M.Cr.C. No.9859/2017
18.9.2017
Shri Rakesh Yadav, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri B. Gautam, public prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard. Perused the case diary.
This is 2nd repeat application for grant of anticipatory bail.
First application was dismised on merit vide order dated
26.7.2017 passed in M.Cr.C.No.7475/2017.
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention
to Form 32 Annexure P/4, Annexure P/6 complaint, Annexure
A/3 rent agreement and Annexure A/5 and submits that ther is
no legal evidence against the present applicant to implicate him
in crime no.167/2017, registered under Section 420 of IPC and
under Section 3, 4 and 5 of the Price Chits and Money
Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978.
As per prosecution story on 15.3.2017, complainant –
Pappu Singh, lodged a written complaint to Sub-Divisional
Officer (Police) Aalot in which complainant stated that the
accused persons were running a chit fund company and they are
collecting amount from the innocent people by telling them that
they will get higher rate of interest, if they are investing in the
various plans of the chit fund company. The sub divisional officer
of police forwarded the complaint towards police station, Aalote
where police investigated the matter and registered the
complaint as crime no.167/2017. He has also drawn my
attention to the resignation letter of the applicant by which he
has resigned from the Directorship of M/s. Arogya Dhan Varsha
Developers and Allied Ltd., w.e.f. 25.6.2015. He has also drawn
my attention to the decision of the Apex court in the case of
M.A.A. Annamalai V/s. State of Karnataka Anr. Reported
as 2010 (8) SCC 524 and Som Mittal V/s. Government of
Karnataka, reported as 2008 (3) SCC 753 and prayed that the
application for grant of anticipatory bail be allowed.
Learned public prosecutor opposed the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail and submits that the present applicant is one of
the main accused and prays for it’s rejection.
On due consideration of the arguments of the learned
counsel for the parties and the material evidence available in the
case diary, so also the fact that the earlier application was
rejected on merit, no case for grant of anticipatory bail, as
prayed by the applicant is made out.
M.Cr.C.No.9859/2017, has no merit and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
(P.K. JAISWAL)
JUDGE
SS/-
M.Cr.C. No.6755/2017
18.9.2017
Shri Ankur Modi, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, public prosecutor for
respondent/State.
Shri R.S. Parmar, Advocate for the objector.
Heard. Perused the case diary.
2. This is 6th repeat application for grant of bail by applicant
– Shehjad son of Bhooru Khan, who is being implicated in crime
no.99/2012, registered at police station Tal Dist. Ratlam for the
offence punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 323, IPC and
under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. He is in custody since
26.4.2012.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention
to the order sheet of March 2014 passed in
M.Cr.C.No.9325/2013 and submits that the present applicant
was taken in custody at 07.35 pm at Nimba Heda, which is
about 200 Kms far from the place of incident and the applicant
is in custody at Nimba Heda under Section 151, in arrest memo,
thedescription of the accused has been shown as in this case. In
the order sheet dated March 2014, the following observation has
been made :-
“In the present case, plea of alibi has been raised whereby
it is stated that the date and time of incident is 6.30 pm
near petrol pump at Aalot Road, police station Taal and FIR
of the said incident lodged at 8 pm. It is said that he
present applicant was taken into custody at 7.35 pm at
Nimba Heda which is about 200 Km far from the place of
incident and the applicant is in custody at Nimba Heda
under section 151, in arrest memo, the description of the
accused has been shown as in this case. In counter to the
aforesaid, it is urged that the offence has been registered
against the accused persons under section 212, 201, and
120-B of IPC to get registered a false case at Nimba Heda.
But, the aforesaid would not be sufficient until an offence
has been register against the Sub-Inspector, who registered
an offence at Nimba Heda, against accused persons.
Learned PL for the respondent prays for and is
granted two weeks time to produce the relevant
documents.
In the meantime, it shall be explained by the
learned PL that what is the distance between Nimba Heda
and the place of incident and how much time may be taken
to reach Nimba Heda from the place of incident.
List after two weeks, as prayed.”
4. On 17.7.2014, the application was finally dismissed on
merit. Order dated 17.7.2014 reads as under :-
“This second repeat application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
for grant of bail has been filed by the applicant – Shehzad
Kha S/o Bhuru Kha. He is implicated in Crime No.99/2012
registered at Police Station – Tal, Alot, District – Ratlam for
the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and
323 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
2.As per case diary, the allegation against the applicant and
other co-accused persons is of committing murder of
Khattulala @ Mubarik Ali and Shahrukh Khan. It is a case of
double murder. On 13.04.2012, after taking tea,
complainants Meharban Ali, Sikandar Ali, Khattulala @
Mubarik Ali and Shahrukh Khan were returning to Tal on their
motorcycles, when they reached near S. R. Petrol Pump at
Alot road of Police Station Tal, one Tavera of red colour
came in front of both the motorcycles and stopped them. In
the said Tavera vehicle, total 15 persons were there, who
were armed with deadly weapons like sword, knife, satur and
country made pistol. The allegation against the applicant is
of causing fatal injury to Khattulala @ Mubarik Ali and
causing injuries to other persons.
