Uma Shankar Sharma vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

In compliance of earlier order passed by this Court Shri C.B. Bohit (SDOP) and Shri Bharat SIngh (S.I.) Police Station Bareli, District Raisen are present in person.

Case dairy perused and argument heard.

This is first application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Applicant Uma Shankar Sharma was arrested on 10/07/2019 in connection with Crime No.3/2019 registered at Police Station Udaipura, District Raisen for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120-B, 34 of IPC read with Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

A s per the prosecution case on 02.01.2019 complainant Suresh lodged a report at Police Station Udaypura averring that he drove Pawan Ra j p ut' s vehicle bearing registration No.MP-04-CN-2507. On 01.01.2019 at 08:00 PM when he was passing from the front of applicant Umashankar's office with the same vehicle along with Pawan Rajput and Ramesh Rajput, on the way, when they reached in front of Rathi's shop, they saw that 15-20 persons were standing armed with stick, spears (farsa) and gun in front of applicant Uma Shankar's office. On seeing them, he slowed down the vehicle. On that, these persons ran towards his vehicle, so he turned back the vehicle meanwhile some of the persons fired on the vehicle, in which one bullet, piercing the rear glass of the vehicle hit Ramesh Rajput. They took Ramesh Rajput to hospital, where doctor declared him dead. A dispute is going on between applicant Uma Shankar and Pawan Rajput over money transactions, due to which applicant Uma Shankar got such deadly attack done on them. It has been learnt that the bullet was fired by co-accused Manish. On that police registered Crime No.3/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120-B, 34 of IPC read with Section 25, 27, 30 of Arms Act, 1959 against applicant Umashankar and co-accused Manish and other unknown persons and investigated the matter. During investigation, Police recorded the statements of Pawan Rajput and other witnesses and also collected the CCTV footage of camera fitted at the applicant Umashankar's office and nearby Pawan Khatik's Shop. From that it was found that on the date of incident at around 6 PM, when Pawan Rajput demanded his money due on applicant Umashankar from him, applicant and his employee co-accused Mohit and Manish abused Pawan o n phone and also threatened to kill him. Thereafter said incident occurred when Pawan Rajput was going to Prem Nagar. It was also found that applicant Uma Shankar and co-accused Rahul Sharma, Raghvendra Sharma, Subhash Sharma @ Aditya Sharma, Mohit, Raju @ Rajendra Rajput, Anil, Rajesh @ Collector, Mansingh, Raman Sharma and Mahesh Chaudhari were included in group of persons, who had gathered on spot at the time of incident. They were present on the spot armed with weapons.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence. Although, it is alleged that at the time of incident applicant was also present on the spot, but the place of occurrence is the office of the applicant, so merely on the basis that the applicant was also present on spot, it cannot be said that the applicant was also the part of unlawful assembly. Even otherwise deceased Ramesh Rajpoot died due to gun shot injury and there is no allegation against the applicant that the applicant fired on the deceased or at the time of incident applicant was armed with gun. It is alleged that applicant was armed with stick, but there is nothing on record to show that the deceased sustained any injury caused by hard and blunt object. It is further submitted that from the CCTV footage produced by the Police it does not appear that applicant or other co-accused fired at deceased Ramesh Rajpoot. Police did not conduct fair investigation and also did not seize the gun from Pawan Rajpoot. It is further submitted that co-accused Raghvendra Sharma, Shubhash Sharma, Anil Sharma, Rahul Sharma, Mukesh Banjara and Rajkumar Rawat against whom the allegations are similar in nature, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 05/08/2019, 01/07/2019, 25/07/2019, 09/08/2019 and 09/08/2019 passed in M.Cr.C.Nos.15883/2019, 26027/2019, 29304/2019, 32905/2019 & 32909/2019 respectively. The applicant is in custody since 10/07/2019. Charge-sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, hence it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the State as well as objector opposed the prayer and submitted that at the time of incident applicant was also present on the spot and was part of the unlawful assembly and when deceased Ramesh Rajpoot and Pawan Rajpoot were passing from the the front of applicant Umashankar'™s office in vehicle bearing registration No.MP-04-CN-2507, some person of that unlawful assembly fired at the vehicle, due to which Ramesh Rajpoot sustained injuries and died, so he should not be released on bail.

From perusal of case diary it is evident that the case of applicant is not similar to the co-accused persons namely Raghvendra Sharma, Shubhash Sharma Anil Sharma, Rahul Sharma, Mukesh Banjara and Rajkumar Rawa, who were enlarged on bail by this Court. From the CCTV footage and other evidence collected by the prosecution during investigation it appears that at the time of incident applicant was present on the spot. It is alleged that applicant Uma Shankar got such deadly attack done on Ramesh Rajpoot and Pawan Rajpoot and in the incident Ramesh Rajpoot sustained injuries and died, so looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the involvement of the applicant in the crime, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, M.Cr.C. is rejected.