DHEERAJ SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this second bail application u/S.439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 8/7/2022, by Police Station- Seondha, District- Datia, in connection with Crime No.160/2022, for the offence punishable under Ss. 302, 307, 294, 147, 148, 149 of the IPC and Sec. 25/27 of the Arms Act.

(2.) It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is suffering confinement since 8/7/2022 and three material prosecution witnesses/eyewitnesses Kalyan (PW/1), Satendra (PW/2) and Jitendra (PW/3) have been examined, therefore, chance of tampering with evidence/witnesses is remote. Only presence of applicant is referred in F.I.R. and no overt/overt act has been mentioned. Later on, in statement under Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C., his role has been referred to beat the deceased with the help of butt of the gun. Only on the basis of omnibus allegations, he is suffering confinement for last 21 months. Incidentally, Arvind Yadav (deceased) was not present at the initial incident which allegedly took place at residence of complainant. Deceased - Arvind was beaten up by the applicant's side when he persuaded the complainant side to lodge FIR. Therefore, element of previous enmity qua Arvind does not exist. According to counsel for applicant, he bears criminal record of 11 cases which haunt the applicant, in which, in 6 cases acquittal has been recorded and some of the cases are of minor denomination and for last 15 years, except this case, no case has been registered against him.

(3.) It is further submitted that role of applicant is confined to beat the deceased with the help of butt of gun as per chief-examination of witness -Kallu (PW-1). Therefore, it is difficult for the prosecution to assert regarding alleged commission of offence under Sec. 307 of IPC. No ingredients stare the applicant regarding offence under Sec. 307 of IPC. Complainant party waited in police station for MLC to be conducted and thereafter, FIR was written on the basis of injuries sustained by the victim/deceased. This shows the bent of mind regarding false implication. Now, he learnt the lesson hard way and would mend his ways by not involving in any criminal activities in future and is ready to abide by the terms and conditions as imposed by this Court from time to time. Counsel for the applicant further submitted that co-accused Veerendra @ Veeru Sharma (MCRC No.21666/2023), Chandrabhan Kushwaha (MCRC No.46645/2023), Rohit Sharma (MCRC No.49615/2023), Ritik Mahate (MCRC No.50896/2023), Manoj @ Pappu Sharma (MCRC No.52272/2023) and Ankit @ Anku (M.Cr.C. No.5681/2024) have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court and he seeks parity. Confinement amounts to pretrial detention. Applicant undertakes to cooperate in trial as well as investigation and would make himself available as and when required. He would not be a source of embarrassment or harassment to the complainant party. Applicant intends to perform some community service to purge himself out of the guilt felt by him and to serve national / environmental / social cause. Therefore, he prayed for bail.