Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 January, 2023
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 6 th OF JANUARY, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 61580 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
RAJU S/O HARESINGH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE KHEDI BUJURG, DISTT.
DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SUNIL GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION GANDHWANI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
( BY SHRI AJAY RAJ GUPTA - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. They are heard. Perused the case diary/challan papers.
2. This is the first application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as the applicant is implicated in connection with Crime No.674/2021 registered at Police Station Gandhwani, District Dhar (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120 and 392 of the IPC.
3. The applicant is in custody since 08.12.2021.
4. As per the prosecution, on 30-11-2021 the deceased Mayaram had gone at about 09:30 PM from his house on a motorcycle. He did not return till Signature Not Verified the morning. His body was eventually recovered from side of a road upon the Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 06-01-2023 18:45:35 2 same having been discovered over there by Dayaram and his motorcycle was parked 400 feet from him. On the recovery of the body, marg was registered and investigation was commending during course of which the statements of witnesses were recorded and seizure of a ring of the deceased and a rope was made from the applicant. On the basis of his memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act he has been implicated and arrested for the present offence.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. The only evidence available on record against him is the recovery of ring of the deceased and a rope from him on the basis of his own memorandum. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no other legal evidence whatsoever to connect the applicant with the present crime. Both the witnesses to the seizure PW-1 Dayaram and PW-2 Devchand have been examined before the trial Court and from their statements the recovery of the aforesaid articles from the applicant has not been proved. Dayaram on the other hand has stated that the articles were recovered from the deceased himself by the police. He has not stated that recovery was made from the applicant. It is hence submitted that in view of statements of the seizure witnesses nothing remains against the applicant who hence deserves to be released on bail.
6. The aforesaid prayer has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent State submitting that in view of the allegations leveled against the appellant and the material collected by the prosecution against him, he is not entitled to be released on bail merely on the basis of recording of statements of the seizure witnesses.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 06-01-2023 18:45:35 3 case diary.
8. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and the only circumstance against the applicant is recovery of ring of the deceased and a rope from him on the basis of his own memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. There is no other material to connect the applicant with the present case. Both the seizure witnesses, namely PW-1 Dayaram and PW-2 Devchand have been examined before the trial Court and from their evidence the recovery from the applicant has not been proved but on the contrary they stated recovery to have been made from the body of the deceased itself. The applicant is in custody since 08.12.2021 and the trial is still likely to take time for its conclusion. Thus in my opinion, under the changed circumstances, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
9. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
10. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 06-01-2023 18:45:35 4 ns Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 06-01-2023 18:45:35