DEEPAK VERMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Since both the applications are connected with the same crime number, therefore, decided by the present common order. Petitioners Deepak and Mukesh Ojha are in custody since 12.01.2016 relating to Crime No.966/2015 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Shivpuri (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC and under Section 11/13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam (MPDVPK Act).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are aged of 23 and 24 years, with no criminal past. FIR does not name the petitioners. No TIP has been arranged. It is presumed by the police that the culprits were calling each other by their names and therefore their names were mentioned in the case diary statements of the witnesses. However, if that be so then the complainant ought to have mentioned this fact while lodging the FIR. One camera and an LED light are alleged to be recovered from petitioners - Deepak and Mukesh. In these circumstances, chain of circumstantial evidence is broken. The petitioners are in custody since 12.01.2016 without any substantial reason. Other co -accused Bharat Mongia and Jheenguria @ Arjun have been extended benefit of bail by orders dated 18/3/2016 in Misc.Cri.C.Nos. 2244/16 & 3012/16, respectively.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand opposes the application.