Madhya Pradesh High Court: Vivek Agarwal, J. allowed a bail application issuing a warning to First Additional Session Judge, Maihar, District Satna to be more cautious and judicious in his approach in future so that image of the judiciary can be saved and allegations of casteism and bias are not allowed to be levied so to tarnish collective image of judiciary.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to main accused from whom stolen property was recovered purely on caste lines whereas bail application of the present applicant was dismissed, though he was made an accused on the basis of memorandum of co-accused Ajay Mishra and no recovery had been made from him. It was further submitted that there is a criminal history of six cases against co-accused whereas criminal history of ten cases against the present applicant and like Ajay Mishra, there was no order of conviction in any of the pending cases against the present applicant as has been mentioned qua Ajay Mishra. It was pointed out that Additional Sessions Judge had exercised the discretion in an arbitrary and illegal manner.
Taking into consideration the material reproduced the Court noted that the Additional Sessions Judge Prashant Shukla had granted bail to the co-accused from whose possession, a stolen property was recovered but denied bail to the present applicant, prima facie substantiating the allegations made by counsel for the applicant.
The bail application was allowed considering the fact that case of the present applicant was on better footing than the person from whom the stolen property was recovered.[Indrajeet Patel v. State of M.P., Misc. Criminal Case No. 15874 of 2022, decided on 06-04-2022]
For applicant: Shri Uma Shankar Jayaswal
For respondent: Shri Vivek Lakhera, Govt. Adv.