Bablu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Pranay Verma, J

This is the second application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. First application bearing M.Cr.C. No.9823/2022 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.09.2022. The applicant is implicated in connection with Crime No.530/2021 registered at Police Station Sawer, District Indore (MP) for offence punishable under Section 302, 323, 294, 506, 34 of the IPC. The applicant is in custody since 25.10.2021.

2 . As per the prosecution, on 24.10.2021 at about 10:30 pm Yash, Nikhil, Lucky and Deepesh were going to Ujjain along with one Ravi. When they reached Khandelwal Chouraha, co-accused Santosh abused them and threatened them. Thereafter he assaulted Deepesh with a spade on his head resulting in injury to him. The other persons intrvened but were assaulted by Santosh with stones. As a result of injury caused to Deepash he eventually scummed. The allegation against the applicant is also to the effect that he was along with co-accused Santosh and had thrown stones upon the deceased and others on the basis of which he has been implicated and arrested for the present offence.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that all the eye-witnesses to the incident namely, Yaha Malviya, Nikhil and Lucky Malviya have been examined before the trial Court as PW.1, PW.2 & P.W.3 and none of them have supported the prosecution case in so far as it relates to the applicant. Though they have identified co-accused Santosh but have stated that they are not able to identify the present applicant. From the statements of the eye-witnesses the presence of the applicant on the spot has not been established. There is no other independent witness remaining to be examined on the part of prosecution in respect of the applicant. He has been in custody since 25.10.2021 and the trial is still likely to take time for its conclusion. On such grounds prayer for grant of bail to the applicant has been made.

The aforesaid prayer has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent/State submitting that in view of the allegations levelled against the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail merely on the basis of statements of prosecution witnesses.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary as well as statements of witnesses.

The eye-witnesses to the incident namely, Yaha Malviya, Nikhil and Lucky Malviya have been examined before the trial Court and they have not identified the applicant to be one of the person who had assaulted the deceased though they have identified the co-accused Santosh. From their evidence the presence of the applicant on the spot has not been established. There does not appear to be any other independent witness in so far as it relates to the applicant. He is in custody since 25.10.2021 and the trial is still likely to take time for its conclusion. Thus in my opinion, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

Certified copy as per rules.