Madhya Pradesh High Court

MCRC/55647/2023 of OMPRAKASH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024

Cites 0, Cited by 0

COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 55647 of 2023

BETWEEN:-

OMPRAKASH S/O RADHESHYAM GAYRI, AGED ABOUT32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O:VILLAGE JAAVI, TEHSIL NEEMUCH, DIST. NEEMUCH(MADHYA PRADESH)

(MR. ABHAY SARASWAT - ADVOCATE)

.....APPLICANT

AND

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSEOFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION NEEMUCH CITY,DIST. NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT

(MS. VARSHA SINGH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

ORDER

Applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 439 of theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the applicant for grant ofregular bail relating to Crime No.288/2022 registered at P.S. Neemuch City,District Neemuch (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections302, 325, 294, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC. He is in jail since 29.07.2022.

2. As per the prosecution story, on 06.07.2022, complainant Prabhulallodged a dehati nalishi at P.S. Neemuch City by stating that his niece Maina wasmarried with applicant Omprakash. During their wedlock, they blessed with two girl child, but due to matrimonial dispute between Maina and Omprakash, boththe girl children were residing with their maternal grandfather Premchand inVillage Thadod. Father of applicant Radheshyam called the complainant andtold him to come to village Jaavi along with both the children to mediate andsettle the dispute between the husband and wife. When complainant reached atthe house of Radheshyam along with other persons, then accused applicantcame out from his house and after seeing the complainant and both of his girlchild, he started abusing the complainant. When complainant objected, thenapplicant went inside the house and came with an iron pipe and started inflictinginjuries upon the complainant with iron pipe. In order to save his life,complainant anyhow managed to ran away from the spot and went to the houseof his relative Lala Gayri. After sometime, accused persons namelyRadheshyam and Gopal came there armed with wooden stick and startedinflicting injuries upon the complainant. Some of the relatives came to intervenethe dispute. Thereafter, all accused persons gave life threats and left the spot.After that, injured complainant was rushed to the hospital and during thetreatment he succumbed to death on 23.07.2022. Accordingly, a case has beenregistered against the applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocentperson and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. Applicant is in jail since29.07.2022. All the 14 material witnesses have been examined before the trialCourt. Deceased did not sustain any injury over the vital parts of the body andcause of death is septicemia, which has occurred due to lack or impropertreatment. Applicant is a permanent resident of District Neemuch. Finalconclusion of trial will take considerable long time. Under the abovecircumstances, prayer for grant of bail may be considered on such terms and conditions, as this Court deems fit and proper.

4. Per-contra, learned counsel for respondent/State opposes the bailapplication and prays for its rejection.

5. Perused the case diary as well as the impugned order of the courtbelow.

6. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, argumentsadvanced by counsel for the parties, nature and gravity of allegation as alsotaking note of the fact that Rakesh (PW-6) is the son of deceased has beenturned hostile before the trial Court; all the eye witnesses namely Lalaram (PW-12) and Chanchal (PW-10) also turned hostile before the trial Court and havenot supported the case of prosecution; prosecution has examined as many as14 witnesses and all of them have turned hostile and have not supported thecase of prosecution; none of witnesses deposed against the present applicantregarding the aforesaid offence and final conclusion of trial will takeconsiderable long time. In view of evidence available on record, I deem itproper to release the applicant on bail. Therefore, without commenting on themerits of the case, the application is allowed.

7. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousandonly) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trialCourt for his appearance before the trial Court, as and when required. He shallabide by the conditions enumerated u/S. 437(3) Cr.P.C.

Certified copy as per rules.

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead