Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dilipsingh Gurjar Alias Chhunna Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 April, 2016
1
M.Cr.C. No.4429/2016
(Dilip Singh Gurjar alias Chunna Gurjar Vs. State of M.P.)
21.04.2016
Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate with Shri M.K. Choudhary,
Advocate for applicant.
Shri Mohd Irshad, Panel Lawyer for Respondent/State.
Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. The applicant has filed this 5th repeat bail application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Banmore, District Morena in connection with Crime No.91/2014 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 147, 148, 149, 307, 396, 397 of IPC, Sec 25/27 of Arms Act & Sec 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K.Act .
Learned Panel Lawyer 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.
This fifth repeat bail application has been filed after rejection of the earlier ones, including the last one which was rejected on merits by order dated 30.01.2016 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 1363/16.
The applicant who is in custody since 15.02.2015 is alleged with murder.
New ground raised herein is examination of one of the eye- witness Banwari Singh on 02.04.2016 as PW-1, whose statement has been brought on record which discloses that in Para 11 of the cross-examination of the said PW-1, he has categorically denied that the applicant was present at the scene of crime.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that despite the said stand having taken by the said PW-1, prosecution has not declared him hostile. It is further submitted that even if other eye- witnesses state that applicant was present then also the applicant 2 M.Cr.C. No.4429/2016 would be entitled to take the advantage of benefit of doubt.
Considering the nature of offence, evidence of eye-witness which has come on record and that early conclusion of the trial is a bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention is anathema to the concept of liberty and the material placed on record does not discloses the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice, this Court is though inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant but with certain stringent conditions in view of criminal antecedents of the applicant.
Accordingly, 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.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lacs only) with two solvent sureties, each of Rs.1,00,000/-, 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 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.
7. The applicant shall mark his attendance before the concerned trial Court once every fortnight.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance. C.c. as per rules.
(Sheel Nagu) Judge sh/-