Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhairulal Meena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 February, 2024
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 21 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No. 7152 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
BHAIRULAL MEENA S/O RANJEET, AGED ABOUT 62
YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JATKHEDA, TEHSIL
AND DISTRICT SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI ANKUR MAHESHWARI - ADVOCATE FOR THE APPLICANT)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION DEHAT,
SHEOPUR, DISTRICT SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI LOKENDRA SHRIVASTAVA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE
RESPONDENT-STATE)
This application coming on for HEARING this day, th e court passed
the following:
ORDER
This first bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section
438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail to the
applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.17 of
2024 registered at Police Station Dehat Sheopur, District Sheopur (M.P.) for
offence punishable under Sections 306, 447 and 34 of IPC.
As per the case of prosecution, Pahalwan Meena reported to SHO, PS
Dehat District Sheopur that his brother Ramvilas had entered into an agreement
to sell of land with Deenu @ Deendayal Gupta (co-accused) on 03/01/2024. He
along-with his brother Ramvilas and other relatives went to shop of Deenu
Gupta. Deenu Gupta informed that registry cannot be executed as server is
down. Thereafter, they returned from shop of Deenu Gupta around 04.15 in the
evening. Hemant informed that Ramvilas consumed poisonous substance at
Sabji Mandi, Bus-Stand Sheopur. He went to Sheopur Hospital. Ramvilas was
referred for treatment to Kota. They reached around 10.00 in the night at Kota
Hospital. The Medical Officer declared Ramvilas dead. On such allegations,
Police Station Dehat Sheopur, District Sheopur registered Unnatural Death
Intimation No.02/2024. Dead body of Ramvilas was forwarded for
postmortem examination. Medical Officer opined that Ramvilas had died due to
cardio-respiratory failure, as a result of ingestion of unknown poisonous
substance. Viscera of Ramvilas was forwarded for chemical analysis. During
inquest proceedings, Phoranti Bai w/o Ramvilas stated that Bhairul Lal Meena
(applicant) has encroached upon her land. Her husband, at the instance of
Deenu Gupta, has agreed to transfer the land to Deenu Gupta. Accordingly, an
agreement to sell was executed. Deenu Gupta was deferring execution of sale
deed. On 3rd January, 2024 also Deenu Gupta deferred registration of sale
deed on the pretext of server being down. Her husband Ramvilas feeling
aggrieved and harassed by deferment of execution of sale deed committed
suicide by consuming poison. Other family members also stated on same line.
One dying declaration recorded by Medical Officer at District Hospital, District
Sheopur was also taken on record wherein Ramvilas stated that Bhairul Lal and
Deenu Gupta had encroached upon his land. He has consumed poison at Sabji
Mandi. On such allegations, Police Station Dehat Sheopur, District Sheopur
registered FIR at Crime No.17/2024 for offence punishable under Sections 306,
447 read with Section 34 of IPC. During investigation, statements of witnesses
have been recorded. The agreement to sell executed between Phoranti Bai and
Deenu Gupta on 05/07/2023 and other relevant documents are taken into
investigation. Investigation is underway.
Learned Counsel for the applicant, in addition to the grounds
mentioned in the application, submits that applicant has been falsely implicated
in the matter merely on suspicion of harassing Ramvilas. Learned counsel
referring to previous litigation between Phoranti Bai w/o deceased- Ramvilas
Meena and applicant Bhairul Lal submits that Bhairul Lal has filed a civil Suit
i.e. RCS No.45A/2022 before learned Second Civil Judge, Class-II Sheopur,
District Sheopur with regard to possession of land wherein both the parties
entered into a compromise and accordingly, a compromise decree was passed
vide order dated 25/07/2022. Both the parties have agreed that they would not
interfere in possession over land owned by respective parties. No complaint or
legal proceeding for encroachment was undertaken by deceased or his wife
against the applicant. Learned counsel referring to the agreement dated
05/07/2023 executed between Phoranti Bai and Deenu Gupta submits that
Phoranti Bai had agreed to transfer the land in survey No.297/1 and survey
No.297/4/1 to Deenu Gupta for consideration of Rupees Ninty Three Lacs.
Rupees Ten Lacs were paid on the date of agreement i.e. 05/07/2023 and
remaining consideration amount of Rupees Eighty Lacs was promised to be
paid at the time of registry on 05/01/2024. The agreement further mentions that
possession of land is handed over to Deendayal Gupta, therefore, allegation of
encroachment by applicant stands falsified. Learned counsel further contends
that as per the agreement, the date agreed for registration of sale deed was
05/01/2024 whereas Ramvilas has committed suicide on 03/01/2024, i.e. two
days before the agreed date of execution of sale deed. Therefore, the allegation
with regard to harassment by deferment of execution of sale deed is also not
prima facie made out. Learned counsel referring to judgment of Supreme Court
in the case of GEO Varghese VS State of Rajasthan and another (2021)
19 SCC 144 and Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu VS State of West Bengal,
(2010) 1 SCC 707, contends that even the allegations are taken on face value,
no offence for abetment to commit suicide is made out against the applicant.
