Madhya Pradesh High Court
Asharam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 May, 2024
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 29 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 16524 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
ASHARAM S/O SHRI HARI SINGH JATAV, AGED ABOUT
30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O BEHIND POLICE
STATION BADARWAS TEHSIL KOLARAS DISRICT
SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(MR. RAJ KUMAR SINGH KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANT)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION BADARWAS DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MR. PRABHAT PATERIYA - DY. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR
RESPONDENT/STATE & MR. HARSHIT SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT)
This application coming on for Admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C. for grant of bail relating to Crime No.92 of 2024 registered at Police
Station Badarwas, District Shivpuri (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 302,
201 and 34 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant is innocent and
has falsely been implicated. As per prosecution case, co-accused -Pawan
committed murder of deceased-Ajay Pal by hitting him with a vehicle-Bolero
bearing Registration No.MP08CA3605 and the applicant-accused got the
vehicle repaired. Under these circumstances, at the most offence under Section
201 of IPC is made out against the present applicant which is bailable in nature.
In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rasiklal Vs. Kishore, reported in
(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 338. No role has been attributed on him for causing
murder of the deceased. Even he was not present on the spot at the time of
incident. It is further argued that applicant is in custody since 31.03.2024 having
no criminal history, therefore, there is no requirement of further custodial
interrogation of the applicant. The applicant is permanent resident of District
Shivpuri (M.P.) and there is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with
the prosecution evidence. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/State as well as Counsel for
the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application and prayed for its
dismissal.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary
available on record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without
expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and 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 Lakh Only) with one solvent surety in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following
conditions by the applicant:-
1) The applicant will comply with all the terms and
conditions of the bond executed by him;
2) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation /trial, as
the case may be;
3 ) The applicant will not indulge themselves in extending
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as
the case may be;
4) The applicant will not commit an offence similar to the
offence for which he is accused.
5) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments
during the trial; and
6 ) The applicant will not leave India without previous
permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case
may be.
Learned State counsel is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the
Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and
necessary action.
E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance,
if possible, by the office of this Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
(LJ*)
