Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 473 (MP)

Shubham Yadav v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2020-04-24

ATUL SREEDHARAN

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. On account of the prevailing conditions worldwide, brought about by the COVID 19 virus, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing, to maintain social distancing. The necessary parties have effectively been represented by their respective counsels through video conferencing. The Applicant is an accused in Crime No. 377/19 registered at P.S. Bagsevaniya, District Bhopal, under sections 302, 201/34, 120-B of IPC and 25 of Arms Act. 2. The present application has been filed by the Applicant who is in judicial custody since 28/05/19 for the aforementioned offences. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant has stated that the Applicant is innocent and has been wrongly implicated in this case by the police. According to him, the Applicant has been implicated in the case solely based on the memorandum under section 27 of the Evidence Act of the co-accused as well as his own memorandum under section 27. He has further stated that no recovery has been made from the Applicant herein. 3. Ld. Counsel for the State, while opposing the application, has submitted that the Applicant has actively participated in the offence and was one of the four persons, besides the main accused who had stabbed the deceased. Ld. Counsel for the State has also read out from the statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C of an eyewitness, Ajay Narwade. Admittedly, this witness has not taken the name of the Applicant in the 164 statement but has referred to four other persons involved in the offence. Ld. Counsel for the State has also submitted, upon a query by this court, that no test identification parade was carried out to identify whether the Applicant was one of the four other persons involved in the crime. The facts pertain to the murder of one Vimal by the co-accused persons and the Applicant. 4. Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that prima facie, there is no direct evidence relating to the involvement of the Applicant herein and he has been roped in with the assistance of the 27 memorandum of the co-accused and also that of the Applicant himself, and that Applicant has been in judicial custody since 28/05/19 and there is very little scope of an early conclusion of the trial, this Court is inclined to allow the application. Under the circumstances, the application is allowed for the reasons recorded hereinabove. 5. Under the circumstances, the application is allowed for the reasons recorded hereinabove. 5. The Applicant shall be released from custody upon furnishing a personal bond of ? 50,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Ld. Court below. The prison authorities are also requested to ensure compliance with the order passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 1/2020 and ensure, that the Applicant is examined by the jail doctor before his release. 6. If the Applicant shows symptoms of COVID 19, the doctor shall forthwith direct him to be produced before the appropriate hospital designated for the detection and treatment of COVID 19 patients. If the doctor is of the opinion that the Applicant is not affected with the virus, the jail authorities shall ensure his transportation from the jail till his place of residence. With the above the application is finally disposed of. A typed copy of this order is being forwarded to the Office of the Advocate General and to Mr. Rajeshwar Rao, Ld. Govt. Advocate, on their respective email address, for intimation to the Police Station concerned. The office is requested to forward a copy of this order to the Ld. Court below.