Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 863 (MP)

Durg Singh Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-06-27

RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard with the aid of case diary. 2. This is the third bail application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. Applicant Durg Singh Yadav was arrested on 01.06.2021 in Crime in Crime No.150/2021 registered at Police Station Luvkushnagar, District Chhatarpur for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 341, 294, 323, 324, 506/34 of IPC. 3. The earlier bail applications of the applicant have been dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 25.10.2021 and 19.01.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 46413/2021 and M.Cr.C. No. 254/2022 respectively. 4. As per the prosecution case, on 28.04.2021 when deceased Anantram resident of village Sura was returning to his house after attending the call of nature from forest on the way when he reached near Bhaiyaram's house applicant Durg Singh and co-accused Devi Singh Yadav , Bhaiyaram, Hardayal and came there, they stopped deceased Anantram and abused him. When deceased Anantram objected co-accused Bhaiyaram assaulted him with spear (a pointed objected) due to which he sustained injury in his right hand and co- accused Hardayal assaulted him with an axe on his head due to which he sustained injury on his head. Applicant Durg Singh also assaulted the deceased Anantram with stick on his leg. On hearing shouting Jhallu, Rajaram and Ramesh came to rescue the deceased at that time co-accused Buddh Singh Yadav and Bhagchand also came there. Co-accused Buddh Singh assaulted Jhallu with an axe due to which he sustained injury on his head and co- accused Bhagchand assaulted Jhallu with sticks. Thereafter co-accused Mayaram armed with an axe, co-accused Parasram and Mohan @ Manmohan Yadav armed with stick came there and co-accused Mayaram assaulted Ramesh with an axe due to which he sustained injury in his back and co-accused Parasram and Manmohan Yadav assaulted Ramesh with sticks. Due to the injuries sustained by deceased Anantram in the incident he died on the spot. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence. As per postmortem report deceased Anantram sustained only two injuries and according to FIR those injuries were caused by co-accused Bhaiyaram and Hardayal. Due to the injuries sustained by deceased Anantram in the incident he died on the spot. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence. As per postmortem report deceased Anantram sustained only two injuries and according to FIR those injuries were caused by co-accused Bhaiyaram and Hardayal. He further submitted that though it is alleged that applicant Durg Singh Yadav also assaulted the deceased Anantram with stick on his leg but in the post mortem report of deceased it is mentioned that at the time of postmortem no injury was found on the leg of deceased Anantram which clearly shows that police falsely implicated the applicant in the crime. It is also alleged that in the incident injured Jhallu and Ramesh also sustained injuries but there is no allegation against the applicant that he assaulted them. The applicant has been in custody since 01.06.2021, charge-sheet has been filed and the conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the opposed the prayer and submitted that in the FIR it is mentioned that applicant was also involved in the crime and he also assaulted the deceased Anantram. So, applicant should not be released on bail. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, contention of learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that the applicant is in custody since 01.06.2021, 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 On9y) 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. 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 trial; 3. 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 trial; 3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person ac?uainted 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. 9. C.C. on payment of usual charges.