Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Gajendra @ Gajju Dodiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 October, 2022

Author: Anil Verma

Bench: Anil Verma

                                                1
                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                           AT INDORE
                                                BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                      ON THE 14th OF OCTOBER, 2022

                                MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 47726 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          GAJENDRA     @    GAJJU       DODIYA     S/O
                          POONAMCHAND,
                          AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
                          OCCUPATION: LABORER
                          R/O VILLAGE AMLETA,          DIST.   RATLAM
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                             .....APPLICANT
                          (BY SHRI RIZWAN KHAN ADV.)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
                          HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION -
                          MANAK CHOWK, DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                         .....NON APPLICANT
                          (BY SHRI MUKESH KUMAWAT, GA)

                      This application coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the
             following:
                                                 ORDER

Applicant has filed this 3rd bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He is in jail since 11.4.2022 in connection with Crime No.43/2022 registered at P.S.-Manak Chowk, District- Ratlam (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 392, 341, 294, 427, 395, 397, 34, 120-B of IPC and under Section 25 & 27 of Arms Act.

A s per prosecution story, on 01/02/2022, complainant Piyush Sharma Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER lodged a FIR stating that on 31/01/2022 at about 2:00 pm, when he was Signing time: 14-Oct-22 6:06:23 PM returning from Dhar, at that time his car was intercepted by two vehicles and he 2 was attacked. Some unknown miscreants looted his bag containing Rs.9,00,000/- from the complainant and thereafter, they ran away from the spot. During investigation, it is found that present applicant Gajendra has supplied arms to other co-accused persons and co-accused Tarun was appointed by the co-accused person for the purpose of doing reiki. On the basis of the memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, present applicant has been implicated in this offence. Accordingly, offence has been registered against the applicant also.

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this offence. There is no legal evidence available on record to connect the applicant with the aforementioned offence. Complainant Priyesh (PW-1), Shakil (PW-2), Bhagar (PW-3), Giriraj Singh (PW-4) and Govind (PW-5) have been examined before the trial Court and they have turned hostile. Complainant Priyesh did not identify any accused in dock identification before the trial Court. He is in custody since 11.4.2022. There is no apprehension of his fleeing away from the court of justice. Final conclusion of trial shall take sufficient long time. Co-accused Sunil has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 26/08/2022 passed in MCRC no. 39676/2022 and co-accused Narayan, Pankaj and Kartik have been enlarged on bail vide order dated 12.9.2022 passed in MCRC Nos.43390/22, 43239/22 and 43311/22 in the similar circumstances. Therefore, on the ground of parity, present applicant also deserves for grant of bail.

Per-contra, learned GA for respondent â€" State opposes the bail Signature Notapplication Verified and prays for its rejection by submitting that other witnesses are yet Signed by: TRILOK SINGH to be examined, however, he fairly admits that no criminal antecedent has been SAVNER Signing time: 14-Oct-22 6:06:23 PM 3 found against the applicant.

Perused the impugned order of the trial Court, the statements of the witnesses as well as the case dairy.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by both the parties, nature of allegation as also taking note of the fact that present applicant has been made accused on the basis of the memorandum statement given by the co-accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act but nothing has been recovered from his possession, he was not identified by the witnesses including the complainant who are examined before the trial Court, after rejection of earlier bail application complainant and other witnesses have been examined before the trial Court and they have turned hostile, therefore, in view of the material changes in the circumstances, I deem it proper to release the applicant on bail.

Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rs.Seventy Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court, as and when required. He shall abide by the conditions enumerated u/S. 437(3) Cr.P.C.

It is made clear that if the applicant is again found to be involved in any other offence during the trial, this order shall stand cancelled automatically without reference to the Court and the police will be at liberty to arrest the applicant in the present case also. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

C.C. as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE trilok Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 14-Oct-22 6:06:23 PM