Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sonu @ Chana vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 August, 2017
M.Cr.C. No.6797/2017 1
M.Cr.C. No.6797/2017
28/08/2017
Shri C.L. Yadav, learned Senior counsel with Shri ,
O.P. Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
This is an application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner-Sonu @ Chana, who has been arrested by Police on 07/11/2016 in Crime No.477/2016, Police Station Manak Chouk, District Ratlam, concerning offence(s) under Section(s) 302, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC and 25, 27 of Arms Act, 1959.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
Allegedly, on 9th September 2016, one Ravindra Singh (deceased), who was coming back to Katju Nagar on his motorcycle along with Jitendra Singh and Prithvipal Singh, who were riding another motorcycle, was shot dead by Vikky @ Shakti Singh. The allegation is that Vikky @ Shakti Singh fired on him by pistol, causing injury on his back, another shot was allegedly, fired by Vikky @ Shakti Singh aming at his head, thus, resulting in his death.
As per prosecution, Ravindra Singh was convicted in connection with murder of one Ishwar Singh, father of Vikky @ Shakti singh and after completing life term imprisonment, he was released from jail on M.Cr.C. No.6797/2017 2 15/08/2015. Allegedly, on account of this enemity, Vikky @ Shakti Singh hatched a conspiracy and hired two contract killers and in conspiracy with vishal, Montu Singh, Lakhansingh, Rakesh @ Pappu and present petitioner, committed murder of Ravindra Singh in the aforesaid manner.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and there is no legally admissible evidence against him. It is further submitted that the complicity of the petitioner is alleged on the basis of disclosure, said to have been made by Vikky @ Shakti Singh as well as by the petitioner himself. It is also submitted that though the pistol is said to have been recovered from the petitioner, however, the said pistol has not been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for any sort of investigation. Lastly, it is submitted that co- accused Vishal, Lakhan Singh@ Vijaysingh, against whom identical allegations have been made, have already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 20/02/2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No.1187/2017 and 10/04/2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No.3642/2017. Parity is claimed by the petitioner, which is not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, it is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that very serious allegations are their against the petitioner and some criminal antecedents are also attributable to him.
Though the prayer for bail is opposed by the M.Cr.C. No.6797/2017 3 learned Public Prosecutor, however, considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner and quality of material to support the same, without commenting on the merits of the case, it would be in the fitness of things to enlarge petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge sumathi