Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sonu Maharaj @ Sonu Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2022
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 1st OF DECEMBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 55031 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SONU MAHARAJ @ SONU SHARMA S/O
SHRILAL SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
1.
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS CHINTAMAN
JAWASIYA UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
ABHIJEET BAGRI @ TARUN S/O
KRISHNAKUMAR BAGRI, AGED ABOUT 21
YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR NEAR
2.
HANUMAN MANDIR, MANGAL NAGAR,
UJJAIN DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANTS
(SHRI VIRENDRA SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANTS).
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
BHERUGARH DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI RAHUL SOLANKI, GOVT. ADV. FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 54278 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SHAILENDRA S/O SHRILAL SHARMA, AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE CHINTAMAN GANESH,
UJJAIN DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI VIRENDRA SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT)
AND
2
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH
POLICE STATION BHERUGARH,
DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI RAHUL SOLANKI, GOVT. ADV. FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)
These applications coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
Heard. Perused the case-diary/challan paper.
2. Since these applications arise out of the same crime number and are related to the same offence they have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.
3. These are the second applications under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as the applicants are implicated in connection with Crime No.284/2022, registered at Police Station Bherugarh, District Ujjain (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 307, 294, 506, 427, 323, 34, 147, 148, 149 and 120-B of IPC, under Section 3, 181, 146, 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act and under Section 25 of the Arms Act. They are in jail since 10.6.2022.
4. First applications bearing M.Cr.C.No.49538/2022 and M.Cr.C.No.48690/2022 were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer after recording the statements of the material witnesses before the trial Court.
5. As per the prosecution, on 04.06.2022, at about 2:30 pm applicants Sonu Mahajan, Shailendra Mahajan, Rakesh Choudhary and co-accused along with one JCB machine driver came to their house and broke the iron gate constructed on the boundary and came inside. Applicant Sonu Mahajan and Rakesh Choudhary said to throw complainant Tejpal Singh and his family members out of the house and to get the land vacated and if they would not do so then to kill them. He said that he has purchased the land. The complainant 3 and his family members told applicant Sonu Mahajan to give them the remaining amount for their land after which they shall vacate the same. The accused persons then started abusing them and beat them with hands and legs. Co-accused Rakesh Choudhary pushed Bhagwan Kunwar who fell down. On asking of Sonu Mahajan, Tarun took out a katta and put it on the head of the complainant and applicant Shailendra caught Mahiwal. They all asked the JCB machine driver to break the house of the complainant and to take the machine over anyone who came in the way and to kill him. The JCB machine driver then started bringing the machine towards the house on which Bhagwan Kunwar stood in front of the Machine. Applicant Sonu Mahajan then brought kerosene from his car and threw Bhagwan Kunwar on the ground and hit Muskan on her stomach and poured kerosene over her and set her on fire, as a result of which she suffered burn injuries on many parts of her body. Thereafter the accused persons went away stating that the land should be vacated else everyone shall be killed. Muskan was then admitted to the hospital and report was lodged on the basis of which applicants have been implicated and arrested for the present offence.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that subsequent to withdrawal of the previous applications all the material witnesses including the eyewitnesses to the incident have been examined before the trial Court and none of them have supported the prosecution case in any manner and have been declared hostile. They are Muskan, Tejpal Singh, Bhagwan Kuwar and Mahipal Singh. Now there is no other material witness remaining to be examined on part of the prosecution from which the guilt of the applicants could be established. The applicants are in custody since 10.6.2022 and trial is still likely to take time for its conclusion. On such grounds, prayer for grant of bail to the applicants have been made.
7. The aforesaid prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel for the 4 State submitting that in view of the allegations levelled against the applicants they are not entitled to be released on bail merely on the basis of statements of witnesses recorded before the trial court.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary as well as statements of the witnesses.
9. Subsequent to withdrawal of the previous application, the material witnesses which includes the eyewitnesses namely Muskan, Tejpal Singh, Bhagwan Kuwar and Mahipal Singh have been examined before the trial Court and none of them have supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. There does not appear to be any other material witness remaining to be examined on part of the prosecution from which guilt of the applicants would be established. Thus in my opinion, under the changed circumstances, the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail.
10. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the applications filed by the applicants are allowed. The applicants are directed to be released on bail upon their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that they shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.
11. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
C.c. as per rules.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE SS/-
Digitally signed by SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Date: 2022.12.01 18:20:34 +05'30'