Ramesh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Pranay Verma, J

They are heard. Perused the case diary /challan papers.

This is the first application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as the applicant is implicated in connection with Crime No.65/2022, registered at Police Station Kankanvani District Jhabua, for offence punishable under Sections 394, 397/34 and 395 of IPC.

As per prosecution, on 2.3.2022, the complainant Sanjay along with few of his associates was travelling in his pickup vehicle to Vapra Thandla. They crossed Madrani after which a vehicle overtook them and stopped their vehicle. 3 to 4 persons got out of their vehicle and snatched cash, mobile phone and Mangalsutra from the persons sitting in the car of the applicant. Thereafter report was lodged by the complainant on the basis of which the investigation was commenced during the course of which the applicant has also been implicated and arrested for the present offence.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complainant Sanjay, Miku, Rajesh and Rameshchandra who were travelling in the car along with the complainant have been examined before the trial Court and none of them have supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. They have failed to identify the applicant. They have stated that at the time of incident it was dark hence they could not identify any of the persons who had committed the loot with them. It is further submitted that initial implication of the applicant itself is on the basis of memorandum of co-accused Sunil and there is no direct evidence to connect the applicant with the present crime. Investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed and the applicant is in custody since 23.9.2022 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 the learned counsel for the non-applicant/State submitting that in view of the allegation 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 learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary as well as statements of witnesses recorded before the trial Court.

Complainant Sanjay and three of his associates who were travelling along with him in the car have been examined before the trial court and none of them have supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. They have failed to identify the applicant and have stated that since it was dark they could not see any of the accused person. The implication of the applicant primarily appears to be on the basis of memorandum of co-accused Sunil recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed and the applicant is in custody since 10.4.2022 and the trial is still likely to take time for its conclusion. Thus in my opinion, the applicant deserves to be released 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/-with one solvent surety of the like 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.