Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Raghunandan vs The State Of M.P. on 26 August, 2020

Author: Vishal Mishra

Bench: Vishal Mishra

1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-29647-2020 (RAGHUNANDAN Vs THE STATE OF M.P.) Gwalior, Dated : 26.08.2020 Shri A.R. Shivhare, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rohit Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. This is first bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of bail.

In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsels through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/ physical distancing in letter and spirit.

Applicant has been arrested on 05.08.2019 by Police Station Pohri, District Shivpuri (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.203/2019 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/Ss. 307 and 302 of IPC.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the prosecution story, the allegation against the present applicant is of causing fetal injury to one Ramesh Chand resulting into his death and causing injury to Durga Das with intention to kill him. It is argued that the applicant is mentally ill, for which the benefit of Section 84 of IPC should be extended to him. It is submitted that during the period of his 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-29647-2020 (RAGHUNANDAN Vs THE STATE OF M.P.) custody, he has also been taken into treatment in the Mansik Arogya Shala Gwalior, from where the report was also being called by the trial Court and it has been opined that the applicant is suffering from disease of Epileptic seizures (Mirgi ke dore). It is submitted that the applicant is in custody since 05.08.2019 and as per the knowledge of applicant, till date no charges have been framed against the present applicant. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time and as there is no possibility of regular functioning of the trial courts, therefore, the trial is withheld. The applicant undertakes to abide all the condition, which may be imposed by this Court and there is no possibility of his absconding or tempering with the prosecution case. The applicant has his willingness to contribute an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the PM Care Fund and install Arogya Setu App. Accordingly, prayer for bail has been made.

Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the bail application stating that the applicant is a principal accused in the present case. It is submitted that the allegation against the present applicant is inflicting injury to one Ramesh Chand by means of iron rod (Sariya) resulting into his death and causing injury to one Durga Das on the vital part of the body for which offence under Section 307 of IPC has been registered. The statement of injured-Durga Das is read over by the State counsel to establish the fact that the applicant is only a 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-29647-2020 (RAGHUNANDAN Vs THE STATE OF M.P.) person who has inflicted the injuries. It is submitted that sufficient evidence is available on record. It is further argued that the report which is being send from the Mansik Arogya Shala, clearly stipulates that there are non side of mental illness to the present applicant. In such circumstances, he prays for rejection of the bail application.

Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that there are specific allegation of inflicting injuries to the deceased as well as the injured by the present applicant and coupled with the fact that the report of Mansik Arogya Shala does not state that the applicant is mentally ill. In such circumstances, this Court does not deem it appropriate to allow the bail application to the present applicant.

Accordingly, the present bail application is hereby rejected.


                                                       (Vishal Mishra)
LJ*/-                                                        Judge




    LOKENDRA
    JAIN
    2020.08.26
    17:27:06 -07'00'