Sharif Kha And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This common order shall govern disposal of M.Cr.C. No.53450/2019 filed on behalf of Sharif Kha S/o Ismile Kha and M.Cr.C. No.53443/2019 filed on behalf of Shekh Kalim S/o Shekh Chote, Arshad S/o Ashraf Khan and Aftab S/o Kurban Mohammad.

These are first applications filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of bail.

The present applicants have been arrested in connection with Crime No.6475/2012 registered at Police Station - Susner, District - Agar for the offence punishable under Section 5(1) and 15 of the Forest Produce (Trade Regulation) Act, 1969 & Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

Learned counsel for the applicants have argued before this Court the present applicants have falsely been implicated in the crime and they are in jail since 16.01.2019 (applicant in M.Cr.C. No.53450/2019) and 06.12.2019 (applicants in M.Cr.C. No.53443/2019). He has further argued that the co-accused person has been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.3991/2019 by an order dated 21.02.2019.

The total timber recovered from the truck is valued at Rs.7,50,000/- and it has been stated that allegation against the present applicants is that they are the person who got the timber loaded in the truck.

The order passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.3991/2019 dated 21.02.2019 reads as under:-

"This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant is in custody since 15-01-2019 in connection with Crime No.6475/2012 Registered at Police Station Susner, District Agar for the offence punishable under Section 5 (1) of M.P. Forest Act, 1969 and Section 15 of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued before this court that the applicant is a Driver of the Vehicle and he was simply driving a vehicle has been falsely implicated in the crime. It has been argued that there is no past criminal track record against the applicant.

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail. His contention is that timber was recovered from the truck for which no permit was produced by the applicant at the time of search and seizure and he was driving the same.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the statement available in the case diary, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I allow this bail application and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-(Rs. Fifty thousand only) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court for his appearance before the Trial Court on all the dates fixed in this behalf by the court concerned during trial."

Learned Government Advocate for the respondent /State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and his contention is that the present applicants are the main persons and at their instance, the timber was loaded in the truck. However, he has fairly stated that there is no past track criminal record against the present applicants as reflected from the case-diary.

This Court after careful consideration of the case-diary, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and without further commenting upon the merits of the case, is of the opinion that present bail applications deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed.

The present applicants are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the said Court on the dates fixed in this behalf.