Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Sharma @ Sanje vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 June, 2014
M.Cr.C.No.3369/2014 (Sanjay Sharma alias Sanje Vs. State of M.P.) 1
05.06.2014
Shri Amit Lahoti, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Mukund Bharadwaj, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/ State.
Shri Atul Gupta, Advocate for the complainant. Heard on I.A.No.4237/2014, an application under section 301 (2) of Cr.P.C. for assisting the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the complainant-Sandeep Sharma.
The application (I.A.No.4237/2014) is allowed. Learned counsel for the complainant is permitted to assist the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
Also heard on admission.
Admit.
Case diary is perused.
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The applicant is in jail since 4.3.2014 in connection with Crime No.13/2014 registered at Police Station Ambah District Morena (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 115 read with section 34 of IPC and 25/27 of Arms Act.
As per prosecution story, on 6.1.2014 at about 6:30 PM the complainant Sandeep Sharma along with Brajesh Sharma and Rajeev went to the market, near Dennison Tailor shop Krishna Sharma met him and asked to give Rs.1,000/- thereafter they went to Madhupuri Colony and near the house of Hakim Singh Sukkha Sharma and his father Umakant Sharma met them. On the instigation M.Cr.C.No.3369/2014 (Sanjay Sharma alias Sanje Vs. State of M.P.) 2 of Umakant Sharma, Sukkha Sharma with an intention to kill Krishna Sharma fired gun shots, two gun shots were missed and third gun shot hit on the stomach of Krishna Sharma and thereafter he fell down on the ground. At that time accused Jhunni and Sanje reached the place of incident. Both the applicants asked Sukkha to kill him. Pappu alias Anil Sharma and Sonu Sharma also reached the spot. Accused Jhunni handed over Katta to Sukkha Sharma and asked him to fire. Sukkha Sharma aimed fire arm to Anil and Sonu Sharma, hence, they fled away from the spot. The people of that area took the injured Krishna Sharma to the Hospital and thereafter Krishna Sharma died at District Hospital Morena during treatment.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not committed such offence. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant reached on the spot after the incident took place and there is no overt act of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there are 12 criminal cases registered against deceased Krishna Sharma, and therefore, the applicant be released on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor for State and learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the application.
On due consideration of the contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties and over all facts and circumstances of the case I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail, therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall M.Cr.C.No.3369/2014 (Sanjay Sharma alias Sanje Vs. State of M.P.) 3 be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for securing his 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 applicant:-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The applicant will not indulge themselves in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. In case of any breach of any of the conditions above the learned Trial Court would be at liberty to reconsider on the question of bail.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Sushil Kumar Palo)
Pawar/- Vacation Judge