Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 89 (MP)

Veer Singh v. State of M. P.

2015-01-23

SHEEL NAGU

body2015
ORDER 1. Case Diary is perused. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. 3. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with offences punishable under sections 302/34 of IPC registered as Crime No.196/2012 at Police Station Pawai, District Bhind. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on order dated 25.7.2014 passed in MCrC.No.3210/2014 in regard to co-accused, Mangal Singh. 6. As per prosecution story, police was informed that a dead body of Sanjay is lying near Canal (Nahar). On the basis of information Marg No.07/09 has been registered. During inquiry no evidence has been found, thereafter a private complaint has been lodged and filed before the JMFC, Bhind. During inquiry the statement of witnesses have been recorded. On the basis of statement of Jaswant Lal that on 21.5.2009 Mangal Singh telephoned the deceased Sanjay and called him thereafter Sanjay did not returned. Usha has disclosed that Mangal has called Sanjay and she saw Mangal Singh, and Meena gave him beating and his brother Veer Singh was standing outside of the door, she asked Veer Singh to let her go to Mangal Singh. On the basis of aforesaid statement learned Magistrate had directed to register the complaint against Mangal Singh and Meena Devi. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. During inquiry no evidence has been found against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. 8. Case is perused. On perusal of the post-mortem report of the deceased, it appears that the mode of death is cardio respiratory failure and manner could not ascertained, Viscera was preserved. In respect of query it is informed that body was decomposed and there was post-mortem injury due to decomposition. During inquiry Seema, wife of deceased in her statement disclosed that on 30.5.2009 at about 11:30 Mangal Singh telephoned her husband. Her husband told that Mangal Singh has called him thereafter her husband did not returned. On the next day she found that her husband has been died. During inquiry Seema, wife of deceased in her statement disclosed that on 30.5.2009 at about 11:30 Mangal Singh telephoned her husband. Her husband told that Mangal Singh has called him thereafter her husband did not returned. On the next day she found that her husband has been died. Shanti Devi, mother of deceased and Jaswant, father of deceased have also stated that Seema informed them that Mangal Singh called her husband. Mantole has stated that deceased was unloading the goods in the house of Mangal Singh then he has received a telephone thereafter deceased left the place. A report has been submitted by the SHO to the JMFC regarding the complaint lodged by Jaswant. In the report is is mentioned that in the viscera the quantity of ethy alcohol has been found 181 mg. out of 100 gm, and no poison has been found. 9. In the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the case of the applicant appears to be better than co-accused as no overt act has been attributed to the applicant except his presence at the scene of crime. 10. Accordingly, without expressing opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow this application under section 438 CrPC in the following terms. 11. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each of Rs. 25,000/- to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority. 12. 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. 7. 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. 7. The applicant shall mark his attendance once every fortnight before the concerned trial Court. 13. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance. Arun Pateria for applicant; Praveen Newaskar, Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.