Rahul Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant in Crime No.116/2018 registered by Police Station Laur, District Rewa under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code.

The case of the prosecution is that, on 29.04.2018 a marriage of Poonam Singh has to be solemnized in the family of complainant Yagyabhan Singh and Bal Govind Singh. As soon as the Baraat visited the house of complainant Yagyabhan Singh and Bal Govind Singh, it is alleged that applicant along with other co-accused persons have reached there and demanded Rs.1,000/- for consuming liquor. When Bal Govind Singh and Yagyabhan Singh have refused to pay the money then the applicant along with other co-accused persons entered into the marriage venue and have beaten the family members of complainant and other persons of Baraat. They snatched the chain and also broken the glasses of vehicles parked inside the house. When complainant Yagyabhan Singh and Bal Govind Singh have called the Police by dialing 100 then applicant and other co-accused person have fled from the spot. Report of the incidence have been lodged by Balgovind Singh. On that basis, crime No.115/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 294, 327, 506 and 34 of IPC have been registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons. It is also alleged that on the same night applicant and other co-accused persons have set on fire the other house of the complainant Yagyabhan Singh and afterward fled from there. So many persons of the village have seen the applicant and other co-accused persons to commit the said offence. Complainant Yagyabhan Singh called the fire brigade and with the help of villagers the fire was extinguished. Complainant Yagyabhan Singh have lodged the report, on that basis the above mentioned crime has been registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons. It is also alleged that in the said arson the house and the crops which were stored there worth Rs.2 lacs have been burnt badly.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the crime. It is further submitted that there is no direct or indirect evidence was found against the present applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address shown in the application. He is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all terms and conditions imposed upon him. There is no chance of his absconding or tampering with the evidence. It is also submitted that the applicant is a young youth of 22 years and has been in custody since 23.01.2019. In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail.

Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/ State on the other hand has opposed the application and submitted that the applicant is a habitual criminal. In view of the aforesaid, the bail application filed on his behalf deserved to be dismissed.

On perusal of the case diary, it seems that the applicant is having criminal antecedents. The incidence said to have taken place on 01.05.2018 and the applicant was taken into custody on 23.01.2019, when he declared absconded and proceedings of attachment of his property were started.

However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the fact as pointed out by the learned Government Advocate and having regard to the gravity of offence, in the opinion of this Court, it is not a fit case to grant bail to the applicant-Rahul Singh.

Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant, stands dismissed.