Mohd. Nadeem vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This is the first application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.65/2019 registered

at Police Station Omti, Distt. Jabalplur (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 109, 114, 120B, 307, 420 and 472 of IPC & sections 25 and 27 of Arms

Act.

The allegations against the applicant, in short, are that on 27.02.2019 at about 16:45 Hrs., Sub-inspector, Omti on the basis of dehati nalishi, lodged an

FIR against accused Golu Musalman for the offence under section 307 of IPC in which the injured/complainant stated that at about 3:30 PM, when he

was parking his car in the campus of Prabhu Vandana Talkies, Golu met him and threatened with dire consequences and in the course of which he

fired gun shots at complainant with intention to kill him. In an injured condition, the complainant was admitted at Jabalpur Hospital where Dehati

Nalishi was recorded. During investigation, on 13.03.2019 the accused Golu was arrested and on the basis of his memorandum statement recorded u/S

27 of Evidence Act, the applicant has also been implicated in the offence.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It

is further submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR and only on the basis of memorandum of co-accused Golu Musalman, he has been made

accused in the instant case. The main accused is Golu Musalman, who fired gun shot injuries to the complainant. The allegation against the applicant is

that he only helped the main accused Golu Musalman in committing the offence. It is also submitted that similarly situated co-accused has been

enlarged on bail vide order dated 16.05.2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No.19183/2019. The applicant who is in custody since 24.03.2019 is permanent

resident of the District. There is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the prosecution case by the applicant. On these grounds, prayer is made

to enlarge the applicant on bail.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as counsel for the objector opposes the bail application. It is further submitted by the counsel for the

objector that the applicant along with five others had planned the entire incident and committed the offence. Applicant- Mohd. Nadeem along with co-

accused Mirja Rehaan, Swapnil @ Seetu and Golu were continuously connected with their mobiles, which is evident through the Cellular Company

Details and the CDR. The applicant is claiming parity with Sheikh Azad, who has been enlarged on bail, but the case of present applicant is totally

different than that of Sheikh Azad, whose role is that he only prepared a forged number plate on alleged motorcycle, which was used in the crime. She

further submits that bail application of co-accused Swapnil Shrivastava has been dismissed as withdrawn by Vacation Judge of this Court vide order

dated 03.06.2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No.22048/2019. The complainant has suffered injuries which were dangerous to life and the entire incident had

taken place for want of money and if the applicant is enlarged on bail, there will be possibility to again assault the injured and his family members and

threaten them to withdraw the case.

Heard rival contentions of the parties and perused the case diary. The present applicant has been arrayed as an accused on the basis of memorandum

of main accused Golu and it is alleged against the applicant that he has planned with the main accused so he is a part of conspiracy hatched between

applicant and other co-accused. So far as the role of applicant is concerned, it is alleged that on disclosure of applicant, one motorcycle has been

seized from him. So far as bail application of co-accused Swapnil Shrivastava, which has been dismissed as withdrawn by the Vacation Judge vide

order dated 03.06.2019, is concerned the present application can be entertained by this Court because an order from administrative side has been

passed from the Registry of this Court on 09.05.2019 and condition for hearing the bail application before same Bench has been relaxed during

summer vacation while bail application of co-accused Sheikh Azad was filed before this Bench and was allowed vide order dated 16.05.2019.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by counsel for applicant as also looking to the role so

attributed to the applicant, but without commenting on its merits, the application is allowed on strict terms. It is ordered that applicant be released on

bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two local solvent sureties in the like amount to the

satisfaction of the trial Court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial. This order will

remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-

(1) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

(2) The applicant will cooperate in the trial;

(3) The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to

dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

(4) The applicant shall not commit any offence during the period in which he be enlarged on bail;

(5) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

(6) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court.

This order shall remain effective till the end of the trial but in case of bail jump and breach of any of the pre-condition of bail, it shall become

ineffective and cancelled without reference to this Bench. State/Objector is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail of the applicant in

case of breach of aforesaid conditions.

Certified copy as per rules.