Jeetu Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 August, 2023

[Cites 6, Cited by 4]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jeetu Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 August, 2023

Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

                                  1
 IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
                     ON THE 21 st OF AUGUST, 2023
              MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 33062 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
JEETU RATHORE S/O SHRI RAMESHWAR RATHORE,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O
MAIJAR COLONY NAHAR GADAIPURA BIRLA NAGAR,
HAZIRA, DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                  .....APPLICANT
(SHRI VISHWANATH PRATAP SINGH TOMAR - ADVOCATE)

AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION   MAHARAJPURA   DISTRICT  GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                .....RESPONDENT
( MS. KALPANA PARMAR - PANEL LAWYER)

      This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
                                   ORDER

The first bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.402/2023 registered at Police Station -Maharajpura, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 34 of the IPC.

As per the case of the prosecution, on 02.03.2023, Saurabh Karan informed to Police Station- Maharajpura that preceding night at about 2 AM, he had gone to bring his maternal uncle from Gole Ka Mandir. When he returned 2 to his home, he found that his father, Radhakrishna has committed suicide by hanging. On his report, death intimation No.22/2023 was registered. Thereafter, panchnama was prepared and dead body was sent for post mortem. During inquest, statements of wife of the deceased and other witnesses were recorded, wherein it was alleged that on 24.02.2023, present applicant/accused along with co-accused, namely, Rinku, Harnam, Saurabh, Sachin and Lakhan came to the house of deceased and made allegation that his son Gaurav had molested a girl and started abusing them in filthy languages. When family members of the deceased objected, they started maarpeet with them and also threatened them. Manju, wife of deceased had reported this incident at Police Station Maharajpura. Applicant and co-accused were pressurizing deceased to withdraw the report. It is further alleged that on 01.02.2023, all the accused again threatened deceased -Radhakrishna for compromise in the matter. Due to this harassment and threatening, deceased has committed suicide. On 25.02.2023, Crime No.402/2023 for the offence under Sections 306 and 34 of IPC was registered against present applicant and other co-accused.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation of threatening on 01.02.2023, first time surfaced on the statements of family members recorded on 12.03.2023 i.e. twelve days after death of Radhakrishna, no case of instigation, aiding or abetting suicide is made out against the applicant. Applicant is aged about 29 years and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is alleged that applicant and co-accused abused the deceased and his family members on 24.02.2023, but deceased committed suicide after eight days, therefore, ingredients of Section 107 of IPC are not at all attracted. There is no likelihood of his absconding leaving the family behind to suffer. Investigation is almost complete. No custodial interrogation is required in the 3 matter. There is no likelihood of interfering with the investigation or tampering with the evidence. Jail incarceration would bring social disrepute and personal hardship to the applicant. The trial would take time to complete. Co-accused Rinku Rathore has been granted bail vide order dated 19.07.2023 passed in MCRC No. 25962/2023 by the Co-ordinate Bench. Therefore, the applicant may be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

P er contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the application and submits that the investigation is under way. Considering the gravity of offence and chances of the interference with the evidence, the applicant may not be granted anticipatory bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. Considering the arguments advanced by both the parties and overall circumstances of the case but without commencing on merits of the case, this Court inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Thus, the application is allowed.

Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant , applicant Jeetu Rathore shall be released on bail in relation to the Crime No.402/2023 registered at Police Station -Maharajpura, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC, upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the officer making arrest, for compliance with the following conditions:

(1) Applicant shall make himself available for investigation as may directed by the officer, in-charge of investigation;

(2) Applicant shall not commit or get involved in any offence of similar nature;

(3) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them/him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer;

(4) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly attempt to temper with the evidence or allure, pressurize or threaten the witness;

(5) Upon submission of final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C, the applicants shall furnish fresh personal bond and solvent surety of aforementioned amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, if so directed and thereafter, shall remain present on every date of hearing as may be directed by the concerned Court;

(6) During trial, the applicants shall ensure due compliance of provisions of Section 309 of Cr.P.C. regarding examination of witnesses in attendance;

This order shall be effective till the end of trial. However, in case of breach of any of the pre-condition of bail, it shall become ineffective without reference to the Court.

C.C. as per rules.





                                                                  (SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
                                                                          JUDGE
  Vijay

VIJAY     Digitally signed by VIJAY TRIPATHI
          DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
          MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
          GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF
          MADHYA PRADESH BENCH




TRIPA
          GWALIOR,
          2.5.4.20=663cb09dd950bfc3ea7ed4f
          02d97ddae5364f1d4b042dbc59921b
          76e812d2d6b, postalCode=474001,
          st=Madhya Pradesh,
          serialNumber=58392D8C4E7C9693B




THI
          FEEB5B46B3CA006F1127E89008952B
          BEC528CE4D82551BD, cn=VIJAY
          TRIPATHI
          Date: 2023.08.22 17:23:51 +05'30'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court