Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neeraj Kumar Pagri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 October, 2016
MCRC-14177-2016
(NEERAJ KUMAR PAGRI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
21-10-2016
Shri Om Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Y. D. Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Heard arguments.
Perused case diary and material on record.
This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail as they apprehend their arrests in Crime No.455/2016 registered at Police Station Panagar of Jabalpur district against them and other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC. According to the prosecution, on 12.6.2016 one Manish Chouksey was murdered by means of firearm(s) and sharp-edged weapon(s). Thereupon, the police registered a case against unknown persons. In the course of investigation, the police found that the applicants and the co- accused persons are pseudo cow-vigilants and they committed the murder of Manish Chouksey on the ground that he dealt in the business of selling and buying of cow-progeny.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the police has so far not collected any evidence against them. He submits that the applicants are permanent residents of Katni district and that they have no criminal antecedents. He lastly submits that if the applicants are granted the relief of anticipatory bail, they would cooperate with the police in the investigation of the case. Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.
Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer on the ground that in the course of investigation of the case, both the applicants remained absconding on account of which the police had to file a charge-sheet against co-accused persons namely, Saurabh Mishra and Motilal Burman, pending investigation against them. He submits that looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicants, their custodial interrogations are required.
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel and upon a perusal of the case diary statements of Sarman alias Pappu Rai, Sachhu alias Santram and Basant, but without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants. Hence, their application is disallowed. Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE ps