Balram Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7948 MP

                                      1



           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           M.Cr.C. No.10249/2021
             ( Ashish Tiwari & another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)

Jabalpur, Dated 29.11.2021
      Shri Ashish Tiwari, counsel for the petitioners.

      Shri      Nagendra        Solanki,       Panel       Lawyer         for   the

respondent/State.

                                      ORDER

Crime Under Section Police Station Date of Arrest 54/2001 364-A, 302, 307, Lidhora District 21.06.2020 147, 148, 149 of Tikamgarh IPC & 25/27 of Arms Act

As declared by the petitioners, this is the first bail application

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

2- The prosecution case in brief is that on 04.01.2001 a notified

miscreant Bhagwan Singh Thakur and his gang kidnapped some

persons. On receiving information, a battalion of SAF was sent for

rescue. When confronted, both side started firing. Constable

Shivdayal received bullet on the head and died. In a commotion

kidnapped persons also tried to fled away but one of them Bhajanlal

sustained a bullet injury fired by the miscreants. All the miscreants

managed to escape from the spot. The police came back and

registered present Crime No.54/2001 and started investigation.

During the investigation the police arrested Bhagwan Singh,

Santosh, Laxman, Gulab and Gajraj and filed charge sheet. They

were tried and acquitted vide judgment dated 10.09.2004 passed in

S.T. No.274/2001 by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh.

3- At the time of filing of the charge sheet co-accused

Dhansingh, Premi Dhobi, Raghuveer Dheemar, Matadeen, Kalka

Dheemar, Mohanlal Dheemar, Nanga @ Rajkumar Dheemar, and

the present petitioners Balram Ahirwar and Binda @ Vindravan

Dheemar s/o Ramdayal were declared absconding.

4- After about 20 years of the incidence the police have arrested

them on 21.06.2020.

5- It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the

petitioners were not named in the FIR. No witness have named them

in their police statements. There is no other evidence to show that

they were present at the time of the incident. Nothing has been

recovered from their possession. No Test Identification Parade has

been conducted by the police after their arrest. A supplementary

charge sheet has been filed against them which is pending trial. The

incident has taken place 20 years back. So far witnesses cited by the

prosecution in charge sheet are concerned they have left the place

and have changed their place of abode. It is not possible to trace

them and conclude the trial at an early stage. The petitioners were

never absconding in the case. They were not even aware of the

registration of cases against them. They were residing at their home

place in the same village and have never left the village. The police

have never contacted them or informed them about registration of

the crime. They cannot be faulted with the delay caused in filing of

the supplementary charge sheet. Besides, all the co-accused persons

have been acquitted therefore, they be granted bail.

6- Vide order dated 26.10.2021 the same grounds were raised by

the petitioners but the case was adjourned on the request of the

Panel Lawyer that the case diary received in the office was

incomplete and he was not in a position to reply or to rebut the

grounds raised by the petitioner.

7- Today also the learned Panel Lawyer made the same

statement. He referred to a report received from P.S. Lidhora

District Tikamgarh dated 21.11.2021 to the effect that-

^^mijksDr izdj.k esa rkRdkyhu fujh{kd chvkj f}osnh Fkkuk izHkkjh fy/kkSjk ds }kjk Qjkj vkjksfi;ksa dks fdl lk{; ds vk/kkj ij vkjksih cuk;k x;k gS pwfd mijksDr izdj.k djhc 20 o"kZ iqjkuk gS ftlds laca/k esa izkIr ds'k Mk;jh ds vuqlkj Li"V mYys[k fd;k tkuk laHko ugh gSA vr% izdj.k esa Qjkj bZukeh vkjksih gksus ls mDr izdj.k esa Qjkj vkjksih eksgu firk ';kekyky <hej mez 60 lky fuoklh leFkj ftyk >kalh dks fnukad 18-01-20 ,oa c`Unkou firk jken;ky <hej fuoklh fNIkVk Fkkuk leFkj ftyk >klh m0iz0 dks fnukad 21-06-20 ,o cyjke firk VqMw vfgjokj fuoklh cqMsjk?kkV Fkkuk leFkj ftyk >kalh dks

fnukad 12-08-20 dks fxj0 fd;k tkdj eku0 U;k;ky; is'k fd;k x;k gSA izfrosnu Jheku ds le{k lknj izLrqr gSA**

8- Looking to the aforesaid and on due consideration of facts and

circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the

petitioners on bail. Therefore, the petition is allowed.

9- It is directed that the petitioner No.1-Balram Ahirwar and

petitioner No.2-Vindravan Dheemar be released from custody on

their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees

Fifty Thousand Only) each with solvent surety to the satisfaction of

the Trial Court for their appearance before the Trial Court as and

when required further subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioners shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments on frivolous grounds to protract the trial.;

(ii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly allure or make any inducement, threat or promise to the prosecution witnesses, so as to dissuade them from disclosing truth before the Court;

(iii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or involve in any criminal activity;

(iv) In case of their involvement in any other criminal activity or breach of any other aforesaid conditions, the bail granted in this case may also be cancelled.

(Virender Singh) JUDGE

Loretta Digitally signed by MRS.

LORETTA RAJ Date: 2021.11.30 16:16:19 +05'30'