Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shakir Kha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 January, 2017
MCRC-13076-2016
(SHAKIR KHA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
06-01-2017
Shri Zishan Ali Khan, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
1. This is the first bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C by applicant-Shakir Khan, who has been arrested by Police on 5.12.2016 in Crime No.165/2016, Police Station-Sundarsi, District Shajapur, in connection with offence under Sections 323, 326-A, 498-A, 34 of IPC. No other bail application is filed, pending or decided by any other court, by this Court or before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Bail application- Criminal Case No.564/2016 has been rejected by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur vide order dated 16.12.2016.
2. According to facts of the case, the complainant was married to the co-accused Sayed 7 years back. Sayed doubted her character, harassing and taunting her alleging illicit relations with one Radheshyam. Prior to the incident, Radheshyam came to the house of Sayed. He again taunted and harassed the complainant, due to which she called her father and when she was going to bus stop to go to her matrimonial home with her father, accused Sayed come there with with his brother Saadik, the present applicant. Sayed tried to stop the complainant when she refused, he bring acid in a mug from the milk dairy of the applicant situated nearby and poured on her and ran away from the spot. When her father tried to caught the accused Sayed, the applicant came on the way, he obstructed her father and beaten him by kick and fists. The complainant was wearing veil (Burqa). She received injuries on her face and other part of the body. On medical examination, 8-10 percent burn injuries were found on her body and in the opinion of the doctor, it caused permanent dis-figuration of the face. Upon chemical examination, it is found that the substance poured on the complainant was sulfuric acid with 82.66% concentration.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the offence. As per prosecution itself, the applicant has been implicated on the basis of memorandum of main accused Sayed under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. There is no allegation against either the applicant or the main accused Sayed that they have committed any offence and if the prosecution case is believed even then the charge against the applicant is only under Section 285 of IPC and that is bailable offence. It is further submitted that there are no other criminal antecedents against the present applicant and he is a permanent resident of Shajapur and there is no likelihood of his absconding.
Learned Dy. Government Advocate for the respondent/State opposes the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant. It is not a case of the applicant that the acid was kept in the dairy following the procedure laid down in the law for the purpose.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, nature of the case and active participation of the accused/applicant and so also the illegal possession of the acid of such nature as used in the crime, I find that it is not a fit case for grant of bail at this stage. This M.Cr.C. is, therefore, dismissed as sans merit.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE