Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kanha @ Jitendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 November, 2022
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 21st OF NOVEMBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 48701 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
KANHA @ JITENDRA S/O BHAWARLAL
JAT OCCUPATION: LABUOR, R/O:
VILLAGE MUNDARI, TEH AND DISTT.
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI HIMANSHU BHARGAVA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPLICANT)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROGH
POLICE STATION MANAK CHOWK
DISTT. RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI TARUN PAGARE, LEARNED PL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE GENERAL.) This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:
O R D ER Applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR DATT JOSHI Signing time: 22-11-2022 10:40:56 2 1973 in connection with Crime No. 43/2022 registered at P.S
-Manak Chowk, District- Ratlam (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 395, 397, 392, 341, 294, 424, 34, 120-B of IPC and sections 25 /27 of Arms Act. He is in custody since 03.02.2022.Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR DATT JOSHI Signing time: 22-11-2022 10:40:56 3
As per prosecution story, on 01/02/2022, complainant Piyush Sharma lodged an FIR stating that on 31/01/2022 at about 2:00 pm, when he was returning from Dhar, at that time, his car was intercepted by two vehicles and he was attacked. Some unknown miscreants looted the bag containing Rs.9,00,000/- from the complainant and thereafter, they ran away from the spot. During investigation, it is found that co-accused Gajendra has supplied arms to other co-accused persons and co-accused Tarun was appointed by the co-accused person for the purpose of doing reiki. On the basis of the memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, present applicant has been implicated in this offence. Accordingly, offence has been registered against the applicant also.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this offence. There is no legal evidence available on record to connect the applicant with the aforementioned offence. Complainant Priyesh (PW-1), Shakil (PW- ), Bhagar (PW-3), Giriraj Singh (PW-4) and Govind (PW-5) have been examined before the trial Court and they have turned hostile. Complainant Priyesh and eye witness Giriraj Singh did not identify any accused in Test Identification. He is in custody since 03/02/2022. There is no apprehension of his fleeing away from the court of justice. Final conclusion of trial shall take sufficient long time. Co-accused Sunil, Narayanh, Pankaj Jaat and Kartik have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 26/08/2022, Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR DATT JOSHI Signing time: 22-11-2022 10:40:56 4 12.09.2022 and 12.09.2022 passed in MCRC No. 39676/2022, MCRC No.43390/2022 and MCRC No.43239/2022 respectively in similar circumstances, therefore, on the ground of parity, present applicant also deserve for grant of bail.
Per-contra, learned counsel for respondent - State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that other witnesses are yet to be examined, however, he fairly admits that no criminal antecedents have been found against the applicant.
Perused the impugned order of the trial Court, the statements of the witnesses as well as the case dairy.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by both the parties, nature of allegation as also taking note of the fact that complainant Priyesh (PW-1), Shakil (PW-2), Bhagar (PW-3), Giriraj Singh (PW-4) and Govind (PW-5) have been examined before the trial Court and they have turned hostile; complainant Priyesh did not identify any accused in dock identification before the trial Court; he is in custody since 03/02/2022; co-accused Sunil, Narayanh, Pankaj Jaat and Kartik have been enlarged on bail by this Court in similar circumstances, therefore, on the ground of parity, I deem it proper to release the accused / applicant on bail. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 75,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five Thousand only) Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR DATT JOSHI Signing time: 22-11-2022 10:40:56 5 with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court, as and when required. He shall abide by the conditions enumerated u/S. 437(3) Cr.P.C.
It is made clear that if the applicant is again found to be involved in any other offence during the trial, this order shall stand cancelled automatically without reference to the Court and the police will be at liberty to arrest the applicant in the present case also. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA) J U D G E Anushree Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR DATT JOSHI Signing time: 22-11-2022 10:40:56