Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/4087/2024 of SHUBHAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4087 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SHUBHAM S/O DEVRAM ADANIYA, AGED ABOUT 23YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR, R/O: PANCH MAHUASANJAY NAGAR TEHSIL SIMROL, DIST. INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH)
(MR. BHAGIRATH KURI - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSEOFFICER THROUGH P.S. SIMROL, DIST. INDORE(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
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
Heard on I.A. No.1639 of 2024, which is an application for taking additional documents on record.
2. The aforesaid documents may be relevant for proper adjudication of the case, therefore, the I.A. is allowed and the said documents are taken onrecord.
3. Applicant has filed this third bail application under Section 439 of theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the applicant for grant ofregular bail relating to Crime No.401/2022 registered at P.S. Simrol, District
Indore (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 307and 34 of IPC. He is in jail since 23.09.2022.
4. His earlier bail application was dismissed on merit by this Court videorder dated 12.05.2023 passed in MCRC No.19556/2023.
5. As per the prosecution story, complainant Mamta Patel lodged an FIRon 19.09.2022 at P.S. Simrol, District Indore by stating that on the last night atabout 12.30 to 1.00 A.M. while her brother Antar Singh was sleeping on theroof, she heard some noise of dumper and went near the dumper along with herfather Bhanvar Singh. At that time, S.I. Savle told his father that "why you arecoming here, you should go from here." At that time present applicant alongwith Lekhraj, Rajat and Subhash came there and they threw a burning bottleupon her father Bhanvar Singh, due to which he sustained various injuries andduring the treatment Bhanvar Singh died. Accordingly, a case has beenregistered.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. Applicant is in jail since23.09.2023. His earlier bail application was dismissed on merit, thereafter,prosecution has examined six witnesses. FSL report has been received, whichis not supporting the case of prosecution. There is material contradictions andomissions in the statement of prosecution witnesses, who have been examinedbefore the trial Court. Neither name of present applicant is mentioned in the FIRnor found in the dying declaration of the deceased. Applicant is a permanentresident of District Indore. Final conclusion of trial will take considerable longtime. Under the above circumstances, prayer for grant of bail may beconsidered on such terms and conditions, as this Court deems fit and proper.
7. Per-contra, learned counsel for respondent/State opposes the bailapplication and prays for its rejection by submitting that applicant's earlier bailapplication has been dismissed on merit after considering all the facts andcircumstances of the case, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
8. Perused the case diary as well as the impugned order of the courtbelow.
9. 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 applicant's earlier bail application was dismissed onmerit, after that prosecution has examined six witnesses namely Mamta Patel(PW-1), Pushpendra (PW-2), Amrita Bai (PW-3), Anter Singh (PW-4) andSandeep Patel (PW-6). From perusal of the statement of all these witnesses, itreveals that all these witnesses have categorically deposed regarding thepresence of applicant on the spot at time of incident. All these are the materialwitnesses. They have categorically stated in their statement that presentapplicant along with other co-accused persons poured petrol / oil upondeceased Bhanvar Singh and set him on fire, due to which deceased sustainedfatal injuries and during the treatment he died. In the dying declaration alsodeceased has mentioned the name of present applicant that applicant poured oilupon him and set him on fire, therefore, evidence of all these witnesses arecrystal clear. There is cogent evidence available on record against the applicantregarding the aforementioned offence and his active participation in the incident.So far as the FSL report is concerned, the same may be considered at that timeof final adjudication of this case.
10. In view of the circumstances, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant.
11. Accordingly, the present applicant filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
Anushree
(ANIL VERMA)JUDGE