Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dheeraj Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 19 October, 2016
Dheeraj Gurjar v. State of MP. 1
M.Cr.C. No.9156/2016
19.10.2016
Shri Vivek Saxena Sr. Advocate with Shri Jagdeesh Singh,
Advocate for applicant.
Shri Arun Barua Public Prosecutor for Respondent/State.
Shri MK Choudhry, Advocate for the victim.
Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. The applicant has filed this third application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Civil Line, District Morena in connection with Crime No.286/2013 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 302, 147, 148, 149 and 294 of IPC and 11/13 of MPDVPK Adhiniyam.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record no case for grant of bail is made out.
The applicant is in custody since 17.04.2015. This repeat 3rd bail application has been filed after rejection of earlier one on 26.8.15 in Mcrc. No. 8387/15 which was dismissed on merits. New ground raised herein is that after rejection of earlier bail application. Bail application of co-accused Banwari has been allowed on 27.7.16 in Mcrc.8299/16. It is submitted that co- accused Banwari was wielding Lohangi as is the case of the petitioner.
On the other hand learned counsel for the victim points out by referring to the order of rejection of bail to co-accused Girraj by order order dated 9.8. 16 in Mcrc. No. 8801/16 submits that in view of the said order of rejection of bail to co-accused Girraj the petitioner is not entitled to benefit of bail.
Case diary and record is perused.
Prosecution story indicates that allegation against the Dheeraj Gurjar v. State of MP. 2 M.Cr.C. No.9156/2016 petitioner Girraj and Banwari appears to be same except that petitioner and Banwari were wielding Lohangi whereas as Girraj was wielding iron rod. Fatal injury is caused on the head which is opined to be lacerated wound caused by hard and blunt object which could have been caused by iron rod or Lohangi.
The arguments and counter arguments presented by placing reliance by the petitioner on the order of bail granted to co- accused Banwari on one hand and the counter argument of the learned counsel for the victim by placing reliance on the order of rejection of bail to co-accused Girraj may not be gone into in the present petition as the same is being decided on the basis of another supervening relevant consideration that all the prosecution witnesses including eye witnesses except Shiv Singh have been examined as is reflected from the reading of the bail order dated 27.7. 16 granting bail to co-accused Banvari. The order further discloses that though Shiv Singh is an eye witness but his statement u/S. 161 merely implicates the co-accused Harvinder and not the petitioner.
In matters of bail where equally strong arguments are extended on merits for or against the accused and there is one supervening factor of all the eye witnesses having been examined eliminating or at least minimizing the possibility of prosecution being influenced in case of the release of the petitioner, the benefit of bail ought to be given to the petitioner since denial would lead to depriving him of his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of Constitution of India which is extremely precious and can be denied only when very strong circumstances exist.
The petitioner having no criminal antecedents, it appears that there is no possibility of the petitioner fleeing from justice.
Dheeraj Gurjar v. State of MP. 3 M.Cr.C. No.9156/2016 In view of the above and that early conclusion of trial is a bleak possibility and that prolonged pre-trial detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant but with stringent conditions in view of nature of offence.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rs. One Lac 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.
7. The applicant shall mark his attendance at the concerned trial court once every fortnight.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(Sheel Nagu)
ar Judge