Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 1]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ramsingh Bhil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 April, 2017

              M.Cr.C. No.12254 of 2016
12/04/2017
     Shri   S.   K.   Vyas,   learned   Senior   Counsel   with
Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant
--Ramsingh Bhil S/o Kesarsingh Chauhan.
     Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer, for
the non­applicant/State. 
     Shri   Vismit   Panot,   learned   Counsel   for   the
complainant.
     Heard. Case diary perused. 
2.   Applicant   -   Ramsingh   Bhil   is   implicated   in
Crime   No.155/2016,   registered   at   Police   Station   -
Kishanganj, Mhow for the offence punishable under
Sections 301, 302, 307, 120­ B, 420, 467 and 468 of
IPC. He is in custody since 4/06/2016. 
3.   As per case diary, on 29/03/2016 at about 1.00
p.m.,   Jai   Singh   along   with   his   son   Vivek   was
travelling in Verna car bearing Registration No.MP
09   CH   3767   and  was   going  towards  Tehsil  Mhow
and when they reached between Manpur and Mhow
suddenly a dumper bearing registration No. MP 09
GE 3412 coming from opposite direction as well as
on wrong side of road, collided with the car of the
Jai Singh. Behind that there were two motorcycles
 bearing Registration Nos.MP 09 NN 4043 and MP 09
CN 3767 also collided in this incident. As a result of
which, Jai  Singh and his son  Vivek were seriously
injured,   however,   dumper   truck   had   also   dashed
hard   into   two   motor   bikes   which   were   ridden   by
other two persons. After the said incident, Jai singh
Thakur, his son Vivek and the persons travelling by
motorcycle   namely   Sukhlal,   Suleman   Khan,   Sunil
S/o   Bhagirath   and   Zakir   Khan   were   hospitalised.
During treatment on 29/03/2016 i.e., on the same
day injured Suleman and Sunil died. On the basis of
the   report   lodged   by   Nanuram,   eye­witness   of   the
incident   at   Police   Station   Kishanganj   vide   Crime
No.155/2016, offence under Sections 279337 and
304­A of IPC were registered against the driver of
the   dumper   Ramsingh   Bhil.   One   Mobile   Nokia
Company   in   which   SIM   No.8959439538   of   Idea
Company has been recovered from the spot. 
4.   On 31/03/2016, Bane singh Thakur, brother of
Jai   Singh   filed   an   application   to   Additional   S.P.
Mhow   stating   therein   that   this   incident   was   a
criminal conspiracy which was pre­ planned by co­
accused Mangilal who was in Sub­Jail Mhow along
with   other   co­accused   person.   On   3/04/2016,
 Additional SP Mhow directed TI Manpur for detailed
investigation in the matter. The Investigating Officer
traced   the   call  details   of   dialed   numbers   from  the
seized   mobile   recovered   from   the   dumper   truck
wherein the dialed numbers from the seized mobile
were found to be of Rajendra and Sanju. Thereafter,
the   police   interrogated   the   owner   of   the   dumper
truck  i.e.   Sanju   @ Sanjay  S/o   Brijlal  and came  to
know   that   on   19/01/2016   Rajendra   had   met
Mangilal   at   Mhow   Sub   Jail   who   is   an   under   trial
prisoner   in   Advocate   Yogesh   Garg's   murder   case.
Under the directions of Mangilal, Rajendra planned
the   murder   of   Jai   Singh   and   then   Rajendra
contacted   Sanju   @   Sanjay   S/o   Brijlal,   Omprakash
and a bus driver i.e., Nausad to execute the murder
conspiracy.   Thereafter,   in   order   to   execute   the
murder   conspiracy   of   Jai   Singh,     Sanju   @   Sanjay
S/o Brijlal purchased a second hand dumper truck
worth Rs.5,80,000/­ and later on the ownership was
also   transferred   under   his   name.   Then   Sanju   @
Sanjay   S/o   Brijlal   and   Nausad   paid   cash   to   the
applicant to drive the dumper truck to murder Jai
Singh and involved him in the murder conspiracy.
The   police   had   recovered   mobile   phone   and
 numbers from Rajendra, Sanju @ Sanjay S/o Brijlal,
Omprakash   and   Nausad   wherein   they   were
constantly keeping an eye on Jai Singh to execute
the   murder   and   later   on   it   was   found   that   these
mobile numbers were obtained fraudulently and by
making   forged   document   which   was   done   by   co­
accused Lokesh Solanki. 
5.   Learned   Senior   Counsel   for   the   applicant   has
submitted that as per 161 statement of eye­witness
Nanuram, who had lodged the FIR and 161 of Jai
Singh   (injured),   the   present   applicant   was   not
driving the dumper truck . Later on, the prosecution
story   was   changed   and   as   per   written   complaint
lodged by Bane Singh Thakur, brother of Injured­­Jai
Singh   Thakur   on   1/04/2016,   Sanju   @   Sanjay   S/o
Brijlal was driving the dumper truck. He submitted
that   on   the   basis   of   memorandum   of   co­accused
Omprakash,   Rajendra   and   Nausad,   the   present
applicant has been implicated in the alleged offence
whereas it is a case of simple accident. There is no
legal and admissible evidence against the applicant.
He has also drawn my attention to the order sheet
dated   20/02/2017   and   submitted   that   the
Investigating Officer was directed to file a detailed
 affidavit specifying therein as who was driving the
offending   vehicle(dumper)   and   what   are   the
allegations   against   the   present   applicant   in
committing   the   murder   of   deceased   Suleman   and
Sunil and causing injuries to injured persons. 
6.   A   detailed   objection   has   been   filed   by   Shri
Vismit   Panot,   learned   counsel   for   the   complainant
wherein   no   allegation   has   been   made   against   the
present applicant - Ramsingh Bhil. 
7.   As per FIR lodged by eye­witness Nanuram, the
present   applicant   was   not   driving   the   offending
dumper whereas as per written complaint lodged by
Bane   singh   Thakur,   brother   of   Jai   Singh   dated
31.3.2016/1.04.2016   and   27   memo   of   Co­accused
Omprakash,   Rajendra   and   Naushad,   co­accused
Sanju @ Sanjay S/o Brijlal was driving the offending
dumper. 
8.   This Court by order dated 20/02/2017, directed
the respondent to file a detailed affidavit. 

