Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sachin Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 July, 2022
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 19th OF JULY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 34248 of 2022
Between:-
SACHIN YADAV S/O ASHOK YADAV,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR
R/O. M.P.E.B. COLONY INDORAMA,
DIST.: DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI ROHIT PANWAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPLICANT)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH
POLICE STATION BETMA
DIST.: INDORE, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI RAJESH JOSHI, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE.)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. This is the First application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as the applicant is implicated in connection with Crime No.385/2022 registered at Police Station Betma, District Indore (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 304, 34 of IPC, 1860.
SUMATHI 2. The applicant is in custody since 31.05.2022. JAGADEESAN Digitally signed by SUMATHI JAGADEESAN
3. As per the prosecution, on 24.07.2021 deceased Santosh Dubey had DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=JUDICIAL, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=2c031063fea95cabb51a5432c9ce6df4c49ae556251c6a1 climbed on the roof of a house in MPEB Colony, Indorama, Pithampur in a b1fca11a86643b2a2, pseudonym=BEF252392AFC4F748B6F8C1E18D805F7FACD91F2, serialNumber=28E58B6FE482FD4DF2469FAAFF13E836178C3C81 533BF4D0F8641FFAB3DD337B, cn=SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Date: 2022.07.22 17:28:20 +05'30' 2 nude condition. The same was seen by the residents of the colony, after which Devnarayan, Suraj, Sachin, the present applicant, and Manoj went to the roof, wrapped Santosh in a towel and tied his hands with an electric wire, brought him down from the house and took him in a bolero vehicle towards Gram Karwasa and left him in an open field which was surrounded by rain water and there were huge holes in the land. Eventually, the dead body of Santosh was recovered on 28.07.2021 and later on it was discovered that he had died due to drowning. During investigation applicant has been implicated and arrested in the present offence.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation against the applicant is of tying the hands of the deceased and leaving him in a open field on 24.07.2021, whose body was eventually recovered on 28.07.2021. There is no allegation that the applicant had drowned the deceased in water but he had left him in a open place hence it cannot be said that he in any manner is responsible for causing his death. Though the dead body was recovered on 28.07.2021 but the FIR has eventually been registered on 31.05.2022 i.e. after a period of 10 months for which there is no plausible explanation. On such grounds prayer for grant of bail to the applicant has been made.
5. The aforesaid prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/State submitting that in view of the allegations levelled against the applicant and the material collected by the prosecution against him, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary.
SUMAT Digitally signed by SUMATHI JAGADEESAN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE,
7. The applicant is alleged to have tied the hands of the deceased and HI ou=JUDICIAL, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=2c031063fea95cabb51a543 2c9ce6df4c49ae556251c6a1b1fca11 JAGAD carried him in a bolero vehicle, left him at an open place but there is no a86643b2a2, pseudonym=BEF252392AFC4F748B6 F8C1E18D805F7FACD91F2, serialNumber=28E58B6FE482FD4DF 2469FAAFF13E836178C3C81533BF4 EESAN D0F8641FFAB3DD337B, cn=SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Date: 2022.07.22 17:30:03 +05'30' 3 allegation against him of drowning the deceased in water. The deceased is reported to have been of unstable mind and there does not appear to be any direct evidence from which it can be said that his death was as a result of any act of the applicant. The FIR has been registered after a period of about 10 months. Investigation has been completed, charge sheet has been filed and further custodial interrogation of the applicant is not deemed necessary. Thus, in my opinion, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.
8 . Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
9. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE sumathi SUMATH Digitally signed by SUMATHI JAGADEESAN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, I ou=JUDICIAL, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=2c031063fea95cabb51a54 32c9ce6df4c49ae556251c6a1b1fca1 JAGADE 1a86643b2a2, pseudonym=BEF252392AFC4F748B 6F8C1E18D805F7FACD91F2, serialNumber=28E58B6FE482FD4DF ESAN 2469FAAFF13E836178C3C81533BF4 D0F8641FFAB3DD337B, cn=SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Date: 2022.07.22 17:44:08 +05'30'