Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gazanfarullah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 2019
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; BENCH AT INDORE
MCRC No.40440/2019 and 41171/2019
Gazanfarullah and Salman Vs. State of MP
Indore: Dated 04.10.2019
Shri R.S Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner in M.Cr.C
No.40440/2019.
Shri Nilesh Manore, learned counsel for the petitioner in M.Cr.C
No.41171/2019.
Shri R.S Darbar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
ORDER
Both these petitions have arisen out of same crime number of same police station, therefore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. These are the first bail applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.353/2019 under Section 307, 353, 332, 333, 341, 147, 148, 188 of the IPC registered at Police Station-Sitamau, District-Mandsaur.
3. Allegation against the petitioners is that they were members of a mob, who was disturbing law and order condition in Sub-urban Town Sitamau. Even after imposing section 144 of the Cr.P.C and prohibiting the presence of people in group of more than 5, the mob gathered there and assaulted the police personnel, who were pressed into service to maintain law and order situation. On the instigation of Jullubhai and Bhaiyu, members of mob pelted stones on the police personnel and caused lacerated wounds and abrasions to Ramnarayan, Sardarsingh, Balveersingh and Kuldeep.
4. Learned public prosecutor has submitted that the petitioners were member of mob, who were indulged in spreading communal riots. They dared to cause injuries to the police personnel. They also violated the order of abstaining himself to gather at a particular place issued under section 144 of HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; BENCH AT INDORE MCRC No.40440/2019 and 41171/2019 Gazanfarullah and Salman Vs. State of MP the Cr.P.C. He further drew my attention towards three positive photographs and claimed that petitioners can be seen at the place of incident. It is also submitted that 17 accused persons are still absconding, therefore, bail be not granted to the petitioners.
5. Per contra, learned counsels for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners are no named in the FIR. No TIP is conducted during the investigation. They have no criminal antecedents. They have been impleaded in the array of accused only on the basis of surmises and conjuncture. No serious injury was caused in the incident. Wife of petitioner Salman is 8 months pregnant and no one is there to look after her. Petitioner Gazanfarullah is himself a member of Nagar Suraksha Smiti of the said police station, therefore, his presence cannot be considered that he was participating in the incident. He is perusing LL.B and is in second year. His exams are going to start from 18.10.2019. Confining him in jail will spoil his career. The police completed the investigation and filing of the charge sheet is now mere a formality. The petitioners are in jail since 12.09.2019 and 06.09.2019 respectively.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the case diary.
7. Considering the nature of incident, allegations against the petitioners, act attributed to them, period of custody and other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to release the accused/petitioners on bail. Therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, the applications are allowed.
8. It is directed that the petitioners Gazanfarullah S/o Sharanfatullah and Salman S/o Salim be released from custody on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each (Rs. Thirty Thousand) each with one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; BENCH AT INDORE MCRC No.40440/2019 and 41171/2019 Gazanfarullah and Salman Vs. State of MP Court for their appearance before the Trial Court as and when required further subject to the following conditions:
(I) The petitioner shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments on frivolous grounds to protract the trial;
(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly allure or make any inducement, threat or promise to the prosecution witnesses, so as to dissuade them from disclosing truth before the Court;
(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or involve in any criminal activity;
(iv) In case of his involvement in any other criminal activity or breach of any other aforesaid conditions, the bail granted in this case may also be cancelled
(v) They shall mark their presence in the first week of every month at the police station Sitamau District Mandsaur.
(Virender Singh) Judge sourabh Digitally signed by SOURABH YADAV Date: 2019.10.04 18:51:35 +05'30'