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

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 26678

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
VISHAL DHAGAT
Rajesh Loni – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
CRA 2876/2024



Advocates:
Sankalp Kochar,Advocate General

Appellants accused of murder and disposal of body are entitled to bail if their role is not significant and there are contradictions in the evidence against them.

Headnote:

Fact of the Case:

Appellants were arrested for the murder of Anupa and for disposing of her body. The main accused stated in a memorandum that the body was taken in a Bolero Jeep, while another memorandum stated that it was taken on a motorcycle. The appellants were made accused after a period of about three months.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellants' role in the offense was not significant and that there were contradictions in the evidence against them. The court also considered the fact that the appellants had been in custody for a period of about three months.

Issues: Whether the appellants should be granted bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellants were entitled to bail as their role in the offense was not significant and there were contradictions in the evidence against them.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and directed that the appellants be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- each along with one solvent surety in the like amount.

ORDER

This is first criminal appeal filed on behalf of the appellants under Section 14-A of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of bail against order dated 21.02.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) (P.O.A.) Umaria, District Umaria (MP) in B.A. No.86/2024 by which application for grant of bail was dismissed. 2. Appellants have been arrested on 15.02.2024 in connection with FIR No.511/2023 registered at Police Station Indwar District-Umaria for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 314, 201, 120-B of the IPC and Sections 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for appellants that appellants have not committed any offence of murder or criminal conspiracy.

Only allegation against them that they disposed off the dead body of one Anupa by taking it on a motorcycle. It is further submitted that there are two memorandums. In one memorandum, it has been stated by main accused person that body was taken in a Bolero Jeep. Both memorandums are contradictory. Appellants were made accused after period of about three months. In these circumstances, they may be granted bail.

4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for State opposed the bail application. It is submitted that murder of Anupa has been committed by giving her overdose of anesthesia for doing abortion.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Taking into account the role of appellants in the offence, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it to be a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, this criminal appeal filed by appellants is allowed. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each by the appellants along with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned, the appellants be released on bail.

8. The appellants shall abide by the following conditions of Section 437 (3) of Cr. P. C. as under:- (a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter;

    (b) that such person shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected of the commission of which they are suspected and;
    (c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
    C.C. as per rules. (VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE pn

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top