Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/3891/2024 of ROHIT THAKUR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGATON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3891 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
ROHIT THAKUR S/O SHRI SHAITAN SINGH THAKUR,AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O WARD NO 7 GANDHINAGAR PATHAN MOHALLA DISTRICT RAISEN(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI SANKALP KOCHAR - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICES TATION SILWANI DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI Y.D. YADAV - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
.....RESPONDENT
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
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…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail, who is in jail since15.09.2023 relating to FIR No.245/2023 registered at Police Station SilwaniDistrict Raisen (M.P.) for the offences under sections 302/34 of the IPC.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that theapplicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. There is noeyewitness in the case. Only circumstance against the applicant is recovery ofmurder weapon inside the well at the instance of applicant. It is submitted that in seizure memo also, it is not clear that how the police has taken out Kudari fromthe well. Facts of seizure is not clear. In these circumstances, applicant be givenbenefit of suspicion over the incident.
3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposed theapplication for grant of bail and submitted that applicant was having love affairswith one Nikita, who was grand-daughter of deceased. All the witnesses havestated that applicant may have visited the house to meet Nikita and grand-mother must have discovered them together and therefore, she may have beenkilled. Nikita was along with grand-mother in the room. Blood stains were alsofound on the bed of deceased, which shows that she was murdered and lateron, her body was thrown into the well.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties.
5. None of witnesses have seen the applicant running from the house orto be present in house. They have only stated that Nikita was present in theroom. Applicant was made accused on the basis of seizure said to have beenmade from well but how that Kudari was discovered by police is not clear fromseizure memo.
6. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, withoutcommenting on merits of the case, bail application filed by applicant is allowed.
7. It is directed that applicant be released on bail on his furnishingpersonal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety inthe like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his regular appearancebefore concerned Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this regard duringpendency of trial.
8. The applicant shall also abide by the conditions enumerated underSection 437 (3) of Cr. P. C.
pn
C.C. as per rules.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)JUDGE