuram was admitted

in the hospital and Nathuram has expired whereas in fact Shyamlal

Jatav was admitted in the hospital and Shyamlal Jatav had expired. It

is submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, it is clear

that the only allegation against the appellant is of screening and

giving false evidence and there is no allegation that appellant was

actually involved in the murder of Shyamlal. The appellant is ready

and willing to cooperate in the investigation. The Trial is likely to

take sufficiently long time and there is no possibility of his

absconding or tampering with the prosecution case.

Per contra, the appeal is opposed by the counsel for the State.

However, it is fairly conceded that the only allegation against the

appellant is that of giving false evidence and screening the offenders.

There is no allegation of causing any injury to Shyamlal.

Considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the

parties.

The Supreme Court by order dated 23-3-2020 passed in the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 5481/2021 Ghanshyam Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and Another

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 Powered 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 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 undertrial 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

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 5481/2021 Ghanshyam Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and Another

Committee may consider appropriate."

Considering the allegations, as well as considering the fact the

deteriorating situation in view of second wave of Covid19 pandemic,

and without commenting on the merits of the case, the appeal for

grant of anticipatory bail is allowed. It is directed that if the appellant

appears before the Investigating Officer on or before 24.09.2021 and

furnishes his personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One

Lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the

Investigation Officer, then he shall be released on bail. The appellant

shall also furnish an undertaking that he will abide by all the

instructions which may be issued by the Central Govt./State Govt. or

Local Administration (General or Specific) from time to time for

combating Covid-19.