Vikram Singh Rajput vs State of M.P.

Sheel Nagu, J.—Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard finally on the basis of charge-sheet filed by counsel for the applicant. Applicant has filed this second application u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail after rejection of first anticipatory bail application, which was dismissed as withdrawn without consideration on merits vide order dated 02.05.2013 passed in MCRC No. 1535/2013. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with offences punishable u/ss. 302, 147, 148, 149 IPC registered as Crime No. 30/2013 at Police Station Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha.

Learned Government Advocate for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

On perusal of prosecution case, it appears that FIR alleges the applicant alongwith co-accused, wielding knife and the applicant is said to have given knife blows to the deceased Kunal Sharma, who is said to have succumbed due to cumulative effect of various injuries including incised wound.

On the other hand, the medical evidence especially post mortem report of the deceased has opined the death to have been caused due to cumulative effect of injuries including the incised injuries which could have been caused by the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that lodging of FIR is delayed by 16 hours and the applicant has not been named in the Dehati Nalisi. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Thulia Kali Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, to contend that delay in FIR is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

Perusal of the charge-sheet and the allegations contained therein including FIR and the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C., it is clear that prima facie evidence is available of involvement of the applicant in the crime alleged. The medical evidence also corroborate the ocular evidence. Absence of applicant''s name in Dehati Nalisi is insignificant on account of specific name of the applicant with overt act mentioned in the FIR and statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the applicant further raised the compassionate ground of infant child of the applicant being alone with no other major member available in the family to take care of the infant except the applicant.

This Court is afraid as prima facie material of involvement of the applicant in a serious crime of murder is available in shape of ocular and medical evidence against him and, therefore, the compassionate ground raised is rendered inconsequential and thus of no avail to the applicant.

In view of above, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out in favour of the applicant.

Accordingly, this second anticipatory bail application deserves to be and is therefore dismissed. C.c. as per rules.