Madhya Pradesh High Court
Fatiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C. No.15954/2018
(Fatiya s/o Mansu Vasuniya vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)
Indore, Dated: 01.05.2018
Shri Rizwan Nizam, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
This is fourth repeat bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C on behalf of the applicant. His first application was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.10.2017 in M.Cr.C. No.17521/17, second application was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.12.2017 in M.Cr.C. No.23724/17 and third application was dismissed as withdrawn on 04.04.2018 in M.Cr.C. No.11760/2018.
The applicant has been arrested on 06.09.2017 in connection with Crime No.311/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 307, 506/34 of IPC registered at Police Station-Meghnagar, District-Jhabua.
As per the prosecution story, while Somla, husband of the complainant Khetubai was lying on bed in front of his house at 7:25 pm, accused persons Jabla, Hakka, Bhuria and Fatiya (present applicant) came there and hurled abuses. Jabla took out the sword and inflicted injuries on his left cheek, shouting that his son Ramesh outraged modesty of his daughter Anju, as a result, Jabla suffered severe injuries on his ear, cheek and jaw and started bleeding. Thereafter, though the complainant tried to pacify the situation but, Fatiya extorted other co-accused persons to kill Somla. Thereafter, Hakka hit him by lathi, Basu hit by stones on his back, left cheek and other parts of the body causing several injuries and threatened him with dire consequences. Accordingly, the case has been registered against the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that during trial complainant and other witnesses have turned hostile and belied the story of prosecution. In any case, there are omnibus allegations against the present applicant. No overt act has been attributed to him. Applicant has no criminal antecedents and his case is different from the other co-accused persons. He further contended that the applicant is in custody since 06.09.2017 and HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.15954/2018 (Fatiya s/o Mansu Vasuniya vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) he is the sole bread earner of the family and his family is on the verge of starvation. Under such circumstances the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and supported the order impugned. However, learned counsel does not dispute the fact that the complainant has turned hostile during trial.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that as per the allegations made in the FIR, there is no specific allegation against the present applicant except being in the company of other accused persons, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled for enlargement on bail, therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, the application deserves to be and is hereby allowed.
It is directed that applicant be enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakh Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his regular appearance in the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Chourasia Date: 2018.05.02 10:47:56 +05'30'