Sanju vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J

The applicant has filed this second application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail.

Applicant has been arrested on 12/07/2022 by Police Station Basoda, District Vidisha (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.181/2022 registered for offence under Sections 306, 34 of IPC.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant - Sanju that the applicant has not committed any offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case. Earlier, first application was dismissed as withdrawn. There is no role of the applicant in the commission of alleged offence. It is further submitted that the another co-accused of this case, Snehlata, who is the main accused, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13/06/2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No.27011/2022. The case of present applicant is on better footing as the allegation is of committing improper behaviour against the wife of the deceased Snehlata. It is also submitted that no case is made out against the applicant under Sections 306, 34 of IPC in the light of judgments passed in the case of Awadhesh Kumar Chandra Vs. State of M.P. reported in (1999) 2 MPJR 286 and K.V. Prakash Babu Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2017) 11 SCC 176. The only allegation against the applicant is that he was having illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased. Remaining trial will take its own time. Applicant is ready and willing to abide by any condition which

may be imposed by this Court. Hence, considering the aforesaid facts of the case, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the present applicant.

Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer and have submitted that the case is registered against the applicant for offence under Sections 306, 34 of IPC, wherein witness has specifically stated in her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that the deceased had informed him that behaviour of his wife is very bad and his wife is having illicit relationship with Sanju. It is further submitted that the applicant was interested in the property of the deceased. Learned counsel for the complainant also submitted that there is no parity with co-accused Snehlata as her custody period is more than that of present applicant. Hence, considering the nature & gravity of offence along with aforesaid facts of the case, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant prayed to reject this application filed for grant of bail to the applicant.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the case diary and documents available on record.

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties along with facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that co-accused Snehlaata has already been granted bail by this Court and remaining trial will take its own time, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is hereby directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned for regular appearance before the trial Court concerned on the dates fixed by it.

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

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

The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

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

The applicant shall not commit any kind of offence. In case of commission of any kind of offence, this bail order shall automatically stand cancelled;

The applicant will not move in the vicinity of complainant party and applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

Application stands disposed of in above terms.

Let a copy of this order be also sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.

Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.