Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Monday, November 25, 2024

MP HC Impose Planting Of Saplings As A Bail Condition

Posted in: Criminal Law
Fri, Jun 26, 20, 20:51, 5 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 4352
Tilakraj Rajoriya v/s State of M.P granting bail to a person accused of assaulting a minor girl with intent to outrage her modesty has directed him to plant saplings along with tree guard, as one of the conditions for bail.

In an interesting, refreshing and fresh development, the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bench at Gwalior in a notable judgment titled Tilakraj Rajoriya Vs State of M.P. in M.Cr.C. No. 11643/2020 that was delivered on June 24, 2020 has in its recent order while granting bail to a person accused of assaulting a minor girl with intent to outrage her modesty has directed him to plant saplings along with tree guard, as one of the conditions for bail. The accused had been booked under Sections 354 of the IPC and 7/8 of POSCO Act. The court allowed his bail application in view of the Covid-19 situation, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000/- in addition to the condition to plant saplings.

To start with, this latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment authored by Justice Anand Pathak of Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court sets the ball rolling after noting that the matter is heard through video conferencing that:
"The applicant has filed this second bail application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 22.01.2020 by Police Station Dehat, District Ashoknagar in connection with Crime No. 27/2020 registered for offence under Sections 354 of IPC and 7/8 of POSCO Act. His earlier bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.02.2020 passed in MCRC.No.6214/2020."

To put things in perspective, it is then brought out that:
"It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that false case has been registered against him and he is suffering confinement since 22.01.2020 whereas charge-sheet has already been filed. Now, applicant learnt the lesson hard way and would not commit the same nature of offence in future and would not involve in any criminal activity and become a better citizen.

He undertakes to cooperate in trial and would not be a source of embarrassment or harassment to her and her family in any manner and would not move in the vicinity of prosecutrix. Applicant who is young/middle aged/able bodied responsible citizen undertakes to become corona warrior for social cause looking to the Covid-19 Pandemic situation. He further undertakes to perform community service and serve the national cause by making contribution in PM Care Fund and install Arogya Setu App. On these grounds, prayer for bail has been made."

As anticipated, the counsel for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of bail application as pointed out also in this judgment. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length through video conferencing and considering the arguments advanced by them, it is then pointed out that:
"Considering the facts of the case in detail, however, considering the fact that in view of Covid-19 pandemic, without commenting on the merits of the case, it is hereby directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court and that he will have to install Arogya Setu App, if not already installed. He will not move in the vicinity of prosecutrix and would not extend any threat, intimidation or allurement to the victim or her family. He will not involve in any criminal activity otherwise benefit of this bail application shall be immediately withdrawn."

As it turned out, it is then envisaged that:
"In view of COVID-19 pandemic, the jail authorities are directed that before releasing the applicant, his preliminary Corona Virus test shall be conducted and if he is found negative, then the concerned local administration shall make necessary arrangements for sending the applicant to his house, and if he is found positive then the applicant shall be immediately sent to concerned hospital for his treatment as per medical norms. If the applicant is fit for release and if he is in a position to make his personal arrangements, then he shall be released only after taking due travel permission from local administration.

After release, the applicant is further directed to strictly follow all the instructions which may be issued by the Central Govt./State Govt. or Local Administration for combating the Covid-19. If it is found that the applicant has violated any of the instructions (whether general or specific) issued by the Central Govt./State Govt. or Local Administration, then this order shall automatically lose its effect, and the Local Administration/Police Authorities shall immediately take him in custody and would send him to the same jail from where he was released."

Be it noted, it is then laid down explicitly and elegantly that:
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:

  1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
  2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
  3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
  4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
  5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
  6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
  7. The applicant will inform the SHO of concerned police station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station for information.
  8. Applicant shall deposit Rs. 2500/- within a month in PM CARES Fund having Account Number : 2121PM20202, IFSC Code: SBIN0000691, SWIFT Code : SBININBB104, Name of Bank & Branch : State Bank of India, New Delhi Main Branch from the date of release of applicant.
  9. The applicant through his counsel undertakes that applicant shall register himself with the District Magistrate concerned [Ashoknagar] as "Covid-19 Warriors" by entering his name in a Register named as COVID-19 WARRIOR REGISTER to be maintained in the o/o the concerned DM who in turn shall assign work to applicant of Covid-19 disaster management at the discretion of District Magistrate, by taking all prescribed precautions. The nature, quantum and duration of the work assigned is left to the wisdom of District Magistrate, concerned. This Court expects that the applicant shall rise to the occasion to serve the society in this time of crises to discharge his fundamental duty of rendering national service when called upon to do so, as per Article 51-A(d) of the Constitution.
  10. As per the undertaking given by learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, it is hereby directed that appellant shall plant 1 sapling (either fruit bearing trees or Neem and Peepal) alongwith tree guards or has to make arrangement for fencing for protection of the trees because it is the duty of the appellant not only to plant the saplings but also to nurture them. He shall plant saplings/trees preferably of 6-8 ft., so that they would grow into full fledged trees at an early time. For ensuring the compliance, he shall have to submit all the photographs of plantation of trees/saplings before the concerned trial Court alongwith a report within 30 days from the date of release of the applicant. The report shall be submitted by the appellant before the trial Court concerned on 1st of every month."


Importantly, it is then directed by the Court that:
"It is the duty of the trial Court to monitor the progress of the trees because human existence is at stake because of the environmental degradation and Court cannot put a blind fold over any casualness shown by the appellant regarding progress of the trees and the compliance made by the appellant by placing a short report before this Court every quarterly (every three months), which shall be placed under the caption "Direction" before this Court. Any default shall disentitle the appellant from benefit of bail."

More importantly, it is then further directed that, "The appellant is directed to plant these saplings/trees at the place of his choice, if he intends to protect the trees on his own cost by providing tree guards or fencing, for which appellant shall have to bear necessary expenses for plantation of the trees and their measures for safeguard."

Most importantly, it is then also made clear that, "This direction is made by this Court as a test case to address the Anatomy of Violence and Evil by process of Creation and a step towards Alignment with Nature. The natural instinct of compassion, service, love and mercy needs to be rekindled for human existence as they are innately engrained attributes of human existence. It is not the question of Plantation of a Tree but the Germination of a Thought."

Furthermore, it is then held that:
"The District Magistrate concerned is directed to intimate this Court in case condition No. 9 is not complied with and on receipt of any such intimation, Registry is directed to list the matter before appropriate bench as PUD."

Finally, it is then held that:
"E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible, for the office of this Court. Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions."

In conclusion, it may well be said that the exemplary condition imposed for bail of planting saplings along with tree guard is quite laudable and must be applauded in no uncertain terms. Just recently, we also saw the Orissa High Court imposing similar condition of planting hundred saplings as a condition of bail. This itself proves that it is a good, bold and innovative way of imposing conditions for bail by which our environment also will gain immeasurably! No denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top