Ronak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 937 MP

                                     1



       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
              BENCH AT INDORE
             M.Cr.C. No.62682/2021
Ronak S/o Manohar Gurjar, aged about 32 years, Occupation Business,
R/o 411, Sandipani Nagar, Dhancha Bhawan, District Ujjain, M.P.
                             Verus
State of M.P. through P.S. Chimanganj, District Ujjain, M.P.

Indore, dated :19/01/2022
         Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
         Ms. Geetanjali Chaurasia, learned Panel Lawyer
for the respondent/State.
         Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the
Respondent [OBJ].

                            ***

This is First bail application under Section 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 664/2019 registered at Police-Station- Chimanganj, District- Ujjain for commission of the offence under Section 307/34 of I.P.C.

As per prosecution story, the applicant along with his son and four others came and caused the gun shot injury to the complainant. There is a previous enmity between the parties and as many as three cases have been registered against the son of the present applicant in respect of same enmity. The applicant is also having a strong criminal history. The injured Rahul has already made complaint to the Inspector General of Police against present applicant for threat of life.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that

applicant is in jail since 14.07.2019. Material witnesses including complainant has been examined before the trial court although the complainant is supporting the case of prosecution but out of 26 witnesses only five witnesses have been examined, therefore, trial will take considerable time. The applicant is not keeping good health. He suffered multiple fracture and because of operation, complication has been arrived. The doctor has advised him for removal of iron road from his leg. It is further submitted that since the complainant has been examined, thus there is no question to influence him. The trial court has rejected the bail application because of criminal antecedents. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred the cross- examination of the complainant in which he has admitted that earlier he and applicant were involved in various criminal cases. Counsel for the applicant further submits that he has filed various judgment to show that in most of criminal case, he has been acquitted by the trial court . Last 2-3 years no fresh case has been registered against the applicant, hence, he may kindly be enlarged on bail.

Panel Lawyer as well as learned counsel for the objector vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant by submitting that this applicant is habitual offender, if he released on bail, he will not appear in the trial and there is chance to commit the offence again by him. Learned counsel for the objector further submits that this applicant fired four gun shot out of which one has hit on the back of the complainant/Injured. Hence, application is liable to be rejected.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused case diary.

The applicant as well as complainant/injured both have criminal history. This applicant is in jail since 14.07.2019. Other co-accused have been granted bail. The complainant and other eye witnesses have been examined. There is previous enmity between the applicant and complainant and counter case has been registered against him.

Considering the facts and circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

Certified copy as per rules.

(VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE praveen

PRAVEEN NAYAK 2022.01.20 10:17:10 +05'30'