Santlal Sahu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This is third application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

The applicant has been arrested on 5.6.2018 in connection with Crime No.19/18 registered by Police Station Bhaguapur, District Datia for offence punishable under Sections 308, 120-B, 182, 211, 34, 193, 195 of IPC and Section 25, 27 of Arms Act.

This repeat application has been filed on the ground of period of custody. According to the prosecution case, the co-accused Rohit Mehar initially lodged a report on 11.3.2018 that he was going to Ratangarhmata temple where he was shot by one Deepak Kushwah, Mohit Meena and Sheru Vishvakarma. The police registered the offence but later on it was found that the report lodged by the co-accused Rohit Mehar was incorrect and in fact a false report was lodged in order to falsely implicate the persons who are the witnesses in a double murder case registered in Crime No.97/2017 which is pending before the Court of Special Judge, Bhopal. It is an admitted position that the present applicant is the brother-in-law of one Bunty who is also an accused in the double murder case which is pending before the trial Court at Bhopal. Thus, it is clear that the applicant in order to pressurize the witnesses had created a false scene of crime with the help of the other co-accused persons and a false report was got lodged against the persons who are the witnesses of the said double murder case. The first application filed by the applicant was dismissed by this Court by order dated 30.08.2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No.33427/2018 by considering the fact that the applicant is the brother-in-law of Bunty who is an accused in the double murder case. The second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 10.12.2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No.45914/2018. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the co-accused Laki who is the maternal uncle of Bunty has already been granted bail by the coordinate bench of this Court and Aqila

who is the wife of Mahesh has also been granted bail. It is fairly conceded that Manish and Bunty are facing trial for double murder in the Court of Special Judge, Bhopal. It is fairly conceded that Laki and Aqila were granted bail prior to rejection of the first bail application of the applicant on 30.08.2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No.33427/18. It is submitted that the present application is on the ground of delay in trial.

Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that the applicant with the help of the other co-accused persons had tried to frame a false case against those persons who are witnesses of a double murder case pending in the Court of Special Judge, Bhopal and thus, it is a case of interference with the justice dispensation system.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The Supreme Court from time to time has expressed its concern over the security of the witnesses and after realising that no effective steps are being taken in this regard, then in the case of Mahender Chawla and Ors. vs. Union of India and Others the Supreme Court by order dated 5th December, 2018 passed in

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 156 of 2016 has made the Witness Protection Scheme applicable to the entire country. Thus, it is clear that for doing complete justice, it is the paramount duty of the police to provide adequate security to the witnesses so that they can depose against the criminal activities of an accused. In the present case, the police has succeeded in protecting the witnesses by investigating the matter in a free and fair manner and only because of the vigilant attitude of the police authorities, the persons who are the witnesses of the case of double murder which is pending before the Court of Special Judge, Bhopal could be saved.

So far as the bail granted to the co-accused persons are concerned, it is fairly conceded by the counsel for the applicant that the fact of relationship of the co-accused persons with the persons who are facing trial of double murder pending in the Court of Special Judge, Bhopal has not been taken into consideration. This Court vide order dated 11.5.2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No.14129/2018 (Bhupat Singh vs. State of M.P.) has held as under:-

"It is well settled principle of law that while considering the bail application, the gravity of the offence and allegations against the accused persons is to be taken into consideration. The severity of punishment in case of conviction is also one of the relevant consideration for deciding the bail application and only after considering the nature of accusation, then the question would arise that whether there is any possibility of winning over or tampering with the prosecution witnesses or not. But ignoring all other material facts, the bail cannot be granted merely on the ground that since the eyewitnesses and material witnesses have been examined, therefore, there is no possibility of winning over or tampering the prosecution witnesses. In the present case, since none of the eyewitness has turned hostile and all the witnesses have supported the prosecution case and considering the allegations made against the applicant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C.No.12139/2018 and M.Cr.C.No.12162/2018 thereby granting bail to the co-accused Kaptan Singh Rawat and Mukesh Rawat cannot be treated as precedent."

The order passed by this Court has also been affirmed by the Supreme Court by order dated 21.06.2018 passed in SLP (Cri) No.5103/2018.

Since the other co-accused persons have been granted bail without considering the material aspect of the matter as well as the fact that it is the paramount duty of the police authorities to grant adequate security to the witnesses so that they can depose against the persons who have committed an offence like double murder, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail. The application is accordingly rejected.