29 April 2022 2:43 PM GMT
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench on Friday, expressed its concern regarding the Sessions Courts blindly rejecting bail applications of the accused without going into the merits of the case. The Court further observed that even for petty matters, the litigants were being forced to approach the High Court from remote and deserted regions, putting 'unnecessary...
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench on Friday, expressed its concern regarding the Sessions Courts blindly rejecting bail applications of the accused without going into the merits of the case. The Court further observed that even for petty matters, the litigants were being forced to approach the High Court from remote and deserted regions, putting 'unnecessary financial burden' upon them.
Deciding a bail application moved by the Applicant U/S 439 CRPC, Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal observed that in the case of the Applicant, the bail ought to have been granted by the court below-
This Court is having day to day experience that the Court Below without going into the merits of the case, blindly rejects the bail applications of accused. It is a matter of great concern that in these type of petty matters, litigants has to approach this Court, despite Sessions Court are established all over the State to access the justice easily to the persons living in remote and deserted area. The Sessions Court and High Courts are vested with concurrent powers under Section 439 CrPC. To approach the High Court from remote places creates unnecessary financial burdan upon the litigants. This type of order passed by court below frustrates the very purpose of establishing Court of Sessions in all parts of the State. It is also pertinent to note that while deciding a bail application Court is not convicting or acquitting a person, only liberty is extended to the accused from custody, during trial with certain conditions.
The Applicant was arrested by the police for allegedly stealing motorcycle and accordingly, offences U/S 41 (1-4), 102 CRPC r/w 379 IPC were registered against him vide Istagasa (Complaint U/S 156(3) CRPC). Thereafter, no offences were registered against him despite a lapse of 51 days.
The Applicant submitted before the Court that he was being falsely implicated in the case and that he was innocent. The State, however, opposed the application.
Considering the submissions of the parties and the documents on record, the Court opined that the Applicant deserved to be enlarged on bail. The Court further advised the lower court judge who had dismissed the bail application of the Applicant to weigh-in the provisions of law and evidence collected during investigation and not blindly reject the bail application blindly-
Learned court below (Smt. Vandna Jain, IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge Vidisha) is advised to pass order in future after going through provisions of law and the evidence collected during investigation and not reject the bail application blindly.
With the aforesaid observations, the Court granted bail to the Applicant and accordingly, the application was allowed.
Case Title: Devendra Lodhi Vs. State of M.P.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 131
Click Here To Read/Download Order