Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Abhimanyu Purohit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2022

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                           1
          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   MCRC No.17087/2022
         (ABHIMANYU PUROHIT VS. STATE OF M.P.)

Gwalior, Dated : 06/04/2022

       Shri Ankur Tiwari and Shri Shiva Singh Tomar, Counsel for

the applicant.

       Shri Rajeev Upadhyay, Counsel for the respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

This first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of bail.

The applicant has been arrested on 31/01/2022 in connection with Crime No.59/2022 registered at Police Station Padav, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 307, 353 of IPC.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution case, a political protest was going on by the members of NSUI. It is alleged that the applicant had also assembled to burn effigy of the Chief Minister. It is the case of the prosecution that the police authorities who were posted there for maintaining law and order, tried to snatch effigy and during the said process, Deepak Gautam, Sub Inspector who was posted for maintaining law and order got burnt from the effigy. The first statement of Deepak Gautam in the form dying declaration was recorded by Tahsildar. Since Deepak Gautam has survived, therefore, the said statement is not admissible under Section 32 of Cr.P.C. but the same can always be 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.17087/2022 (ABHIMANYU PUROHIT VS. STATE OF M.P.) treated as the first statement recorded under Section 161 or 164 of Cr.P.C. By referring to so called dying declaration of Deepak Gautam, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that injured Deepak Gautam has leveled specific allegations against Sachin and co-accused Shivraj Yadav. The only allegation against the applicant is that he was also present on the spot. It is submitted that so far as the presence of the applicant on the spot is concerned, being the citizen of this country, he had a right to agitate against the State, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was a member of unlawful assembly. No other allegation has been leveled by Deepak Gautam in his so called statement which was recorded as dying declaration by the Tahsildar. The applicant is in jail from 31/01/2022. It is further submitted that co-accused Akash Tomar and Anees Hussain have already been granted bail by this Court by order dated 29/03/2022 passed in MCRC Nos.13944/2022 and 14043/2022 respectively. The trial is likely to take sufficiently long time and there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent/State. It is submitted that injured Deepak Gautam in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. has specifically stated that the burning effigy was thrown on him by the applicant along with other co-accused persons but fairly conceded that the said 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.17087/2022 (ABHIMANYU PUROHIT VS. STATE OF M.P.) allegation was not mentioned in his first statement which was recorded as dying declaration.

Considering the nature of allegations made against the applicant in the first statement by injured Deepak Gautam as well as period of detention and without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Committal Court to appear before the Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.

This order shall remain effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Aparna Bhat and others Vs. State of M.P. Passed on 18.03.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 329/2021, the intimation regarding grant of bail be sent to the complainant.

Certified copy as per rules.


                                                                     (G.S. Ahluwalia)
Pj'S/-                                                                     Judge

     Digitally signed by
     PRINCEE BARAIYA
     Date: 2022.04.06
     17:25:04 -07'00'