Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Singh Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 November, 2014
1
M.Cr.C No.15108 of 2014
13.11.2014
Shri Surendra Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Amit Jain, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, PL for the respondent/state.
PL is under receipt of the case diary.
Heard.
This second repeat petition is preferred under section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the applicant as he is in custody since 20.6.2014 in connection with Crime No.112/2014 registered at P.S. Khurai district Sagar in respect of the offence punishable under Section 307 and 294/34 of the IPC.
It is is noted that his earlier application in this regard was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.8.2014 in M.Cr.C.No.11859/14 by extending liberty to revive the prayer at subsequent stage after filing the charge sheet.
As per submission of the Senior counsel as well as PL, subsequent to such order, the charge-sheet has been filed. So, in such premises, this petition appears to be filed after filing the charge-sheet.
Learned Senior counsel after taking me through the petition as well as the charge sheet by referring the MLC report of the victim Mukesh argued that mere perusal of the same it is apparent that he has sustained only three simple injuries and none of them was stated by the doctor to be caused by the fire arm. On the contrary, the same have been stated to be caused by hard and 2 M.Cr.C No.15108 of 2014 blunt object. In continuation, by referring the x-ray report prepared by some radiologist said that according to this x-ray, some foreign particles were found in the person of the victim but the duration of insertion of such particles have not been stated. He further said that according to the seizure memo of the alleged pistol, the same could be used to make fire the bullet of 315 and not the cartridge of 12 bore gun. He also pointed out that for the sake of the arguments if the pellets were found on the person of the victim then such fire could have been made only by 12 bore gun and not by the alleged pistol. In such premises, prima facie the case of the prosecution appears to be suspicious. He further said that looking to the nature of the injuries which are simple in nature as stated by the doctor, the applicant is entitled for grant of bail. He also prayed the bail on account of age of the applicant 60 years and prayed to allow this petition.
The aforesaid prayer is opposed by the learned panel lawyer saying that looking to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed by the applicant by making the fire by the pistol on the victim by which he sustained the injuries, the same were found in the FSL report, the applicant do not deserve for extending the benefit of bail and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Having heard, keeping in view the arguments advanced by the counsel, in the light of the available evidence of the charge sheet filed with the police report under section 173 of the 3 M.Cr.C No.15108 of 2014 Cr.P.C,,without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this petition is allowed.
It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) by the applicant along with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court, the applicant shall be released on bail for his appearance before the trial court on every date of the trial. His single non-appearance in the trial court shall lead to automatic cancellation of this bail order without any further orders from this court.
C.C as per rules.
(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL