Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bunty @ Kamlesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 May, 2016
MCRC-8223-2016
(BUNTY @ KAMLESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
11-05-2016
Shri Pranay Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri A.K. Singh, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the objector. Heard arguments.
Perused case diary and material on record. This is the first bail application filed by applicant Bunti @ Kamlesh under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in Sessions Trial No. 18/2015, arising out of Crime No.558/2014 registered at Police Station Obedullaganj, district Raisen, against him and co-accused persons namely, Sanju, Govind and juvenile Rahul for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 376, 394, 307 and 34 of the IPC, pending on the file of IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen. Prosecution allegations are that the applicant had love affairs with Rachna (since deceased) of his village. However, he has betrothed with another girl. The deceased used to oppose his engagement vehemently. Whereupon, the applicant entered into a criminal conspiracy with co-accused persons to eliminate her. On the fateful day, the applicant cajoled her into going with him. In an isolated area, the applicant and the co-accused persons gang raped her and thereafter she was beaten to death with stones.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been in custody since 21.11.2014. He further submits that the prosecution case is entirely based upon the circumstantial evidence. He further submits that the trial Court has recorded the statements of the material witnesses and there is no evidence on record to connect the applicant with the crime. Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
The learned counsel for the objector and the learned Panel Lawyer have opposed the prayer on the ground that upon the disclosure statement of the applicant, the Investigating Officer Sajjan Singh Mukati (PW-22) had seized the applicant's underwear at the place of occurrence and the identity card of the deceased from his possession and the motorcycle which he had used in the commission of crime. The recovery of the aforesaid articles directly connects the applicant with the crime.
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel and perusal of the disclosure statement and the recovery memos pertaining to the applicant, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that no case is made out for grant of bail to the applicant. Hence, the application is rejected.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE