Madhya Pradesh High CourtBalveer Singh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 November, 20181              M.Cr.C. No. 46468/18


             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     M.Cr.C. No. 46468/18
                  (Balveer Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P.)

Gwalior, Dated 26/11/18
      Shri Anurag Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
      Shri     Prakhar    Dhengula,       Public   Prosecutor    for   the
respondent/State.Case diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.
      This is 3rd repeat applicationu/S. 439of the Cr.P.C. filed by the
petitioner for grant of bail after rejection of earlier one on merits with
liberty to come again after conclusion of investigation.Petitioner has been arrested on 16/8/18 by Police Station Panihar
District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.162/2016 registered in
relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 307, 353, 147, 148, 149, 34 ofIPCand 30 (1)/177 ofMotor Vehicle Act.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application
and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the
allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail
is made out.New ground raised is that investigation in the matter is over due
to filing of charge-sheet on 10/11/18. Petitioner is alleged with using of
firearm, threatening and assaulting the members of police personnel
who had come to prevent illegal mining. Country made pistol is
recovered from the petitioner. Implication of the petitioner is based on
the statementu/S. 27of Evidence Act of the co-accused. Petitioner's
name does not find mention in the FIR.In view of the above and looking to the fact that investigation
being over, custodial interrogation may not be necessary and early
conclusion of the trial is a bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial
detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty and the material
placed on record does not disclose the possibility of the petitioner2            M.Cr.C. No. 46468/18fleeing from justice, this Court is though inclined to extend benefit of
           bail to the petitioner but with certain stringent conditions in view of
           nature of offence.Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
           case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner be
           released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.
           50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties
           each of Rs. 25,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.This order shall remain operative subject to compliance of the
           following conditions by the petitioner :-1. The petitioner shall comply with all the terms and conditions of
                  the bond executed by him;2. The petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the
                  case may be;3. The petitioner shall not indulge himself in extending
                  inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
                  facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such
                  facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;4. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the
                  offence of which he is accused;5. The petitioner shall not seek unnecessary adjournments during
                  the trial; and6.The petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission
                  of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.7. The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the concerned
                  trial Court once a fortnight.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for
                  compliance.C.c. as per rules.(Sheel Nagu)
                                                               Judge
           ojha




YOGEND
RA OJHA
2018.11.2710:08:40-08'00'