Rupesh vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court allowed the bail application. While acknowledging the previous dismissals and the serious nature of the charges, the Court considered the period of custody (27 months) and the fact that the applicant's employer, who is allegedly involved, is on bail. The Court explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the case. The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 40,000/- with a solvent surety, subject to his regular appearance before the trial court and adherence to the conditions under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

This is a third repeat application for bail filed by Rupesh (the applicant) under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The applicant is accused in FIR No. 0132/2020 registered at Police Station Kharakuan, District Ujjain, for offences under Sections 328, 304, 120(b), 34 of IPC, Section 49-A of the M.P. Excise Act, and Section 6(1)(a) of the Poisons Act. The applicant has been in custody since October 19, 2020. His previous two bail applications were dismissed. The previous dismissal order noted that the applicant had filed copies of invoices for chemicals like IPA and Thinner NDC, but a tax invoice in the name of Deepmala Chemical appeared to have been created as a defence. The applicant's counsel argued that he has been in jail for 27 months, his employer is on bail, and he has no criminal record.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. given the period of custody and the previous dismissal of his bail applications, considering the allegations under the IPC, M.P. Excise Act, and Poisons Act. Petitioner's Argument: The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant has been incarcerated for 27 months, his employer is on bail, and the applicant has no prior criminal record. Further custodial interrogation is not required. Therefore, bail should be granted. Respondent's Argument: The State Government Advocate opposed the prayer for bail and requested its rejection.