Madhya Pradesh High Court
Indar Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2021
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
M.Cr.C. No.15128/2021
(Indar Lodhi Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)
(1)
Gwalior, dated : 06.05.2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Rohit Mishra, Additional Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
Shri Nitin Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. I.A. No.8445/2021, an application for urgent hearing is considered and allowed.
Heard on I.A. No.12195/2021, an application under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the complainant for assisting the Additional Advocate General.
Shri Nitin Sharma, Advocate and his associates are permitted to assist the Additional Advocate General.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Case diary perused.
The applicant has filed this second application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. First application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 01.02.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.2048/2021.
The applicant has been arrested on 11.12.2020 by Police Station- Karera, District Shivpuri in connection with Crime No.493/2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 of IPC.
Allegation against the applicant and other co-accused persons, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C. No.15128/2021 (Indar Lodhi Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) (2) in short, is that on 23.07.2020, a report was lodged to the effect that the son of the complainant is missing. His son used to work in the farm of co-accused Shivcharan Lodhi and he also used to live with him. It is alleged that deceased Karan Singh had relations with the wife of co-accused Shivcharan Lodhi, namely; Manisha Lodhi. On 27.08.2020, when co-accused Shivcharan and the complainant set together and had liquor, at that time, Shivcharan informed the complainant that he would not get his son now and he has been buried him near Chakiyadah Ghat with the help of present applicant and other co-accused persons. On the basis of aforesaid, crime has been registered.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He is in custody since 11.12.2020. Charge sheet has been filed, therefore, no further custodial interrogation is required. There is no eye witness to the incident. Due to previous animosity, present FIR has been lodged. Disposal of the matter will take long time. It is further submitted that trial is held up due to COVID-19 and the applicant cannot be kept in custody for an unlimited period without any substantial reason. It is further submitted that in view of outbreak of COVID-19, detention of the applicant in already congested prison may be detrimental. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Shivpuri (M.P.) and there is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is ready to abide by all the terms HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C. No.15128/2021 (Indar Lodhi Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) (3) and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. Under these grounds, applicant prays for grant of bail.
Learned Additional Advocate General for the State opposed the application by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out. It is further submitted that the co-accused Shivcharan Lodhi in his statement has categorically stated that he had committed murder of Karan Singh and with the help of other co-accused persons including present applicant dead body was buried near Chakiyadah Ghat. Though the skeleton has been recovered, but the identification could be done on the basis of cloths and footwear, which the deceased was wearing, which were also recovered from the spot. On such grounds, he prays for rejection of bail application.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and gravity of offence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
The application, accordingly, stands dismissed.
(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge Shanu Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2021.05.06 17:00:18 +05'30'