Rocky Daherwal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr.

This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (1) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated 19/08/2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Balaghat in bail application whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by appellant Rocky Daherwal under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.626/2018 registered at P.S. Lalbarra, District Balaghat (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Section 302, 460, 120-B, 435 of IPC and Sec. 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act.

As per the prosecution case, on 9/12/2018 co-accused Gajanand Brahme son of deceased Lekhram Brahme lodged a report at police station Lalbarra, District Balaghat (M.P.) averring that in the intervening night of 8-9/12/2018 some unknown persons murdered his father Lekhram Brahme. On that, police registered Crime No.626/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 460 and 302 of the IPC and investigated the matter. During investigation it was found that the appellant Rocky Daherwal and co-accused Rajesh Sonwane @ Raj, Jitendra Sonwane, Rajendra Hanmat @ Bhura, Kaushik Meshram, Kaushik Meshram and Gajanand Bramhe came to deceased house in the intervening night of 8-9/12/2018 and murdered him. On that police arrested the appellant and other co-accused persons. On that appellant filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide order dated 19.08.2019. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence. There is no direct evidence on record to connect the appellant with the crime. Police only on the basis of memorandum of appellant and co-accused persons implicated the appellant in the crime. Although in the case diary statement of Minesh Bramhe it is mentioned that persons who came along with co-accused Gajanand took names of each other as Vicky Daharwal, Jitendra, Bhoora and Raj but that witness also in his statement recorded by JMFC under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. did not depose this fact and only deposed one person's name as Jitendra but police did not get the test identification conducted in this regard. Charge-sheet has been filed. The appellant are in custody since 12.08.2019 and the conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the appellant on bail.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that there is no direct evidence on record to connect the appellant with the crime. Police only on the basis of memorandum of appellant and co-accused persons and the statement of Minesh Bramhe implicated the appellant in the crime even police did not get the test identification conducted, charge-sheet has been filed, appellant is in custody since 12.08.2019 and conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on merit, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned C.J.M/trial Court for his appearance before the concerned Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant :

The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

The appellant will cooperate in the trial;

The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

The appellant will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

C.C. on payment of usual charges.