Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jaban Singh @ Jadon vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 27 January, 2016
1 Mcrc.13603.2015
Jaban Singh @ Jodan Vs. State of M.P.
27.01.2016
Shri H.K. Shukla, counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Sudha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer, for the
respondent/State.
Perused the case diary.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. The petitioner has filed this fourth repeat application u/S 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The petitioner has been arrested by Police Station Kailaras, District Morena (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.135/2015 registered in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 294 of IPC and under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.
This repeat bail application has been filed after rejection of the earlier one on 14.10.2015 in shape of Mcrc No.10494/2015 which was rejected on merits. The new ground raised herein is the recording of the statements of three eyewitnesses, namely, Hari Singh, Basant Singh and Rinku Jadon who have been examined as (PW-2), (PW-3) and (PW-4) on 15.12.2015, 16.12.2015 and 29.12.2015 respectively. They have turned hostile and did not support the story of prosecution. There are no other eyewitnesses 2 Mcrc.13603.2015 Jaban Singh @ Jodan Vs. State of M.P. except the once already examined. Moreover, co-accused Veerendra Singh has also been benefited by granting bail by this court vide dated 19.01.2016 in Mcrc No.13602/2015.
In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served to continue incarceration of the petitioner specially when there are no criminal antecedents against him. Though this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the petitioner, however, with certain stringent conditions looking to the nature of offence.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac Only) with two solvent sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the petitioner :-
1. The petitioner will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. The petitioner will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The petitioner will not indulge himself 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
3 Mcrc.13603.2015 Jaban Singh @ Jodan Vs. State of M.P. the case may be;
4. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
5. The petitioner will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. The petitioner will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
7. The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the trial court once a fortnight.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(Sheel Nagu) Judge pd