Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind @Tora Uike vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2024
1 MCRC-26033-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
MCRC No. 26033 of 2024
(ARVIND @TORA UIKE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 01-07-2024
Shri P.C. Paliwal - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Naman Mishra - Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORDER
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail relating to Crime No.12/2024 registered at Police Station - Mahuljhir, District Chhindwarra (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Applicant is in detention since 26.02.2024.
2. As per the prosecution story, it is alleged that the applicant committed the murder of deceased by drowning in the dam. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, Police registered case against the applicant under aforesaid section.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is in jail since 26.02.2023. He has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that wife of deceased has stated that her husband and present applicant had gone for fishing in the dam. There was no previous enmity between them. Date of incident is 22.02.2024 while the FIR was lodged on 25.02.2024. There is no explanation for delayed FIR. It is further submitted that statements of eye-witnesses namely Mamta, Bharti and Teena are not reliable. There is contradiction in their statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. These witnesses have not seen the incident. If they had seen the incident, they would have reported the matter immediately to the police. It is further submitted that prosecution story is also not reliable because as per Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATEESH KUMAR SEN Signing time: 7/2/2024 2:37:05 PM 2 MCRC-26033-2024 prosecution case, incident took place in the center of dam where depth is about 15 ft., therefore, applicant cannot catch the leg of deceased. It is further submitted that they have narrated the incident to the family members of deceased but they have not reported the matter to the police. This is not the case of murder, but this may be the case of accidental death. Charge sheet has been filed. The trial would take considerable time, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be granted bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for State has vehemently opposed the application on the ground that on the date of incident, a dispute took place between the applicant and deceased and when the deceased went into the dam with the aid of black tyre tube, the applicant followed him by swimming and turned the tube and drowned the deceased down by lifting his leg up. This incident has been shown by three eye-witnesses namely Mamta, Bharti and Teena who were taking bath in the dam. It is further submitted that statements of aforesaid three witnesses have been recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. in which they have stated that present applicant has murdered the deceased by drowning him in the dam. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this bail application.
5. Looking to the above facts and circumstance of the case and seriousness of offence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Consequently, bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail filed on behalf of applicant, stands dismissed.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL) JUDGE Sateesh Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATEESH KUMAR SEN Signing time: 7/2/2024 2:37:05 PM