Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 March, 2016
MCRC-555-2016
(JAGDISH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
02-03-2016
Shri Pooran Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for the applicant-accused.
Shri R.S.Yadav learned PP for the respondent/state.
The case diary is available and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed on 9.2.2016.
The applicant has filed this first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.142 of 2015 registered at PS Pahadgarh district Morena for the offence punishable under Section 365, 364A and 120B of IPC and 11,13 of MPDVPK Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant-accused submits that as per the statement of abductee Nirpal Singh, he was not abducted by the applicant-accused along with co-accused whose names have been mentioned in his statement. In the entire statement of the abductee, it has not been deposed by him that the applicant-accused was involved in his abduction. The counsel further pleads that the applicant-accused has been roped in to this case on the basis of the statement of co-accused recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act wherein, he has informed the police that he and other co-accused along with abductee were harboured by the applicant-accused at a temporary hut made on his field but the said statement is not admissible against the applicant- accused. Moreover, no identification parade of the applicant-accused was got conducted in this case for the abductee. At the most, in the said circumstances, an offence under section 216 of IPC can be made out against the applicant-accused, the said offence is not punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years and it is a bailable offence. On the aforesaid grounds, the applicant-accused be granted bail.
The learned PP by opposing the prayer for bail, has prayed for rejection of the bail application.
Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the case diary. On perusal of the charge sheet evidence, the submissions made on behalf of the applicant-accused appear to be sound because, the abductee Nirpal Singh has not deposed in his statement about the involvement of the applicant- accused in his abduction, Moreover, no identification parade was got conducted of the applicant-accused for the abductee. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the present application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on him furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court on the condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during the trial and shall also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. And so also as imposed by the trial Court.
A copy of this order be sent for compliance to the Court concerned. Certified copy as per rules.
(M.K. MUDGAL) JUDGE