Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ankit Pali @ Aditya Pali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2018
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR
M.Cr.C No.8744/2018
Ankit Pali @ Aditya Pali vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh
M.Cr.C.No.8755/2018
Amit Pali vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
JABALPUR, DATED 02.05.2018
Shri Ahadulla Usmani, counsel for petitioner Ankit Pali
@ Aditya Pali in M.Cr.C.No.8744/2018 and petitioner Amit
Pali in M.Cr.C. No.8755/2018.
Shri Narendra Chourasiya, Deputy Government
Advocate for the respondent-State in both miscellaneous
criminal cases.
Since both of aforesaid miscellaneous criminal cases arose from the same crime number, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Heard on this first application filed on behalf of petitioner Ankit Pali @ Aditya Pali and second application filed on behalf of petitioner Amit Pali for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No.305/2017 registered by P.S. Belbagh, District-Jabalpur under Sections 294, 302, 307, 327 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Amit Pali was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 09.01.2018 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.27939/2017. Therefore, both the applications are being considered on merits.
As per the prosecution case, at about 08:30 p.m. on 28.05.2017, deceased Vicky Chourasia was talking to his friends Raja Gupta, Pradeep Gupta and Satish near Gautam 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR M.Cr.C No.8744/2018 Ankit Pali @ Aditya Pali vs. State of Madhya Pradesh M.Cr.C.No.8755/2018 Amit Pali vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Nagar. At that time, petitioners Amit Pali and Ankit Pali came and demanded Rs.500/- for consuming liquor. When deceased Vicky Chourasia refused to part with the money, Amit's friends Prakash @ Chapta and his brother Pawan Agrawal also came. All four of them started to filthily abuse the deceased. Thereafter, all four co-accused persons started to beat the deceased with hands and fisticuffs. Petitioners Amit Pali and Ankit Pali brought sticks and started to beat the deceased. Co-accused Chapta also beat him with stick. As a result, the deceased sustained injuries to his knees, calves and both palms, elbow, back and head. They also threatened to kill him, if he reported the matter to police. Thereafter, the first information report was lodged. The deceased expired the next day.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that co- accused Pawan Agrawal has been released on bail by order dated 13.12.2017 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.23019/2017. As per the first information report, there were three eyewitnesses namely Raja, Pradeep and Satish. All of them have been examined by the trial Court and have turned hostile. They have not supported the prosecution case at all. There are three more eye witnesses namely Vijay Chourasia, Mahendra Ahirwar and Rahul Samundre. Vijay Courasia, the father of the deceased, has also turned hostile. Learned counsel for the petitioners has 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR M.Cr.C No.8744/2018 Ankit Pali @ Aditya Pali vs. State of Madhya Pradesh M.Cr.C.No.8755/2018 Amit Pali vs. State of Madhya Pradesh specifically emphasized the fact that Vijay Chourasia, Mahendra Ahirwar and Rahul Samundre were examined under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They claimed to be eyewitnesses and they had specifically stated that it was co-accused Chapta @ Prakash, who inflicted fatal blow to the head of the deceased with an iron rod. Therefore, he is the main accused in the case. Petitioners Amit and Ankit are said to have wielded sticks and are said to have caused injuries to the non-vital parts of the body of the deceased. They have been in custody since 31.05.2017 and the trial is progressing tardily. Therefore, it has been prayed that petitioners Ankit and Amit be released on bail.
Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the applications mainly on the ground that this is a heinous crime. He submits that it were petitioners Amit and Ankit who initiated the incident by demanding money from the deceased for consuming liquor. No provocation was offered by the deceased. It was a pure case of Goondaism. Co-accused Prakash @ Chapta had in fact reached the spot to assist Amit and Ankit. Amit and Ankit were not mere bystanders. They had also delivered blows to the deceased with sticks. Where four accused persons had assaulted the deceased simultaneously, it would be difficult for the eyewitnesses to differentiate between the roles played 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR M.Cr.C No.8744/2018 Ankit Pali @ Aditya Pali vs. State of Madhya Pradesh M.Cr.C.No.8755/2018 Amit Pali vs. State of Madhya Pradesh by each of them. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to release any of the petitioners on bail.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts, as pointed out by learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State, in the opinion of this Court, none of petitioners namely Ankit Pali @ Aditya Pali and Amit Pali deserve to be released on bail.
Consequently, this first application filed on behalf of petitioner Ankit Pali @ Aditya Pali and second application filed on behalf of petitioner Amit Pali for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed.
(C. V. Sirpurkar)
Digitally signed by BIJU
b
BABY Judge
Date: 2018.05.03
22:27:49 -07'00'