MCRC/4969/2024 of DAULATRAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 5 February 2024

ORDER

Heard with the aid of case diary.

This is fourth application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant ofbail to the applicant/accused in connection with FIR/Crime No.124/2023 dated -18.05.2023 registered at Police Station - Barawada, District - Ratlam (M.P.) forcommission of offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC, Section 6/9 ofM.P. Govansh Vadh Pratisedh Adhiniyam read with 120-B of IPC, Section11(d), 11(e) and 11(f) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act read with 120-Bof IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

2. The first and second application were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 01.12.2023 and 23.09.2023 passed in MCRCs No.50154/2023 and35748/2023 respectively.

3. The third application was dismissed on merits vide order dated08.06.2023 passed in MCRC No.23137/2023.

4. As per prosecution case, on 18.05.2023, at around 10 PM, thecomplainant Prakash Baghri alongwith Govind were standing in front of NairaPetrol Pump. Complainant’s younger brother Bharat was going to his homefrom Dudhakhedi Maleni by motorcycle, at that time, a pick-up truck bearingregistration No.MP-43-G-2284, being driven by co-accused Rakesh in a rashand negligent manner towards Jaora. The co-accused, while trying to overtakethe motorcycle of Bharat, hit him, reason being narrow space while overtaking.Resultantly, Bharat crashed on ground and the pick up truck got overturned.The co-accused was well aware that this could be a probable consequence ofsuch rash and negligent driving. After the incident, the driver of the vehicle fledaway from the spot. The complainant party had seen the vehicle and found 7calves with their legs tied with ropes without any fodder being taken to beslaughtered. Bharat died at the spot itself. The complainant had lodged reporton 18.05.2023 at 08:54 AM at P/S Badawda, Ratlam. The police had seized theaforesaid truck and calves.

5. During investigation, owner and driver of the seized vehicle, Daulatramand co-accused Rakesh were arrested. On the basis of memorandum given byDaulatram recorded u/S 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it was found thatco-accused Raju @ Rajiv was also involved in the offence and he was pilotingthe aforesaid truck by alto car bearing registration No.MP-43-CB-4633therefore, he was also arrested and his car was seized. Co-accused Vijay

Solanki, Shubham Sharma, Lakhan Nath, Dharmendra, Suresh Banjara, Deepak,Jeetendra Sharma were also found to be involved in the offence and theirvehicles bearing registration No.MP-19-GA-2560, MP-41-GA-2505, MP-09-GF-5824, MP-43-G-4441, MP-43-G-1769, MP-43-G-3911 and MP-43-G-2260,respectively were seized. The name of the co-accused Rakesh was implicated inthis case on the basis of memorandum statement given by the present applicantDaulatram.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has not committedthe offence. He is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case only onthe ground that he is a registered owner of the offending vehicle. It is alsosubmitted that at the time of the incident, he was not present at the spot. Nolegal evidence is available against the present applicant.

7. It is also submitted that after dismissal of the earlier bail applications ofthe applicant, eye witnesses of the incident Govind (PW-1) and his brotherPrakash (PW-2) have been examined before the trial Court and they have notsupported the prosecution case. It is also submitted that co-accused personsRakesh, Raju @ Rajiv and Jitendra Sharma are granted bail by this Court videorders dated 23.09.2023, 14.07.2023 and 04.08.2023 passed in MCRCsNo.39973/2023, 26210/2023 and 31994/2023 respectively. Applicant is incustody since 18.05.2023. Trial will take considerable long time for its disposal.Therefore, in change in circumstances, it is prayed that the applicant be releasedon bail.

8. On other hand, counsel for the non-applicant/State has opposed theprayer and submitted that four criminal cases are pending against the applicantpunishable under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and M.P. GovanshVadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam. Therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case-diary.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case trial is likely totake long time for its disposal, this Court is of the view that applicant deservesto be enlarged on bail, hence, without commenting on the merits of the case, theapplication is allowed.

11. It is directed that applicant - DAULATRAM shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fiftythousand only) alongwith one solvent surety in the like amount to thesatisfaction of the concerned Court, for his appearance before the concernedCourt regularly on all such dates as may be fixed in this regard during trial. It isfurther directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.

12. This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bailjump, it shall become ineffective.

13. With the aforesaid, this application is allowed and stands disposed of.

Certified copy, as per Rules.

Shruti

(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)JUDGE