Mere harassment, as alleged, would not constitute abetment to commit suicide.
Learned counsel submits that applicant is an agriculturist by profession. He has
family to look after. He is sole bread earner of the family. There is no likelihood
of his absconsion leaving family, home and profession. Investigation is almost
over. There is no likelihood of tampering with the investigation or evidence
which is primarily based on documentary evidence. No custodial interrogation
of applicant is needed. He is ready to cooperate in investigation. No criminal
antecedent is reported against the applicant. Jail incarceration on false and
unsubstantiated allegations would bring social disrepute and cause irreparable
hardship to the applicant. Therefore, applicant may be extended the benefit of
anticipatory bail.
P e r contra, learned counsel for State opposes anticipatory bail
application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
Considering the arguments advanced by both the parties and overall
circumstances of the case but without commenting on merits of the case, this
Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Thus, the application
is allowed.
Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant, applicant-
BHAIRULAL MEENA shall be released on bail in relation to Crime
No.17/2024, registered at Police Station Dehat Sheopur, District Sheopur
(M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 306, 447 and 34 of the IPC, upon
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand
Only) with one solvent surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the
Officer making arrest, for compliance with the following conditions: (Fo r the
sake of convenience of understanding by accused and surety, the
conditions of bail are also reproduced in Hindi as under):-
( 1 ) Applicant shall make himself available for investigation as may be
directed by the officer, in-charge of investigation;
(1) vUos"k.kdrkZ iqfyl vf/kdkjh ds funsZ'kkuqlkj vUos"k.k gsrq vkosnd miyC/k jgsxkA
(2) Applicant shall not commit or get involved in any offence of similar
nature;
(2) vkosnd leku izd`fr dk dksbZ vijk/k ugha djsxk ;k mlesa lfEefyr ugha gksxkA
(3) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat
or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade them/him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police
officer;
(3) vkosnd izdjz.k ds rF;ksa ls ifjfpr fdlh O;fDr dks izR;{k ;k vizR;{k :i ls
izyksHku] /kedh ;k opu ugha nsxk] ftlls ,slk O;fDr ,sls rF;ksa dks U;k;ky; ;k iqfyl vf/kdkjh
dks izdV djus ls fuokfjr gksA
(4) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly attempt to tamper with the
evidence or allure, pressurize or threaten the witness;
(4) vkosnd izR;{k ;k vizR;{k :i ls lk{; ds lkFk NsMNkM djus dk ;k lk{kh ;k
lkf{k;ksa dks cgykus&Qqlykus] ncko Mkyus ;k /kedkus dk iz;kl ugha djsxkA
(5) Upon submission of final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C, the
applicants shall furnish fresh personal bond and solvent surety of
aforementioned amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, if so directed and
thereafter, shall remain present on every date of hearing as may be directed by
the concerned Court;
(5) /kkjk 173 na-iz-la- ds rgr vafre izfrosnu izLrqr gksus ij] ;fn ,slk funsZf'kr fd;k
tkrk gSZ] vkosnd fopkj.k U;k;ky; dh larqf"Vizn iwoZ mYysf[kr jkf'k dk uohu oS;fDrd ca/ki= ,oa
izfrHkw ca/ki= izLrqr djsxk vkSj mlds mijkar lacaf/kr U;k;ky; ds funsZ'kkuqlkj lquokbZ dh izR;sd
frfFk ij mifLFkr jgsxkA
(6) During trial, the applicant shall ensure due compliance of provisions
of Section 309 of Cr.P.C. regarding examination of witnesses in attendance;
(6) fopkj.k ds nkSjku] mifLFkr xokgksa ls ijh{k.k ds laca/k esa vkosnd /kkjk 309 na-iz-la- ds
izko/kkuksa dk mfpr vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djsxkA
This order shall be effective till the end of trial. However, in case of breach
of any of the precondition of bail, the Trial Court may consider on merit
cancellation of bail without any impediment of this order.
The trial Court shall get these conditions reproduced on the personal
bond by the accused and on surety bond by the surety concerned. If any of
them is unable to write, the scribe shall certify that he had explained the
conditions to the concerned accused or the surety.
C.C. as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Prachi
