Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saurabh Alias Sanjay Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 24 October, 2017
1
M.Cr.C. No. 11294/2017
(Saurabh @ Sanjay Tomar Vs. State of MP)
24.10.2017
Shri Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for applicant.
Shri A.K. Nirankari, Public Prosecutor for
Respondent/State.
Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Dehat Basoda, District Vidisha in connection with Crime No. 136/2017 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/S. 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 294,323, 324 of IPC.
Allegation against the applicant in short are that on 15/05/2017 at about 11 Pm when one Barat in marriage ceremony of complainant family had come on the spot then the co-accused Shanu Sharma, Anshu Sharma, Bhawesh Sharma and the present applicant had come there and started dancing without invitation in the function and when they were stopped from dancing, therefore, after sometimes these accused persons armed with Baka, knife and Gupti came on the spot of incident and the co-accused Ansul assaulted by means of Baka and the co-accused Devendra assaulted by means of Gupti so in the result the injured person Salman died on the spot. The present applicant assaulted Balbir by means of rod. The co-accused Bhawesh assaulted Pawan by means of Gupti and co-accused Naman Sharma assaulted Shivraj by means of knife. On the basis of aforesaid, the present applicant has been implicated in the present case.
The applicant is a youth of 23 years of age, who has no criminal antecedents alleged against him. The 2 M.Cr.C. No. 11294/2017 applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The present applicant has not assaulted the deceased Salman but he assaulted the injured Balbir and as per MLC report there is no fracture on the body of the injured Balbir, therefore, prima facie offence under section 307 is not made out against the applicant. It is submitted that charge sheet has since been filed and further custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. The applicant is in jail since 16/05/2017 and early conclusion of trial is bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention is an anathema to the concept of liberty. Under these grounds, applicant prays for grant of bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.
After hearing aforesaid arguments and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the 3 M.Cr.C. No. 11294/2017 Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The applicant shall not commit an 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 trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge Durgekar*