The petitioner will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be ģ. The petitioner will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him Ģ. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the petitioner :-ġ.
#Mastram pdf trial
50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court. One Lac only) with two solvent sureties each of Rs. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. statements of prosecution witnesses namely, Mukesh and Kamar Singh were recorded after 10 days of the incident, this court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the petitioner but with certain stringent conditions. of prosecution witness Daulatram Bhagchand did not allege any overt act on the part of the petitioner of forcing the deceased to consume poisonous substance whereas implicativeģ Mcrc.6/16 Mastram Vs. True it is that the postmortem report discloses cause of death of the deceased Harishankar to be poisonous substance but looking to the lacuna in the prosecution story where the first statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Injuries have been sustained by the members of rival parties. It is seen from the record that rival parties are closely related to each other and cross-case bearing Crime No.293/15 arising out of the same incident is registered alleging offences under sections 452, 323, 324, 294 and 506/34 of I.P.C. It is submitted that the implication of the petitioner of forcing the deceased to consume poisonous substance is made against the petitioner in statements by another prosecution witnesses, namely, Mukesh and Kamar Singh recorded after nearly ten days of the incident on. of PW-Daulatram Bhagchand, the very next day of the incident is not implicative in nature qua the petitioner. Learned counsel further mentions that the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the FIR lodged, name of the petitioner did not find mention. The allegation of forcing the said deceased to consume poisonous substance is clearly and exclusively made against the petitioner.Ģ Mcrc.6/16 Mastram Vs. It is alleged that the deceased Harishankar was first beaten up and thereafter compelled to consume poisonous substance by the petitioner. The charge-sheet has been filed where allegation of abetment to suicide is made.
![mastram pdf mastram pdf](https://akm-img-a-in.tosshub.com/sites/dailyo/story/small/201510/mastram-ajay_102315083942.jpg)
Learned Public Prosecutor 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 bail is made out. The petitioner has been arrested by Police Station Pohari, District Shivpuri (M.P.) in connection with Crime No 294/15 registered in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 306, 452, 323, 324, 147, 148, 149,Ģ94 and 506 of I.P.C. The petitioner has filed this first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.
![mastram pdf mastram pdf](https://blastatrumpet.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/mastram-poster-11.jpg)
![mastram pdf mastram pdf](https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-BAGQjsuTLGE/TX9nROyQrnI/AAAAAAAAAkE/Qvo_1TcQd_I/s1600/KmZaChuStoPic.png)
![mastram pdf mastram pdf](https://moifightclub.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/mastram-poster-moifightclub.jpg)
Shri Prabal Solanki, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. 19/1/16 Shri B.S.Dhakad, Advocate for the petitioner.