GHANSHYAM GHURSELE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first application under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of bail.

(2.) The applicant has been arrested on 31/01/2022 in connection with Crime No.59/2022 registered at Police Station Padav, District Gwalior for offence under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 186, 307, 353 of IPC.

(3.) It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution case, a political protest was going on by the members of NSUI. It is alleged that the applicant had also assembled to burn effigy of the Chief Minister. It is the case of the prosecution that the police authorities who were posted there for maintaining law and order, tried to snatch effigy and during the said process, Deepak Gautam, Sub Inspector who was posted for maintaining law and order got burnt from the effigy. The first statement of Deepak Gautam in the form dying declaration was recorded by Tahsildar. Since Deepak Gautam has survived, therefore, the said statement is not admissible under Sec. 32 of Cr.P.C. but the same can always be treated as the first statement recorded under Sec. 161 or 164 of Cr.P.C. By referring to so called dying declaration of Deepak Gautam, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that injured Deepak Gautam has leveled specific allegations against Sachin and co-accused Shivraj Yadav. The only allegation against the applicant is that he was also present on the spot. It is submitted that so far as the presence of the applicant on the spot is concerned, being the citizen of this country, he had a right to agitate against the State, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was a member of unlawful assembly. No other allegation has been leveled by Deepak Gautam in his so called statement which was recorded as dying declaration by the Tahsildar. The applicant is in jail from 31/01/2022. It is further submitted that co-accused Akash Tomar and Anees Hussain have already been granted bail by this Court by order dtd. 29/03/2022 passed in MCRC Nos.13944/2022 and 14043/2022 respectively. The trial is likely to take sufficiently long time and there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case.