Madhya Pradesh High Court
Parshottam Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 November, 2022
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 17th OF NOVEMBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 50632 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
PARSHOTTAM JATAV S/O SHRI HARPRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRIVATE JOB VILLAGE SEMRIKALA TEHSIL
AND POLICE STATION SUTANPUR DISTRICT
RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SOURABH SINGH THAKUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION SUTANPUR RAISEN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI NAGENDRA SOLANKI, PANEL LAWYER)
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This first application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.255/2022 registered at Police Station Sutanpur, District Raisen for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 354 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 04.08.2022. He submits that the deceased while cooking food came into contact with fire; burnt almost 62%; got hospitalized where her dying declaration was Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 11/18/2022 10:41:42 AM 2 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate in which she has not alleged anything against the present applicant, although she has stated that she herself came into contact of fire while filling kerosene oil and sustained burn injuries. However second dying declaration has been recorded after 13 days of recording of first dying declaration that too by a constable in which she has alleged that it is the present applicant who set fire upon her due to which she sustained burn injuries and finally died, therefore, offence of 302 of IPC has been registered against the present applicant. He further submits that there are two dying declarations which are the evidence for implicating the present applicant, however both the dying declarations are contrary to each other. Although, he submits that in the existing circumstances when first dying declaration is of Judicial Magistrate then second dying declaration was not required to be recorded that too by a constable and as such, the first dying declaration carries value and the same should be relied upon. He submits that in such circumstances, when there were no corroboratory evidence collected by the prosecution to support the second dying declaration, the present applicant cannot be implicated in the crime alleged against him.
O n the other hand, the counsel for the State has opposed the bail application, read over the case diary and also both the dying declarations but failed to show any other material in support of subsequent dying declaration indicating that the applicant was involved in the alleged crime.
Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and after perusal of case diary, I am inclined to consider and allow this bail application. Therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this application is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing a Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 11/18/2022 10:41:42 AM 3 bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned for his appearance on the dates given by it.
I t is further directed that the applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE ac/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 11/18/2022 10:41:42 AM