In Kalla @ Vidyaram v. State of M M. Cr. C. No. 10894 of 2022, the applicant was arrested by the police in respect of offences under sections 302, 323, 294, and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The applicant filed his fourth bail application under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. He contended that material witnesses have been examined already and he is suffering from confinement since 08.07.2020. He also undertook to not be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the complainant and will not go to his vicinity. Lastly, he also promised to voluntarily serve a national/environmental/social cause to make out for his misdeed, if any. The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted him bail on the ground that since all the material prosecution witnesses have been examined, the applicant can do almost nothing to tamper the evidence. The bail was granted on the condition that the applicant has to furnish a personal bond of ₹ 1,00,000/- along with two solvent sureties with the same amount.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court further, had definitely levied the following conditions to be complied for the operation of the bail order:
i) The applicant shall comply with terms of the bonds executed by him,
ii) The applicant will provide full cooperation in investigation/trial,
iii) The applicant shall not cause inducement, threat, or promise to any person aware with the facts of the instant case to prevent him from disclosing such acts to the police or court,
iv) The applicant cannot commit an offence of similar nature for which he is accused,
v) The applicant will not obtain unnecessary adjournments during the trial,
vi) The applicant shall not leave India without obtaining permission from Court for the same,
vii) The applicant has to mark his presence every Monday in the concerned police station between 10:30 am to 2 pm and failure of the same would lead to cancellation of the bail granted.
viii) The applicant shall not cause harassment or embarrassment to the complainant and not move to his vicinity. If he does so, the benefit of bail will be taken back from him.
Interestingly, the Court made it clear that the bail is granted because the case is made out for bail and the direction of the plantation of saplings is independent. Such a condition shall not be inferred to consider that a person can be granted bail without merits if he intends to serve a social cause.
