Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramlakhan Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 November, 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-20005-2017
sh
(RAMLAKHAN KUSHWAHA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
e
1
ad
Jabalpur, Dated : 07-11-2017
Shri Anuvad Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner.
Pr
Shri Arvind Singh, Government Advocate for the
a
respondent/State.
hy Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 ad of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Ramlakhan Kushwaha in crime no.33/2017 M registered by P.S.-Devlond, Tehsil Beohari, District-
of Shahdol under Sections 302, 394, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
rt As per the prosecution case, at about 06:00 a.m. on ou 03.03.2017, co-accused Manti Kushwaha was sweeping C her house and pushing the trash towards the house of h complainant Mamta. When the complainant protested, ig Manti started to hurl filthy abuses at her. At that time H Kashi Prasad Kushwaha, husband of co-accused Manti came out, armed with a stick and started to beat complainant Mamta. Mamta's husband Praveen interceded on behalf of his wife; whereon, Manti's son Ramlakhan armed with an axe arrived and assaulted Praveen in the back of his head. Thereafter, Jammu Bai, Kodu and Anchal etc. intervened in the matter. The first information report was lodged under Sections 323, 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC; however, three days later i.e. on 06.03.2017 Praveen succumbed to his injuries; therefore, the offence under Section 302 of the sh IPC was also registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the e first information report lodged by Mamta, wife of the ad deceased, there is no mention of any injury caused to the Pr head of the deceased. It has further been submitted that initially the offence was registered under Section 323 of a hy the IPC; however, after the death of the deceased, three days after the incident, the offence under Section 302 of ad the IPC was added. The petitioner has been in custody M since 05.03.2017. He has no criminal antecedents and this was an altercation between neighbours, which had of resulted in the death of the deceased. It has further been rt submitted that the parents of the present petitioner ou namely Kashi Prasad and Manti Kushwaha have already been released on bail. Therefore, it has been prayed that C the petitioner be released on bail. h Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State ig on the other hand has opposed the application mainly on H the ground that petitioner Ramlakhan is the main accused in the case. It is true that in the first information report, it has not been mention that any injury was caused to the head of the deceased; however, in that report, the first informant had clearly stated that petitioner Ramlakhan had come armed with an axe and he had delivered blow to the deceased. In the MLC report, an injury caused by a hard and sharp object to the occipital region of the deceased, was found. The injury was serious in nature because the deceased was sh vomiting and was advised to undergo C.T. Scan. In these circumstances, it has been prayed that the application e for bail be dismissed.
ad Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case Pr in their entirety, particularly the facts as pointed out by the learned Government Advocate for the a hy respondent/State, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner Ramlakhan Kushwaha does not deserve the benefit of ad bail.
M Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of of the petitioner Ramlakhan Kushwaha is dismissed.
rt ou (C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE C h ig H vai VAISHALI AGRAWAL 2017.11.07 20:44:05
-08'00'