Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kumher Singh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 January, 2020
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC 850/2020
[Kumher Singh Gurjar vs. State of MP ]
Gwalior, dtd. 24/01/2020
Shri Pradip Katare, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vikrant Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State.
Shri Deependra Singh Kushwah, counsel for the complainant. Case Diary is available.
This is first application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 10/11/2019 in connection with Crime No. 80 of 2017 registered at police station Ater, District Bhind for offence under Sections 302, 460, 34 of IPC.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that in the FIR the identity of any of the accused was not disclosed. However, for the first time, the prosecution witness Smt. Rammala Gurjar who claims herself to be an eyewitness to the incident, disclosed the identity of the applicant as one of the assailants in her statement recorded on 03/06/2017 under Section 161 of CrPC. It is submitted that the incident took place on 26/05/2017 and this witness remained silent for a week, therefore, the delay in disclosing the identity of the applicant is fatal to the prosecution case. Furthermore, the applicant had filed a Writ Petition No.6304 of 2017 seeking a direction to the police to investigate the matter in a fair and proper manner and accordingly, by order dated 18/09/2017, the said Writ Petition was allowed and the Superintendent of Police, Bhind was directed to personally look into the aspect of investigation being fair and expeditious. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was 2 running away from the prosecution and the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time.
Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the Counsel for the State as well as the complainant. It is submitted by the counsel for the complainant that Smt. Rammala Gurjar was sleeping on the same floor where the incident took place and because the applicant had pointed a gun towards her and as there was no male family member in the house, therefore, the applicant was afraid. Further, as the last rites of the deceased were going on in the family, therefore, she could not give her statement under Section 161 of CrPC and, thus, it cannot be said that there is an unexplained delay in recording the statements of the witnesses.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as considering the nature of allegations, coupled with the fact that the applicant could be arrested only after two and half years of the incident in spite of the best efforts made by the police to apprehend him, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for grant of bail.
Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S.Ahluwalia) Judge MKB MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK 2020.01.27 10:59:14 +05'30' VALSALA VASUDEVAN 2018.10.26 15:14:29 -07'00'