Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 14039
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR, J
Bhuresingh – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 38003/2024
Hariom Choudhary,Advocate General
The court determined that mere presence at the scene of an incident does not justify denial of bail, especially when evidence suggests the deceased acted negligently.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304 - Bail application - Applicant in judicial custody for alleged involvement in electrocution death - Prosecution claims applicant was present during the incident; however, witness states deceased acted negligently - No criminal antecedent reported against applicant, and no likelihood of absconding - Bail granted considering overall circumstances. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Bail - Conditions for grant - Court emphasizes the necessity for the applicant to remain present for hearings and outlines conditions for bail compliance. (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case:
The applicant is accused of being involved in the electrocution death of Santosh, who allegedly mishandled an electric wire while fishing. The applicant claims he was falsely implicated due to his presence at the scene. (Paras 2-3)
Findings of Court:
The court finds merit in the applicant's arguments, noting the lack of evidence against him and the absence of prior criminal records. (Paras 6)
Issues: The main issues addressed include the applicant's involvement in the incident and the appropriateness of granting bail given the circumstances. (Paras 3-4)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's presence at the scene does not constitute sufficient grounds for denial of bail, especially in light of the witness's statement attributing fault to the deceased. (Paras 6)
Result: Bail granted.
ORDER
1. This first application has been filed by applicant under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 247/2024 registered at Police Station Maheshwar, District Khargone (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 304 of IPC . Applicant is in judicial custody since 10.06.2024.
2. As per the case of prosecution, medical officer, C.H.C. Maheshwar informed the SHO of Police Station - Maheshwar that Santosh was brought dead due to electrocution on 08/05/2024 at 6.15 pm. Police Station - Maheshwar registered unnatural death at Merg no. 30/2024. Dead body was forwarded for postmortem examination. Medical expert opined that Santosh has died due to cardio-respiratory arrest caused by electric current. During inquest proceeding, witness Chhotu informed that Santosh Kochale, Bhuresingh (applicant) and Shahrukh were involved in fishing in Karodiya River by electric current. Shahrukh was connecting the wire and Santosh was throwing iron rod in the river and Bhuresingh was catching the fishes. Santosh, without disconnecting the iron rod with live wire, put the same inside the water, so he got electrocuted. Bhuresingh and Shahrukh pulled the electric wire and fled away. Relatives of Santosh took him to Government Hospital, where he was declared dead. On such statements, police station registered FIR at Crime No. 247/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 304 of IPC against Shahrukh Shekh and Bhuresingh. Bhuresingh was arrested on 10/06/2024. He is in custody even since. On completion of the investigation, final report was submitted.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant, in addition to grounds mentioned in the application, contends that the applicant is falsely implicated in this matter merely due to his presence on the spot of the incident. Learned counsel submits that as per the statement of witness Chhotu, Santosh got electrocuted due to his own mistake of putting the iron rod in water without disconnecting the live wire. No offence as alleged is made out against the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is aged around 46 years and is labourer by profession. There is no likelihood of absconsion leaving his family and home. No criminal antecedent is reported against the applicant. There is no likelihood of tampering with evidence by applicant. The trial would take time to complete. Therefore, the applicant may be extended the benefit of bail.
4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State opposes the bail application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. 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 release the applicant on bail. Thus, the application is allowed.
7. Accordingly, it is directed that applicant- Bhuresingh shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 247/2024 registered at Police Station Maheshwar, District Khargone (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 304 of IPC upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, for compliance with the following conditions, : (For convenience of understanding by accused and surety, the conditions of bail are also reproduced in Hindi as under):-
(1) Applicant shall remain present on every date of hearing as may be directed by the concerned court;
This order shall be effective till the end of trial. However, in case of breach of any of the preconditions of bail, the Trial Court may consider on merit cancellation of bail without any impediment of this order.
The trial Court shall get these conditions reproduced on the personal bond by the accused and on surety bond by the surety concerned. If any of them is unable to write, the scribe shall certify that he had explained the conditions to the concern
