Madhya Pradesh High Court

Girraj Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 January, 2025

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia

                          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1849


                                                                    1                     Cr.A. 11859 of 2024

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                         AT G WA L I O R
                                                                BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

                                              CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11859 of 2024
                                                       GIRRAJ YADAV
                                                           Versus
                                               THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH


                          Appearance:
                          Appellant Girraj Yadav is present in person.
                          Dr. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for State.
                          Shri Ashok Kumar Ahirwar - Advocate for complainant.


                                                        Reserved on : 28.01.2025

                                                       Pronounced on : 29.01.2025

                          ____________________________________________________________________



                                                                 ORDER

This Criminal Appeal, under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity "SC/ST Act"), which is fifth application, has been filed for grant of bail.

2. Appellant has been arrested in connection with Crime Number 108/20 registered at Police Station Bahadurpur, District Ashok Nagar (M.P.) for offences punishable under Sections 307, 294, 147, 148, 149, 436, 302 of IPC and under Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(iv), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1849

2 Cr.A. 11859 of 2024

3. Initially, previous applications were rejected by this Court. Thereafter, on account of transfer of this Court, subsequent applications of co-accused persons were rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, and after re-transfer of this Court, this case has been listed before this Court.

4. Since the application has been sent through jail, therefore, it is not in the format as provided under the MP High Court Rules. As the application is being argued by appellant himself, therefore, this court has not insisted upon filing of the application in accordance with the format provided under the MP High Court Rules.

5. It is not out of place to mention here that multiple applications filed by appellant before Supreme Court were also rejected, with an observation that if so advised, appellant may be permitted to get himself treated at his own expense. The Supreme Court, in the case of Giriraj Yadav versus State of MP, by order dated 19.03.2021 passed in SLP (Crl.) No.1406 of 2021, granted liberty to get himself treated in AIIMS while keeping him in police custody, and the entire cost of medical treatment and security shall be borne by appellant. Thereafter, the Supreme Court, by order dated 28.06.2024, passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6326 of 2024, passed the following order:-

"With a view to resolve the controversy involved in the matter, we direct that the petitioner shall be immediately taken to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Delhi at his own cost. The petitioner shall bear the cost of police escort.

The Dean/Superintendent/Officer In-charge of the AIIMS, Delhi shall constitute a Medical Board of experts to examine the petitioner and to submit a report to this Court about the medical/health condition of the petitioner and the details of treatment, if any, required to be administered to the petitioner. If any medical treatment is required to be given to the petitioner, the Board will also indicate whether the treatment can be administered in hospitals in Rewa or Bhopal.

Needless to add that necessary fee, if any, payable to AIIMS, Delhi shall be paid by the petitioner.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1849

3 Cr.A. 11859 of 2024

The Registry to immediately forward a copy of this order to the AIIMS, Delhi.

We direct that the petitioner shall be taken to the AIIMS, Delhi, as directed above, on Monday i.e. 1st July, 2024.

AIIMS, Delhi shall submit a report to this Court on or before 8th July, 2024.

List on 9th July, 2024."

6. On 15.07.2024, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6326 of 2024 was finally disposed of with the following observations:-

1. In terms of the earlier orders passed by this Court, a Medical Board consisting of four medical experts has submitted their report dated 06.07.2024. In the report, the Board has opined that the petitioner should undergo follow up in Cardiology/Hematology OPD at AIMS, Bhopal.

2. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, we are inclined to allow this petition.

3. However, it is directed that the petitioner shall be forthwith transferred to the Central Prison, Bhopal. He shall also be regularly taken to AIIMS, Bhopal for follow up, as suggested by the Medical Board in its report.

4. It is further directed that if the experts/Doctors in the AIIMS, Bhopal recommend hospitalization of the petitioner, he shall be so hospitalized.

5. The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(Underline Supplied)

7. The appellant appeared in person and leveled several allegations against various authorities, including police authorities. Respondents have filed their return, thereby refuting the allegations made by appellant. It is submitted that even when appellant was in custody, he had threatened one Sher Singh, who is the witness of the murder in this case. He creates all sorts of nuisance in jail. Adequate medical treatment is being provided to him.

8. Heard appellant as well as learned counsel for respondent.

9. The appellant did not argue for grant of bail. His only thrust of argument

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1849

4 Cr.A. 11859 of 2024

was that he is not being provided adequate medical facilities and therefore he should be transferred to some other jail from Central Jail, Bhopal.

