Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1524 (MP)

Tikaram @ Abhishek Banafar v. State of M. P.

2014-11-25

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2014
ORDER 1. On behalf of the applicant, this third repeat petition is preferred under section 439 of CrPC as the applicant is in custody since 12.9.2013 in connection of Crime No.598/13 registered at Police Station Belbagh, district Jabalpur for the offence punishable under sections 341, 147, 148, 149, 302 of IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant after taking me through the petition as well as earlier rejection orders of this Court whereby in view of some query of the Court, the applicant’s counsel had withdrawn the earlier petition filed for grant of bail as not pressed with liberty to revive the prayer after recording the deposition of material prosecution witnesses said that this petition is preferred after recording the deposition of sole alleged eye witness Rahul Sonkar, (PW1). In continuation, by referring the interrogatory statements of the case diary of Rahul Sonkar, (PW1) recorded under section 161 of CrPC during the course of investigation said that according to that the name of Teekaram was stated as Teekaram @ Niraj while Teekaram and Niraj are different persons and both have been impleaded in the case as accused. So, firstly he said that identity of Teekaram at the place of the incident is doubtful and his name was wrongly impleaded in the case while the impleaded co-accused is Niraj. In continuation he said that on recording the deposition of Rahul Sonkar, (PW1), he has stated contrary version to the aforesaid case diary statements and said that the present applicant Teekaram and Niraj are different persons. So such material inconsistency from the interrogatory statements makes suspicious the deposition of this witness. In continuation by referring the order dated 14.11.2014 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in MCrC No.7046/2014 extending bail to the co- accused, Niraj as alleged the main culprit of the incident, as per prosecution case stated that there is no distinguishable case against the applicant in comparison of such Niraj and prayed for grant of bail on the ground of parity. In further arguments, he also said that on taking into consideration the deposition of said Rahul Sonkar, (PW1) there is no distinguishable case against the present applicant in comparison of aforesaid co- accused, Niraj. In further arguments, he also said that on taking into consideration the deposition of said Rahul Sonkar, (PW1) there is no distinguishable case against the present applicant in comparison of aforesaid co- accused, Niraj. So on such count also after passing the order by the Coordinate Bench for grant of bail to Niraj, this applicant also deserves for the same relief and prayed to extend such benefit to the applicant by allowing this petition. 3. On the other hand, responding the aforesaid arguments Shri Amit Sharma, learned PL with the assistance of the case diary argued that name of the present applicant was stated at the initial stage on lodging the FIR and not only his name but his committed act was also mentioned according to which the applicant is the main culprit of the incident and such report was lodged by aforesaid, Rahul Sonkar, (PW1). The alleged baseball bat was also seized at the instance of the present applicant pursuant to his memorandum recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act and till today in trial only one witness Rahul Sonkar, (PW1) has been examined and other material prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. Unless the relevant material prosecution witnesses are examined in the matter, the applicant should not be released, otherwise he may prejudice the witnesses as well as the prosecution case and prayed for dismissal of this petition. 4. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments, advanced, I have carefully gone through the case diary as well as copy of the charge sheet available in the case diary including the aforesaid interrogatory statements of Rahul Sonkar, (PW1) along with the deposition of such witnesses recorded as PW1. 5. It is undisputed fact that except one witness all other witnesses of the prosecution are yet to be examined in the matter in which the witnesses of the memorandum and the seizure memo are also yet to be examined and in the available circumstances, those witnesses are the material witnesses of the case. 5. It is undisputed fact that except one witness all other witnesses of the prosecution are yet to be examined in the matter in which the witnesses of the memorandum and the seizure memo are also yet to be examined and in the available circumstances, those witnesses are the material witnesses of the case. So far the deposition of Rahul Sonkar, (PW1) is concerned, mere perusal of the same, it is apparent that according to this witness the deceased, Sandeep Sonkar and this witness were firstly intercepted by the applicant Teekaram and thereafter with the assistance of co- accused, he was subjected to beating and also subjected to injuries by the baseball bat and with some hard and sharp edged implement. Resultantly, he sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. So in such premises, it is apparent that the applicant was the main person who intercepted the deceased, Sandip and facilitated the other co- accused to cause injuries on him. So gravity of offence of the present applicant is high in comparison of other co- accused. So in such premises, the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from the aforesaid Niraj, the co- accused, who has been granted the benefit of bail. I would like to mention here that taking into consideration the interrogatory statements and depositions of the witness recorded in trial, this Court can not appreciate and consider such inconsistency while dealing with the bail application because same is to be appreciated by the trial Court after recording the evidence for giving the findings in the matter. So in such premises, I do not want to appreciate the evidence of Rahul Sonkar, (PW1) in elaborate manner. In such premises, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Consequently, this petition is hereby dismissed. However, the applicant is extended a liberty to revive the prayer at subsequent stage after recording the depositions of other material prosecution witnesses in the matter or on some material change in the circumstances. On filing such an application, the same shall be considered in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law.