Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajan @ Rajendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 1 August, 2017
1
MCRC No.7705/2017
Rajan @ Rajendra v. State of M.P.
01/08/2017
Shri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri R.K.Awasthi, learned Public Prosecutor for
the respondent/State.
Heard arguments.
Perused case diary and material on record. This is the third bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the CrPC for grant of bail in Sessions Trial No.225/2016, arising out of Crime No.66/2016 registered at Police Station Shamshabad of Vidisha district against him and two other co-accused persons namely Gyan Singh and Dalpat Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307 and 34 and later added 302 of the IPC.
As per the prosecution case, on 05/03/2016 at about 02:55 hours complainant Pratap Singh lodged the FIR at the Community Health Centre, Shamshabad stating therein that on 04/03/2016 at about 8:30 PM he was sitting in the dalan of his house at village Barkheda Jagir. At that time applicant Rajan and co-accused persons namely Dalpat Singh and Gyan Singh took him to the dalan of co-accused Bundel Singh. There they assaulted him with sticks. Thereafter, co-accused Bundel Singh 2 MCRC No.7705/2017 Rajan @ Rajendra v. State of M.P. poured Kerosene oil on his person and the applicant set him on fire by lighting a match. On 13/03/2016, the complainant succumbed to burn injuries in the course of treatment.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 25/05/2016. He submits that the first two bail applications filed by the applicant were dismissed as withdrawn. He submits that as per the FIR and the charge-sheet, Jitendra Singh (PW/1), Raghunath Singh (PW/2), Dashrath Singh (PW/3), Vinod (PW/4) and Ramswaroop (PW/5) are the eye-witnesses of the case. After referring to their depositions, he submits that they have not supported the prosecution case in their evidence. On the other hand, they have stated that the complainant himself poured Kerosene oil on his body under the heavy influence of Alcohol and set himself on fire. He also submits that the prosecution has declared them hostile and subjected them to gruelling cross-examinations, but there is nothing in their cross-examinations in support of the prosecution case. He submits that Dr. N.S. Jatav (PW/7) had examined the complainant on 04/03/2016 at about 9:55 PM. After referring to the evidence appearing in paras 3 and 6, he submits that the said doctor has stated that when he 3 MCRC No.7705/2017 Rajan @ Rajendra v. State of M.P. medicolegally examined the complainant, he was under the heavy influence of Alcohol and he was not in a position to speak. After referring to the F.I.R, which is recorded in dehati nalsi, he submits that ASI R.M.Azad recorded it on 04/03/2016 at about 11:30 PM. He submits that since Dr. N.S.Jatav has specifically stated in his evidence that the complainant was not in a position to speak because he was under the heavy influence of Alcohol, the recording of FIR by the complainant himself is doubtful. He submits that it is possible that someone else has recorded the FIR and thumb impression of the complainant is taken thereon. He submits that as per the F.I.R, co-accused Bundel Singh poured Kerosene oil upon the complainant. However, the police has not so far filed the charge-sheet against him and kept the investigation pending against him. He submits that this Court has granted regular bail to co-accused Dalpat Singh and Gyan Singh. He submits that the applicant has no criminal past. Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer on the ground that on 18/03/2016, when the complainant was undergoing the treatment for his burn injuries, the Executive Magistrate has recorded 4 MCRC No.7705/2017 Rajan @ Rajendra v. State of M.P. his dying declaration in which he has stated what he had narrated in the FIR.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel in totality and upon the perusal of the depositions of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, but without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the applicant. Hence, the application is allowed. The trial Court is directed to release applicant Rajan @ Rajendra on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the same amount to its satisfaction for securing his presence in the course of trial of the case. The applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the CrPC. In case of the bail jump, the Trial Court has power to cancel the applicant's bail.
C.C. as per rules.
(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge AKS