3.The first bail application was dismissed as not pressed vide
order dated 15.07.2013 passed in M.Cr.C. No.4178/2013.
4.It is submitted that on 13.04.2012, the present applicant was
taken into custody at 7.35 PM at Police Station Nimba Heda
(Rajasthan), which is about 180 kilometres from the place of
occurrence and the applicant was in custody at Police Station
Nimba Heda under Section 151 of the Cr.P.C., in arrest memo,
the description of the accused has been shown in this case .
5.The plea of alibi has been raised by the learned counsel for
the applicant and submitted that it is a case of false
implication. At the time of occurrence, applicant was taken
into custody at Police Station Nimba Heda and only on
16.04.2012, he has been released by the SDM and prays that
this application for grant of bail be allowed and he be released
on bail.
6.In reply, learned G. A. submits that applicant was never
arrested on 13.04.2012 and he is one of the main assailant for
committing the murder of the deceased Khattulala. He
submits that 151 proceeding and arrest memo was
investigated and after investigation, it came to the knowledge
of the authorities that false case under Section 151 at Police
Station Nimba Heda was registered against the applicant, just
to show his arrest in 151 proceeding and, thereafter, another
case has been registered against the applicant and other
accused persons under Sections 212, 201 and 120-B of the
IPC. He further submits that the court statement of eye-
witnesses namely, Meharban Ali (PW-1) and Sikandar Ali (PW-
2) were recorded. Both the eye-witnesses were extensively
cross-examined by the learned counsel for the applicant and at
the time of cross-examination, no plea of alibi has been raised
nor plea of alibi was put-forth to the aforesaid eye-witnesses
and in view of the court statement of PW-1 and PW-2, the
present applicant is the main assailant and prays for its
rejection.
7.Shri R. S. Parmar, learned counsel who is appearing on behalf
of the objector supported the arguments of the learned counsel
for the non-applicant and also prays for its rejection.
8.As per report of Police Station Tal, Alot, District Ratlam,
number of criminal cases are pending against the applicant vide
Crime No.175/2001, Crime No.94/2006, Crime No.145/2010,
Crime No.155/2010 and Crime No.194/2012. As per statement
of PW-1 and PW-2, case diary statement of injured and other
eye-witnesses, specific allegation has been made against the
applicant that he was armed with sword and caused fatal injury
to Khattulala @ Mubarik Ali.
9.In respect of plea of alibi, the matter was investigated by the
non-applicant whether the applicant was arrested on 13.04.2012
at Police Station Nimba Heda in 151 proceeding. During
investigation, it was found that applicant was never arrested and
prima-facie, documents by which the applicant was arrested on
13.04.2012 at 7.30 P.M. and was released on 16.04.2012 are
manipulated documents.
10. One more case was registered against the applicant and
other co-accused persons under Sections 212, 201 and 120-B of
the IPC in which, session is going on before the Trial Court in
S.T. No.138/2013 and, therefore, at this stage, plea of alibi can
be accepted and moreover, no plea of alibi was put-forth before
the Trial Court when PW-1 and PW-2 were examined by the
prosecution.
11. The plea of alibi was first taken before the Trial Court while
deciding the bail application of the applicant – Shehzad vide
order dated 03.05.2013. The relevant part of the order reads as
under :-
tgka rd cpko i{k ds bl rdZ dk iz’u gS fd ?kVuk fnukad dks ;g
vkjksihx.k ?kVuk LFkku ls vU;] jktLFkku eas Fks rks bl laaca/k eas mudh
vksj ls mi[k.M eftLVz~sV fuEckgsM+k ftyk fpRrkSM+x+ ds ;gka /kkjk 107] 117
ds bLrxklk ds vkns’k ifdk dh izekf.kr izfr dh QksVksizfr izLrqr dh gS
ftleas ‘kgtkn vkSj bjQku dks fnukad 14-04-2012 dks ogka mifLFkr gksuk
crk;k gSA rRlaca/k eas yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk dgk x;k gS fd dfFkr bLrxklk
ij dksbZ QksVks vkfn layXu ugha gS o vkjksfi;ksa us “kM+;aiwoZd mifLFkfr
crkbZ gS blfy, rRlaca/k eas bu vkjksih ds fo:) vU; ds lkFk /kkjk 120ch
Hkk0n0fo0 dk vijk/k iathc) gksdj tkap eas gS blfy, ek izLrqr izys[k ds
vk/kkj ij ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd ?kVuk ds le; ;g vkjksihx.k vU;
FksA tks izdj.k eas fo|eku ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA
12. Onus of proving alibi is on defence and accused. As
per statement of PW-1 and PW-2, no question was put on
behalf of defence in regard to alleged plea. Even otherwise,
after the enquiry by the non-applicant, it was found that
applicant was never arrested on 13.04.2012 and another case
has been registered against the applicant and other co-
accused persons and trial is going on. In view of the
aforesaid, it will be highly risky to rely upon such a feeble
evidence in order to accept plea of alibi to grant bail for the
alleged crime.
13.At the time of consideration of first bail application, this
plea was available. There is no change in the circumstances.
14.As per record, Akram Kha, Bhuru Khan, Yusuf Khan, Arif
Khan and Irfan Kha have been released on bail.
