Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sawan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 March, 2016
MCRC-11594-2015
(SAWAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
01-03-2016
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned G.A. for the non-
applicant/State.
ORDER
This is third bail application under 439 of Cr.P.C.. The earlier bail application being M.Cr.C.Nos.209/2015 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30.1.2015 and the second application being M.Cr.C.No.1775/15 was dismissed as withdrawn with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial without any delay vide order dated 7.5.2015.
The applicant is arrested in connection with Crime No.413/14 registered at P.S. Sanawad, District Khargone for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 303, 193 and 194/34 of the IPC.
2. As per prosecution case, on the information that dead body of unknown person is lying, Marg intimation No.97/14 was registered. During enquiry it was found that dead body was of Munnalal S/o Rugiya Rathore. Offence was registered. During investigation it was found that deceased was having affair with the wife of Bablu @ Santosh and some money was also due, therefore Bablu along with Ankit and Sawan committed murder of Munnalal.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated. Abhishek(PW-3) and Ankit who witnessed the incident, have not supported the prosecution case before the court. It is further submitted that there is no allegation against the applicant for causing any injury to the deceased. The only allegation against the applicant is that he was driving the vehicle in which beating by co-accused was given to the deceased. The applicant is under custody w.e.f. 8.10.2014, chargesheet has been filed and the conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the applicant
4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for non- applicant/State opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection.
5. Perused the case diary. As per postmortem report of the deceased, multiple small pieces of skull bones found in cranial cavity and frontal bone, both temporal and lower portion of left parietal bone was found absent, mandible bone was fractures and found in 2 piece and cause of death was due to neck compression. Bablu in his memorandum has stated that applicant was also with them. Abhishek and Amit in their statement have stated that Ankit, Bablu and another person came in Indica car to toll tax, they went towards Punasa. In the statement made before the court, both these witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. Taking into consideration the statement of PW-5 (Sohail Hussain and other witnesses and the fact that they have not supported the prosecution case and also the fact that there is no allegation against the applicant that he caused any injury to the deceased and the applicant is under custody w.e.f. 8.10.2014, however without commenting anything on merits of the matter, this bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) along with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court on all dates as may be fixed in this behalf. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-
1. 1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him/her;
2.
3. 2. The applicant will co-operate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
4.
5. 3. 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;
6.
7. 4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused;
8.
9. 5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
10.
11. 6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
6. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.C. as per rules.
(D.K. PALIWAL) JUDGE