Madhya Pradesh High Court
Praveen Singh Bhadoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 August, 2015
MCRC-5913-2015
(VINAY SINGH BHADORIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
03-08-2015
Shri Sharad Verma, counsel for the applicants.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, P.L. for the respondent/State.
Shri Pushpraj Singh, counsel for the objector. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Since both the applications are connected with the same crime, therefore, decided by the present common order. The applicant Vinay Singh Bhadoriya is in custody since 9.3.2015, whereas the applicant Praveen Singh Bhadoriya is in custody since 23.1.2015 relating to crime No.10/2013 registered at Police Station Majhagavan District Satna for offence punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 of the IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizens of the locality. They do not have any criminal past alleged against them. The deceased was wife of the applicant Vinay Singh, who died after 13 years of her marriage. In the postmortem report, it was found that she died due to asphyxia. However, no reason of asphyxia could be known to the concerned doctor and therefore, viscera of the deceased was preserved for forensic analysis. No weapon could be seized from the applicants. After keeping silence for approximately two months, the parents and relatives of the deceased came forward to say that the applicant Praveen Singh had confessed before them. Praveen was not related directly to Vinay Singh and he was not residing with the deceased or Vinay Singh. There was no possibility that Praveen Singh could commit such confession before the witnesses and if he would have confessed then, it is not admissible against the applicant Vinay Singh. Chain of circumstantial evidence is broken against the applicants. They are in custody without any substantial reason. Hence, they pray for bail. Learned P.L. opposes the application.
Learned counsel for the objector also opposes the application. He submits that the deceased was killed by strangulation and her husband Vinay Singh as well as brother-in-law Praveen Singh is responsible. Looking to the gravity of offence, it is prayed that the applicants may not be granted bail.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants may be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that the applicants namely Vinay Singh Bhadoriya and Praveen Singh Bhadoriya be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) each with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.
This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective. Certified copy as per rules.
(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE