Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramrati Singh Gond vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 May, 2017
MCRC-7344-2017
(RAMRATI SINGH GOND Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
18-05-2017
Shri A.P. Shah, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri D.K. Paroha, panel lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioner Ramrati Singh Gond in Crime No.62/2017 registered by P.S. Bargwan, District Singrauli under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.
As per the prosecution case, the deceased Bhodai Singh had kept mother of main accused Shiv Mangal Singh as his wife; however, he did not give any share to Shiv Mangal Singh in his property. Shiv Mangal Singh also suspected that Bhodai Singh had practiced witch-craft and had killed his sister-in- law about 20 years ago. He also suspected that deceased Bhodai was practicing witch-craft upon his daughter and present petitioner Ramrati Singh Gond; therefore, Ramrati Singh was not keeping good health.
On 2.2.2017, when the deceased was sleeping in his cattle- shed, main accused Shiv Mangal Singh, his wife, Tara Bai, and petitioner Ramrati Singh went there. Shiv Mangal Singh assaulted Bodai Singh with an axe and killed him on the spot. Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State has submitted that Renue Singh, grand-daughter of Bhodai Singh was going to the cattle-shed to deliver the torch which Bodhai Singh had forgotten to take with him. She saw three persons who looked like Shiv Mangal Singh, Tara Bai and Ramrati running away from the spot. She particularly identified co-accused Shiv Mangal Singh because he was limping. It has further been submitted that on the disclosure statement of Shiv Mangal Singh an axe was recovered, which was stained with human blood.
Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that there is no relevant admissible evidence against the petitioner Ramrati. She has been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused Shiv Mangal Singh, which is not admissible against her. Though Renu Singh has stated that she had seen three persons, one man, one woman and one girl running away from the spot but she was not sure of their identity. Moreover, the first information report was lodged against unknown persons and Renu Singh's statement had been recorded five days after the date of the incident. It has further been submitted that Ramrati is a student. She has been in custody since 15.2.2017 and the charge-sheet in the matter has been filed; therefore, it has been prayed that petitioner Ramrati be released on bail. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts as pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner; in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of petitioner Ramrati Singh Gond is allowed.
It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.80,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.. C.C. as per rules.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE ahd