Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Singh Rajawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 March, 2022
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
Bench: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
01
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-12628/2022
(Vinod Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated: 11.03.2022
Shri Pradeep Katare, learned counsel for applicant.
Shri Avneesh Singh, learned Public Prosecutor for
respondent/State.
This is second repeat bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C filed by the applicant for grant of bail. His first application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 21.12.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. 62590/2021.
Applicant has been arrested on 06.04.2021 by Police Station, Bharoli, District Bhind in connection with Crime No.97/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act.
In brief case of prosecution is that on 07.11.2020 complainant Shivam Singh alias Nittu gave an information at Police Station Bharoli District Bhind alongwith his aunty Smt. Santoshi that his father Vinod, Chhunnu, Golu, Chotu and Parmal Singh and Parimal Singh were having drinking party at the Chabutra near the house. He was taking dinner in Kitchen. In the night on 07.11.2020 at about 12:30 am, he listened sound of bullet. He saw that somebody shot his mother and and started running. He could not identify that fellow. His mother died on the spot. He dialed 100 number. Externment proceedings have also been initiated against his father in which he is required to mark his presence at District Magistrate Office but he is willingly disobeying. On his 02 report crime No.97/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 25/27 of Arms Act and 302 of IPC was registered against unknown person. Dead body panchanama was prepared. Body was sent for postmortem. As per postmortem, she died due to haemorragic shock as a result of firearm injury. Duration between postmortem and death is 06-24 hrs. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Smt. Santoshi in her statement has stated that Shivam told her that Vinod ran away from the house. Parmal and Renu in their statements stated that Vinod was present on the spot where drinking party was going on. As per Parmal during drinking party dispute arose between them. Meanwhile deceased Bhoori came there and Vinod started abusing her. Thereafter his son Shivam came there and pulled the Vinod in the house. After sometime he listened the sound of bullet. They saw deceased Bhoori was lying dead.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that present applicant being husband of deceased was arrested on 06.04.2021. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed. It is submitted that eye- witnesses Shivam, Santoshi, Parmal, Renu, Bhupendra, Golu and Jitendra in their statements have not supported the story of prosecution. They have not alleged against present applicant. Conclusion of trial will take time. On such premises, learned counsel for the applicant prayed for bail.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that no other material witness is remained to be examined.
Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the 03 opinion that the application should be allowed and by allowing the application it is ordered that if the applicant furnishes bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, he should be released on bail.
He will present during trial before the trial Court on each and every date.
Application stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Deepak Kumar Agarwal) Judge ojha YOGENDRA OJHA 2022.02.22 10:16:00 +05'30'