Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naharsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 June, 2016
MCRC-2591-2016
(NAHARSINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
24-06-2016
Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned G.A. for the non-applicant/State.
ORDER
This is second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.. The first application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 9.2.2016, passed in M.Cr.C. No.11175/2015.
The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.163/2013 registered at P.S. Susner, District Shajapur for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 365, 323, 120-B and 342 of the IPC.
2. As per the prosecution case, complainant Fatehsingh was going to his village Sadalpur, his son Gangaram was coming on cycle from Susner. Gangaram asked him to take the bag on his bicycle, at that time two persons came from Sadalpur and surrounded Gangaram. He ran towards field, the two persons chased him and caught hold him and gave beating by means of lathi, when complainant intervened they also gave beating and he fell down. Both the persons took Gangaram towards river side. It is further alleged that daughter of his brother, Radhabai was eloped and his brother was having suspicion over Gangaram and at the behest of Bheruingh and his wife, Sohanbai, Gangaram has been beaten. During investigation, deadbody of Gangaram was found. It was found that Gangaram has been murdered by the contract killers by the present applicant and Phoolsingh at the behest of Bherusingh and his wife.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has not committed any offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case. Co-accused Phoolsingh has already been acquitted by the trial court by judgment dated 31.3.2015 passed in S.T.No.25/14 by ASJ, Susner. There is no material to connect the applicant with the crime except the memorandum of co-accused Phoolsingh who has already been acquitted. Applicant is under custody since 30.10.2015, conclusion of trial is likely to take time, hence prayed for release of the applicant.
5. Learned G.A. appearing for non-applicant/State opposed the bail application on the ground that applicant earlier remained absconded from the date of judgment and arrested only on 30.10.2015, and prayed for its rejection.
6. Perused the case diary. As per postmortem report, deceased Gangaram has sustained lacerated wound on right temporal region, haemotoma on left temporal region, bruise and contusions and depressed fracture of tempoparietal region has been found. Death has been caused due to head injury. Complainant Fatehsingh has also been injured in the incident but no test identification parade has been conducted. The applicant has been implicated on the basis of memorandum of co-accused Phoolsingh who has been acquitted by the trial court vide judgment dated 31.3.2015 passed in S.T.No.25/14 by ASJ, Susner. Though the applicant was absconded for about 2 years, however considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed. Since the applicant belongs to the State of Rajasthan and earlier he was absconded for a period of 2 years, therefore it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bail bond in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs) along with three sureties of Rs.One Lac each (Out of which two sureties should be local) to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court on all dates as may be fixed in this behalf. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him/her;
2. The applicant will co-operate 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/she 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.
(D.K. PALIWAL) JUDGE