Mohd. Sakeel Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3342 MP

                                                                        1                           MCRC-34718-2020
                                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                        MCRC-34718-2020
                                                     (MOHD. SAKEEL KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


                                      Jabalpur, Dated : 15-07-2021
                                            Heard through Video Conferencing.

                                            Shri Aseem Trivedi, counsel for the applicant.
                                            Shri Ajay Tamrakar, PL for the respondent/State.

Case diary perused.

This is the first bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for

grant of bail. Applicant Mohd. Sakeel Khan was arrested on 25/01/2019 in connection with Crime No.528/2019 registered at Police Station Cantt. Sagar, District Sagar (MP) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 294, 302 alternatively Section 302 r/w 149 & 506 Part II of IPC.

As per the prosecution case on 25/10/2019 applicant Mohd. Shakil and co-accused Latif, Subodh Vishwakarma, Nisar, Devi Singh and Sanju @ Sanjay after pouring kerosene set ablaze deceased Mohammad Dost, due to which he sustained burn injuries and died. Thus, they murdered deceased Mohammad Dost.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence. Deceased himself committed suicide and falsely implicated the applicant in the crime. The statements of alleged eyewitnesses of the incident namely Haider (PW/3), Mohammad Sabir (PW/4) and Mohammad Younis (PW/5) have been recorded by the trial Court. They did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile, which clearly shows that Police falsely implicated the applicant in the crime. He further submitted that the statement of the Executive Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased has been recorded by the trial court. There are many contradiction and omissions in his statement so the dying declaration also become doubtful. The applicant has been in custody since 25.01.2019. Charge-sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, Signature Not Verified SAN hence prayed for the release of the applicant on bail. In this regard, he also Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 2021.07.15 18:02:17 IST 2 MCRC-34718-2020 placed reliance on Apex Court judgment passed in the case of Shaikh Bakshu and others v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2007) 11 SCC

Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that in the dying declaration of deceased himself it is mentioned

that applicant and other co-accused after pouring kerosene set ablaze him, due to which he sustained burn injuries, so he should not be released on bail.

The facts of the case of Bakshu and others v. State of Maharashtra (supra) do not match with the present case. In that case before receiving the information of the incident to the police Executive Magistrate recorded the dying declaration of the deceased so in the circumstances of that case Hon'ble Apex Court found the dying declaration doubtful while in this case earlier deceased lodged the report dehati nalasi (FIR) before the police thereafter the Executive Magistrate recorded the dying declaration of the deceased so that judgment do not assist the applicant.

The Executive Magistrate in his statement clearly deposed that he recorded the statement of the deceased. The veracity of the statement of the Executive Magistrate cannot be ascertained by evaluating his statement on merits at this stage. So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the dying declaration of the deceased, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, M.Cr.C. is dismissed.

However, it appears from the record that applicant is in custody since 25.01.2019 and the trial is still pending, therefore, it is expected from the trial Court to dispose of the case as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for information and necessary compliance.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE

Signature Not Verified SAN (ra)

Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 2021.07.15 18:02:17 IST 3 MCRC-34718-2020

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 2021.07.15 18:02:17 IST