BADRI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SARVA Shri Rajendra Singh, S.C. Dutt & Surendra Singh for the applicants, Shri S.K. Dixit, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State present and heard, Case diary perused.

(2.) THIS is an application for anticipatory bail by the applicants.

(3.) THE application is vehemently opposed by the State. The C.I.D. Inspector who is investigating the case in his affidavit has mentioned that from the investigation carried out so far, a Prima facie case under section 302 Indian Penal Code has been made out against the applicants and an offence of murder has been registered. According to him, most prominent part in beating the suspect in the police lock -up was by the applicant No. 3 and the other two applicants actively assisted in beating. He has also mentioned that the crime in connection with which the suspect was interrogated pertained to another police station and the applicants had no jurisdiction to investigate in the said offence. The applicant No. 3 had previous enmity with the suspect The Rojnamcha Sanha 31 -5 -1976 showing arrest of the suspect in the afternoon, does not mention about any injuries on the suspect when he was arrested. He further stated that five of the eye witnesses have specifically mentioned in their case diary statements that the applicants tried to temper with the evidence. He has also complained that bail application on behalf of one Nathuram Arya, a probationary Sub -Inspector and an eye -witness to the crime, was moved by the applicants with oblique motives, without the consent and knowledge of Arya and action be taken against them The learned Dy. Government Advocate mentioned from the case diary that statements of as many as 11 eye witnesses have been recorded so far, who have all named the applicants as the culprits of the offence. The witnesses stated that the suspect was tortured for about 2 hours in which two sticks got broken and a third heavier stick which got the notoriety as 'Jai Bhawani' was ultimately used to break the suspect. He informed that investigation is still in progress and the C.I.D. requires the applicants in connection with further investigation and for recovery of incriminating .s.