Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1250 (MP)

Jagdish v. State of M. P.

2003-11-17

A.K.AWASTHY

body2003
JUDGMENT This order deals with the bail application filed under section 439 of the CrPC in Crime No. 195/02 of P.S. Dharampuri for offence punishable under section 147, 148 and 302/149 of the IPC. The prosecution case is that on 14.10.2002 at about 3 p.m. at village Umaria the applicants along with other accused persons assaulted Jagdish with lathi and other weapons and he was dragged towards the house of Nanku who were the applicants and other co-accused started beating him and the throat of deceased Jagdish was pressed by the lathis by the applicants and on account of the injuries Jagdish has died on the spot. The report of the incident was lodged on 15.10.2002 at about 1.15 a.m. at Police Station Dharampuri and during the investigation, the statement of the wife of the deceased and other eye witnesses were recorded and the case is registered against the applicant under sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC. From the statement of eye witness Punibai and Padam it is clear that the applicants have caused the injuries to the deceased and deceased Jagdish has died on account of the injuries caused by the applicants and the co-accused. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the co-accused Raju, Manglia and Budia were released on bail and as such the applicant also deserves the bail. The Sessions Judge, Dhar on 5.12.2002 has rejected the bail application of accused Raju, Manglia and Budia on the ground that they had taken the active part in the murder of deceased Jagdish. However, the police has not filed the charge sheet against these accused within 90 days and as such they were released on bail under section 167 of the CrPC. The accused Raju Manglia and Budia were released on bail not on merits but on account of the fact that the charge sheet was not filed against them in time and as such their release on bail being on account of default, the applicant are not entitled for the bail on the merits due to the release of the co-accused on bail. The murder is a serious offence and a capital sentence is provided in it. Consequently, the applicants ar not entitled to be released on bail. The murder is a serious offence and a capital sentence is provided in it. Consequently, the applicants ar not entitled to be released on bail. It is disgusting that the co-accused Raju, Manglia and Budia who have taken the active part in the murder of deceased Jagdish were released on bail on account of the negligence of the Investigating Officer in not completing the investigation within 90 days. The Legislature has enacted the provisions of 167 CrPC in order to see that the investigation is completed as early as possible and in a serious offence the investigation is positively completed by the Police within 90 days. The Investigating Officer has violated the legislature intention by not completing the investigation within 90 days and on account of his negligence, the bail to· the accused Raju, Manglia and Budia was granted which was rejected by the Courts. In such a serious offence, the delay in the investigation is condemnable and it is the duty of the Supervising Officer to see that such lapses are no committed and the accused who are not otherwise entitled for the bail are not released on the bail on account of the default of the Investigating Officer. The learned counsel for the State has assured that the appropriate action will be taken against the Investigating Officer so that such lapses are not repeated by the Police during the investigation. A copy of this order be sent to the Director General Prosecution and 1.G. Indore region for the appropriate action against the Investigating Officer and the officer supervising the investigation. The strategy should be laid down by to check such lapses during the investigation.