AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shri Santosh Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Case diary perused.
The applicant has filed this second application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. First application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dt.20.08.2020 in M.Cr.C.No.26504/2020.
The applicant has been arrested on 07.07.2020 by Police Station Devgarh, District Morena in connection with Crime No.49/2020 of IPC registered in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.
The allegation against the applicant is that 19.05.2020 at about 10.30 p.m. the complainant went to sleep alongwith his wife and children. At about 1.30 hours his wife found that doors of the room were open and also found that box containing jewelry worth Rs.70,000/- was open and the purse was missing from the box. On the basis of aforesaid, crime has been registered against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated. He is in custody since 07.07.2020. Charge sheet has been filed. No custodial interrogation is required in the matter. The applicant has not been named in the FIR but he has been implicated on the basis of memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which has no evidentiary value. Attention has also been invited to the guidelines issued to all the States and Union Territories by the Apex Court for de-congesting the prisons in suo motu W.P. (C) No. 1/2020 (IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS) to consider release of prisoners who have been convicted or are under trial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less by constituting a High Powered Committee. Disposal of the matter will take long time. The applicant cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Morena and there is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. Under these grounds, applicant prays for grant of bail.
Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State opposed the bail application contending that on the basis of the material available on record, no case for bail is made out. It is submitted that jewelry has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and the same has been identified by the complainant.
Five other criminal cases are registered against the applicant. Such offences are on rise so also the custody period of the applicant is also less and on such grounds, he prays for rejection of the application.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this court finds substantial force in the arguments advanced by the learned Panel Lawyer. Moreover, mere filing of charge sheet can be of no avail to the applicant in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Virupakshappa Gouda Vs. The State of Karnataka ((2017)5 SCC 406), wherein it is held that that mere filing of charge sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On the contrary, filing of the charge-sheet establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the charge-sheet for trial of the accused person. That apart, custody period of the applicant is less. In such facts and circumstances and looking to the gravity of the offence, I am of the view that no case for grant of bail is made out.
The application, therefore, stands rejected.