Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neeraj Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 March, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.11084/2022
(NEERAJ AHIRWAR VS. STATE OF M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated : 24/03/2022
Shri Yagyadatt Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rohit Mishra, learned counsel for the State.
It is made clear that the case diary of Crime No. 520/2021
registered at Police Station Dehad Basoda, District Vidisha has been
received.
Heard on I.A.No.4556/2022 has been filed seeking amendment
in the bail application.
It is submitted that by mistake the Police Station Tyonda has
been mentioned in place of Police Station Dehat Basoda, District
Vidisha, therefore, the applicant may be permitted to amend the bail
application.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed.
Let the amendment be carried out in the Court itself after due
permission.
This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been
filed for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested on 15/02/2022 in connection
with Crime No.520/2021 registered at Police Station Dehat Basoda,
District Vidisha for offence under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506, 326
and 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.11084/2022
(NEERAJ AHIRWAR VS. STATE OF M.P.)
Before deciding this application, this Court would like to
clarify certain facts. This bail application has been filed by disclosing
the Police Station Tyonda as well as Dehat Basoda, District Vidisha.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that when he
tried to verify the status of the bail applications of the co-accused
persons, he found that the status of the bail applications of co-
accused persons was not reflected on the website, therefore, he did
not mention about the fact that the bail applications of co-accused
Shivam Tiwari and Sheru Maina have already been dismissed by this
Court. It is further submitted that in the impugned rejection order, the
Trial Court had mentioned the Police Station Tyonda as well as
Police Station Dehat Basoda and, therefore, both the police stations
were mentioned by him in the bail application. Since, the office also
could not trace out that the fate of the bail applications of the accused
persons, therefore, the case was listed before the Co-ordinate Bench
and bail was granted to the applicant.
Later on realizing the mistake, the applicant himself filed an
application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for recall of the bail order
dated 02/03/2022 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on
the ground that because of wrong description of the police station in
the impugned rejection order, the police station was mentioned as
Police Station Tyonda (Dehat Basoda) and the said mistake was
3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.11084/2022
(NEERAJ AHIRWAR VS. STATE OF M.P.)
inadvertent, bonafide and unintentional. Accordingly, by order dated
08/03/2022
, the order dated 02/03/2022 passed in this case was
recalled. It is submitted that as per the information available on the
website of the High Court, in the bail application of co-accused
Shivam Tiwari and Sheru Maina, the police station has been
mentioned as Basoda, District Vidisha and, therefore, neither the
counsel for the applicant nor the office could trace out the status of
the bail applications of the co-accused Shivam Tiwari and Sheru
Maina.
Heard on merits.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according
to the prosecution case, the co-accused Shivam Tiwari and Sheru
Maina alongwith two more unknown persons abused the victim Raju
@ Raghvendra and thereafter, Sheru Maina and two unknown boys
caught hold the victim and Shivam Tiwari assaulted by knife and
thereafter, all the accused persons ran away by extending a threat to
his life. It is submitted that the applicant has been apprehended only
on the basis of the confessional statement by the co-accused, which is
not admissible in the light of Sections 25 and 27 of the Evidence Act.
No TIP has been conducted. The Trial is likely to take sufficiently
long time and there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering
with the prosecution case.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.11084/2022
(NEERAJ AHIRWAR VS. STATE OF M.P.)
Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the
counsel for the State. However, it is fairly conceded that the police
has not conducted the TIP and charge-sheet has been filed. It is also
fairly conceded that the only evidence against the applicant is the
confessional statement of the co-accused person.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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) 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 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 and others Vs. State of M.P. Passed on
18.03.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 329/2021, the intimation
regarding grant of bail be sent to the complainant.
Certified copy as per rules.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Pj'S/- Judge
Digitally signed by
PRINCEE BARAIYA
Date: 2022.03.24
17:30:00 -07'00'
