Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1068 (MP)

Babloo @ Nilendra Rai v. State Of M. P.

2020-10-09

RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY

body2020
JUDGMENT Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J. - The proceeding was convened through video conferencing. 2. This is second application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 3. Applicant Babloo @ Nilendra Rai was arrested on 26/4/2019 in Crime No.163/2018 registered at Police Station-Jatara, District-Tikamgarh (M.P) for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC. 4. The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 04.07.2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 19658/2019. 5. As per prosecution story, on 23/5/2018 Dr. Suresh Sharma, who was posted at CHC Jatara sent a report to PS Jatara through Bharat Valmiki, Sweeper that Ravindra @ Rajendra Pal was taken to hospital in a serious condition, he had referred him to District Hospital Tikamgarh for further treatment but he died. On that, Police registered Marg No.16/18 at PS Jatara Tikamgarh and enquired into the matter. Thereafter, on the same day i.e. on 23/5/2018 complainant Vrindavan Pal, father of deceased Rajendra lodged a report at P.S. Jatara Distt. Tikamgarh averring that his son Ravindra @ Rajendra Pal worked as operator on Bablu Rai's JCB Machine. On 21/5/2018, co-accused Narendra, Sonu Rai and brother of Bablu Rai took his son Rajendra with them and applicant Bablu Rai and co-accused Sonu Rai and Narendra murdered him. On that, police registered Crime No.163/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC and investigated the matter and during investigation, it was found that the applicant and coaccused Narendra, Sonu Rai and Dabbu Rai had assaulted him and also pressed him by JCB machine, due to which he sustained injuries and died thus they murdered him. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence. There is no direct evidence on record to connect the applicant with the crime. On the date of incident, deceased consumed liquor and drove the JCB machine in the influence of liquor due to which, he fell down from JCB machine and sustained injuries and died due to rupture of liver. Police falsely implicated the applicant in the crime. Although, it is alleged that Rampal and Bhupendra Richhariya saw the alleged incident but Additional Superintendent of Police, Tikamgarh further investigated the matter and found that according to the mobile location of these persons, it appears that they were not present on the spot at the time of incident. Police falsely implicated the applicant in the crime. Although, it is alleged that Rampal and Bhupendra Richhariya saw the alleged incident but Additional Superintendent of Police, Tikamgarh further investigated the matter and found that according to the mobile location of these persons, it appears that they were not present on the spot at the time of incident. Even otherwise there is no evidence on record to show that the applicant assaulted the deceased with the intent to murdered him. It is alleged that applicant assaulted deceased by kicks and fists. It is further submitted that although earlier bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits by this court vide order dated 19658/2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 19658/2019 on the ground that in the case diary statements of eyewitnesses of Rampal and Bhupendra Richhariya it is mentioned that applicant and co-accused assaulted the deceased due to which he sustained injuries and died. While the statements of Rampal (PW-3) and Bhupendra Richhariya (PW-7) have been recorded by the trial court. Rampal (PW-3) did not state anything against the applicant only Bhupendra Richhariya (PW-7) deposed against the applicant. There are many contradictions and omissions in his statement. Co-accused Narendra Singh has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 27.07.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 6580/2020. The applicant is in custody since 26/4/2019. Charge sheet has been filed and the conclusion of trial is likely to take a long time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent / State opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant has criminal past, so he should not be released on bail. 8. Although earlier bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits but thereafter statements of Rampal (PW-3) and Bhupendra Richhariya (PW-7) have been recorded by the trial court, so looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that co-accused Narendra Singh has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 27.07.2020 in M.Cr.C. No. 6580/2020, the applicant is in custody since 26/04/2019, charge-sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned C.J.M/trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial. 9. 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 trial; 3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him 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 prior permission of the trial Court. 10. C.C. on payment of usual charges.