9. At the time of arguments, Shri Sudanshu Vyas, learned panel lawyer has submitted that the affidavit has been prepared and he is filing the same, but as per report, till 3/04/2017, no such documents was filed. 

10. I have perused the affidavit filed by the Town Inspector Mhow as well as affidavit dated 12.4.2017 of Additional S.P., Mhow. 

11. As   per   written   compliant   dated   31.3.2016 lodged by Bane Singh Thakur brother of Jai singh Thakur and police statement of Jai singh, at the time of   occurrence   on   29.3.2016   Sanju   @   Sanjay   S/o Brijlal   was   driving   the   dumper   and   the   present applicant was not shown at the spot. Though, as per paras   4   and   5   of   the   affidavit   filed   by   Additional S.P.,   Mhow,   the   present   applicant   was   driving   the offending   dumper   but   the   said   averments   are contrary   to   the   written   compliant   lodged   by   Bane Singh Thakur and police statement of Jai singh.

12. Considering   the   aforesaid   and   material available in the case­diary,   without expressing any opinion   on   the   merits   of   the   case,   M.Cr.C. No.12254/2016   is   allowed.   It   is   directed   that   the applicant--Ramsingh Bhil, shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ (Rupees one lakh only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of   the   concerned   JMFC/CJM   for   his   appearance before him or trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed in this behalf by the Court concerned during trial. This order will remain operative subject to   compliance   of   the   following   conditions   by   the applicant :­ 

(i) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him. 

(ii)   The   applicant   will   co­operate in   the   investigation/trial,   as   the   case may be; 

(iii) 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; 

(iv)   The   applicant   shall   not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused; 

(v)   The   applicant   will   not   seek unnecessary   adjournments   during   the trial; and 

(viii) 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.

  

       (P.K. Jaiswal)  Judge        pp/