Bharatlal Bhargav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5830 MP

                          1
          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   MCRC No.46849/2021
         (BHARATLAL BHARGAV VS. STATE OF M.P.)

Gwalior, Dated : 22/09/2021

      Shri R.K.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.

      Shri Lokendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the State.

      Shri S.S.Rawat, learned counsel for the complainant.

      Case diary is available.

      This is first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been

filed for grant of anticipatory bail.

      The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime

No.319/2021 registered at Police Station Mehgaon, District Bhind

for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468/34 of IPC.

      It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that in the

year 2002 Bharatlal Bhargav was the Panchayat Secretary and it is

alleged that a resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat thereby

expressing no objection on the possession of Sobharam, Jaswant,

Prabhudayal and Munnilal on the Awadi land. It is submitted that a

similar resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat in the year

2016. The resolutions passed in the year 2002 and 2016 were

challenged before the SDO (Revenue) Mehgaon, District Bhind in

Case No. 120/2017-18/A.MA., which was allowed by order dated

30/08/2019

and the resolutions dated 20/02/2002 and 21/03/2016

were set aside.

However, on an appeal, the Collector, District Bhind in Case

No.1/2019-20/A-89(15) has set aside the order of SDO (Revenue)

Mehgaon, District Bhind by order dated 22/12/2020 on the ground

that a civil suit is already pending between the parties and it would

not be appropriate for the revenue courts to give any findings on

the issue, which is a subject matter of the civil suit. Thus, it is

submitted that at present the resolution dated 20/02/2002 and

21/03/2016 are still good and the said resolution was passed by the

Gram Panchayat and it cannot be said that the applicant who was

working as a Panchayat Secretary is directly or indirectly

responsible for the resolution passed by Gram Panchayat. It is

submitted by the counsel for the applicant is ready and willing to

co-operate with the Investigating Officer. 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 anticipatory bail application is vehemently

opposed by the counsel for the State as well as the counsel for the

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

is nothing in the case diary to indicate that the order dated

30/08/2019 passed by SDO (Revenue) Mehgaon, District Bhind

has been set aside by Collector by order dated 22/12/2020.

However, after going through the order dated 22/12/2020 passed by

Collector, District Bhind in Case No.1/2019-20/A-89(15), which

has been placed as Annexure P/5, it is submitted by the counsel for

the State as well as counsel for the complainant, it appears that the

order passed by the SDO (Revenue) Mehgoan, District Bhind has

been set aside.

Considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the

parties.

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

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 Committee may consider appropriate."

Considering the fact that the applicant was working as a

Panchayat Secretary, when the resolutions were passed by the Gram

Panchayat and that to in the year 2002, which was reiterated in the

year 2016, 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, it is directed that if the applicant appears

before the Investigating officer on or before 29/09/2021 and furnishes

his personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rs. One Lac) to the

satisfaction of the investigating officer, then he shall be released on

bail. The applicant shall also furnish an undertaking that he shall

follow 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 Covid19.

The other conditions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. shall remain the

same.

This order shall remain in force, till the conclusion of Trial. In

case of bail jump, or violation of any of the condition(s) mentioned

above, this order shall automatically lose its effect.

In case, if the applicant fails to appear before the investigating

officer on the specified date, then this order shall lose its effect.

In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the

case of Aparna Bhat & Ors. vs. State of M.P. passed on 18.3.2021

in Criminal Appeal No.329/2021, the intimation regarding grant of

bail be sent to the complainant.

With aforesaid observations, this application is Allowed.

                                                                    (G.S. Ahluwalia)
Pj'S/-                                                                    Judge
         Digitally signed by
         PRINCEE BARAIYA
         Date: 2021.09.22
         16:07:03 -07'00'