Harkaran Singh Mokha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6184 MP

1                                               M.Cr.C.No.42511/2021
    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE

                      M.Cr.C. No.42511/2021
      Harkaran Singh Mokha v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh

Indore, dated 29.09.2021
       Shri Manish Dutt, learned Sr.Counsel with Shri Pankaj
Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant.
       Shri Amit Singh Sisodiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent / State.
       With the consent, finally heard.
                           ORDER

This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.252/2021 registered at Police Station - Omti, Distt. Jabalpur for the offences registered under Sections 201, 274, 275, 304, 467, 468,471, 308, 420, 120- B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sec.53 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 and u/S.3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. The applicant is in custody since 24/5/2021.

It is submitted on behalf of applicant that applicant is a student aged about 27 years. His name did not find place in the FIR. As per prosecution story, a box of Remdesivir injection reached from Indore to Jabalpur. The person who sent the box from Indore was Prakhar and it was sent in the name of Shri Divyang Dubey. It was received by Divyang Dubey. The only role attributed to the present applicant is based on the statement of Prakhar. Prakhar stated that applicant called him and requested him to talk to his father namely Sarabjeet Singh Mokha. As per the discussion with Sarabjeet Singh Mokha the box containing Remdesivir injections were sent by Prakhar

from Indore. Merely because applicant's phone was used in conversation by his father, he cannot be made accused and cannot be denied bail. Moreso when applicant himself preferred an application before court below showing his intention to surrender. The challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial in this pandemic era will take time. The co-ordinate bench of this Court has granted bail to co-accused person namely Mrs. Jasmeet Kaur in M.Cr.C. No.39393/2021, Mrs. Sonia Shukul in M.Cr.C. No.39409/2021 and Shri Rakesh Sharma in M.Cr.C. No.36262/2021. These co-accused persons were granted bail whereas as per prosecution story Rakesh Sharma is one of the main accused. The Remdesivir injections were allegedly found in the possession of Ms.Jasmeet Kaur and Mrs. Sonia Shukul. No injection is recovered from present applicant.

Shri Manish Datt, learned Sr.counsel has relied on various statements of prosecution witnesses recorded u/S.161 of Cr.P.C and urged that as per these statements also no case is made out against the applicants. Applicant has no criminal record. He may be enlarged on bail. He placed reliance on two judgments of supreme Court in this regard.

Per contra, Shri Sisodiya, learned PL opposed the bail by contending that the bail orders were passed in favour of certain co-accused persons wherein no allegation was made that they were instrumental to transport of Remdesivir boxes whereas there is serious allegations in this regard against present applicant. Applicant was one of the Directors of City Hospital where these injections were used. He also placed reliance on the some statements of witnesses.

In rejoinder submissions, Shri Datt, learned Sr.Counsel submits that the main accused are Punit Shah and Koushal Vora who manufactured the fake injections at Gujarat and sent it to the persons situated at Indore. There is no iota of material to show that applicant was aware that injections were fake.

I have heard the learned counsel for parties at length and perused the case diary.

Indisputably, Rakesh Sharma was granted bail by co- ordinate bench by holding that Remdesivir injections were not manufactured by the applicant therein nor it was transported by applicant from Indore to Jabalpur. Interestingly, there is no allegation against present applicant also that he manufactured the fake injections or sent the same from Indore to Jabalpur. No injection is recovered from the possession of applicant.

In the case of Mrs. Sonia Shukul (supra) the bail was granted to the applicant who was Administrator of the City Hospital. Bail was granted for the same reason that injections were neither manufactured nor got transported by her from Indore to Jabalpur. The reason for grant of bail to Mrs. Jasmeet Kaur was also the same.

The Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40 held that object of bail is to secure the appearance of accused persons at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Another primary purpose of bail in a criminal case is to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of

the court whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required. Similarly in P.Chidambaram Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2020) 13 SCC 337, the Apex Court considered its previous judgments and opined that in absence of any "flight risk" or tampering with evidence, and in absence of any possibility of accused's abscondence, the bail can be granted if other necessary ingredients are satisfied.

The applicant deserves bail in view of nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in the case of conviction. There is no iota of material to suggest that applicant can tamper with witnesses or can tamper with the evidence. The incriminating material is already in possession of prosecution. The presence of applicant can be secured at the time of trial. There is no criminal record and applicant is a young boy of 27 years.

Considering the aforesaid and without expressing any opinion upon the merits of the case, I deem it proper to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

It is also observed that if the applicant is found to be involved in any criminal activities, after his release on bail, then the present bail order shall stand cancelled without further reference to the Court and the State / prosecution will be free to arrest the accused in the present case also. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective. The applicant shall surrender his passport before trial court and not leave the country without express permission granted by the trial court.

Certified copy, as per Rules.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE vm

Digitally signed by VARGHESE MATHEW Date: 2021.09.30 11:13:07 -07'00'