Madhya Pradesh High Court
Puneet Shah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 February, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 740 of 2022
(PUNEET SHAH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
MCRC/48425/2021
(NAAGUJI@ NAGESH MORE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 18-02-2022
Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant- Puneet Shah in
M.Cr.C. No.740/2022.
Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant- Naaguji @
Nagesh More in M.Cr.C. No.48425/2021.
Shri Ritwik Parashar, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
With the consent, finally heard.
Regard being had to the similitude of the question involved, on the joint
request of the parties, both the matter are analogously heard and decided by this
common order.
These are first applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to
the applicants in connection with Crime No.252/2021 for the offences under
Sections 274, 275, 308, 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 201, 34 and 304 of the Indian
Penal Code, Section 53 of Disaster Management Act, 2005, Section 3 of Epidemic
Diseases Act, 1897, Section 65 of Information Technology Act and Section 5/13
M.P. Drug Control Act, 1949 registered at Police Station Omti, District Jabalpur.
M.Cr.C. No.740/2022
Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant submits that nothing
has been recovered from possession of the applicant. The applicant is arraigned
solely on the basis of a memorandum prepared under Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act. The applicant has no criminal record. Challan has already been filed.
Applicant will not tamper the evidence and material. This Court in several similar
matters have granted bail. He may be enlarged on bail.
M.Cr.C. No.48425/2021
Shri Ghansham Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant's arraignment is solely based on a memorandum of co-accused prepared
under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Nothing has been recovered from the
possession of the applicant. Applicant is the first offender. Challan has been filed.
Applicant will not tamper the evidence and material. He may be enlarged on bail
on basis of principles of parity.
Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has opposed the
bail applications but fairly admitted that:
1) Challan has been filed,
2) Arraignment of applicants is based on said memorandum,
3) Applicants are first offender,
This Court in M.Cr.C. No.42511 of 2021 recorded as under :-
"Indisputably, Rakesh Sharma was granted bail by co-
ordinate Bench by holding that Remdesivir injections were
n o t manufactured by the applicant therein nor it was
transported by applicant from Indore to Jabalpur.
Interestingly, three 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 the 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 "€œflight 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) of 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."
Considering the aforesaid, by applying principles of parity with other cases,
I deem it appropriate to grant bail to both the applicants.
Consequently, these applications for grant of bail under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C. are allowed.
The applicants Puneet Shah and Naaguji @ Nagesh More are directed
to be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like
amount e a c h to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their regular appearance
before the trial Court during trial with a condition that they 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 applicants are found to be involved in any
criminal activities, after their 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 persons 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 applicants shall surrender their passport before trial court and not
leave the country without express permission granted by the trial court.
C.c. as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL)
JUDGE
ahd
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MOHD AHMAD
Date: 2022.02.18 17:26:19 IST
