Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pharsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 December, 2022
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 7 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 54214 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
PHARSINGH S/O SATIYA MUVEL, AGED ABOUT 19
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: LABOUR GRAM MALHERA
MUJALDAPURA, TEH. AND P.S. GANDHWANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SIDDHARTH JAIN - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION TIRLA DISTT
DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....NON APPLICANT
( BY SHRI TARUN PAGARE - PANEL LAWYER)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He is in Jail since 21.5.2022 in connection with Crime No. 158/2022 registered at P.S. Tirla District Dhar (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 342, 394/34, 397, 364, of IPC.
As per the prosecution story, on 16.5.2022 complainant Gautam registered a report at police station Tirla to the effect that he is a driver in Eicher truck, on the date of incident he was transporting iron rods from Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR DATT JOSHI Signing time: 08-12-2022 10:08:26 2 Pithampur to Meghnagar. In the night at Tirla Fata, 4 unknown persons came and they stopped the Eicher vehicle and beaten the complainant and cleaner. They took Rs. 800 cash and mobile of complainant and also caused gun shot injury on cleaner as a result of which he sustained injury on his right wrist. Thereafter accused abducted them on gun point and took them on a narrow road and committed loot. After investigation, present applicant has been arrested.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. Applicant is in jail since 21.5.2022. Investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed. Three prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court. Co-accused Suresh and Kunwarsingh have been enlarged on bail by this court by orders dated 3.11.2022 and 13.9.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos. 46618/202 and 41615/2022, the case of present applicant is similar to that of co-accused persons. Hence, he prays that applicant be released on bail.
Per-contra, learned PL for respondent/State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that there is direct evidence against the present applicant that he has fired on the complainant and looted certain articles. Hence the present applicant does not deserve for bail.
Perused the case diary as well as the impugned order of the court below.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by counsel for the parties, nature and gravity of allegation it is revealed that Gautam (PW-1) categorically stated in his statement that present applicant Phar Singh fired upon him due to which he got grievous injury on his elbow and applicant snatched Rs. 700/-. There is direct evidence available Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR DATT JOSHI Signing time: 08-12-2022 10:08:26 3 against the present applicant and his case is not similar to that of co-accused persons Kunwarsingh and Suresh who have been enlarged on bail, they were not identified by complainant and other persons.
In view of the prima facie evidence available on record, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
Hence this bail application filed by applicant under section 439 of Cr.PC. is hereby rejected.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE BDJ Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR DATT JOSHI Signing time: 08-12-2022 10:08:26