Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kallu @ Prahlad Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 February, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-6781-2022
Kallu @ Prahlad Tomar Vs. State of MP
Through video conferencing
Gwalior, Dated: 08.02.2022
Shri Deependra Singh Kushwaha, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri A.K. Nirankari, Counsel for the State.
Case diary is available.
This first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been
filed for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested on 29.09.2021 in connection
with Crime No.423/2021 registered at Police Station Ambah Distt.
Morena for offence under Section 34 (2) of M.P. Excise Act.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according
the prosecution case, 95.40 bulk liters of English liquor was seized
from the car. The applicant is in jail from 29.09.2021. In view of his
criminal antecedents, he is ready and willing to abide by any
stringent condition which may be imposed by the Court including
that of furnishing cash surety. 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 application is vehemently opposed by the
counsel for the State. It is submitted that three criminal cases have
been registered against him. Out of which, two were registered under
M.P. Excise Act and one was under Section 307 of IPC.
Considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant, coupled
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-6781-2022
Kallu @ Prahlad Tomar Vs. State of MP
with the quantity of liquor seized from his possession as well as the
period of detention, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
bail can be granted only on the stringent conditions.
Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the
application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be
released on bail on furnishing cash surety of Rs 1,50,000/- (Rupees
One Lac Fifty Thousand Only) or in the alternative on depositing
his original title-deed(s) [not Rin Pustika] of the immovable property
worth of more than the said amount, as directed by the Supreme
Court in the case of Sharo @ Shahrukh Vs. The State of MP by
order dated 06.09.2021 passed in SLP (Cri) No. 6321/2021 to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court/Committal Court to appear before the
Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.
This order shall remain effective till the end of trial but in case
of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
It is made clear that single default in appearance before the
Trial Court, or in case of registration of new offence, this bail order
shall automatically come to an end and the cash surety so furnished
by the applicant shall automatically stand forfeited without any
reference to the Court. If the title deeds are deposited, then the same
shall not be returned unless the cash surety amount is deposited.
In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in
the case of Aparna Bhat and others Vs. State of M.P. Passed on
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-6781-2022
Kallu @ Prahlad Tomar Vs. State of MP
18.03.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 329/2021, the intimation
regarding grant of bail be sent to the complainant.
CC as per rules.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
Abhi
ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
2022.02.09
10:30:27 +05'30'
