Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MOHD FAHIM ANWAR, J.
Sunil Kumar Kushvaha – Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. - Respondent.
M. Cr. C. No. 38408 of 2018
Decided on : 06-10-2018
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Procedure Code - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, 306, 34 - The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case registered under sections 302, 306, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The court considered the statements of the deceased and her daughter, the change in the daughter's version, and the merits of the case in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed for anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered under sections 302, 306, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased was allegedly set ablaze, and the applicant was implicated based on a change in the daughter's statement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found it to be a fit case to grant the applicant anticipatory bail, considering that the applicant had already been granted regular bail in the same case. The court directed the applicant to furnish a personal bond and abide by specified conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail in connection with the case registered under sections 302, 306, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the change in the daughter's statement, the merits of the case, and the fact that the applicant had already been granted regular bail in reaching the decision to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application for anticipatory bail and directed the applicant to furnish a personal bond and abide by specified conditions.
ORDER :
Shri Pushpendra Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Santosh Yadav learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard.
2. Case diary perused.
3. This is the first application under section 438, Criminal Procedure Code filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.
4. Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 78/2018 registered at Police Station Kusmi Distt. Sidhi for the offence under sections 302, 306 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
5. The allegations against the applicant in short are that on 31-3-2018 the deceased was admitted to SGMH, Rewa with the history of burning, at that time she was found to be conscious. Her statement was recorded by the police officer. She died on the same day at about 11.40 pm. Information of which has been sent to police chowki, SGMH, Rewa, where the merg intimation number 0/2018 has been registered. During the course of the merg enquiry, statements of Vaishnavi @ Nandini daughter of deceased, aged about 8 years and other witnesses have been recorded. On that ground a Crime No. 74/18 for the offence under 306 of Indian Penal Code has been registered against the applicant and coaccused Akhilesh Pratap Singh @ Lallu Bhaiya. In the said crime, the applicant filed a bail application in the trial Court which was registered as M.Cr.C. No. 242/2018 and the bail was granted vide order dated 24-7-2018. It is also alleged that later on in the same crime again the statement of Vaishnavi @ Nandini has also been recorded on 21-8-2018 under section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code. On that basis, the police has added section 302 of Indian Penal Code in the already registered crime and therefore, the applicant has again been taken into custody.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that deceased Neetu Singh was the wife of late Vishnu Bahadur Singh. Coaccused Akhilesh Pratap Singh @ Lallu Bhaiya is the younger brother of Vishnu Bahadur Singh. He was having doubt that the applicant is having illicit relation with her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) i.e. deceased Neetu Singh. It is the reason, he remained annoyed with deceased-Neetu Singh. On the fateful night of the incident coaccused Akhilesh Pratap Singh @ Lallu Bhaiya has killed the deceased by pouring kerosene oil and setting fire on her. The statement of deceased-Neetu Singh was recorded on the date of incident and she had narrated everything against coaccused Akhilesh Pratap Singh. Statement of daughter of the deceased under section 161 was recorded on 25-6-2018 in which she has supported the version of mother’s statement. However, later on her statement under section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code has also been recorded on 21-8-2018 in which she has changed her version and having tried to implicate the present applicant for the murder of deceased. The applicant was released on bail by the court below in the same crime number treating it to be the offence of 306 of Indian Penal Code. Later on the basis of false statement of alleged eye witness Nandini @ Vaishnavi, the applicant has been implicated. That statement has been given by the said witness on the pretext of somebody else who encouraged her to implicate the applicant in the present crime. Having no evidentiary value of the said statement, the learned counsel for the applicant has prayed to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail as earlier he has already been enlarged on regular bail in the said crime.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the bail application.
8. The incident of burning is alleged to have happened on 31-3-2018 at 9.00 am. Reportedly she died on the same day at about 11.40 am. The statement of deceased Neetu Singh soon before her death alleged to have been recorded in which she has clearly stated that coaccused Akhilesh Pratap Singh @ Lallu Bhaiya set her ablaze by pouring kerosene oil upon her by means of a lota. In the said statement, she has also stated that the present applicant has tried
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
