Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shahid vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 June, 2018
Author: P. K. Jaiswal
Bench: P. K. Jaiswal
1 M.Cr.C. Nos.19351 and 21194 of 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri P.K. Jaiswal, J.
M.Cr.C. No.19351 of 2018
Intekhab Alam @ Molana
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
&
M.Cr.C. No.21194 of 2018
Shahid
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESENCE :
Shri Vinay Zelawat, learned Senior Counsel with
Shri Romil Malpani, learned Counsel for the applicant--
Intekhab Alam @ Molana S/o Pirshed Khan (in M.Cr.C.
No.19351 of 2018).
Shri Champa Lal Yadav, learned Senior Counsel
with Shri Vikas Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant
--Shahid S/o Babu Khan (in M.Cr.C. No.21194 of 2018).
Shri Abhinav Malhotra, learned Public Prosecutor
for the non-applicant/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on 26/6/2018) Per P. K. Jaiswal, J.
M.Cr.C. No.19351 of 2018 and M.Cr.C. No.21194 of 2 M.Cr.C. Nos.19351 and 21194 of 2018 2018 are the first bail applications filed by applicants-- Intekhab Alam @ Molana and Shahid, who are implicated in Crime No.57 of 2014, registered at Police Station--Narayangarh, District--Mandsaur for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959. They are in custody since 25.3.2017 and 9.5.2017 respectively.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 13.3.2014, complainant-Imran Khan has lodged a report that when he was traveling in his Car bearing registration No.RJ- 01 CB-5277 along with Haji Mohammad and Mujib Khan, driver Ramesh and Sakka @ Sakkamal @ Jafar Hussain and were going to Doda Chura Godown, Billod. On way, accused persons came in Scorpio Car and dashed the car of the complainant. Thereafter, persons, who were sitting in the Car, started firing; due to which, two persons sustained gunshot injuries; as a result of which, they succumbed to their injuries. Ramesh and Sakkamal were also injured. Co-accused Abdul, who was armed with firearm, inflicted gunshot injuries to them.
3. As per police statement of complainant--Imran Khan on 12th February, 2014, Ittefaq Alam @ Molana from Jail gave threat on mobile to his elder brother Mojib Khan and and also stated not to submit re-tender for Doda Chura Point Sailana and Namli, else he will 3 M.Cr.C. Nos.19351 and 21194 of 2018 kill him. Similar allegation has been made against Firoz Lala and Wasim Lala, who are brothers of Ittefaq Alam @ Molana and Mohseen Lala nephew of Ittefaq Alam @ Molana, that they also gave threat on mobile. On 18th February, 2014, when auction proceedings of Doda Chura in District--Mandsaur was going on, at that time son of co-accused--Abdul, gave threat on phone to his elder brother--Mujib Khan. It is also alleged that on 17th February, 2014, (co-accused) Abdul came to Nimbahoda to eliminate his elder brother, as per his phone conversation with co-accused Abdul.
4. On the date of offence the applicant--Shahid and other co-accused persons chased intentionally the vehicle of the complainant, Kamal Rana, who was driving the vehicle dashed on the vehicle and other co- accused persons openly fired guns; resulting two persons are died and other persons were sustained injuries.
5. As per case-diary, country made pistol and live cartridges were seized from the possession of co- accused Raju, Adwani and Vikas Sini, who are resident of Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. Similar allegation has been made by Ramesh Mishra driver of the complainant and Sakka Hussain @ Jafar Hussain and Imran Khan.
6. Shri C. L. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant--Shahid has submitted that after 4 M.Cr.C. Nos.19351 and 21194 of 2018 investigation charge-sheet has been filed. As per trial programme, the prosecution cited 44 witnesses in respect of their case. Out of which statement of 23 witnesses were recorded. Out of total three eyewitnesses, Court statements of (PW-1) Ramesh Chandra Mishra and (PW-2) Sakka Hussain have been recorded. They did not support the case of the prosecution. He has drawn my attention to paras 14 and 11 of (PW-1) and (PW-2) and submitted that they have failed to identify the co-accused persons, namely, Shahid, Babu Khan, Raees and Kamal Rana. They further stated that at the time of incident, the aforesaid accused persons were not present at the spot and nor they have committed the offence. He has further drawn my attention to the statements of (PW-3) Samrath Patidar, (PW-4) Asgar, (PW-5) Shahajad, (PW-6) Bhopal Singh, (PW-7) Imran Mansoori, (PW-8) Jitendra Joshi, (PW-9) Durgashankar Dhakad, (PW-10) Gorulal, (PW-11) Indar Singh, (PW-12) Prakash Sharma, (PW-13) Ashok, (PW-14) Sharif Khan, (PW-15) Nandlal, (PW-16) Rameshchandra Acharaya, (PW-17), Premlal, (PW-18) Bashir Khan, (PW-19) Kayum Khan, (PW-20) Ravindra Nath, (PW-21) Ramesh, (PW-22) Padam Singh and (PW-23) Rajendra Singh and submitted that none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. In respect of third eyewitnesses, he submitted that from the last two years 5 M.Cr.C. Nos.19351 and 21194 of 2018 he is not appearing before the Trial Court.
