Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 205 (MP)

Guddi Bai & Ashok v. State Of M. P.

2020-02-10

VIRENDER SINGH

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This is the first appeal/bail application under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by appellants Guddi Bai and Ashok , who have been arrested by Police on 12/06/2019 in Crime No.365/2019, Police Station- Petlawad, District-Jhabua, in connection with offence under Sections 302, 201, 120-B of IPC and under Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Arguments heard with the help of case-diary. 3. Prosecution case in brief is that on 03/06/2019 at 11 in the night, the deceased Narsingh left home and never returned back. Her wife Guddi Bai lodged missing person report on 05/06/2019, stating that she tried to search her husband along with his brother-in-law (elder brother of the deceased) but in vain, therefore, she is intimating the fact to the police. On 07/06/2019, dead body of Narsingh was discovered. On postmortem, it was found that the death was due to homicidal injury on the head caused by some sharp object and duration of death was about 96 hours. The police registered the case and investigated the same. 4. During investigation, it emerged that wife of the deceased petitioner Guddi Bai was having some illicit relations with the petitioner Ashok. The deceased came to know and objected for the same, therefore, they connived and in furtherance of conspiracy hatched by them, Ashok killed the deceased and threw his dead body with the help of Gattu. 5. During investigation, the police recovered an axe and bloodstained clothes of petitioner Ashok and sent them to FSL for chemical analysis. The report is awaited. 6. Further call details showing frequent contact and conversation between both petitioner Guddi Bai and Ashok were also obtained by the police. 7. Therefore, concluding that the petitioners have murdered the deceased, the police have filed the chargesheet. 8. The bail is pleaded on the grounds that all 14 witnesses have been examined before the trial Court and and have not supported the case of the prosecution. They have been declared hostile. Brother of the deceased Jitendra (P.W.1) has stated that both the petitioners were having illicit relations but in cross-examination, he has denied such allegation. Witnesses of seizure of axe and clothes also have not supported the case of the prosecution. Mobile phones of the petitioners have not been recovered/seized by the police. They have been declared hostile. Brother of the deceased Jitendra (P.W.1) has stated that both the petitioners were having illicit relations but in cross-examination, he has denied such allegation. Witnesses of seizure of axe and clothes also have not supported the case of the prosecution. Mobile phones of the petitioners have not been recovered/seized by the police. There is no evidence that the call details belongs to the mobile numbers of the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners be granted bail. 9. Learned public prosecutor for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer for bail, however, has not denied the facts narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 10. I have gone through the record. 11. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 23.01.2020 is hereby set aside. 12. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the appellants in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) each with separate solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, they shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions that:- (i) The appellants shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend the trial Court during the trial: (ii) The appellants shall not directly or indirectly allure or make any inducement, thereat or promise to prosecution witnesses so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court. (iii) The appellants shall not commit any offence or involve in any criminal activities; (iv) In case, any default in attendance before the Court or involvement in any other criminal activities is found, the bail granted in this case may also be cancelled.