Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aidal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 August, 2015
1 M.Cr.C. No.7633/2015
Aidal Singh Vs. State of M.P.
20/08/2015 :-
Shri V.K. Saxena, learned senior counsel assisted by
Shri H.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ku. Chitra Saxena, learned Panel Lawyer for the non-
applicant/State.
Shri Anand Bansal, learned counsel for the
complainant.
Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
ORDER
This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in connection Crime No.135/2015 registered at Police Station-Kailaras, District-Morena under Section 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 294 of IPC, 25/27 Arms Act and is in custody since 04/05/2015.
2. As per the prosecution case on 01/05/15 at about 8-00 a.m. Harkanth and Veerendra were grazing their cattles and they were also picking mangoes from the garden of the complainant, then Amol Singh reached the spot and turned them out. Thereafter, Sahab Singh armed with 12 bore gun Johan Singh, Harkanth Singh and Veerendra armed with Lathi and Bhura armed with axe and Indal armed with Pharsa came there and all of them surrounded the brother of the complainant. When he tried to run away, all of them 2 M.Cr.C. No.7633/2015 tried to kill him, then Sahab Singh has fired at Amol Singh, which hit on his chest and he fell down. When he started running, then Sahab Singh again fired twice. As a result of which, he fell down. When complainant intervened, Johan Singh and Harkanth Singh gave lathi blow on his right and left shoulder. The incident was witnesses by Rinku, Basant Singh and Honey Singh.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that applicant has not committed any offence. It is submitted that there is no allegation against the applicant for causing injuries to the deceased. The fatal injury alleged to have been caused by co- accused. No grievous injury has been caused by the applicant to the deceased. The applicant has been implicated only on the ground that he happens to be the family member of co-accused. Applicant is in custody since 04/05/2015. Conclusion of trial will take some time. Therefore, the applicant be released on bail.
4. The application is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer as well as counsel for the complainant and prays for dismissal of this application.
5. I have perused the case-diary. As per the postmortem of the deceased/Amol Singh, by the gun shot injury, the entry wound has been found over the left side of the chest. Death of the 3 M.Cr.C. No.7633/2015 deceased has been caused due to excessive bleeding. As per the medical report of Rupendra, he received an abrasion over right shoulder and this injury has been found to be simple in nature. Rupendra, Basant Singh, Rinku and Hari Singh in their case-diary statements have stated that applicant along with co-accused came on the spot and surrounded Amol Singh and exhorted to kill him. Thereafter, Sahab Singh fired gun shot at Amol Singh.
6. Taking into consideration the allegations against the applicant coupled with the material available on record and keeping in view the gravity of the offence. I find that at this stage no ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail. Accordingly, M.Cr.C.No.7633/2015 stands dismissed.
(D.K. Paliwal) Judge Aiyer*