Rinky Bai @ Rinku Bai v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

MCRC-427-2016 (RINKY BAI @ RINKU BAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 22-07-2016 Shri PS Bhadoria, learned counsel for the applicant-accused. Miss. Sudha Shrivastava, learned Pl for the respondent-state. Shri SS Rajput, learned counsel for the complainant. Case diary is available and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 18.10.2015. This is the first bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.337/2015 registered at Police Station Dehat, District Ashok Nagar for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 294 and

34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the statements of seven witnesses have been recorded before the trial court. Out of them, two witnesses namely Khachora (PW7) and Kundan were the eye witnesses of the alleged incident but the statement of Kundan could not have been recorded before the trial court because, he had already passed away. So far as the statement of alleged eye witness Khachora is concerned, he has not deposed in his statement against the applicant-accused about her causing injuries to deceased Harpal though, it has come on record in his statement that the applicant-accused was present on the spot but the said statement has no relevance because, the deceased had gone to the shop of the applicant-accused and demanded a pouch on credit but the applicant-accused refused to give him the same because, the deceased did not pay the earlier amount which was due against him. Counsel further contends that co-accused Ashok Sen was granted bail by this court vide order dated 14.7.2016 passed in M.Cr.C.No.7904 of 2016 and the allegations made against the applicant-accused are more or less the same as those made against the co-accused Ashok Sen as stated earlier who was granted bail by this court. On the basis of aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the applicant-accused has prayed for bail. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State and the counsel for the complainant opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant/accused have prayed for rejection of the bail application. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the case diary as well as statements of the witnesses. On perusal of the statements of the witnesses and the case diary evidence, it transpires that though the applicant-accused was present on spot, yet she did not cause any injury to deceased Harpal Singh who had gone to her shop for demanding a pouch on credit. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant/accused be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court on the condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during the trial and shall also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. and so also as imposed by the trial Court. A copy of this order be sent for compliance to the Court concerned. Certified copy as per rules. (M.K. MUDGAL) JUDGE