Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1235 (MP)

Dharmendra Yadav v. State of M. P.

2014-09-29

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2014
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. On behalf of the applicants, this petition is preferred under section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail to them, as they are in custody since 18.7.2014 in connection with Crime No.271/2014 registered at Police Station Babai District Hoshangabad for the offence under sections 302/149, 147, 148, 342 and 307/149 of the IPC. 3. Learned senior advocate Shri Surendra Singh after taking me through the petition as well as papers placed on record, by referring the papers of the charge-sheet along with copy of the marg intimation, argued that the dead body of the deceased Sarwan son of complainant Girish Yadav was found outside their house, then intimation in this regard was given to the police by Girish Yadav, on which Marg intimation was registered and the police went to the spot and prepared spot map and other necessary papers and sent the dead body to the hospital to carry out the autopsy, so in such premise till 7 O’clock name of any of the accused was not disclosed either by the complainant Girish Yadav or by any other person and subsequently on registration of the crime, at the instance of said Girish Yadav, the complainant, names of the present applicants accompanied with the alleged co-accused were implicated as culprits in the matter. In continuation, he said that in the FIR, explanation regarding non-mentioning the names of the applicants and the other alleged co-accused in the Marg intimation has not been given. So in such premise, it is apparent that on registration of the offence at about 10.10 a.m. on the same day by fabricating false story, the applicants accompanied with the other accused have been implicated in the matter. He further said that such inconsistency of the Marg intimation, inquest proceedings and FIR along with the police report filed under section 173 of CrPC with the charge-sheet is sufficient circumstance to extend the benefit of bail to the applicants. He further said that such inconsistency of the Marg intimation, inquest proceedings and FIR along with the police report filed under section 173 of CrPC with the charge-sheet is sufficient circumstance to extend the benefit of bail to the applicants. He also said that on earlier occasion, their application was dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty to revive the prayer after examining Girish Yadav and his wife Likhi Yadav in trial, but in the circumstances argued by him which have been revealed from the copy of the charge-sheet and the Marg intimation report, this matter could be considered very well for grant of bail to the applicants even before recording depositions of above mentioned alleged witnesses. He also said that mere interrogatory statements and the averments of the FIR are not sufficient to reject the application of the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer Shri Gitesh Singh Thakur with the assistance of the counsel of the objector and the case diary argued that after registration of the offence at the instance of complainant Girish Yadav, father of deceased Sarwan, in the course of investigation, interrogatory statements of witnesses including statements of father, mother and brother of the deceased were recorded and mere perusal of their statements, it is apparent that they are eye witnesses of the incident who saw the actual incident in which Sarwan was caught hold by the applicants and other co-accused and thereafter with the help of the rope, he was strangulated and on carrying out the autopsy of deceased Sarwan, the injury of strangulation was also revealed according to the post mortem report and in such premise, mere in the light of the Marg intimation report, the evidence collected by the investigation agency after registration of the offence could not be discarded and prayed for dismissal of this petition. 5. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, I have carefully gone through the case diary along with papers of the charge-sheet as well as Marg intimation report. In view of the settled proposition, I am of the view that Marg report could not be treated to be an encyclopedia of the entire incident at the initial stage in which mentioning the entire information of the incident is necessary. In view of the settled proposition, I am of the view that Marg report could not be treated to be an encyclopedia of the entire incident at the initial stage in which mentioning the entire information of the incident is necessary. Even such proposition is laid down by the apex Court with respect of the FIR also but in the available circumstances, after perusing the first information report as well as interrogatory statements of the father, mother and brother of the deceased Sarwan Yadav, the eye witnesses which are further supported by the corresponding injuries which were found on the corpus of Sarwan Yadav by the doctor who carried out the autopsy, Accordingly, I have found sufficient prima facie evidence against the applicants showing that they accompanied with other co-accused had committed the alleged offence. Consequently, at this stage I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicants. 6. Resultantly, this petition is hereby dismissed. However, the applicants are extended the liberty to revive the prayer after recording the deposition of the material prosecution witnesses in the trial. ...................