Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mitthu Singh Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2020
Author: Mohammed Fahim Anwar
Bench: Mohammed Fahim Anwar
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-1063-2020
(MITTHU SINGH LODHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
1
Jabalpur, dated: 27.01.2020
Shri Jafar Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri M. Siddiqui, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
Heard on this second application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.210/2019 registered at Police Station Batiyagarh, District Damoh under Sections 304 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 24 of the M.P. Rajya Aryuvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam.
The first bail application of the applicant i.e. M.Cr.C. No.37973/2019 has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.11.2019.
The case of the prosecution is that, on 22.04.2019 Anita (deceased), aged about 23 years was taken to CHC Batiyagarh, under the jurisdiction of Police Station Batiyagarh, District Damoh where she declared as 'brought dead'. A marg intimation was recorded. During the course of marg enquiry, postmortem of the deceased was conducted and statements of her family members were recorded. On that basis, it was found that the applicant, who was working as Quack in the said area had given some treatment and also injection to the deceased, due to which her condition deteriorated. Thereafter, she was taken to hospital where she was declared dead.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the crime. It is further submitted that the statements of deceased father and mother Chandan (PW-1) and Smt. Badibahu (PW-2) and other witnesses Takhat Singh (PW-
3), Nirmal (PW-4) and Dharamdas Ahirwar (PW-5) have been recorded and they have not supported the case of the The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-1063-2020 (MITTHU SINGH LODHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 2 prosecution. It is further submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address shown in the application. He is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all terms and conditions imposed upon him. It is also submitted that the applicant is in custody since 28.08.2019. In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application and submitted that the applicant prima-facie found involved in the said crime. In view of the aforesaid, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the statements of mother and father of the deceased, changed circumstances and looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it would not be proper to keep the applicant in custody for the remainder of the trial.
Consequently, this second application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant, is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for her appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge taj.
TAJAMMUL Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA HUSSAIN PRADESH, postalCode=482002, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=13e90ad4646c5d70faccde1bb306 KHAN d26684198011bca27e8bff4922a823a58219 , cn=TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2020.01.28 10:27:38 +05'30'