Nanu @ Naneshwar Gatkhane vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 490 MP

                                                                           1
                                           The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                   MCRC No. 63995 of 2021
                                              (NANU @ NANESHWAR GATKHANE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                         Jabalpur, Dated : 11-01-2022
                                     Heard through Video Conferencing.

                                     Shri Ankit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
                                     Shri Tapan Bathre, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

This is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C filed by the applicant for grant of bail.

The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Govindpura District Bhopal in

connection with Crime No.742/2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506, 326 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is pointed out that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and has not committed any offence in any manner. The allegation of inflicting the main injuries is upon the co-accused Bharat who has inflicted injuries by knife to the injured. Initially the offence was registered under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506 and 34 of I.P.C. and subsequently at the time of filing of charge sheet offence under Section 326 of I.P.C. has been added. It is argued that there was a small altercation between the applicant along with other co-accused persons with the complainant owing to some monetary

dispute and all of a sudden the incident took place. As far as criminal past of the applicant is concerned, the State counsel has pointed out that he is having a long criminal past of 18 cases. It is pointed out that maximum cases are of 110 Cr.P.C. Some are minor offences. Only two three cases are registered under Section 326 of I.P.C. against the present applicant. He is ready to abide by all terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while considering his application for grant of bail. On these grounds, he prays for grant of bail.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer stating that the applicant is the habitual offender and having long criminal history of 18 cases including the proceedings under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. against the present applicant. He has participated in commission of offence and has inflicted Signature Not Verified SAN injuries by hands and fists. He has prayed for dismissal of the application.

Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 2022.01.17 17:44:30 IST

At this stage, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2020) 11 SCC 648 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the criminal antecedents should not be taken into consideration at the time of considering the bail application.

Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting upon the merits of the case and also the fact that the fatal injury was not caused by the present applicant, coupled with the fact that the charge sheet has been filed in the matter and there is no further requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicant, this application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

In view of the COVID-19, jail authorities are directed that before releasing the applicant, medical examination of applicant shall be undertaken by the jail doctor and on prima-facie, if it is found that he is having the symptoms of COVID-19, then consequential follow up action including the isolation/quarantine or any test if required, be ensured, otherwise applicant shall be released immediately on bail and shall be given a pass or permit for movement to reach his place of residence.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-

1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be; 3 . The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4. The applicant shall not involve any other offence, in case the applicant indulge in any other criminal case the benefit of bail as extended by this Court shall automatically cancelled;

Signature Not Verified SAN

5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 2022.01.17 17:44:30 IST

6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;

7. If the applicant is found involved in any case except present one, her bail shall stand rejected without any reference to the court;

8. The applicant will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned Police Station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station as well as Superintendent of Police concerned who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.

Application stands allowed and disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE

AM

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 2022.01.17 17:44:30 IST