Monu @ Irfan Pathan vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan, J

Heard on this second bail application for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant Monu @ Irfan Pathan.

The applicant is in custody since 12.04.2018 in connection with Crime No. 51/20017 registered at Police Station Amarpatan, District-Satna for commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC and Section 25 read with section 27 of the Arms Act.

His first application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 08.01.2020 passed in M.Cr.C.No.26102/2019.

The case of the prosecution against the applicant, in short, is that there was agricultural field of Pujari Pandit and applicant and deceased both took the portion of the field on contract for doing the agricultural work. On the date of incidence, there was a quarrel arose among both applicant and deceased and applicant who was having a firearm shot fire at deceased Dhruv Patel, thereafter, he fled away from the spot. Dhruv after receiving gun shot injuries shouted for help and persons gathered on the spot. Dhruv was shouting that applicant shot a fire at him and when he was shifted, he succumbed.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that only six witnesses have been examined before the trial Court and presently working of the trial Court is held up due to present situation of widespread COVID-19 pandemic. There was a seizure of the arms after five months of arresting of the applicant. He further submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case, therefore, it has been prayed that applicant be released on bail.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, on the other hand has opposed the application and submits that there is sufficient material available on record to show thatapplicant has committed murder of deceased Dhruv Patel, therefore, he prays for dismissal of this application.

Having heard both the learned counsel for the parties. Counsel for the applicant has filed a copy of the statement of witnesses recorded before the trial Court during trial. Perused the statement. After perusal of the statement of witnesses, it reflects that most of the witnesses categorically stated that when deceased Dhruv Patel was shouting for help, they reached on the spot and Dhruv Patel categorically stated that the applicant has fired a bullet on him and he received injuries. No doubt, this type of situation prima-facie shows that the deceased before his death categorically stated the name of the applicant in public. There is prima-facie strong case found against the applicant.

In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to release applicant on bail. Consequently, this second bail application under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure filed by applicant is hereby dismissed.