Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikram Singh Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2022
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
ON THE 7th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 24740 of 2021
Between:-
VIKRAM SINGH LODHI S/O SUDAMA SINGH
LODHI , AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILLAGE HINOUTI
P.S. TEJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(By Shri Shishir Verma, learned counsel)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRO. P.S.
TENDUKHEDA DISTT. DAMOH MP. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(By Shri Lokesh Jain, learned Panel Lawyer)
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39417 of 2021
Between:-
SUDAMA LODHI S/O KOMAL SINGH LODHI ,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE HINOUTI,
P.S.TEJGARH; AT PRESENT R/O SINGARPURA
HAAR GUBARA, P.S.TENDUKHEDA, DISTRICT
DAMOH (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(By Shri Shishir Verma, learned counsel)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S.
TENDUKHEDA DISTT. DAMOH M.P (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(By Shri Lokesh Jain, learned Panel Lawyer )
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39421 of 2021
Between:-
NARENDRA SINGH LODHI S/O SUDAMA
SINGH LODHI , AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILLAGE HINOUTI
P.S. TEJGARH DISTT. DAMOH (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
SAN PRADESH)
Digitally signed by RAVIKANT KEWAT
Date: 2022.02.08 10:37:10 IST
2
.....APPLICANT
(By Shri Shishir Verma, learned counsel)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S.
TENDUKHEDA DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(By Shri Lokesh Jain, learned Panel Lawyer)
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
This applications coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
M.Cr.C.No.39417/2021 and M.Cr.C.No.24740/2021 are the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.369/2020 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of IPC registered at Police Station-Tendukheda, District- Damoh.
M.Cr.C.No.39421/2021 is the second bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.369/2020 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of IPC registered at Police Station-Tendukheda, District- Damoh, after the first one being M.Cr.C.No.3895/2021 having been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24.04.2021 with the liberty to file afresh in the first week of August, 2021 or after the statement of the witnesses are recorded before the learned trial Court, whichever is earlier.
All the applications are being disposed of by a common order as the applications have arisen from the same crime number, offence and police station.
The applicants are in judicial custody since 08.10.2020 in the aforementioned case. The main charge against them is under section 302 of IPC for committing the murder of the deceased. The deceased went missing on 20.09.2020. The missing report which was lodged on 21.09.2020 only Signature Not Verified SAN reflects that deceased had gone in the morning to graze his Buffalos and Digitally signed by RAVIKANT KEWAT Date: 2022.02.08 10:37:10 IST 3 thereafter did not return. His body was recovered on 24.09.2020 and the statement of the wife of the deceased is recorded on 07.10.2020. The wife of the deceased states that the applicants had taken the deceased away in the morning of 20.09.2020 for the purpose of grazing their buffalos, afterwhich the deceased never returned.
Learned counsel for the State submits that the applicants after murdering the deceased, had tried to conceal the body so that it could not be recovered. He also referred to the statement of the wife of the deceased dated 07.10.2020, according to which, the applicants were last seen with the deceased on 20.09.2020, that is the date when he went missing. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the statement of the wife has been recorded after a delay of more than 15 days after disappearance of the deceased and almost 13 days after the recovery of the body of the deceased. Besides, learned counsel for the applicants further states that that the deceased went missing on 20.09.2020 and his body was recovered on 24.09.2020 and, therefore, looking into the long gap of time between his disappearance and recovery of his body, it cannot be stated with certainty or even probable certainty that after the deceased was last seen with the applicants herein, the deceased did not meet anyone else or was not in the company of anyone else.
Learned counsel for the State while opposing the applications for grant of bail has read out from the statement of witness Prakash, who was called to the police station and has stated that when he reached the police station, all the three applicants were there, and the police was interrogating them and in the police interrogation the three accused persons stated that on account of enmity arising due to the cattle of the deceased Gopal Yadav destroying their field, Sudama Lodhi struck a blow with an Axe on the head of the deceased and applicant-Vikram Singh Lodhi, who is son of Sudama Lodhi threw a stone on the head of the deceased and the applicant-Narendra Singh Lodhi, who is another son of Sudama Lodhi is stated to have taken a Gamchha and Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by RAVIKANT KEWAT Date: 2022.02.08 10:37:10 IST 4 locket of the deceased and kept it with him. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, the articles used in the offence have been recovered at the behest of the applicants and also the Gamchha and locket belonging to the deceased.
Per contra, learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that the statement of Prakash is worthless as the applicants admittedly were in the custody of the police and they made statements to the police in the presence of witness-Prakash and so, same is hit by section 25 of Evidence Act. He has further stated that the items recovered have been planted on the applicants and there is no logical reason why the applicants would retain the implements used in the murder of the deceased, if they were actually guilty of doing so and the same has become evidence against them. He also questioned the recovery of the Gamchha and the locket of the deceased stating that these articles are so worthless that it is unimaginable that the applicant-Narendra Singh Lodhi who would have retained these articles of the deceased after allegedly committing the murder so that the same can be used as evidence against him.
Be that as it may, in view of what has been argued and observed herein-above, the applications are allowed and it is directed that the applicants shall be enlarged on bail upon their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
The jail authorities shall have the applicants checked by the jail doctor to ensure that they are not suffering from the coronavirus and if they are, they shall be sent to the nearest hospital designated by the state for treatment. If not, they shall be transported to their place of residence by the jail authorities.
C.C. as per rules.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) Signature Not Verified JUDGE SAN rk.
Digitally signed by RAVIKANT KEWAT Date: 2022.02.08 10:37:10 IST 5 Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by RAVIKANT KEWAT Date: 2022.02.08 10:37:10 IST