Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1204 (MP)

Bhagwan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-09-27

SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. They are heard. Perused the case diary/challan papers. This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as he/she is implicated in connection with Crime No.441/2021 registered at Police Station Makdon, District Ujjain (MP) for offence punishable under Section 302, 147, 148, 149, 34 of IPC, Section 25 of Arms Act. The applicant is in custody since 17/08/2022. 2. Allegation against the applicant is of murder. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that earlier the applicant had approached this Court by filing an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in M.Cr.C. No.38065/2022 and this Court while dismissing the application on 16/08/2022 had also directed the applicant to surrender before the Trial Court within a week's time and the applicant in compliance of the aforesaid order has also surrendered before the Trial Court and had preferred an application for regular bail but the same has been rejected. Counsel has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case only because of his political clout as he belongs to congress party and his wife had contested election of Gram Panchayat and had won against Udaysingh S/o Kamal Singh of BJP who is a closed relative of the deceased. 3. Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant was not present on the spot when the incident took place although his name is mentioned in the FIR as the person who was having a gun in his hand at the time of incident and had threatened the complainant party not to intervene when the deceased Ramchandra was being assaulted. It is also submitted that only an air gun has been seized from the possession of the applicant and there is no allegation that he in nay manner participated in the assault on the deceased. 4. Counsel has also submitted that the complainant party has criminal antecedents and has also drawn the attention of this Court to the criminal cases filed against the complainant party including the deceased Ramchandra. It is submitted that the sons of the deceased were also involved in a case under Section 307 of IPC and other cases and that the other co-accused, father of the applicant Ambaram has already been given clean chit as his plea of alibi has been found to be correct. Thus, it is submitted that the application be allowed. 5. It is submitted that the sons of the deceased were also involved in a case under Section 307 of IPC and other cases and that the other co-accused, father of the applicant Ambaram has already been given clean chit as his plea of alibi has been found to be correct. Thus, it is submitted that the application be allowed. 5. Counsel for the objector, on the other hand has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the applicant's name is also mentioned in the FIR as he was present on the spot and stopped the other persons of the complainant party who tried to intervene and to save the deceased from being assaulted. It is further submitted that the date of incident is 08/11/2021 whereas the applicant has been arrested only in the month of August, 2022 and thus looking to his abcontion and his overt act, no case for grant of bail is made out. 6. Counsel for the respondent/State has also opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for grant of bail is made out. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as also the documents filed on record. 8. From the record, it is found that so far as the deceased Ramchandra is concerned, he has suffered various injuries in the assault and although only six injuries have been mentioned by the Doctor but the Doctor has also opined that multiple lacerations were also found on the body of the deceased and the cause of death is said to be cardio respiratory arrest due to heavy blood loss. It is true that it is not alleged against the applicant that he also took part in the assault or fired any shot as he was holding a gun, but looking to the fact that his name appears in the FIR itself, no case for grant of bail is made out. 9. M.Cr.C. is accordingly dismissed. However, the applicant shall be at liberty to renew his prayer after the complainant Vikram Singh Gurjar is examined in the Trial Court.