Mukesh Chaturvedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13164 MP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 13164 MP
Judgement Date : 14 August, 2023

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mukesh Chaturvedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 August, 2023

Author: Vishal Dhagat

                                1
      IN     THE        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
                            PRADESH
                          AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                  ON THE 14 th OF AUGUST, 2023
            MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35809 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
MUKESH CHATURVEDI S/O LATE SANTLAL
CHATUVEDI,  AGED     ABOUT   51    YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PRIVATE SERVICE R/O KJS
TOWNSHIP MAIHAR P.S. MAIHAR DISTT. SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                           .....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI ANIL KHARE - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI PRIYANK
AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)

AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION MAIHAR DISTRICT SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AKSHAY NAMDEO - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

      T h is application coming on for admission this day, t h e court

passed the following:
                                 ORDER

This is fourth application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail relating to FIR No.740/2022 registered at Police Station-Maihar, District-Satna (MP) for the offence under Sections 302, 34, 120-B, 109, 201 of the IPC. Earlier applications i.e. MCRC Nos.57311/2022, 8678/2023, 17594/2023 were

dismissed vide orders dated 16.12.2022, 23.02.2023, 01.05.2023.

2 . Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that applicant is in jail since 29.09.2022. Applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. It is submitted that co-accused in the case has already been enlarged on bail. Case of present applicant is similar to that of co-accused person. According to prosecution story, applicant in conspiracy with other persons has committed murder of Union Leader namely Manish Shukla. It is submitted that evidence which is available against applicant is a weak evidence. Person who has talked on mobile phone and transcript of it was also produced by prosecution was considered by Court and he has been enlarged on bail. Considering

aforesaid circumstances, applicant may also be enlarged on bail on ground of parity.

3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposed the application for grant of bail. It is submitted by him that offence is serious in nature. Applicant is said to have committed conspiracy with Management and other co-workers to kill Manish Shukla, therefore, application for grant of bail may be dismissed.

4. Heard the counsel for the parties.

5. This Court on 23.02.2023 in paragraph No.4 in MCRC No.8678/2023 has passed following order:-

" 4 . Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/State opposed the application for grant of bail. It is submitted that direct evidence of

conspiracy is available against the applicant. Criminal Conspiracy is to be proved with indirect evidence. Applicant has talked with J.P.Soni on 9.9.2022 which points towards meeting of mind and criminal conspiracy for contract killing of Manish Shukla, a Labour Union Leader of KJS Factory. Incident has taken place on 19.9.2022. After duty of Manish Shukla of second shift, he was followed and his location was constantly given to three persons hired for killing and supplied by one Atmaram Shukla. J. P. Soni had also asked for location of Manish Shukla on fateful day. As per transcript prepared by police, J. P. Soni and Mukesh Chaturvedi had a talk to give 'two' (which is 2 Lakhs to be given to Atmaram Shukla). Pankaj Kumar Sinha has given statement regarding involvement of applicant in conspiracy. Police has seized Samsung mobile phone of applicant. CDR records also shows that there was communication between accused persons. In these circumstances, application be dismissed."

This Court on 01.05.2023 in paragraph No.5 in MCRC

No.17594/2023 has passed following order:-

"5. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon

the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of Ananda Pujari Vs. Karnataka reported on 2015 1 SCC. Reliance was placed on para 21 of the judgment. It has been held that when there is doubt about the cause of death and in absence of certainty and clarity about the cause, benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused person. Learned counsel for applicant has further relied on the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court, reported in 1986 MPLJ 83 Shripal Gulab Singh Nana Vs. State of M.P.. In said case, it has been held that witness who has failed to report the matter to police under Section 39 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be said to be a trustworthy witness. Witnesses are yet to be examined and it is not certain at present, whether heart attack has arisen from injuries which have been caused to the deceased or it was independent cause of death. The said facts can only be ascertained when Doctor is examined in the Court. So far as argument that witness Pankaj Sinha was an accomplice, therefore, he cannot be believed as also to be considered at the stage of trial. Whether a witness is a truthful witness or not or whether he was accomplice in the case can only be examined after examination of witness. Earlier application filed by applicant has been considered on merits and there is no change in circumstance."

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that applicant has filed an application for grant of bail before Apex Court

which was considered and dismissed. However, it was stated that order passed by Supreme Court will not come in way of applicant for filing repeat application in change circumstances. Co-accused namely Sanjay Singh has already been released on bail and Pankaj Sinha has been examined and he had turned hostile. Evidence available in transcript is not clear that 'two' is to be given for what purpose.

7. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence available on record and the fact that co-accused has been released on bail, period of custody of applicant, without commenting on the merits of the case, bail application stands allowed.

8. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned for his regular appearance before Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this regard during pendency of trial on aforesaid conditions.

9 . The applicant shall also abide by the following conditions of Section 437 (3) of Cr. P. C. as under:-

(a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter;

(b) that such person shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected and;

(c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.