Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 513 (MP)

Chandu @ Chandprakash Raikwar v. State of M. P.

2019-07-12

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI

body2019
ORDER 1. Case Diary is perused. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. 3. The applicant has filed this second repeat application under section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail. The first application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 8.2.2019 passed in MCRC No. 4235/2019. The applicant has been arrested on 25.7.2018 by Police StationGanjbasoda, District- Vidisha in connection with Crime No. 80/2018 registered in relation to the offence punishable under sections 294, 323, 324, 506 and 34 of the IPC and further added sections 326 of the IPC. 4. Prosecution story, in short is that the complainant- Neetu has lodged the report on 9.2.2018 at police station concerned to the effect that at about 9:00 p.m. in the night when she was going along with her cousin brother -Ankit towards her house by walking and on the way at Geeta Talkies road in front of Saraf Sahab house, the present applicant and co-accused Sonu met them. The applicant demanded mobile phone from her cousin brother- Ankit, which was denied by Ankit on which the accused persons used filthy language and the applicant took Knife from the co-accused Sonu and assaulted with Knife on Ankit, due to which, Ankit sustained injuries on his stomach and right hand. On the basis of aforesaid, the applicant has been implicated in the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 19 years of age and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution story. Charge sheet has been filed and further custodial interrogation is not required in the matter. Coaccused - Saurabh Balmiki has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 20.8.2018 passed in MCRC No. 32545/2018. The applicant is in jail since 25.7.2018 and early conclusion of the trial is bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention is an anathema to the concept of liberty. Under these grounds, applicant prays for grant of bail. 6. 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 bail is made out. 7. Under these grounds, applicant prays for grant of bail. 6. 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 bail is made out. 7. After hearing aforesaid arguments and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as custody, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) with two solvent sureties each of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. 8. 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. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.