Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kaju @ Sandeep vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 January, 2015
( Kaju @ Sandeep Vs. State of M.P. ) 1 M.Cr.C.No.11090/2014
(Tole @ Rakesh Vs. State of M.P.) M.Cr.C.11370/2014
(Sukhveer Singh Vs. State of M.P.) M.Cr.C.11204/2014
06.01.2015
Shri V.K. Saxena, Senior Advocate with Shri R..K.
Joshi,Advocate, for the applicants.
Shri R.S. Sharma, Panel Lawyer, for the
respondent/State.
Since all these applications are arising out of same crime number, hence, all the applications are decided by a common order.
Heard.
This is the first application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
The applicants were in custody since 11.11.2014 in connection with Crime No.333/14 registered at Police Station Kailaras District Morena (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 294, 506-B, 324, 326, 307 of IPC.
The applicants are said to have in custody since 11.11.2014. It is alleged that on 29.08.2014 at about 7.15 AM Raghunath Singh, Nihal Singh, Dharmveer Tole @ Rakesh (applicant), Dharam Singh, Sukveer Singh (applicant) and Kaju @ Sandeep (applicant) ploughed the path of the complainant by tractor. On this there was an altercation between the parties. Accused persons after sometime came armed with lathi, luhangi and with the common object abused the complainant and started beating him. On his shout his brother Vishambar and Raghuraj ( Kaju @ Sandeep Vs. State of M.P. ) 2 M.Cr.C.No.11090/2014 (Tole @ Rakesh Vs. State of M.P.) M.Cr.C.11370/2014 (Sukhveer Singh Vs. State of M.P.) M.Cr.C.11204/2014 came to his rescue. They were also beaten by luhangi, fists and kicks. Vishamber and Raghunath fell on the ground. Raghunath became unconscious. Accused Tole caused injury by luhangi on the back of his head. Accused Dharam Singh used lathi. Accused Raghunath used lathi and injured the complainant Rakesh on his wrist. Due to injuries sustained by the complainant party, later offence has been enhanced to Section 324, 326 and 307 IPC.
On behalf of the applicants it is argued that accused Raghunath Singh, Nihal Singh, Dharm Singh were given the benefit of bail by learned Additional District Judge, Morena on 29.10.2014. It is also argued that cross case has been registered against the complainant party on the same day. Crime No.332/14 under Sections 341, 294, 323, 324, 506-B, 34 of IPC has been registered on the report of applicant Tole @ Dharmveer. In that case, the accused persons of this case who have received injuries have been examined. Dharm Singh, Sandeep, Raghunath and Tole @ Dharmveer has been examined and MLC report has been attached. It is also stated that the applicants are in custody since 11.11.2014. Charge-sheet has been filed. Therefore, the applicant be given the benefit of bail.
The application for bail has been opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer.
Considered all the aspects. The accused persons have also received injuries. At this juncture it is difficult to hold ( Kaju @ Sandeep Vs. State of M.P. ) 3 M.Cr.C.No.11090/2014 (Tole @ Rakesh Vs. State of M.P.) M.Cr.C.11370/2014 (Sukhveer Singh Vs. State of M.P.) M.Cr.C.11204/2014 who is the aggressor.
Keeping in view that the trial would take time and there has been cross allegations, we deem it proper to extent the benefit of bail to the applicants. Accordingly, the application is allowed. and it is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on thier furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs 35,000/- (Rs. Thirty Five Thousand only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for securing their presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicants:-
1. Applicants will not influence the prosecution witnesses.
2. Applicants swill help the progress of the Trial.
3. Applicants will not indulge in any similar offence during the course of Trial.
4. If at all the applicants are found to breach any of the above conditions, the learned Trial Court would be at liberty to reconsider on the question of bail.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Palo) Judge mani