7. It is also submitted that the complainant party deliberately delaying the trial. One Habib Lal was granted bail by the Trial Court. applications for grant of bail of co-accused persons, namely, Babu Khan and Raees Khan have been allowed vide order dated 16.11.2016 and 8.9.2014 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos.4533 of 2016 and 4669 of 2014 respectively.
8. Shri Vinay Zelawat, learned Senior Counsel who is appearing on behalf of applicant--Intekhab Alam @ Molana has submitted that the date of incident is 13.3.2014 and as per case-diary applicant--Intekhab Alam @ Molana was not present at the spot. The allegation against him that he and Mohseen Lala gave threat on mobile to complainant party. At the time of occurrence applicant--Intekhab Alam @ Molana was in judicial custody in respect of some other crime. The case of the present applicant is better than the case co- accused persons, namely, Babu Khan and Raees Khan, whose applications for grant of bail have been allowed by the Court. There is no evidence on record to show that there was any overtact done by the present applicants.
9. Learned Senior Counsels further submitted that as per charge-sheet and Court statements of valuable witnesses (PW-1 to PW-3). There is no evidence of prosecution with respect to criminal conspiracy nor the 6 M.Cr.C. Nos.19351 and 21194 of 2018 applicants name was mentioned in the Dehati Nalisi, nor there is any apprehension of either they are running away from the Court of justice or tamper with it and prays for grant of bail.
10. Shri Abhinav Malhotra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that due to business rivalry the applicants and other co-accused persons conspired to commit the present offence. They intentionally chased the vehicle of the complainant with common intention and object to commit the present offence. Both the applicants have past criminal antecedents. Against applicant--Shahid total 8 criminal cases were registered and against applicant--Intekhab Alam @ Molana 5 criminal cases were registered. As per phone calls record, more than 20 calls were made by the applicants to the deceased. The details are on record. He lastly submitted that as per police report and charge-sheet, the applicants and other co-accused persons brutally committed the murder of the deceased. It is a case of double murder. The statements of material prosecution witnesses have been recorded and conclusion of the trial will not take much time and prays for rejection of the applications.
11. Applicant--Intekhab Alam @ Molana was involved in conspiracy to kill the deceased persons, namely, Haji Mohammad and Mujib through contract killers and 7 M.Cr.C. Nos.19351 and 21194 of 2018 also gave threat to the complainant party. The conversations of the applicant--Intekhab Alam @ Molana are on record. The crime was committed on 13.3.2014 whereas he was arrested in the present case on 25.3.2017 i.e. after a period of more than 3 years. As per his previous criminal history, he is resident of Pratapgarh (Rajasthan) and apart from the present case, five more criminal cases were registered against him at Pratapgarh (State of Rajasthan) and in District-- Mandsaur (M.P.) and out of which two cases whereof offence under Section 302 of IPC.
12. Similar is the criminal antecedents of applicant-- Shahid Khan S/o Babu Khan. He was also absconding since 13.3.2014. As per report of the Sub-Divisional Office (Police) Malhargarh, District--Mandsaur, three more criminal cases are pending against him, out of which one of Section 365 of IPC and rests of the cases are under Sections 8/19 and 8/21 and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. As per case-diary, he was direct involved in the murder case and sitting in the Scorpio vehicle. There is prima facie evidence that double murder was committed by contract killer at the instance of the present applicant and other co-accused persons. Due to him, the trial was held for a period of two and half years and the Court has to allow the bail application of co- accused--Babu Khan. Earlier bail application of other co-accused persons were dismissed from time to time.
8 M.Cr.C. Nos.19351 and 21194 of 2018Due to his non arrest, the trial has been held. He is responsible for the delay in trial.
13. Considering the aforesaid and when the gravity of offence alleged is severe, mere period of incarceration or the fact that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future either by itself or co-jointly may not entitle the applicants to be enlarged on bail.
14. For these reasons and the manner in which the crime was committed, no case for grant of bail, as prayed is made out.
15. M.Cr.C. Nos.19351 of 2018 and 21194 of 2018 are, accordingly, dismissed.
(P. K. Jaiswal) Judge pp Digitally signed by Pankaj Pandey Date: 2018.06.28 13:15:18 +05'30'