Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajkumar Ahirwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 September, 2020

Author: Atul Sreedharan

Bench: Atul Sreedharan

                                                                            1                            MCRC-33149-2020
                                               The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                         MCRC-33149-2020
                                                      ((((RAJKUMAR AHIRWAR Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH))))

                                         MCRC/28380/2020, MCRC/29067/2020, MCRC/30975/2020, MCRC/33149/2020
                                     3
                                     Jabalpur, Dated : 10-09-2020

                                            Heard through Video Conferencing.
                                            Mr.Prahlad Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant in
                                     M.Cr.C.No.28419/2020 and M.Cr.C.No.28380/2020.
                                            Mr.Manish Datt, learned senior counsel with Mr.Siddharth Datt,

                                     learned      counsel   for    the      applicant in M.Cr.C.Nos.29067/2020,
                                     30975/2020 and 33149/2020.
                                            Mr.Utkarsh      Agrawal,            learned    Panel   Lawyer       for    the
                                     respondent/State.

Mr.A.Usmani, learned counsel for the Objector in M.Cr.C.No.28419/2020 and M.Cr.C.No.28380/2020.

Mr.Shyam Narayan Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the Objector in M.Cr.C.Nos.29067/2020, 30975/2020 and 33149/2020.

These are the first bail applications filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.214/2020 for the offences punishable under Section 302, 307, 34 and 120-B of IPC and section 25/27 of Arms Act registered at Police Station- Hanumantal, District-Jabalpur.

All the bail applications have arisen from the same crime number and are being disposed of by a common order.

The applicants in M.Cr.C.No.28419/2020 and M.Cr.C.No.28380/2020 are in judicial custody since 29.09.2020, the applicants in M.Cr.C.Nos.29067/2020 and 33149/2020 are in judicial custody since 26.03.2020 and the applicant in M.Cr.C.No.30975/2020 is Signature Not Verified in judicial custody since 28.03.2020.

2 MCRC-33149-2020 The applicants are stated to have conspired and participated in the murder of Dharmendra Sonkar. In the first information report, the names of these applicants are not there. However, the names of the main accused Monu @ Kanak and Satish @ Bhura have been taken and it is also mentioned in the FIR that they were others along with them. Learned counsel for the applicants in these cases have stated that the applicants have falsely been implicated in this cases as besides the memorandum of Monu @ Kanaka and Satish @ Bhura and after the arrest of the applicants herein, there own memorandum under section 27 of the Evidence Act, there is no other evidence against the applicants herein. It is also stated that besides the memorandum of the co-accused and the applicants herein which has resulted in the seizure of the firearm from these applicants and also vehicles. As regards the seizure, from the applicants Shubham Ben and Rohit Ahirwar, the applicants in M.Cr.C.No.28419/2020 and 28380/2020 respectively only Pulsar motorcycle has been seized and no firearm have been seized. From the other three applicants-Harsh Bain, Siddharth Sonkar and Rajkumar Ahirwar, firearms and vehicles have been seized.

Learned counsel for the Objector and the State while vehemently opposing the application for grant of bail have stated that the names of the applicants have come out in the statement of the co-accused persons and their roles have been set out in their own 27 memorandum. Learned counsel for the Objector have also stated that in an offence of conspiracy, direct evidence is hard to come by and the circumstantial evidence have to be relied upon and the name of circumstantial evidence, learned counsel for the Objector has drawn the attention of this Court to the 27 memorandum of the applicants and the co-accused persons. The narrative in the FIR is very clear, it only says that it was Monu @ Kanak who had Signature Not Verified fired the fatal shot at the deceased with his firearm. None of the SAN Digitally signed by RAVIKANT KEWAT Date: 2020.09.11 11:07:13 IST 3 MCRC-33149-2020 witnesses say that besides the firearm used by Monu @ Kanak, there were other firearms used by anyone else. The witnesses also states that Monu and Satish along with the others ran away from the scene of occurrence. None of the witnesses state that they had gone by any vehicle and none of the witnesses either say that any of the other persons who had accompanied with Monu and Satish, fired any shots or were in possession of any firearms. It is also undisputed that there has been no TIP conducted by the police in order to identify from the witnesses whether the applicants herein, where the co-accused persons accompanying Monu and Satish whom they saw running away from the scene of occurrence.

This Court begs to differ with the proposition put forth by the learned counsel for the Objector that section 120-B of IPC would apply in a case like this. Section 120-B does not state that the conspiracy occurs on account of no evidence. Even for the offence of conspiracy there has to be an evidence connecting the accused to the conspiracy itself. The statement of the co-accused persons and the applicants herein under section 27 is not evidence to establish the offence under section 302 read with section 120-B of IPC as far as these applicants are concerned. As on date, as the charge-sheet has also been filed against the applicants herein, the evidence in the form of 27 memorandum of the co- accused and the applicants herein is extremely weak and it can also be said is in the nature of no evidence at all, until and unless the recovery of the articles from the accused pursuant to the statement under section 27 of the Evidence Act is something that can link that accused cogently to the offence alleged and not otherwise.

Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of what has been stated hereinabove, the applications are allowed and it is Signature Not Verified SAN directed that the applicants shall be enlarged on bail upon their furnishing Digitally signed by RAVIKANT KEWAT Date: 2020.09.11 11:07:13 IST 4 MCRC-33149-2020 a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

The jail authorities shall have the applicants checked by the jail doctor to ensure that they are not suffering from the coronavirus and if they are, they shall be sent to the nearest hospital designated by the state for treatment. If not, they shall be transported to their place of residence by the jail authorities.

C.C. as per rules.

(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE rk.