Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prem Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 June, 2022
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY
ON THE 27th OF JUNE, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4998 of 2022
Between:-
PREM LAL S/O PADARI THAKRE, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURER, R/O
VILLAGE- JAITPUR CHOWKI, KHAMARPANI,
POLICE STATION BICHUA DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI H.K. GOLHANI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION BICHHUA DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. GYANWATI W/O LATE SURYABYAN UIKE R/O
VILLAGE JAITPUR CHOWKI, KHAMARPANI,
POLICE STATION BICHHUA, DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRADEEP GUPTA, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE
SHRI ABHISHEK GOSWAMY, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.2/OBJECTOR)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Case diary perused and arguments heard.
This first criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) of SC/ST
Signature Not Verified
SAN
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated 26.11.2021 passed
Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL
Date: 2022.06.27 17:30:55 IST
by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Chhindwara, in B.A.
No.1160/2021, whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed
by appellant Prem Lal under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime
No.248/2021 registered at Police Station Bichhua, District Chhindwara for the
offences punishable under Section 302, 201, 120B of IPC, Section 3 (1) (Z) (B)
, 3 (2)(v) (i) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
As per the prosecution case, on 09/09/2021 Smt. Gyanwati wife of
deceased Suryabhan lodged a missing person report regarding missing of her
husband Suryabhan. On that police registered missing person case at Police
Station Bichhua, District Chhindwara and inquired the matter. During inquiry on
09/09/2021 dead body of deceased Suryabhan was found in the forest of
Jaitpur and in the postmortem it was found that deceased Suryabhan died due
to antemortem injury and it was also found that appellant Premlal, co-accused
Ganesh and Rajesh murdered him. On that, police registered Crime
No.248/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 302, 201, 120B of IPC,
Section 3 (1) (Z) (B), 3 (2)(v) (i) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and
arrested the appellant on 14.09.2021. On that, appellant filed an application
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was rejected by
the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide order
dated 26.11.2021. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this
Criminal Appeal.
In total, this is third appeal filed by the appellant and earlier first and
second appeal filed by the appellant have been dismissed as withdrawn by this
Court vide orders dated 18.01.2022 and 18.04.2022 passed in Cr. Appeal
Nos.7241/2021 & 2853/2022.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is innocent and
Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL
Date: 2022.06.27 17:30:55 IST
has falsely been implicated in the offence. There is no direct evidence on record
to connect the appellant with the crime. Police only on the basis of
circumstantial evidence implicated the appellant in the crime. It is alleged that
deceased Suryabhan was last seen with the appellant and co-accused persons
but only on that basis it cannot be said that appellant murdered deceased. The
appellant has been in custody since 14.09.2021 and the conclusion of trial will
take time, hence prayed for release of the appellant on bail. In this regard, he
also placed reliance on Apex Court judgments passed in the case of Tulesh
Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No.753/2021
vide order dated 24.02.2022 and Anjan Kumar Sarma & Ors. v. State of
Assam reported in (2017) 14 SCC 359.
Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the objector
opposed the prayer and submitted that sufficient evidence is available on record
to connect the appellant with the crime. So he should not be released on bail.
In the above mentioned judgments as relied by the learned counsel for the
appellant, the Hon'ble Apex Court after appreciating all the evidence at the stage
of judgment found that there is no sufficient evidence to connect the applicant
with the crime and acquitted the applicant while in this case trial is going on. So,
these judgments do not assist the applicant.
It is alleged that appellant Premlal, co-accused Ganesh and Rajesh were
last seen with the deceased Suryabhan on the fateful night. So, looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to
the appellant. Hence, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
However, it appears from the record that appellant is in custody since
Signature Not Verified
SAN
14.09.2021 and the trial is still pending, therefore, the trial Court is expected to
Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL
expedite the trial and dispose of the same as early as possible.
Date: 2022.06.27 17:30:55 IST
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for information and
compliance.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
(ra)
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL
Date: 2022.06.27 17:30:55 IST
