SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 3568

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR

ON THE 10th OF MAY, 2024

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 16719 of 2024

BETWEEN:-

KHEMRAJ S/O LATE SHRI GHOTARAM JATA

V

, AGE 66

YEARS, R/O AMARPUR JAIL ROAD DABRA POLICE

STATION

DEHAT

DABRA

DISTRICT

GW

ALIOR

(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANT

(SHRI AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI- ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANT)

AND

THE STATE OF MADHY

A PRADESH THROUGH POLICE

STATION GORAGHAT DISTRICT DATIA (MADHY

A

PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT

( SHRI KAUSHLENDRA SINGH TOMAR- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR

RESPONDENT- STATE)

This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the

following:

Advocates:
Ajay Kumar Dwivedi,Advocate General

ORDER

This first application has been filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.101 of 2024 registered at Police Station Goraghat, District Datia (M.P.) for offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.

As per the case of prosecution, one dead body was recovered on Railway Track near Goraghat. Unidentified Dead body Intimation was registered at PS Goraghat, District Datia. The dead body was later identified to be of Jwala Prasad Jatav by his son Jitendra. Jitendra, son of Jwala Prasad and Bhankunwar, wife of Jwala Prasad, informed that Jwala Prasad was residing at Dabra in the tenanted premises of Ramlakhan Jatav. Umesh Jatav, nephew of Ramlakhan Jatav went missing on 23-02-2024. The family members of Umesh Jatav were suspecting Jwala Prasad. On 25-02-2024, Khemraj Jatav (applicant), Lakhan Jatav, Lalchand Jatav, Pradeep Jatav, Harishankar Jatav and Sanjay Jatav came to Goraghat in search of Umesh and threatened wife of Jwala Prasad. Bhankunwar and Jitendra alleged that Jwala Prasad has committed suicide due to threatening and harassment of Khemraj Jatav (applicant), Lakhan Jatav, Lalchand Jatav, Pradip Jatav, Harishankar Jatav and Sanjay Jatav. One hand-written note was found near the dead body wherein, it was alleged that on 04-03-2024, Jwala Prasad received a call from unknown number that his family is being threatened with regard to missing of Umesh. Due to threatening by family of Umesh, he has committed suicide. On such allegations, PS Goraghat registered FIR at Crime No.101 of 2024 for offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC against Khemraj Jatav (applicant), Lakhan Jatav, Lalchand Jatav, Pradeep Jatav, Harishankar Jatav and Sanjay Jatav.

Applicant is apprehending arrest. Investigation is underway.

Learned Counsel for the applicant, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the application, submits that applicant has been falsely implicated merely on suspicion. Nephew of Ramlakhan, namely, Umesh Jatav went missing on 23-02-

2024, therefore, missing person's report was lodged at PS Dabra Dehat. No one was suspected in the missing person's report. The family was trying to search Umesh. Umesh himself returned on 27-02-2024. In his statement dated 27-02-

2024, Umesh stated that he himself had gone to Gwalior and stayed at Gwalior Railway Station for three days, thereafter, returned to Dabra. Learned Counsel contends that Umesh had returned on 27-02-2024, therefore, there was no occasion to threaten or harass Jwala Prasad. Jwala Prasad was found dead on 07-03-2024 almost 13 days after return of Umesh, therefore, no abetment to commit suicide can be inferred against the applicant. Learned Counsel also submits that applicant is aged around 66 years. He is retired Police Officer. There is no likelihood of his absconsion leaving his family and home. No criminal antecedent is reported against applicant. There is no likelihood of interfering with the investigation or tampering with the evidence by the applicant. No custodial interrogation is needed against applicant. Jail incarceration on false allegation would bring social disrepute and hardship to applicant. Therefore, the applicant may be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. P e r contra, learned counsel for State opposes anticipatory bail application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence and prays for its rejection. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. Considering the arguments advanced by both the parties and overall circumstances of the case but without commenting on merits of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Thus, the application is allowed. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant, applicant - <br/>

    shall be released on bail in relation to Crime No.10
                    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                    1
                    2
                    3
                    4
                    5
                    6
                    7
                    8
                    9
                    10
                    11
                    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                    supreme today icon
                    whatsapp-icon Back to top