Madhya Pradesh High Court

MCRC/48717/2019 of ASHISH RATHOR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 30 December 2019

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

1

MCRC-48717-2019

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHMCRC-48717-2019

(Ashish Rathore Vs. State of M.P.)

Gwalior, Dated 30.12.2019

Shri Ashish Singh Jadoun, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri S.S. Rajput, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Case dairy is perused.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

This is 1st application u/S. 439Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for grant of bail.

Petitioner has been arrested on 22.10.2019 by Police Station UmariDistrict Bhind (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.301/2019 registered inrelation to the offences punishable u/S.420, 272, 273, 34 of IPC.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application andprayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations andthe material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.

Charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner in respect of offencewhere petitioner was driver of the loading vehicle i.e. Tata Magic transportingcertain material which was found to be adulterated and harmful for humanconsumption under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Complicity ofpetitioner in the crime alleged does not seem to be direct. Since investigationin the matter is over, further custodial interrogation of petitioner is notrequired. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

In view of above and looking to the fact that material placed on recorddoes not disclose the possibility of the petitioner fleeing from justice and trialis not likely to conclude in the near future and prolonged pre-trial detentionbeing an anathema to the concept of liberty, this Court is inclined to extendbenefit of bail to the petitioner.

2MCRC-48717-2019

Page 1 of 4

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, thisapplication is allowed and it is directed that petitioner-Ashish Rathore bereleased 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 thesatisfaction of the concerned Trial Court.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions :-

1. The petitioner will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bondexecuted by him;executed by him;

2. The petitioner will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case maybe;be;

3. The petitioner will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threator promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as todissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the PoliceOfficer, as the case may be;or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as todissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the PoliceOfficer, as the case may be;

4. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence ofwhich he is accused;which he is accused;

5. The petitioner will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; 6. The petitioner will not leave India without previous permission of thetrial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;6. The petitioner will not leave India without previous permission of thetrial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;

Page 2 of 4

7. The petitioner shall plant 25 saplings of indigenous fruit bearing orshady trees on the side of the road/street of the place of residence ofpetitioner or at any other place in the district which is earmarked by theCollector/Revenue Authority for planting trees and shall take care ofthe trees for the next one year by watering the plants and by installingtree guards at his own expenses. In case the petitioner is unable toafford incurring of such expenses, then he would obtain saplings/treeshady trees on the side of the road/street of the place of residence ofpetitioner or at any other place in the district which is earmarked by theCollector/Revenue Authority for planting trees and shall take care ofthe trees for the next one year by watering the plants and by installingtree guards at his own expenses. In case the petitioner is unable toafford incurring of such expenses, then he would obtain saplings/tree guard from the forest authorities (the concerned Forest Range Officer of the area) free of cost or at concessional/nominal rates available underany beneficial scheme of the Government. The petitioner shall file anaffidavit disclosing compliance of this condition within 30 days in theRegistry, failing which this court may consider cancellation of bail.8. On complying with condition No.7 aforesaid, the petitioner is directedto inform the location of plantation made to the Forest Range Officer ofthe area concerned who will pass on this information to the DFOconcerned.

For effective implementation of this order in the interest of bettermentof ecology of the area concerned, the District Magistrate of district withinwhich the petitioner resides is directed to assist the petitioners/accused tocomply with condition No.7 by extending all possible financial and materialassistance to the petitioner admissible under any of the beneficial scheme forafforestation of the State.

The DFO of the concerned District is directed to file verification reportbefore the trial Court concerned after carrying out inspection personally orthrough any other officer of the Forest Dept duly authorised in that behalfdisclosing as to whether petitioner has complied with condition No.7 or not,and if yes to what extent?

The learned trial Judge on receiving report of non-compliance ofcondition No.7 shall forthwith communicate the same to the Registry of thisCourt.

Page 3 of 4

The Registry on receiving any such report from the trial Courtdisclosing default shall put up the matter before appropriate Bench in shape of PUD.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for YOGENDRA OJHA 2019.12.30 18:47:59 +05'30'

MCRC-48717-2019

compliance.

Let a typed copy of this order be also supplied to the counsel for theState for compliance of the aforesaid directives.

A copy of this order be furnished by the Registry of this court to theconcerned District Magistrate and the DFO having territorial jurisdiction overthe place of residence of the petitioner for execution of the order in the interestof the ecology.

For the time being this case stands disposed of.

C.c as per rules.

(Sheel Nagu)

V. Judge

ojha

Page 4 of 4

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead