Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chhotu @ Chhotelal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2021
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-48343-2021
Chhotu @ Chhotelal Vs. State of M.P.
Gwalior, Dated : 29/10/2021
Shri P.S. Bhadoriya along-with Shri Ashish Singh Bhadoriya,
Counsel for applicant.
Shri C.P. Singh, Counsel for State.
Shri V.D. Sharma, Counsel for complainant.
Case diary is available.
This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for
grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested on 03.03.2021 in connection
with Crime No.603/2020 registered by Police Station Ambah, District
Morena for offence punishable under Sections 307, 34 of IPC and
Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act.
It is submitted by Counsel for the applicant that the
complainant party had murdered the father of applicant on 02.08.2020
and the FIR was also lodged. The applicant was a witness in the said
murder case. It is alleged that few hours thereafter i.e. in the
intervening night of 2nd - 3rd August, 2020, at about 1:30 am, applicant
along-with his brother went to the house of complainant party who
are facing trial for murder of father of applicant and fired a gunshot
causing injury on the leg of a minor boy. It is submitted that it appears
that the information was sent by the District hospital Morena to the
police station to the effect that one boy in an injured condition has
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-48343-2021
Chhotu @ Chhotelal Vs. State of M.P.
been brought and he has been referred to J.A. Hospital, Gwalior. The
said information was recorded in Rojnamcha-sana but the Police did
not record the statements of the witnesses and statements under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C were recorded on 16.01.2021. It is submitted
that in fact the applicant has been falsely implicated in order to
pressurize him to enter into compromise in the case of murder of his
father. The trial is likely to take sufficiently long time and there is no
possibility of his absconding or tampering with prosecution case.
Since the arguments with regard to delayed recording of
statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C were raised on the previous
date, therefore, Counsel for State was directed to call for the
statements of witnesses recorded during preliminary enquiry.
It is submitted by Shri C.P. Singh that as per the record, the
statements of some of the witnesses were recorded for the first time
on 18.08.2020 and the statements of some other witnesses were
recorded on 23.08.2020. It is submitted that since injured was
admitted in hospital and he was in a critical condition and ultimately
his leg was amputated, therefore, there is some delay in recording the
statements which will not give any dent to prosecution case. Counsel
for complainant has also argued in the similar lines.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Morena is hardly 35 kilometers away from Gwalior. According
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-48343-2021
Chhotu @ Chhotelal Vs. State of M.P.
to Rojnamacha, the information was sent by District Hospital Morena
that a boy has been brought in injured condition who has been
referred to J.A. Hospital, Gwalior. According to Shri V.D. Sharma
injured remained in J.A. Hospital Gwalior till 10.08.2020 and
thereafter he was shifted to Agra where he remained hospitalized up
to 18.08.2020. Thus, it is clear that enquiry officer had sufficient time
to come to Gwalior and record the statements of witnesses but Shri
Singh could not explain as to why the enquiry officer did not take any
pain to travel to a distance of 35 kilometers to record the statements
of witnesses. Thereafter, the injured remained hospitalized in Agra
and even the enquiry officer did not take any pain to rush to Agra for
recording the statements of witnesses and the statements were
recorded for the first time of some witnesses on 18.08.2020.
Be that as it may.
The Police must realize the importance of prompt recording of
statements and adverse effects of delayed recording of statements. In
the present case, father of the applicant was murdered just few hours
prior to the alleged date and time of incident. It is undisputed that FIR
regarding murder of father of applicant has already been lodged
against husband, father-in-law and two brothers-in-law of
complainant.
Considering the delayed recording of statements in preliminary
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-48343-2021
Chhotu @ Chhotelal Vs. State of M.P.
enquiry as well as coupled with the fact father of applicant was killed
just a few hours prior to the date and time of incident as well as the
fact that applicant is in jail from 03.03.2021, and without commenting
on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that
the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One Lac Only) with one surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Committal Court to
appear before the Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.
This order shall remain effective till the end of the trial but in
case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the
case of Aparna Bhat & Ors. vs. State of M.P. passed on 18/3/2021
in Criminal Appeal No.329/2021, the intimation regarding grant of
bail be sent to the complainant.
It is observed that the observations made in this order are
confined to the bail application and the Trial Court shall decide the
trial on its own merits without getting influenced by any of the
observation.
Certified copy as per rule.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
Aman
AMAN TIWARI
2021.10.29
16:40:35 +05'30'
