Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chhotu @ Sourabh Gravkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2019
M.Cr.C.No. 18527/2019
(CHHOTU @ SOURABH GRAVKAR Vs. THE STATE OF M.P.)
JABALPUR DATED : 06.05.2019
Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhay Gupta, learned PL for the respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is first application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Applicant Chhotu @ Sourabh Gravkar was arrested on 10.03.2019 in Crime No. 113/2019 registered at Police Station Belbagh, District-Jabalpur (M.P) for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 114, 212, 120B of the IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act.
As per the prosecution case, co-accused Manish Sonkhare @ Manish Sweeper gave Rs.45,000/- as a loan to deceased Harisan but he did not repay that amount. On 27/02/2019, applicant Chhotu @ Sourabh Gravkarand and co-accused Manish Sonkhare @ Manish Sweeper and Purohit @ Rohit Atma went to search Harisan and they found that Harisan's car was parked near Veterinary hospital. On that co-accused Manish Sonkhare @ Manish Sweeper went to Harisan and demanded money, when Harisan denied to return the money, co-accused Manish Sonkhare @ Manish Sweeper assaulted him by knife, due to which Harisan sustained injury and died due to that injury. Applicant Chhotu @ Sourabh Gravkar and co-accused Purohit @ Rohit Atma took co-accused Manish Sonkhare @ Manish Sweeper to Madan Mahal Railway Station and helped him in escaping from Jabalpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence. There is no direct evidence on record to connect the applicant with the crime. In the FIR only it is mentioned that co-accused Manish Sonkhare @ Manish Sweeper assaulted deceased Harisan by knife, due to which he sustained injury and died. It is not mentioned that at that time applicant was also present on the spot. In the case diary statement of other eyewitnesses of the incident and the statement of Roby Robert and Rajkumar Tiwari who reached on the spot soon after the incident, it is mentioned that co-accused Manish Sonkhare @ Manish Sweeper assaulted the deceased by knife and they saw co-accused Manish Sonkhare @ Manish Sweeper running from the spot. In their statement also it is not mentioned that applicant was also present on the spot at that time. Only in the statements of Adarsh Gautam and Kartik it is mentioned that after the incident applicant took Manish Sonkhare @ Manish Sweeper to railway station and helped him in escaping from the spot. There is no evidence on record to show that the applicant is also involved in the murder of the deceased Harisan. He further submits that the applicant is in custody since 10.03.2019. The charge-sheet has been filed and the conclusion of trial is likely to take long time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that from the statement of prosecution witnesses it appear that the applicant is also involved in the crime and soon after the incident applicant took co-accused Manish Sweeper from the spot to Madan Mahal Railway Station and helped him in escaping from the spot, so he should not be released on bail.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to the fact that there is no direct evidence on record to show that the applicant was present on the spot at the time of incident or he took part in the incident and the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is in custody since 10.03.2019 and conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and applicant- Chhotu @ Sourabh Gravkar is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned C.J.M/trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial.
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 promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge vs Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2019.05.07 14:39:09 +05'30'