Madhya Pradesh High Court
Uma Bharti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 April, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.20721/2022
Uma Bharti Vs. State of M.P.
Gwalior, Dated:26/04/2022
Shri D.R. Sharma, Counsel for applicant.
Shri A.K. Nirankari, Counsel for State.
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 16/11/2021 in connection
with Crime No.204/2021 registered by Police Station Indar, District
Shivpuri for offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 147, 148,
149 of IPC.
It is submitted by Counsel for applicant that the incident is
alleged to have taken place on 12.11.2021 at about 8:30-9:00 in the
night whereas Dehati Nalishi was lodged on 13.11.2021 at 7:00 Am.
Initially Dehati Nalishi was lodged against eight persons. The
statements of the witnesses were also recorded but later on
supplementary statements were recorded and in those supplementary
statements, they disowned the presence and participation of
Ravindra, Durgesh, Mohit, Nirmal and Danveer who were named as
assailants in Dehati Nalishi. It is further submitted that the police has
recorded the statements of Rakesh Kevat. The statement of Rakesh
Kevat was also recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C in which he had
stated that some dispute arose between Shambhu and deceased and
accordingly Shambhu gave a lathi blow on the forehead of the
deceased. Lakhan has stated that deceased had illicit relationship
2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.20721/2022
Uma Bharti Vs. State of M.P.
with wife of Shambhu Lodhi which was being objected by Shambhu
Lodhi and one day prior to date of incident also, the co-accused
Shambhu Lodhi had seen the deceased near his house and
accordingly he had caught his collar and on that issue, deceased was
killed by Shambhu Lodhi. It is submitted that even if the entire
allegations are accepted, then it is clear that the applicant has been
implicated mainly because it has been alleged that she had illicit
relationship with the deceased. Bhaiyan in his earlier statement under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. had claimed himself to be an eyewitness of the
assault by eight persons, but later on in his supplementary statement
he claimed that he was informed by Rakesh Kevat. Rakesh Kevat in
his statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has not alleged anything
against the applicant. Even her presence is also not mentioned.
Bhaiyan in his statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. had merely
stated that the applicant was plastering with cow dung (Gobar
Leepna). The trial is likely to take sufficiently long time and there is
no possibility of his absconding or tampering with prosecution case.
It is submitted that the co-accused Chintu Lal has already been
granted bail by this Court by order dated 12/4/2022 passed in
M.Cr.C. No.18057/2022.
Per contra, the application is opposed by the Counsel for the
respondent/State.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Considering the statements of the witnesses as well as the
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.20721/2022
Uma Bharti Vs. State of M.P.
period of detention, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a
fit case for grant of bail.
Accordingly, 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/-
(Rupees 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.
Certified copy as per rule.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
Arun*
ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
2022.04.27 14:47:18 +05'30'
