Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Jakhodiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 September, 2021
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA No.4724/2021
Rakesh Jakhodiya vs. State of M.P. & Anr.
Gwalior, Dated : 15.09.2021
Shri Rajmani Bansal, Counsel for the appellant.
Shri C.P. Singh, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Atul Gupta, Counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant. Case Diary is available.
This first Criminal Appeal for grant of bail has been filed under Section 14A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 against the order dated 25.5.2021 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Gwalior by which the application filed by the appellant for grant of bail has been rejected.
The appellant has been arrested on 1.4.2021 in connection with Crime No.219/2021 registered at Police Station Thatipur, District Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 147, 302 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act and under Section 11/12 of POCSO Act.
It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that according to the prosecution case, the assailants came in a car and fired gunshots on the deceased. He sustained gunshot on his back and the deceased tried to run away from the spot in order to save his life. He was chased by the accused persons. The deceased took shelter in a house and at that time also the gunshots were fired. It is submitted by the counsel for the 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No.4724/2021 Rakesh Jakhodiya vs. State of M.P. & Anr.
appellant that the police has filed the CCTV footage of two CCTV cameras installed in the locality and there is nothing on record to show that the appellant was one of the assailants.
Per contra, the appeal is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State as well as the complainant. It is submitted that the appellant is one of the assailants who caused death of the deceased.
By order dated 27.8.2021, this Court had granted time to the counsel for the appellant to bring his laptop to demonstrate the contents of CD filed by the prosecution along with chargesheet.
Accordingly, today the CD was provided by the counsel for the appellant which was run in the open Court and the contents were seen. It is suffice to mention here that those CCTV footages are not the videography of entire incident but they are footages of CCTV cameras installed at different places, therefore, the entire incident has not been captured by any of the CDs and they contain only a part of incident.
Be that whatever it may.
In view of direct evidence against the appellant, no case is made out for grant of bail. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
(alok) Judge
ALOK KUMAR
2021.09.16 17:30:37 +05'30'