15.Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of
the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, no
case for grant of bail, as prayed by the learned counsel for the
applicant is made out. M.Cr.C. No.9325/2013 has no merit
and is accordingly, dismissed.”
5. On 20th January, 2016, third repeat application of the
applicant has been dismissed on merit. The said third repeat
application was filed after recording the court statement of
PW5 (Badri), PW10 (Manish) and PW12 (Ikrar Ali).
6. Considering the statements of PW1 (Meharban Ali) and
PW2 (Sikandar Ali) where, they have categorically assigned
about the role of the present applicant, his application was
dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no case
has been registered against sub-inspector who registered
offence at Nimbha Kheda against accused persons and the
distance between Nimbha Kheda and the place of incident is
around 200 Kms and, therefore, it cannot be said that the
present applicant is involved in the alleged offence and
prays that this repeat application for grant of bail be allowed
and applicant be released on bail.
8. Learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for the
objector opposed the prayer and submitted that all these
material were considered earlier while deciding the second
and third repeat application. At the time of considering of
the third application, court statement of PW1 to PW12 were
considered and there is no change in the circumstances and
prays for rejection of the bail application.
9. On due consideration of the aforesaid, so also the fact
that present applicant is main accused and he has caused
fatal injury to Khattulla @ Mubarak Ali and considering the
fact that it is a case of double murder, no case for grant of
bail as prayed is made out.
10. M.Cr.C.No.6755/2017, is accordingly, dismissed.
(P.K. JAISWAL)
JUDGE
SS/-
M.Cr.C. No.9414/2017
18.9.2017
As prayed, one week time is granted to the applicant to
cure the defaults and do the needful in the matter.
(P.K. JAISWAL)
JUDGE
SS/-
M.Cr.C. No.9437/2017
18.9.2017
Shri A.S. Kutumbale, learned Senior counsel with Ms. P.
Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri S. Sharma, public prosecutor for respondent/State.
Learned Senior counsel prays for one week time to file
copy of order dated 6.7.2017 and 28.8.2017 by which the
application of co-accused Smt. Suman Bai wife of Late Hemraj
and Gopal has been allowed. Prayer allowed.
List after a week.
(P.K. JAISWAL)
JUDGE
SS/-
M.Cr.C. No.10150/2017
18.9.2017
List on 20.9.2017.
(P.K. JAISWAL)
JUDGE
SS/-
M.Cr.C. No.9453/2017
18.9.2017
Smt. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri S. Sharma, public prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard.
Applicant – Anita wife of Dangal Singh is being implicated
in crime no.187/2017, registered at police station – Rau for the
offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(a), 368, 344,
376(2(N), 506/34, IPC and under Section 3/4, 16/17 of POCSO
Act. She is in custody since 31.7.2017.
According to prosecution story, the present applicant gave
shelter to two co-accused, who brought the two different
prosecutrix, who were minor at the time of incident, to her
house and remained there for 3 to 4 days.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that she is
mother of one of the co-accused and, therefore, she gave
shelter to them.
Learned public prosecutor opposed the prayer for grant of
bail and prays for it’s rejection.
Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of
the case and without commending on merits of the case, I am of
the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the
application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on
her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- and
one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
concerned Magistrate for her appearance on all the dates of
hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.
She is further directed that on being so released on bail,
she would comply the conditions enumerated under Section
437(3) of Cr.P.C. meticulously.
C.c. as per rules.
(P.K. JAISWAL)
JUDGE
SS/-
M.Cr.C. No.9458/2017
18.9.2017
As prayed by Shri K.C. Paliwal, Advocate for the applicant,
list in the next week.
(P.K. JAISWAL)
JUDGE
SS/-
M.Cr.C. No.9465/2017
18.9.2017
Shri M. Saxena, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri S. Sharma, public prosecutor for respondent/State.
Office to call the report regarding present status of the
trial from the learned Sessions Judge and report from the
respondent – State regarding past criminal antecedents of the
applicant, within a period of ten days from today.
(P.K. JAISWAL)
JUDGE
SS/-
M.Cr.C. No.9746/2017
18.9.2017
Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri S. Sharma, public prosecutor for respondent/State.
As prayed by learned public prosecutor, three days time is
granted to file report regarding marriage of one of the relative of
the applicant.
(P.K. JAISWAL)
JUDGE
SS/-
M.Cr.C. No.9569/2017
18.9.2017
List along with M.Cr.C.No.9578/2017.
(P.K. JAISWAL)
JUDGE
SS/-
M.Cr.C. No.7346/2017
18.9.2017
List on 20.9.2017.
(P.K. JAISWAL)
JUDGE
SS/-
M.Cr.C. No.10150/2017
18.9.2017
List on 20.9.2017.
(P.K. JAISWAL)
JUDGE
SS/-
M.Cr.C. No.9578/2017
18.9.2017
As prayed, list in the next week.
(P.K. JAISWAL)
JUDGE
SS/-
M.Cr.C. No.9533/2017
18.9.2017
As prayed, list in the next week.
(P.K. JAISWAL)
JUDGE
SS/-
