Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil @ Kallu Raghuvanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 15 November, 2017
1
M.Cr.C. No. 20971/2017
(Sunil @ Kallu Raghuvanshi Vs. State of MP)
Gwalior
15.11.2017
Shri Amit Lahoti, Advocate for applicant.
Shri B.P.S. Chauhan, Public Prosecutor for
Respondent/State.
Shri P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the complainant.
I.A No. 21876/2017, an application under section 301 (2) of Cr.P.C. for assisting learned Public Prosecutor for the State is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.
Learned counsel for the complainant is permitted to assist learned Public Prosecutor for the State during final hearing.
Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. The applicant has filed this second application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits vide order dated 10/10/2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 10615/2017. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Cantt., District Guna in connection with Crime No. 549/2017 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/S. 304, 452, 34 of IPC.
Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that he along with co-accused Manoj Raghuvanshi and Batan alias Shivendra Raghuvanshi while chasing Bablu alias Pahalwan Singh Raghuvanshi, 2 M.Cr.C. No. 20971/2017 son of the deceased entered into her house and pushed her. They also opened fire and the deceased getting terrified, died due to cardiac arrest.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated owing to previous enmity. According to him, a cross-case has been registered against the complainant party for the offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC and the instant FIR is nothing but a counter-blast to the same. It is submitted that there was no intention of the applicant to cause death of the deceased and the deceased died due to cardiac arrest, which was not the fault of the applicant. It is further submitted that the date of incident is 16/12/2016 and the FIR was lodged on 29/08/2017 with delay of eight months and the prosecution has not given sufficient explanation for the same. The applicant is in jail since 05/09/2017 and early conclusion of the trial is bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention is an anathema to the concept of liberty. The applicant is a permanent resident of Village Pipariya, P.S. Cantt, District Guna and there is no possibility of his absconsion if released on bail. Under these grounds, applicant prays for grant of bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application on the ground that the applicant is directly involved in the offence alleged and he has criminal antecedents and no definite conclusion can be drawn at this stage and prayed for its rejection by 3 M.Cr.C. No. 20971/2017 contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.
After hearing aforesaid arguments and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed, but with certain stringent condition in view of nature of offence and criminal antecedents of the applicant and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.
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.4 M.Cr.C. No. 20971/2017
7. The applicant shall appear and mark his attendance before the trial/committal court concerned once every month till conclusion of the trial, failing which, this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to this Court.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge Durgekar* SANJAY N. Digitally signed by SANJAY N. DURGEKAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH GWALIOR, ou=P. S., DURGEKA postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=afa4701a2661e1fb7720c022ff R c277608ce55ba67f3594a641181b9ae8 448e58, cn=SANJAY N. DURGEKAR Date: 2017.11.16 17:52:09 +05'30'