Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sagar Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 MCRC-9042-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-9042-2021
(SAGAR SHUKLA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 22-02-2021
Shri N.P. Dubey, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Yogendra Kumar Yadav, GA for the respondent/State.
This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The applicant is in custody since 23.08.2020 in connection with Cr i me No.224/2020 registered at Police Station-Kundam, District- Jabalpur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
As per prosecution case, on the basis of Marg Intimation Report dated 22.08.2020, police registered the FIR against the present applicant and other co-accused persons stating therein that on 16.08.2020, at about 06:00 O'clock in the evening, the deceased-Gaurav Verma went to Sukla Health Club. At about 06:30 pm, after hearing some noise, the complainant and other persons reached there and saw that the applicant and other co-accused persons were assaulting the deceased with kick and fists on his abdomen and chest. The deceased was escaped by persons reached there. Thereafter, in the intervening night of 20 & 21/08/2020, on account of pain on the ribs, the deceased was taken to Victoria Hospital where during treatment he got died.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has falsely been implicated in this case whereas he has not committed any offence. He submits that there is delay of 6 days in lodging the FIR and no sufficient explanation has been given by the complainant. There is no independent eye witness in the case. For the sake of argument, if it is accepted that the incident was happened, the 2 MCRC-9042-2021 deceased had not been taken to hospital immediately, as a result of which, he died after lapse of some days and therefore, offence under Section 302 of IPC is not made out in the case. There is no motive or intention to the applicant to commit such crime. The applicant was not present on the spot and he has been falsely implicated in the case only on the basis of previous enmity and being a employee of co-accused. There is no criminal antecedent against the present applicant. If he has not been released on bail, his future would be ruined. Besides the above, he argued that investigation is completed, charge-sheet has been filed and early conclusion of trial is bleak possibility. The applicant is ready to furnish bail bond as per the order abiding with all conditions imposed by the Court. On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
Per-contra, learned P.L. for respondent-State opposes the said bail application submitting that the offence involved in the case is serious in nature and if the applicant released on bail, he will flee away to the justice. The complainant has specific given the reason of being scared in lodging delayed FIR. The incident was also seen by one Surendra Sahu @ Idli who is independent witness of the case.
On perusal, the incident was alleged to be happened on 16.08.2020 whereas the FIR has been lodged on 22.08.2020 on the Marg Intimation Report. However, the complainant has given a reason of being scared in lodging delayed FIR. On perusal of the material annexed with the charge- sheet, prima facie, intention and motive of present applicant to commit death of deceased is missing. Further, the deceased had not been taken to hospital immediately after the incident by his family members. All the witnesses whose statements have been recorded by the police, are close relatives of the deceased except Surendra Sahu @ Idli but prima facie, the presence of Surendra Sahu @ Idli is not mentioned in the FIR as well 3 MCRC-9042-2021 as 161 of Cr.P.C. of the other witnesses.
Considering the aforesaid, I am of the considered view that it would be appropriate to release him on bail. Therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, the application of the present applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seems to be acceptable. Consequently, it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that applicant-Sagar Shukla be released on bail on furnishing his bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Only) w i th two local solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.
T h i s order will remain operative subject to compliance of direction as given above and the following conditions by the applicant thereto :-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. The applicant will cooperate in the trial;
3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officers;
4. The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the Court In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the
4 MCRC-9042-2021 applicant shall also comply with the rules and norms of social distancing. Further, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto W.P.No.1/2020, it would be appropriate to issue the following direction to the jail authority :-
1. The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the applicant by the jail doctor before his release.
2 . The applicant shall not be released if he is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'. For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.
3 . If it is found that the applicant is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing him in appropriate quarantine facility.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE MISHRA ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA 2021.02.22 16:23:32 +05'30'