Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rammu @ Ramratan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 July, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 MCRC-16573-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-16573-2021
(RAMMU @ RAMRATAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 13-07-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Ms. Savita Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is third bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
Applicant Rammu @ Ramratan was arrested on 18/12/2018 in Crime No.273/2018 registered at Police Station Shahgarh, District Sagar (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 of the IPC.
The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdraw by this Court vide order dated 04/09/2019 passed in M.Cr.C.No.16422/2019 and the second bail application was also dismissed as withdrawn with the direction to the trial Court to dispose of the case as early as possible within a period of six months by this Court vide order dated 02/03/2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.3738/2020.
A s per prosecution case, on 06/10/2018, Pappu S/o Gokul Yadav informed the police that one human skeleton was lying in the forest of Madantala, Shahgarh. On that Police registered Merg No.40/2018 under section 174 of the Cr.P.C. and seized that human skeleton, one knife, jeans and other material from the spot. During investigation it was found that human skeleton was of Vickky @ Vikram Rajak, who was murdered. On that police registered the Crime No.273/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and investigated the matter. During investigation it was found that deceased Vickky @ Vikram Rajak had illicit relation with the wife of applicant Rammu @ Ramratan, due to which on 28/9/2018 applicant and co-accused Brijesh @ Bade, Umesh Vishwakarma and Vinod Ahirwar murdered deceased Vickky @ Vikram Rajak and threw his dead body in the forest. On that police arrested the applicant and co-accused Brijesh @ Bade, Umesh Vishwakarma and Vinod Ahirwar and also seized call details.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence. It is further submitted that the statements of U.S. Pandey (PW-1), Rahul (PW-2), Lalita Bai (PW-3), Dinesh Kumar Rajak (PW-4), Saroj (PW-5), Mahesh (PW-
6) and Satish (PW-7) have been recorded by the trial Court. They did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile. The applicant has been in Signature Not Verified SAN custody since 18/12/2018, charge-sheet has been filed and the conclusion of Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2021.07.13 17:36:13 IST 2 MCRC-16573-2021 trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that sufficient evidence is available against the applicant to connect him with the crime and the statements of other material witnesses have to be recorded by the trial court, so applicant should not be released on bail.
Lo o king to the facts and circumstances of the case and the circumstantial evidence collected by the police against the applicant during investigation and the fact that the statements of other material witnesses have to be recorded by the trial court, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
Hence, this M.Cr.C. is rejected.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE VS Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2021.07.13 17:36:13 IST