Vijay Kumar vs State of M.P.

D.K. Paliwal, J.—Heard.

This is first bail application filed by the applicant u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 113/14 registered at P.S. Khaniyadhana, District Shivpuri, for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 120-B of IPC.

According to prosecution case, on 27.3.2014 Naval Kishroe and Surendra Jain were playing chess on the Chabutara of the shop of the complainant. The complainant was watching them. At about 6.30 or 6.40 p.m. one person came and fired at Naval Chaubey by a country-made Katta and started running away. Naval chased and caught him. In the meantime, complainant and Keshav Kevat also reached there. There was another person standing near the shop of the complainant alongwith motorcycle who started running away. The person who was caught disclosed his name as Sanjay Yadav resident of Jhansi. Naval Chaubey was taken to hospital and the report was lodged by the complainant. During investigation, it is found that enmity between Naval Kishroe and Vijay Bhardwaj was going on due to post of Adhikshika of Kanya Kshatrawas. Earlier mother of Vijay was the Adhikshika and Naval Chaubey wanted that his daughter-in-law be posted at that post and Vijay Bhardwaj wanted posting of Geeta Vanshkar. It was found that Vijay Bhardwaj has conspired with co-accused and Vijay Bhardwaj has given some amount to co-accused for committing murder of Naval Kishore.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence. He has falsely been implicated in the case. He has never given any amount to co-accused Sanjay for killing Naval Kishore Chaubey. It is further submitted that applicant is the director of gas agency. His wife is Vice President of Janpad Panchayat and due to political reason, the applicant has falsely been implicated. There is no likelihood of absconsion of the applicant because he is permanent resident of Khaniyadhana. Hence, prayed for anticipatory bail.

The prayer is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel assisting the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the complainant.

Case diary perused.

As per the medical report of Naval Kishroe, it appears that he has received a gunshot wound over right side of chest near sternum. Sanjay, who was caught at the spot, in his memorandum disclosed that at the instance of Vijay Bhardwaj, he planned to commit murder of Naval and fired at Naval. He further disclosed that Banti and Vijay Bhardwaj promised to give Rs. 80,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- was given as advance. Udal Singh has given confessional statement u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. in which he has stated that on 18.3.14 Banti, Sanjay, Vijay and he was present. When he asked Vijay as to why he wanted to finish Naval, then he told that there is land dispute. Vijay also gave four live cartridges and Rs. five thousand to Banti and assured to give Rs. one lac after the work is done.

Radhakrishan in his statement has stated that on 18.3.14 he saw Kalla Yadav, Banti and Sanjay standing in the house of Vijay Bhardwaj and Vijay Bhardwaj was telling something to them by gestures. On 27.3.14, he came to know that someone has fired at Naval Chaubey.

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed copy of the complaint made by his wife to the S.P., Shivpuri, and a copy of invitation card of some function at Jabalpur on 25th March, 2014. A copy of the order of JMFC, Khaniyadhana, has been filed on record on behalf of the complainant which shows that proclamation u/s 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been issued.

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention towards the decision rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, . On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has cited the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma, wherein it has been held that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of Cr.P.C., he is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail.

Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, material collected during investigation, gravity of the offence and the fact that applicant is absconding and keeping in mind the principles laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra), I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. The bail application is accordingly dismissed.