10. So far as the contention made by appellant for his transfer from Central Jail Bhopal is concerned, the said prayer cannot be acceded to, for the reason that Supreme Court has directed that appellant should be provided medical treatment in AIIMS, Bhopal, and should be lodged in Central Jail, Bhopal, therefore, it is directed that appellant shall not be transferred to any other jail even on temporary basis till conclusion of trial because from the different order sheets of trial court it was found that appellant was transferred to Rewa jail, Ashok Nagar Jail, he was kept in Lifeline Hospital, Ashok Nagar and he was transferred to Barwani Jail also.

11. So far as the medical ailment of appellant is concerned, since he is in custody, therefore. it is the duty of State Government to ensure that appropriate medical treatment is provided to appellant. Accordingly, the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bhopal, is directed to ensure that appellant is provided medical treatment as per the advice given by doctors.

12. It has also been submitted by appellant that on some occasions, he was not taken to the hospital on the ground of shortage of police force. Therefore, the Commissioner of Police, Bhopal, is directed to ensure that whenever appellant is required to be sent to AIIMS Bhopal for treatment/medical checkup, then adequate police force shall be provided without any fail.

13. The order-sheets of trial court have been received from which it is clear that on two occasions, appellant had badly misbehaved with the Trial Judge and had levelled personal allegations of bias. Furthermore, the order sheets disclose that multiple applications were filed by appellant and he successfully avoided framing charge till 12.04.2023 when the charges were framed. Appellant had also made request for his transfer from Central Jail, Bhopal to District Jail, Shivpuri which

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1849

5 Cr.A. 11859 of 2024

was rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 22.08.2024. In view of the statement made by the prosecution that appellant is continuously misbehaving with other inmates, he consumes milk and other things which are meant for other inmates and also creates nuisance in jail, this Court is of considered opinion that without endorsing the aforesaid allegations, directions can be issued to appellant to maintain discipline in jail and not to create any nuisance. Furthermore, it appears that every time appellant insists that he will personally cross-examine the witnesses. Therefore, the jail authorities are directed to ensure proper net connectivity so that appellant can cross-examine the witnesses through video conferencing. If appellant insists for his personal appearance before the Trial Court, then he shall bear the expenses of security arrangements for bringing him from Central Jail, Bhopal to the Trial Court. However, this should be done only in exceptional circumstances.

14. The trial is pending for last more than 4-1/2 years and for more than three years, it was adjourned on account of multiple applications filed by appellant and co-accused persons as well as non-co-operation by co-accused. Every time, appellant is claiming that he is medically sick but it is the case of prosecution that appellant is a hardcore criminal and about 34 more criminal cases including multiple offences of murder and attempt to murder were registered against him.

15. In reply, it is submitted by appellant that in all the cases, he has been acquitted.

16. The aforesaid submission with regard to registration of multiple criminal cases and acquittal of appellant in those cases has already been taken note of by this Court by order dated 25.01.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.287/2021 and the prosecution had submitted that in all the cases witnesses have turned hostile which may also indicate that the witnesses might not be collecting the courage to come forward and depose against appellant. Furthermore, in view of allegations

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1849

6 Cr.A. 11859 of 2024

as well as counter allegations made by appellant and prosecution against each other, it appears that accused persons have not allowed the trial court to proceeding in a smooth manner. Furthermore, it also appears that appellant has moved an application for reduction of his security during his transportation from one place to another and the said application has also been rejected.

17. Be that whatever it may be.

18. Criminal Law provides that if there is an allegation of committing an offence against a person, then such person has to be tried to find out the guilt. The trial is pending for the last 4-1/2 years. This Court is conscious of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. and Others decided on 29.02.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.3589/2023 by which it was held that constitutional courts should not direct the trial court to expedite hearing thereby disturbing the calendar of their board but in the present case, even the Presiding Officer has noticed long pendency of this case. Under these circumstances, considering the allegations and counter allegations which are being made by appellant and the prosecution against each other, it is in the fitness of things that trial must come to an end at an early stage.

19. Accordingly, Superintendent of Police, Ashok Nagar, is directed to personally ensure execution of summons/bailable warrant/warrants which are issued against witnesses and he shall ensure that witnesses appear without any further delay.