Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 935 (MP)

Dilip Yadav v. State of M. P.

2014-08-01

M.K.MUDGAL

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. The applicant has filed this first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested by PS Phooph District Bhind in Crime No. 94 of 2013 registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 294 of IPC and 11, 13 of MPDVPK Act. 2. The case diary is received from concerned Police Station. After investigation, charge sheet has already been filed on 5.12.2013. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not directly or indirectly involved in the aforesaid crime and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submits that FIR was lodged by eye witness Anoop Singh Cleaner of the truck against the three unknown persons committing the alleged incident. However, no identification parade was got conducted of the applicant accused Dilip by alleged eye witness in this case, whereas, other co-accused Bholu alias Bholaram was identified by him on 17.4.2013 in the identification parade conducted by Naib Tehsildar. Counsel further pleads that the applicant-accused has been implicated in this case on the basis of statement of co-accused Bholaram recorded on 8.6.2013 under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The recovery regarding articles i.e. photo copy of Voter card and driving license of deceased from the applicant-accused is totally false and fabricated as there was no reason for him to keep the aforesaid papers in his possession. Further, there is no eye witness in this case to connect the applicant-accused in the aforesaid crime. The applicant accused has been in jail since 20.8.2013 and disposal of this case will take time. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prayed for grant of bail. 4. Learned PP opposed the submissions made on behalf of the applicant and prayed for it's rejection. 5. On perusal of case diary, it is apparent that FIR was lodged by Anoop Singh cleaner of the truck against three unknown persons and it has been specifically stated by him that he could identify the person involved in the alleged crime. Indisputably, no identification parade of the applicant-accused was got conducted by the prosecution from alleged eye witness. 5. On perusal of case diary, it is apparent that FIR was lodged by Anoop Singh cleaner of the truck against three unknown persons and it has been specifically stated by him that he could identify the person involved in the alleged crime. Indisputably, no identification parade of the applicant-accused was got conducted by the prosecution from alleged eye witness. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court on the condition that he shall remain present before the court concerned during trial. Case diary is returned. A copy of this order be sent to the court concerned for information. CC as per rules.