Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1133 (MP)

Sakir v. State of M. P.

2014-09-10

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2014
ORDER 1. In compliance of earlier direction, Ravendra Singh Chouhan, sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Saikheda, District Narsinghpur is also present in person along with the case diary. 2. Heard. 3. On behalf of the applicants, this repeat petition is preferred under section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail as they are in custody since 18.6.2014, in connection of Crime No.144/14, registered at Police Station Sainkheda, District Narsinghpur for the offence under sections 279, 337 and 304 of IPC, under sections 10 and 11 of Animal Cruelty Act and sections 66/192, 3/181 and 5/180 of Motor Vehicles Act. 4. It is noted that their earlier application filed in this regard was dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed vide order dated 18.7.2014 in MCrC No.9735/14, by extending a liberty to revive the prayer after filing the charge-sheet. As per submission of the counsel, charge-sheet has been filed in the matter. 5. Applicants counsel after taking me through the petition as well as the copy of the charge-sheet said that, even on taking into consideration the entire charge-sheet as accepted in it’s entirety even then, the offence of section 304 of IPC. is not made against the applicants. It is not a case of more than section 304A of IPC along with the other sections of IPC invoked by the police so also the section of Animal Cruelty Act. He further said that at the initial stage, the applicants were known to the complainant, deceased or the alleged witness Ashish, whose interrogatory statement is recorded as eye witness of the alleged incident and the name of applicants were not mentioned in the FIR but subsequently, on recording the interrogatory statement, the name of those persons were stated as culprit of the incident and such interrogatory statement was recorded after seizing the alleged truck and arrest of the applicants. In continuation he said that, according to prosecution case, these applicants only instigated the driver of the alleged vehicle (Eicher) namely; Guddu to run over the witness by the alleged truck and as alleged on such instigation the incident was happened. He further said that the offence relating to cruelty towards the Animal is made bailable under the law and, therefore, in such circumstance even if the offence of section 304 of IPC, is prima facie inferred even then, such actual act was not committed by the present applicants. He further said that the offence relating to cruelty towards the Animal is made bailable under the law and, therefore, in such circumstance even if the offence of section 304 of IPC, is prima facie inferred even then, such actual act was not committed by the present applicants. With these submissions he prayed for extending the benefit of bail to the applicants by allowing this petition. 6. On the other hand, responding the aforesaid arguments, learned Panel Lawyer with the assistance of Shri Vishwakarma, leaned counsel for the objector-complainant argued that this is a very serious offence in which the Social worker working for Goraksha to save the animal like Cow and others, was killed at the instigation of the present applicants by the co-accused Guddu by running over the truck on the motorcycle of the deceased so also caused the injuries to others. He further said that the alleged act was committed by the applicants having the knowledge that person like deceased may die and, therefore, it is out right case of section 304 of IPC. The applicants being abettor of the alleged incident, do not deserve for grant of bail and prayed for dismissal of this petition. 7. Having heard, keeping in view the arguments advanced, I have carefully gone through the entire case diary along with the copy of the charge-sheet, taking into consideration that the offence relating to Animal Cruelty Act is made bailable, while the offence of sections 279 and 337 of IPC was committed by the co-accused Guddu, while driving the aforesaid Eicher Truck and as alleged on the instigation of the present applicants, Guddu has driven the alleged truck and run over to the deceased and by such act also caused injury to the others and in such premises, the applicants have shown to be abettor only, so also the other available evidence collected by the investigating Agency, I do not found that actual act was committed by the driver of the alleged vehicle namely; Guddu, who run over the truck on the deceased and also caused injuries to others, in the available circumstances without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, the petition is allowed. 8. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. 8. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) by each of the applicants along with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court the applicants-Sakir and Sabir shall be released on bail with direction to appear on each and every date of the trial. 9. Their single non-appearance shall cancel the bail automatically without any further order of this Court.