Madhya Pradesh High Court
Titusingh Uike vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 February, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 25th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5266 of 2022
Between:-
TITUSINGH UIKE S/O JAYCHANDRA UIKE , AGED
ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CULTIVATOR R/O
VILLAGE CHARGHAT PATELTOLA POLICE
STATION ROOPJHAR TEHSIL PARASWADA
DISTRICT BALAGHAT M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AMANULLA USMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION ROOPJHAR DISTRICT
BALAGHAT M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANJEEV SINGH, PANEL LAWYER )
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C filed by the applicant for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested on 30.5.2021 by Police Station Roopjhar, District-Balaghat (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.77/2021 for t h e offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is pointed out that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and has not committed any offence in any manner. There is no last seen witness in the case. The recovery which has been shown is from the open place i.e. Gamcha which belongs to the deceased. The report has been lodged against the unknown person. No identification of Gamcha was made. The prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstance to establish the guilt of the applicant. The allegation as per prosecution story is that he has caused the death of his wife Santura Bai by pulling the Gamcha which has resulted into throttling in her death.
Signature Not Verified SANNo body has seen the incident, therefore, only on the basis of recovery the Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI applicant has been implicated in the case. He is in custody since 30.5.2021. The Date: 2022.02.28 12:25:49 IST 2 charge-sheet has been filed in the matter. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Malaichamy and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2019) 17 SCC 568, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the aspect of circumstantial evidence and has held that the Court should satisfied itself that various circumstances in the chain of evidence must have been established clearly and that completed chain is such has to rule out a reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused.
In the present case, there is nothing on record to complete the chain of circumstance except the recovery of Gamcha on the instance of the applicant from an open place. It is submitted that the recovery is also made after 30 days from the date of incident. He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting the bail application.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer stating that the Gamcha which has been recovered was sent for Regional F.S.L and the report has been received on dated 30.9.2021 and DNA report was found to be positive. It is submitted that as there is a recovery of Gamcha at the instance of the present applicant, the strong suspicion is against the present applicant that he has committed the murder of his wife by throttling his neck by means of the Gamcha. The applicant is required to explain the circumstances that how the F.S.L/D.N.A. report is found to be positive with respect to the applicant and that of Gamcha. The case law which has been relied by the counsel for the applicant is not applicable in the facts and circumstance of the case as in the present case there is recovery of Gamcha on the instance of the applicant while the facts of the aforesaid cases are different. The trial is still pending in the matter. The evidence is to be recorded by the trial Court. He has prayed for rejection of the bail application.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As far as case of circumstantial evidence is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malaichamy and another (supra) has considered the aspect Signature Not Verified SAN of last seen and the recovery based upon the confession of the accused and it was Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI held that recovery on the basis of accused did not appear substantial piece of Date: 2022.02.28 12:25:49 IST 3 evidence in cases of circumstantial evidence. The cogent evidence is required to be placed by the prosecution to complete the chain of circumstances making out a prima facie case against the accused. In the present case, there is no last seen witness. The recovery is being made of a Gamcha from an open place that too after a considerable delay by the prosecution. Gamcha belongs to the deceased is not disputed but whether the applicant has caused the murder by pulling the Gamcha and throttling the neck of the deceased is yet to be established. Suspicion, however strong may be against the applicant the same cannot take place of the proof, the prosecution is required to prove the guilt of applicant by leading cogent evidence.
Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting upon the merits of the case, subject to verification of the fact that applicant is a first offender, this Court deem it appropriate to allow this application. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail on furnishing a surety bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
In view of the COVID-19, jail authorities are directed that before releasing the applicant, medical examination of applicant shall be undertaken by the jail doctor and on prima-facie, if it is found that he is having the symptoms of COVID-19, then consequential follow up action including the isolation/quarantine or any test if required, be ensured, otherwise applicant shall be released immediately on bail and shall be given a pass or permit for movement to reach his place of residence.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or Signature Not Verified promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him SAN Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.02.28 12:25:49 IST be;4
4. The applicant shall not involve any other offence, in case the applicant indulge in any other criminal case the benefit of bail as extended by this Court shall automatically cancelled;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;
7 . The applicant will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned Police Station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station as well as Superintendent of Police concerned who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.
Application stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules (VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE irfan Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.02.28 12:25:49 IST