Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 157 (MP)

Manu @ Man Singh v. State of M. P.

2015-02-05

B.D.RATHI

body2015
ORDER 1. Heard on the bail application. 2. Case-diary has been perused. 3. This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under section 439 of the CrPC for grant of bail. 4. Applicant has been arrested on 17.11.2014 in connection with Crime No.132/2014 registered at Police Station, Tendua District Shivpuri for the offence punishable under sections 302, 364, 147, 148, 149 and 120B of IPC. 5. As per prosecution story, the incident has occurred in the evening of 26.8.2014. FIR was lodged by Rameshwar in early morning at about 5:15 a.m. on 27.8.2014 after lapse of 11-12 hours of the incident against Manu alias Man Singh, Dharmendra, Dola, Ummed, Narendra and Aparbal -son-in-law of Manu. The allegations were made that when the complainant was returning with his tractor from Shivpuri, in the way, his brother Karan Singh and son Sanjay Singh both overtook him by motorcycle bearing No.MP33 MF4010 and near Chetambar Ki Puliya, on the basis of political enmity, aforesaid motorcycle was dashed by accused Dharmendra by Indica Car, due to which Karan Singh and Sanjay Singh both fell down on the earth. Thereafter, all the accused persons including the applicant came out of car and Karan Singh and Sanjay Singh were taken away by them in the aforesaid car. Thereafter, complainant reached at his house and narrated the incident to Radhavallabh, Balkishan and Halke. On that information, all the family members of complainant started searching Karan Singh and Sanjay Singh and at about 10:11 p.m. near Kumharwa Road one white Indica Car was found lying in a pit and dead bodies of Karan Singh and Sanjay Singh were found in the agriculture field of Soyabean. It was also alleged that Karan Singh and Sanjay Singh both were assaulted by iron road and Lathi. 6. Prayer for bail was made on the ground that charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter. On perusal of post mortem report, it seems that Karan Singh has received one lacerated wound at parietal occipital bone and fractures were also found at 4th, 5th, 7th and 8th ribs, one burn injury was also found at middle 1/3rd left lower limb and 5 rubbing abrasions were also found. Similarly as per post mortem report of Sanjay, 6 rubbing abrasions were found, one lacerated wound over occipital region was found and fracture at occipital bone was also found. Similarly as per post mortem report of Sanjay, 6 rubbing abrasions were found, one lacerated wound over occipital region was found and fracture at occipital bone was also found. Counsel for the applicant submitted that these injuries shows that Karan Singh and Sanjay Singh both might have met with an accident. It is also submitted that co-accused Ummed Singh has already been enlarged on bail by the trial Court itself though same allegations were levelled against him. Counsel for the applicant drew attention of this Court towards the facts mentioned in the FIR and submitted that the facts of the case reveals that incident of assaulting and beating has not been seen by the complainant – the only eye-witness of the incident but when he saw the injuries of dead bodies, on the basis of previous inimical relationship, at the last of the FIR omnibus allegations were levelled that murder of Karan Singh and Sanjay Singh was committed by assaulting them by the means of iron rod and Lathi. It has also been submitted that statements and contents of FIR lodged by the complainant are not reliable because if the incident has occurred before him then why Karan Singh and Sanjay Singh were not tried to be rescued by him and if he saw that Karan Singh and Sanjay Singh both were kidnapped by the accused persons in a India Car why instead of lodging the FIR to the police or narrating the incident to the villagers, Karan Singh and Sanjay Singh were searched in jungle. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that if Karan Singh and Sanjay Singh were beaten by all the seven accused persons then certainly more injuries should be found present by the doctor over the dead bodies. Applicant has no criminal antecedents. Final disposal of trial shall take time, hence prayed for grant of bail. 7. Prayer for bail was opposed by learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that entire incident was seen by the complainant and prompt report of the incident was lodged, hence in such kind of heinous offence, applicant does not deserve any bail. 8. Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, case-diary has been perused. 9. 7. Prayer for bail was opposed by learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that entire incident was seen by the complainant and prompt report of the incident was lodged, hence in such kind of heinous offence, applicant does not deserve any bail. 8. Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, case-diary has been perused. 9. From perusal of case-diary, it is evident that FIR was lodged by the complainant after lapse of 11 hours of the incident though distance of police station from the place of incident was only 6 kms. Apart that, if the incident has occurred before the complainant then why the prompt report was not lodged ? Why he and other family members went to jungle in search of Karan Singh and Sanjay Singh ? Why villagers were not informed. 10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that disposal of trial shall take time, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the present application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lacs only) with two solvent sureties each of Rs.1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court on the condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during the trial and shall also comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) of CrPC and so also as imposed by the trial Court. 11. A copy of this order be sent for compliance to the Court concerned. P. S. Bhadoriya for applicant; Ms. Nutan Saxena, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State; Rajiv Upadhyay for complainant.