Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1139 (MP)

Dhona @ Dhyan Singh v. State of M. P.

2015-10-30

D.K.PALIWAL

body2015
ORDER 1. This is third application under section 439 of CrPC. Second bail application has been dismissed as not pressed with a liberty to file fresh application after examination of two witnesses Raisingh and Bhawarsingh (wrongly typed as Bhawar Singh), the correct name of the witness is Gamar Singh. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that Gamar Singh has been examined and Rai Singh is not turning up inspite of service of summons. It is further submitted that applicant is under custody since 31.12.2014. He further submits that Rai Singh is not an eye witness, but according to his statement under section 161 as well as 164 of the CrPC on the date when Mehar Singh was found in unconscious condition, family of the applicant and co-accused Jam Singh were absconding. Mehar Singh was found unconscious near the house of Dhina. On the basis of the aforesaid, he feels that applicant along with Jam Singh has committed murder of Mehar Singh. He prays that in view of the aforesaid statement and in light of the statement of other witnesses, applicant be released on bail. 3. The prayer is opposed by learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State. 4. Case-diary perused. 5. As per prosecution case, Nahar Singh informed the police that he received the information that his brother Mehar Singh is lying unconscious on the way of Pithanpur, he reached the spot and took his brother to Govt. Hospital Gandhwani, from where his brother was taken to private hospital and on 20.12.2014, Mehar Singh was died, merg intimation was recorded. During enquiry, it was found that about 3 years ago, Mehar Singh and his family members have put fish seeds in the pond. Jam Singh forcibly used to catch fishes from the pond. Mehar Singh always objected, but he used to quarrel with him. On 17.12.2014, Rai Singh and Gamar Singh were sitting infront of the school, Jam Singh passed infront of the school, he was drinking liquor and was saying that he murdered Mehar Singh. During investigation, it was found that Chaukidar has seen the incident. According to him, quarrel took place between Jam Singh and the present applicant with Mehar Singh and they were absconding since the date of incident. 6. I have perused the statement of Madiya (PW1) which has been recorded during the trial. During investigation, it was found that Chaukidar has seen the incident. According to him, quarrel took place between Jam Singh and the present applicant with Mehar Singh and they were absconding since the date of incident. 6. I have perused the statement of Madiya (PW1) which has been recorded during the trial. Madiya (PW1) has stated that he saw Jam Singh and Mehar Singh were going, but he doesn't know regarding the incident. This witness has been turned hostile and on cross-examination, he denied that Dhina was quarreling with Mehar Singh. Batu, son of the deceased has stated that Nahar Singh told him that Jam Singh and Dheena are absconding. Hence, he suspect that they have killed his father. Nahar Singh (PW4) says that Rai Singh and Gamar Singh told him that Jam Singh was saying that he has killed Mehar Singh, then he went to the house of Jam Singh and Dhyan Singh, they were absconded. Gamar Singh (PW5) says that Jam Singh was saying that he killed Mehar Singh. When he went to the house of Jam Singh and Dhyan Singh, they were absconded. He further says that Mehar Singh was lying near the house of Dhina. On the basis of it, he suspect that Jam Singh and Dhyan Singh have killed Mehar Singh. Phool Bai, Abhay Singh and Nahar Singh are not the eye witnesses. 7. From the order-sheet filed on behalf of the applicant, it appears that summon was served on Rai Singh for 21.8.2015, but he remained absent and bailable warrant was directed to be issued against him, but on the next date it is not mentioned that whether the warrant has been served or not and the summon has been directed to be issued. The order-sheet dated 13.10.2015, goes to show that summon has been received unserved. 8. According to case-dairy statement and the statement recorded under section 164 of the CrPC, Rai Singh is not an eye-witness. Deceased was found unconscious near the house of the applicant and applicant was absconded along with coaccused. Hence, he suspect that he has killed the deceased. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. Deceased was found unconscious near the house of the applicant and applicant was absconded along with coaccused. Hence, he suspect that he has killed the deceased. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. 10. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant : 1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him; 2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be; 3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be; 4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused; 5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and 6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.