Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1061 (MP)

Shishupal Singh v. State of M. P.

2006-09-06

B.M.GUPTA

body2006
ORDER 1. Heard. Perused the case diary. This is first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of CrPC by the applicants. 2. Applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No. 366/05 of Police Station Chanderi District, Ashoknagar registered for the offence punishable under section 302/34 of IPC and under section 25/27 of the Arms Act and under section 3 (2) (5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. Shri Tiwari has submitted that in a case in which the applicants are apprehending their arrest for the aforesaid offences, two co-accused Kannu @ Mahipal and Devendra Singh were tried and have been acquitted vide judgment dated 6th July, 2006 passed in Spl. Sessions Case No. 61/06 by Special Judge, Guna. Shri Tiwari has drawn the attention of the Court at para 12 of the aforesaid judgment and also at the copies of the statements of Dayaram (PW 1) and Mitthu (PW 4) and has submitted that as per the prosecution case only three eye-witnesses were there in the case i.e. Dayaram, Mitthu and Rajdhar. The prosecution chose not to produce Rajdhar before the trial Court and the rest of the aforesaid two witnesses have become totally hostile. They do not State anything against the present applicants also. 4. Shri Dixit while drawing the attention of the Court at para 4 of the impugned order dated 27.6.2006 passed by Special Judge, Guna, has submitted that the applicants remained absconded till date and they might have pressurized the witnesses outside the Court so that they did not give the correct statements. 5. Considering the contentions, before giving the finding I cannot resist myself to observe, that if the two applicants remain absconded till date, it is for the State to consider the performance of the duties of its officers. In view of the fact that all the material witnesses have become hostile and not supporting the case, even against the present applicants, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest, applicants shall be enlarged on bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) each along with a surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the condition that they shall abide by the conditions as prescribed in sub-section (2) of section 438 of CrPC. 6. This order shall remain in force for a period of 30 days. During this period, if the applicants so desire, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court, which shall be considered by that Court in accordance with law. MCrC is disposed of.