Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raja @ Umakant vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 July, 2015
M.Cr.C.No. 10136 / 2015
29/07/2015.
Shri D.R. Patel, Advocate with Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate for the
applicant-accused.
Shri B.P. Pandey, learned PPL for the respondent / State.
Case diary is available. After investigation, charge sheet has already been filed.
This is the Second bail application filed by the applicant-accused under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.3/15, Police station Ghughari, District Mandla, offences registered under sections 302 and 201 of the IPC.
The first bail application filed by the applicant / accused under section 439 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed for want of prosecution by this court vide order dated 16.6.2015 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 7243/2015.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of double murder of Kaliram and Mangal yet there is no evidence on record against the applicant-accused to connect him with the said offence. As per the prosecution story, dead bodies of both the deceased were found in the forest When Narayan, son of the deceased Kaliram, came to learn about the murder of his father, a report was lodged against unknown persons. During investigation it has come on record in the statements of Sandhya and Ku. Surekha to the effect that two unknown persons came to the deceased house and took him along with Mangal, thereafter, they were murdered. The said persons were identified by them as Surendra Das, Ashok Uike, Bhura @ Kaliram and Shivlal Parte who were given two lakh rupees by the applicant-accused and his father Maru Maravi for committing murder of both the deceased because niece of Kaliram, Ku. Surekha had lodged a report against the applicant-accused for an offence under section 354 of IPC before the alleged incident. Counsel further contends that the story put forth by the prosecution that two lakh rupees was given by the applicant-accused and his father is totally based on the statements of the co-accused and the applicant-accused recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act which are not admissible. There is no witness on record to say that the said amount was given by the applicant-accused and his father to the co-accused who allegedly committed murder of both the deceased. Besides it, M.Cr.C.No. 10136 / 2015 as per the prosecution story, there was no direct involvement of the applicant- accused in committing the murder of both the deceased and no weapon was seized from his possession. The confessional statement recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act of the applicant-accused cannot be used against him to connect him with the aforesaid murder. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed for grant of bail.
Learned PP opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant has prayed for rejection of the bail application.
On perusal of the case diary it is evident that the dead bodies of both the deceased were found in the forest. There is no last seen evidence against the applicant-accused with the deceased in this case. The applicant-accused has been implicated in this case on the basis of his statement and co-accused statement recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act. At the most if it is presumed that the motorcycle which was used by the co-accused persons was given by the applicant-accused to them, an offence under section 201 of IPC is made out. The said offence is bailable. The applicant-accused has been in jail since 11.01.2015.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made on behalf of the applicant-accused, this application is allowed and it is ordered that the applicant / accused be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C.
M.Cr.C. stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(M.K.Mudgal ) Judge Parouha/-