Lalu Sharma vs State Of M.P

This first application for grant of bail has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

The applicant is in jail from 17-2-2020 in connection with crime no.28/2016 registered by Police Station Rithorakala, Distt. Morena for offence under

Sections 302, 307, 147, 294 of I.P.C.

It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant, that on the report lodged by the Deceased, F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and other co-

accused persons. The Police filed charge sheet against Brijmohan, Ramnaresh whereas the applicant was shown to be absconding and accordingly,

charge sheet was filed against the applicant under Section 299 of Cr.P.C.

It is submitted that the Trial Court by Judgment dated 12-2-2019 has acquitted the co-accused Brijmohan, Ramnaresh whereas the police had filed

expunge report against the remaining co-accused persons. It is further submitted that once, the dying declaration as well as the evidence of eye

witness has not been found trustworthy, therefore, the pre trial incarceration of the applicant is unwarranted.

Per contra, the application is opposed by the State Counsel.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

When a query was put by the Court to the Counsel for the applicant that as the offence was committed on 7-4-2016, whereas the applicant has been

arrested on 17-2-2020, then why he was absconding, specifically when his father Brijmohan was already facing trial and the applicant was aware of

the fact that a criminal case has been registered against him, then it was submitted by the Counsel for the applicant, that since, no proceedings under

Section 82, 83 of Cr.P.C. were initiated by the prosecution, therefore, he is not under obligation to answer the query of the Court.

As the Counsel for the applicant refused to answer the query of the Court, therefore, it is presumed that he has no answer to the query put by the

Court. Accordingly he was heard on merits.

According to the prosecution story, on 7-4-2016, the deceased Pradeep Katare, lodged a Dehati Nalishi to the effect that a litigation is going on

between him and Balkishan etc. in the Court. At about 2:30 P.M., when he was in his fields along with his wife and was cutting the standing crops, at

that time, Balkishan, Brijmohan, Ramnaresh, Lalu (the applicant), Kamalu, Basant came on the spot, and started claiming that they are the owners of

the field and with an intention to kill the deceased, Kamalu, Basant, Lalu (the applicant),

Balkishan and Ramnaresh caught hold of him and thereafter Brijmohan poured kerosene oil on him and Kamalu set him on fire.

It appears that the police filed an expunge report in respect of Ramnaresh, Kamalu, and Basant.

The acquitted accused Brijmohan had moved an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. which was registered as M.Cr.C. No.30236 of 2018. The

acquitted co-accused Brijmohan had also relied upon the expunge report which was filed by the police in respect of the remaining co-accused persons

(At the relevant time, undisputedly, the expunge report was pending consideration).

Since, the expunge report was relied by the acquitted co-accused, therefore, the same was taken into consideration by this Court and this Court by

order dated 18-9-2018 found several lapses in the investigation/expunge report and made the following observations :

The most disturbing factor of the case is that in fact, Basant Sharma, who himself is an accused in the matter and has been specifically named in the

dying declaration of deceased Pradeep Katare, was in fact conducting the investigation. A detailed discussion will be made in the following

paragraphs.

The order passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.30236/2018 was challenged by the State Govt. before the Supreme Court which was registered as

Cr.A. No.625 of 2019 and was disposed of with the following observations :

As a result, the observations made against the police official (Praveen Asthana) in the impugned judgment and also the directions given to the

Department to proceed against him are directed to be expunged in terms of this order. The appeals are allowed to this limited extent, without

disturbing the final order of rejecting the bail application filed by the accused. Ordered accordingly. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Although it is mentioned in the bail application as well as it was submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that the expunge report has been accepted

but the same has not been filed. When the non-filing of the order by which expunge report was accepted, was pointed out to the Counsel for the

applicant, then he even did not pray for time to place the same on record. Be that as it may.

The fact is that the applicant was absconding inspite of the fact that his father was facing trial and the applicant was aware of the fact that he is an

accused and charge sheet has been filed under  Section 299 of Cr.P.C. Further, any evidence recorded and findings given by the Trial CourtÂ

in absence of the applicant are not binding.

Therefore, the applicant cannot take advantage of the judgment recorded by the Trial Court by which the co-accused persons have been acquitted.

In the view of the F.I.R. lodged by the deceased himself as well as in the light of the statement of the eye witness, this Court is of the considered

opinion, that it is not a fit case for grant of bail.

The application fails and is hereby Dismissed.