Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gangadhar @ Gangaram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 20 April, 2018
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 14026/2018
(Gangadhar @ Gangaram Vs. State of MP)
20.04.2018
Shri R.S. Kushwah, Advocate for applicant.
Shri Avneesh Singh, Public Prosecutor for
Respondent/State.
Shri Rajeev Jain, Advocate for the complainant. I.A. No. 2983/2018, an application under section 301 (2) of Cr.P.C. for assisting the public prosecutor is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.
Learned counsel for the complainant is permitted to assist the learned Public Prosecutor.
Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. The applicant has filed this fourth application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The first & second bail applications were dismissed on merit vide order dated 30/10/2017 & 16/02/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 17816/2017 & M.Cr.C. No. 653/2018. The third bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12/03/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 9635/2018.
The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Maksudangarh, District Guna in connection with Crime No.135/2017 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 294, 323, 324, 506 read with 34 and 307 of the IPC.
Prosecution story, in short, is that on 5/6/17, at about 7 p.m., co-accused Sitaram was removing the 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 14026/2018 Medh of a barren agricultural field with the help of the plough fitted to his Tractor, to which Moti Singh and Ramkailash objected. Sitaram filthily abused them saying that the Medh belonged to him. When Moti Singh and Ramkailash tried to stop the Tractor, Sitaram dashed them with his Tractor causing them to fall. Co-accused Neelam gave a Pharsi blow on the head of Moti Singh while co-accused Chattar Singh dealt Lathi blows on Ramkailash. As complainant Rambabu Lodhi and Vijay Singh came forward to their rescue, applicant and co-accused Gulab Singh arrived at the spot carrying Lath and Pharsi. Applicant Gangadhar gave a Pharsi blow on the head of Vijay Singh while co-accused Gulab Singh gave a Lathi blow near the left eye of the complainant. Thereafter, Gulab Singh gave a Lathi blow on the back of complainant. Then Preetam Singh and Amar Singh came and rescued the complainant party. Co-accused Sitaram while going threatened the complainant party with life.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to him, a cross-case has been registered against the complainant party at Crime No. 134/17, who were the aggressors. Investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed. It is submitted that no charge of offence under section 307 of IPC has been framed against the applicant. It 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 14026/2018 is further submitted that only one farsha blow was inflicted by the applicant and the injured sustained simple injury since no fracture was found on the body of the injured. It is further submitted that both the rival parties have received simple injuries and in the cross case the complainant party have already been released on bail. The other accused persons namely Sitaram, Gulab Singh and Chhatar Singh have already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 25/9/17 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 10081/17 and the applicant deserve parity in treatment.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant 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.
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 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 :-
4HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 14026/2018
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.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge Durgekar* Digitally signed by SANJAY N. DURGEKAR Date: 2018.04.22 15:19:07 +05'30'