Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 November, 2019
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 MCRC-49007-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-49007-2019
(SANDEEP Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 25-11-2019
Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Anajana Kuraria learned G.A. for the responden/State.
This is second application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection
with Crime No. 404/19 registered at Police Station Damoh Dehat District
Damoh (MP), for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC. Earlier
anticipatory bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
04.11.2019.
Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that statements of
star witnesses Savita Lodhi (PW-1), Vidhha Sagar (PW-2), Vikas Sagar (PW-
3), Mahesh Kashyap (PW-4) and Raju Ahirwar (PW-5) were recorded by the
trial Court. These witnesses did not support the case of prosecution.
Therefore, he has filed second bail application.
As per prosecution case in short is that on the basis of Dehati Nalishi,
FIR has been registered by the police. According to FIR, deceased-Waheed
Khan was the husband of complainant/informant and deceased was truck
driver. Since one month, he was driving the vehicle of applicant-Sandeep. On
21.06.2019, in the morning, deceased went towards the Sagar from Damoh.
On 24.06.2019, deceased was communicated with the complainant, at that
time he said that due to not getting the load, applicant-Sandeep Yadav is not
happy with him and he is saying that he would look him at Sagar. On
25.06.2019, when the complainant made a phone call to co-accused-Vijay
Yadav, he stated that her husband did not come since last four days and he
was showing his cleverness. On 25.06.2019, in the night, applicant, Vijay
Yadav and Rajkumar brought her husband in Bolero Jeep to her house. At
that time she saw the injuries on the body her husband. On asking,
2 MCRC-49007-2019
deceased/husband stated that on 25.06.2019 the applicant and accused
person had beaten him with wooden stick and kick and fist. In the night at
about 1:00am, health of deceased started deteriorating then she informed the
person of locality and taken him to hospital where he was declared died.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent
persons and has falsely been implicated in this case. Doctor was opined that
the injuries are found on the body of deceased are simple in nature and the
cause of death of deceased is found cardio respiratory failure. He further
submits that offence under Section 302 of IPC is not made out against the
applicant because deceased did not die due to said injuries. Applicant has
been made an accused on the basis of suspicion. There are no direct or
indirect evidence available on record against him. Applicant has no criminal
back ground and trial will take time for final disposal. Evidence of witnesses
Savita Lodhi (PW-1), Vidhha Sagar (PW-2), Vikas Sagar (PW-3), Mahesh
Kashyap (PW-4) and Raju Ahirwar (PW-5) were recorded by the trial Court
and these witnesses did not support the case of prosecution. He further
submits that there is no possibility of his absconding and tampering the
evidence of prosecution. With the aforesaid, he prays for allowing the bail
application.
Learned G.A. for the respondent/State opposes the said bail
application and submits that the applicant is absconding. The applicant has been declared as wanted and reward of Rs. 5000/- has been announced for his arrest. therefore, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Considering the contention of both the parties and this fact that proclamation has been issued under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. against the application/accused. Applicant/accused was directed to appear before the Court on 21.10.2019. The applicant is absconding. The applicant has been declared as wanted and reward of Rs. 5000/- has been announced for his arrest. Therefore, considering the nature of gravity of the case. I am of the 3 MCRC-49007-2019 considered view that it would not be appropriate to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Consequently, this second application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of applicant deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed (RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE L.R. Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2019.11.29 16:06:45 +05'30'