Madhya Pradesh High Court
Panchu @ Pancham Jharia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 December, 2016
MCRC-19788-2016
(PANCHU @ PANCHAM JHARIA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
20-12-2016
Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri A.K. Singh, PL for the respondent/ State.
Shri Brajesh Kumar Rajak, Advocate for the objector. Heard.
This is the Second bail application filed by the applicants-accused under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail who are in custody since 12.9.2016 in connection with Crime No.223/2016, registered at Police Station Belkheda, District Jabalpur, for the offence under Sections 302, 328 and 201/34 of the IPC. Earlier application being M.Cr.C.No.18300/2016 filed by the applicants was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.10.2016 with regard to the applicant no.1 and on merits with regard to the applicant no.2. As per the prosecution case, the applicants and two other co-accused Satendra Singh and Nawal Singh along with the deceased Rajendra Rajak had gone for celebrating the eve of 31st December, 2015. Where, they consumed liquor and the deceased Rajendra returned to his house and made complaint of stomach pain to his mother and thereafter, he was taken to hospital where he died. On examination of viscera it was found that the death was taken place on account of consuming zinc phosphate in drunk. In the investigation it reveals that the deceased had evil eye on the sister of co-accused Satendra. Hence, he hatched conspiracy with other accused persons and given poison to the deceased.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and implicated falsely. They are in custody since 12.9.2016 and there is no evidence against the applicants. Charge sheet has been filed. Trial will take considerable time in disposal of the case. Hence, prayer is made to enlarge the applicants on bail. Learned Panel Lawyer as well as learned counsel appearing for the objector have opposed the bail application stating that there is prima facie evidence against the applicants to connect them with the alleged crime. Looking to the seriousness of the crime, the application of the applicants be rejected.
Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, prima facie it appears that there is evidence against the applicants to connect hem with the crime. Further, in view of the seriousness of the offence, they cannot be enlarged on bail. Hence, this second bail application filed by the applicants is hereby dismissed.
(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE JP