Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohammad Umar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 July, 2015
MCRC-10466-2015
(MOHAMMAD UMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
13-07-2015
Shri S. D.Gupta, Advocate for the applicants-accused.
Shri P.K. Pandey, learned PP for the respondent / State.
Case diary is available. After investigation charge sheet was filed on 15.5.2015.
This is first bail application filed by the applicants-accused under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 40/15 , Police station Jawar, District Sehore, offences registered under sections 302 and 201/34 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is neither direct nor circumstantial evidence in the case diary against the applicants / accused to connect them with the murder of the deceased Shakir Khan who left home on 15.8.2012 without informing his family members. A missing report of the deceased was lodged by his brother Iqbal on 21.8.2012. The applicants â accused were not seen by anyone in the last company of the deceased whose body was found in a well on 28.9.2012. Counsel further pleads that near about 3 years later the applicants / accused were implicated in this case on the basis of statements of Tara and Kale khan who were not the eye witnesses of the incident. Their statements are based on hearsay evidence and hence are not admissible in evidence. The story of recovery of a gold ring and a gold chain of the deceased from the applicants â accused has been falsely planted to implicate them in this case because when the deceased left home it has not been mentioned in the missing report that he was wearing the gold ring and the chain as stated earlier. Therefore, the said recovery did not have any credence against the applicants / accused. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the applicants has prayed for grant of bail.
Learned PL opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicants has prayed for rejection of the bail application.
On perusal of the case diary and the statements of Tara and Kale Khan it appears that they were not the eye witnesses of the incident and their statements are based on hearsay evidence. So far as the recovery of the gold ring and chain is concerned, the said articles were not worn by the deceased when he left home as per missing report. The deceased died in the year 2012 and the applicants â accused have been implicated in this case after more than 3 years i.e. in the year 2015.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed and it is ordered that applicants be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond for the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) each with a solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for securing their presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial. M.Cr.C. stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(M.K. MUDGAL) JUDGE