Ali Khan vs State Of Mp

As declared by the petitioner, this is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

This is a case of bail jump and the third occasion of the petitioner for making the same prayer before the Court. Earlier twice he was granted bail by the trial Court but failed to honour the order of the Court. Firstly, he disappeared on 09/06/2015. Later, he was found detained in District Jail, Dewas and was called by the production warrant. He was again granted a concession on 20.07.2016 but disappeared again on 06.12.2017. Again it was found that he was lodging in Central Jail, Ujjain and a production warrant was issued. In compliance with the production warrant, he was produced before the Court. It is observed by the learned trial Court that due to his absence, the trial could not be completed since 2015 and the possibility of his absconding again cannot be ruled out.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he was found in possession of a handsaw and seven small pieces of sandalwood.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was in jail in some other case, therefore, he could not appear before the trial Court nor could intimate his counsel as there is no other male member in his family, therefore, his absence was beyond his control. He assured the Court that he will regularly attend the Court and will not repeat the mistake. He is in custody since 26. 08.2020.  The  conclusion  of  the  trial  is  likely  to  take  time, therefore, he be granted bail.

Referring to the criminal record, the learned panel lawyer has opposed the prayer. Albeit, the impugned order shows that at least two other criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, no specific information in this regard has been produced.

The fact that the absence of the petitioner was on account of his detention in some other case has not been specifically rebutted by the learned panel lawyer.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the period of custody, I deem it proper to release the accused on bail by imposing stringent conditions. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.

It is directed that the petitioner Ali Khan S/o Anees Khan be released from custody on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Trial Court as and when required further subject to the following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments on frivolous grounds to protract the trial;

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly allure or make any inducement, threat or promise to the prosecution witnesses, so as to dissuade them from disclosing truth before the Court;

(iii) The applicant shall not commit any offence or involve in any criminal activity;

(iv) In case of his involvement in any other criminal activity or breach of any other aforesaid conditions, the bail granted in this case may also be cancelled.

This order shall come to end in case of absence of the petitioner on any date of hearing and the trial Court shall be free to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with the law.

The Trial Court shall be at liberty to take appropriate action under section 446 and 446(a) of the Cr.P.C in respect of earlier bail bonds furnished by the petitioner.