Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ballu Yadav @ Balveer Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 July, 2014
1 M.Cr.C.No.3228/2014
Ballu Yadav alias Balbeer Singh Yadav
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
25/07/2014
Shri P.S. Bhadoriya, Advocate for the applicant
-Ballu Yadav alias Balbeer Singh Yadav.
Shri J.M. Sahni, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Shri R.K. Sharma and Shri Sanjay Gupta, Advocates for the complainant Indrajeet Singh.
Heard on I.A.No.2981/14 which is an application under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C., seeking permission to assist the public prosecutor.
In view of the averments made in the application, it is hereby allowed. Learned counsel for the complainant is permitted to assist the public prosecutor.
Further heard on the bail application.
Case-diary has been perused.
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
Applicant has been arrested on 16-10-2013 in connection with Crime No.66/2013 registered at Police Station, Morar District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 120-B of IPC.
As per prosecution story, on 06-02-2013 at about 10:15 pm incident occurred when after attending the marriage ceremony at Jiwaji Club, Gwalior Ramprakash 2 M.Cr.C.No.3228/2014 and Ajit Singh (since deceased) alongwith one eye-witness Dayanand and injured Ramesh were returning to their village Mohanpur, District Gwalior by Safari Jeep which was driven by Indrajeet Singh who is complainant in this case. When aforesaid vehicle reached at Sachin Tendulkar Road near DB City colony suddenly, one white swift came over there and the persons seated inside the vehicle started firing on the Safari Jeep. Due to gunshot injury, Ramprakash and Ajit Singh died on the spot. Prompt FIR was lodged by the driver/complainant Indrajeet Singh. As per FIR, offence of double murder was committed by Gajendra Yadav, Manoj Yadav, Ajit Yadav, Kalyaan Yadav, Chandra Prakash Yadav and Ajay Yadav.
Prayer for bail was made on the ground that present applicant -Ballu Yadav alias Balbeer Singh Yadav was not named in the FIR. Though FIR was lodged by eye-witness Indrajeet Singh in presence of another eye-witness Dayanand and injured Ramesh. Thereafter, statement of Indrajeet was recorded on next day i.e. 07-02-2013 but he has not named the present applicant. Meanwhile, on 08-02-2013 one cousin of present applicant, namely, Manoj alias Monu was murdered by some unknown persons and on the intimation of Rudrapal Singh, Marg No.04/2013 was registered. Thereafter, complainant party under the apprehension that their name may come in the murder of Manoj alias Monu, false statement implicating 3 M.Cr.C.No.3228/2014 the present applicant was given by Dayanand on 15-02-2013 and then by Ramesh on 16-02-2013. In both the statements, first time allegations were made against the present applicant though both these witnesses were present at Police Station on 06-02-2013 at the time of lodging of FIR but they have not named the present applicant. It is further submitted that deceased Ramprakash Yadav was a history-sheeter and so many criminal cases were registered against him and his murder might have been committed by someone else but present applicant has been falsely implicated in the present crime.
Prayer for bail was opposed by learned Panel Lawyer assisted by Shri R.K. Sharma and Shri Sanjay Gupta, Advocates on the ground that against the present applicant crime No.200/09 for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323 and 506-B of IPC, crime No.436/2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 451, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and crime No.1025/09 for the offence punishable under Sections 327, 294, 451, 34 of IPC were registered. One more crime at crime No.524/2013 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 384 and 506 of IPC on the basis of FIR lodged by the complainant party after the present case. Further opposition of bail application has been made on the ground that evidence of Dayanand was recorded 4 M.Cr.C.No.3228/2014 before the trial Court in which specific allegations were made against the present applicant, therefore, applicant is not entitled for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Apart that, applicant was under absconsion for a period of near about 8 months.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, record of S.T.No.292/2013 has been perused.
The admitted and uncontroverted position is that eye-witnesses Indrajeet, Dayanand and injured Ramesh were present at Police Station at the time when FIR was being reduced in writing but none of them has named the present applicant. Further on 07-02-2013 when the statement of complainant Indrajeet Singh was recorded by the police in that statement also no allegation was made against the present applicant. Thereafter, by lapse of 9 days' period for the first time, allegations were made by Ramesh and Dayanand in their police statements. Admittedly, no Test Identification Parade has been conducted by the prosecution for the purpose of identification of present applicant. So far as antecedents of present applicant is concerned, all the previous criminal cases were registered under minor offences against the applicant. So far as evidence of Dayanand recorded before the trial Court is concerned, he is the same person who was present at the Police Station at the 5 M.Cr.C.No.3228/2014 time of lodging of FIR but he preferred to keep mum.
So far as objection of absconsion is concerned, in the case of Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 8 SCC 730 it was held by Hon. Apex Court in para 12 as under:-
"12. From these materials and information, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and was declared as 'absconder'. Normally, when the accused is 'absconding' and declared as a 'proclaimed offender', there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. "
Similarly, in the case of Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam 2013 Cr.L.R. (SC) 589 in para 15, the Hon. Apex Court has observed as under:-
"15. Thus, in a case of this nature, the mere abscondance of an accused does not lead to a firm conclusion of his guilty mind. An innocent man may also abscond in order to evade arrest, as in light of such a situation, such an action may be part of the natural conduct of the accused. Abscondance is in fact relevant evidence, but its evidentiary value depends upon the surrounding circumstances, and hence, the same must 6 M.Cr.C.No.3228/2014 only be taken as a minor item in evidence for sustaining conviction."
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that previous enmity was there between the parties and final disposal of trial shall take time, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the present application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court on the condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during the trial and shall also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. and so also as imposed by the trial Court.
A copy of this order be sent for compliance to the Court concerned. Principal Registrar of this Court is directed to send back the record of S.T.No.292/2013 to the trial Court, if not required in any other matter. Certified copy as per rules.
(B.D. Rathi) Judge Anil*