Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 865 (MP)

Manoj @ Mona Sharma 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 second application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicant Manoj @ Mona Sharma was arrested on 17/11/2021 in connection with Crime No.416/2021 registered at Police Station Pipariya, District Narmadapuram (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 307, 34 of the IPC and Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The first bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 29/03/2022 passed in M.Cr.C.No.14086/2022. 4. As per prosecution case 13/11/2021 at around 08:00 P.M. complainant Gautam Vishwakarma went to new Bus Stand, Pipariya alongwith his friend Abhishek Thakur, where applicant Manoj @ Mona Sharma and co-accused Golu @ Devendra & Shahrukh Khan met them and applicant Mona Sharma abused the complainant and co-accused Golu @ Devendra and Shahrukh Khan assaulted him. Abhishek Thakur rescued him. At that point of time at the behest of co-accused Golu @ Devendra, applicant Manoj @ Mona Sharma fired at complainant/injured Gautam with country made pistol, due to which he sustained gun shot injuries in his back and shoulder. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent a n d has falsely been implicated in the offence. The statement of complainant/injured Gautam (PW-1) and eyewitness of the incident Abhishek Thakur (PW-2) have been recorded by the trial Court. They did not support the prosecution story regarding involvement of applicant in the crime and turned hostile. The applicant has been in custody since 17/11/2021. The charge-sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, hence it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer. 7. They did not support the prosecution story regarding involvement of applicant in the crime and turned hostile. The applicant has been in custody since 17/11/2021. The charge-sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, hence it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention of learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that the statement of complainant/injured Gautam (PW-1) and eyewitness of the incident Abhishek Thakur (PW-2) have been recorded by the trial Court, so there is no apprehension of tempering with the prosecution evidence by the applicant on releasing him on bail, the applicant is in custody since 17/11/2021, the charge- sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on 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 concerned 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. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acBuainted 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.