Rahul @ Kallu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4413 MP

                             1
           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     MCRC-15366-2022
                Rahul @ Kallu Vs. State of MP

Gwalior, Dated: 29.03.2022

      Shri S.S. Kushwaha with Shri Ram Kishore Sharma, Counsel

for the applicant.

      Shri Rajeev Upadhyay, Counsel for the State.

      Case diary is available.

      This seventh application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been

filed for grant of bail. Sixth application was dismissed by order dated

27.01.2022

passed in M.Cr.C. No.3605/2022.

The applicant has been arrested on 13.03.2021 in connection

with Crime No.25/2020 registered at Police Station Mihona Distt.

Bhind for offence under Section 392 of IPC and Section 11/13 of

MPDVPK Act.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the

applicant is in jail from 13.03.2021, i.e., for the last more than one

year. According to the prosecution case, robbery was committed in

the house of the complainant after causing injury to the inmates. It is

true that looted articles have been seized from the possession of the

applicant, but his prayer for bail may be considered sympathetically

in the light of the period of detention. It is further submitted that

while deciding M.Cr.C. No.63029/2021, this Court on 03.01.2022

had given an option to the applicant as to whether he would comply

the stringent condition of furnishing cash surety or not, but since the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-15366-2022 Rahul @ Kallu Vs. State of MP

applicant was not able to furnish the cash surety, therefore, the said

option was not exercised. However, it is submitted that now the

applicant is ready to furnish cash surety as imposed by this Court.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the

counsel for the State. It is submitted that the applicant is the resident

of Uttar Pradesh and he has 33 criminal cases to his credit and in case

if the applicant is released on bail, then he would not appear before

the Trial Court.

Considering the period of detention as well as the

apprehension expressed by the counsel for the State, coupled with the

fact that the applicant is a hardcore criminal having 33 criminal cases

to his credit, the application for bail can be allowed only on the

stringent condition of furnishing cash surety. 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.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs only) 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

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-15366-2022 Rahul @ Kallu Vs. State of MP

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.

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

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 2022.03.30 15:07:18 +05'30'