Rameshchandra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 3876 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rameshchandra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2024

Author: Pranay Verma

Bench: Pranay Verma

                                                               1
                            IN    THE         HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT INDORE
                                                         BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
                                                 ON THE 9 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                            MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5350 of 2024

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RAMESHCHANDRA S/O SEWAJI RAWAT, AGED ABOUT
                           50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR KHEDLI, TEHSIL
                           MANASA DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                             .....APPLICANT
                           (BY SHRI VISHAL PATIDAR - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                           OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION KUKDESHWAR
                           DIST. NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
                           ( BY SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR - PANEL LAWYER)

                                 This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                           following:
                                                                ORDER

1. They are heard. Perused the case diary /challan papers.

2. This is a Second application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as the applicant is implicated in connection with Crime No.20/2009 registered at Police Station Kukdeshwar, District Ratlam (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 224, 225, 332, 353, 307, 395, 397, 120-B and Section 25, 27 of the Arms. His first application bearing M.Cr.C. No.2581/2009 was allowed by order dated 23.04.2009.

3. The applicant is in custody since 29.09.2023.

4. From the record it is seen that the applicant was enlarged on bail by

this Court by order dated 23.04.2009 passed in M.Cr.C. No.2581/2009. Thereafter he continued to appear before the trial Court but in the year 2022, as per learned counsel for the applicant, he contacted COVID-19 as a result of which he could not appear before the Court nor could acquire knowledge of the proceedings. Other co-accused were acquitted by judgment dated 19.12.2022. Thus the applicant formed an opinion that he is not required to appear before the Court. Eventually an arrest warrant was issued against the applicant by the trial Court pursuant to which he has been arrested on 29.09.2023 and is in custody since then.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that non-appearance of the

applicant before the trial Court was bona fide and not intentional. He had participated in the trial through out and due to certain misapprehension did not appear before the Court particularly for the reason that the record of the case had been called for in appeal having been preferred by the State before this Court, hence there was no case in which the applicant could have appeared. He is already in custody for a period of more than four months subsequent to his arrest. He shall cooperate in the trial and shall extend full support. On such grounds prayer for grant of bail to the applicant has been made.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that due to absence of the applicant the trial has been held up for a considerable period of time due to which the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

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

8. The applicant was enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated

23.04.2009 in M.Cr.C. No.2581/2009. Thereafter he continued to appear before the trial Court for a period of above 13 years but thereafter appears to have contacted COVID-19 due to which he did not appear. The trial against other co-accused was also concluded and in appeal before this Court the record of the case was also called. The applicant has already been in custody for a period of more than 4 months and has assured that he shall cooperate in the trial. Thus, in my opinion, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

9. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand 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.

10. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

Certified copy as per rules.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE ns