Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 26 (MP)

Ramkumar @ Ramu v. State of M. P.

2015-01-07

S.K.PALO

body2015
ORDER 1. This is the first application for regular bail under section 439 of the CrPC filed on behalf of the applicant. 2. The applicant is in custody since 28.6.2014 in connection with Crime No.76/2014 registered at Police Station Belgada district Gwalior for the offence punishable under sections 302, 451, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC. 3. It is alleged that at village Gaghauta under Police Station Belgada, the house of the complainant Ganeshiram and applicant Ramkumar @ Ramu is situated opposite to each other. On 26.6.2014 at about 6:00 pm, applicant along with co-accused Jayendra and Shyamu came to the house of complainant and started abusing the complainant. Ramu and Jayendra had country made pistol. They fired towards the house of the complainant. A bullet hit to the mother of Kamal Kishore @ Kallu, who was trying to disperse them. Kamal Kishore went into the house and took out his licensed mouser and fired in the air. 4. On behalf of the applicant, it is submitted that co-accused Shyamu was granted regular bail on 7.11.2014. Applicant is innocent. The offence under section 302 of IPC is not made out against the applicant. If at all any offence is made out, it could be section 308 of IPC. Charge-sheet has been filed. On the above grounds, applicant prayed for regular bail. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the application and submitted that the applicant deliberately fired gun shot knowing well that it will hit someone. Therefore, offence under section 302 of IPC is made out as Vidyabai was hit and she died. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application for bail. 7. It is not the case of the prosecution that the applicant intended to hit Vidyabai. It is also not asserted that the applicant fired at the complainant. However, the gun shot hit Vidyabai and who succumb. 8. Keeping in view that there is no criminal antecedents against the applicant and disposal of case will take considerable time, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it proper to extend the benefit of bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed. 9. However, the gun shot hit Vidyabai and who succumb. 8. Keeping in view that there is no criminal antecedents against the applicant and disposal of case will take considerable time, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it proper to extend the benefit of bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed. 9. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for securing his presence before the concerned Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial. 10. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :- 1. The applicant will not interfere or influence the prosecution witnesses; 2. The applicant will make himself available or represent through his counsel on early date of proceedings 3. The applicant will not indulge in any similar offences during the pendency of the trial. 4. If the applicant found breach of any of the conditions above, the learned trial Court would be at liberty to reconsider on the question of bail. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court for compliance. Sanjay Gupta for applicant; R. P. Rathi, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State; Rajesh Kumar Shukla for complainant.