Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikky Gujrati @ Bhola vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 3 August, 2018
1 MCRC-29081-2018
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-29081-2018
(VIKKY GUJRATI @ BHOLA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR)
1
Gwalior, Dated : 03-08-2018
Shri Anand Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A.K. Nirankari, learned Public Prosecutor, for the
respondent/State.
Perused the case diary.
Learned counsel for the parties are heard.
This is fourth bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. First bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.01.2017 passed in M.Cr.C.No.14791/2016. Second bail application was dismissed in default vide order dated 20.06.2017 passed in M.Cr.C.No.5735/2017. Third bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order 14.05.2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No.14922/2018.
The applicant is in custody since 06.10.2016 in connection with Crime No.0481/2016 registered at Police Station Padav, District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated as accused and in fact the complainant party is in possession of valuables of the petitioner and with a view to grab such valuables and not to return them to the petitioner, he has been falsely implicated.
Learned Public Prosecutor submits that a knife has been recovered from the petitioner. He has not only killed the deceased Jagdish but when his nephew Amar tried to intervene, hurt was caused by knife to him also and thereafter when Kailash tried to intervene, he was also attacked with the knife in the chest.
Learned counsel for the petitioner when is asked to inform as to how many witnesses have been examined before the trial Court and what is the stage of trial, he fairly submits that he has no idea about the stage of trial.
As per the postmortem report, death had occurred because of hemorrhage and shock due to stab injury over chest. As per the F.I.R. on 05.10.2016 at about 7 PM when garba was going on at a temple of Goddess, then son-in-law of the complainant, Vickey had arrived at the place of incident and asked the daughter of the complainant and his wife 2 MCRC-29081-2018 to not to play garba. He started beating his wife Jhanki and when complainant interrupted he had attacked with a knife which caused injuries in his left hand and chest. When Amar tried to intervene, then Amar was also attacked in his leg with knife and Jagdish was also attacked as has been mentioned above. During treatment, Jagdish died because of stab injuries caused in chest by the accused -petitioner. Vide seizure memo dated 06.10.2016 knife, is recovered at the instance of the petitioner.
In view of such facts, the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a case of rivalry and complainant party with a view to forfeit the valuable jeweleries of the petitioner has filed this case, is not prima facie made out.
In view of the aforesaid facts, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The bail application is rejected.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE mani SUBASRI MANI 2018.08.03 17:39:06 +05'30'