जबलपुर :- मध्यप्रदेश हाईकोर्ट ने वेदिका ठाकुर नामक युवती की हत्या करने वाले भाजपा नेता प्रियांशु विश्वकर्मा की जमानत याचिका को खारिज कर दिया है। हाईकोर्ट ने इस जबलपुर संभाग के IG , DIG और SP को निर्देश देते हुए कहा की इस प्रकरण में FIR नहीं लिखने वाले दोषी पुलिस अधिकारियों पर कार्यवाही और मेट्रो हॉस्पिटल जंहा पर मृतिका ठाकुर को भर्ती किया गया था उस पर भी कार्यवाही की निर्देश दिए है। हाईकोर्ट के कहा की जिस हॉस्पिटल में युवती को भर्ती किया गया था उस हॉस्पिटल की भी जिम्मेदारी थी की उसे भी पुलिस को इस घटना की सूचना देनी थी। मप्र हाईकोर्ट के जस्टिस विशाल धगट की एकलपीठ इस मामले की सुनवाई कर रहे है। आपको बता दे की जनवरी माह में भाजपा नेता प्रियांशु विश्वकर्मा ने अपने आफिस में आयी वेदिका ठाकुर की गोली मारकर कर हत्या कर दी थी। आरोपी प्रियांशु विशकर्मा 19 जून 2023 से जेल में बंद है और अपनी रिहाई के लिए जमानत याचिका हाईकोर्ट में लगा रखी
बाइट मनीष दत्त अधिवक्ता
जबलपुर से वाजिद खान की रिपोर्ट
page – 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 15th OF DECEMBER, 2023
BETWEEN:-
PRIYANSH VISHWAKARMA S/O SHRI LEELADHAR
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUILDER R/O H NO 1762 GANGA
NAGAR GARHA DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
…..APPLICANT
(BY SHRI ANIL KHARE – SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI PRIYANK
AGRAWAL – ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION SANJEEVANI NAGAR DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
…..RESPONDENTS
(SHRI AKSHAY NAMDEO – GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE WITH SHRI
D.K. PAROUHA – GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR STATE AND SHRI
MANISH DATT – SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI N.P. VERMA –
ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR)
This application coming on for admission this day, t h e court
passed the following:
ORDER
This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail, who is in jail
since 19.06.2023 relating to FIR No.190/2023 registered at Police Station
Sanjeevani Nagar District Jabalpur (M.P.) for the offences under sections
page – 2
308, 338, 201, 307, 302 of IPC and sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that no
case of murder under section 302 or 304 of the IPC is made out against
applicant. Deceased herself has given three statements which are dying
declarations in which it has been stated by her that gun was not functioning
and it was loaded by applicant and it misfired due to which she received
injuries. It cannot be said that applicant was having any mense-rea or
intention to commit murder of deceased. It is further submitted that
applicant took the deceased to the hospital for treatment and also informed
about the incident to all relatives. Gun was fired accidentally and therefore,
offence under section 304-A of IPC may be made out which is punishable
upto two years of imprisonment along with fine. In these circumstances,
applicant may be granted bail.
3. Learned Senior Advocate for objector as well as learned
Government Advocate appearing for the State opposed the application for
grant of bail. It is submitted that in statement given to police and also to
Executive Magistrate by deceased, it has been stated that applicant loaded
gun and he fired it. Gun was fired on the stomach which hit the girl on her
under arms and she received injuries. Bullet was stuck in spine and she
was taken to various hospitals. Report was not immediately given to the
police and four bullet marks were found in the room which suggests that
applicant may have repeatedly fired on the victim. Further reliance is
placed on the statement of one Abhishek Jhariya who has stated that there
was some quarrel between deceased and applicant and applicant had fired
the gun on the deceased. Reliance is also placed in 164 statement of said
page – 2
person. It is submitted that applicant after causing injuries to the girl did
not take her to the hospital for long time and in the evening, she was taken
to the hospital. It is also argued that medical college was just 200 meters
away from the place of incident and applicant has taken the deceased to a
doctor who was B.H.M.S. and hospital was not having a surgeon who
could treat the victim. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that
offence under section 304-A is made out and offence under section 302 or
304 of IPC is not made out against applicant.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties.
5. Considering the facts and evidence available on record, it appears
that gun was not functioning but applicant loaded the gun and took the risk
of firing the gun on the stomach or near the feet of the deceased which
may have recoiled or there may have been some jerk in the pistol which
resulted injuries under the arm pit of the girl. From aforesaid incident, it is
clear that applicant was having full knowledge that he was having a
dangerous and lethal weapon in his hand. He loaded the weapon and also
took the risk of firing that weapon towards the girl. It does not matter
whether he pointed it on her head or some other portion of body but he
voluntarily with full knowledge took the risk of firing a lethal weapon
towards the girl which resulted in the injury and at this stage offence under
section 304-A appears to be made out against applicant which is
punishable with life imprisonment or upto to ten years R.I.
6. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is
not a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, bail application is herebydismissed.
page – 4
7. Observations made by this Court while passing this bail order will
not affect the merits of trial and applicant will be at liberty to file repeat bail
application after examination of Abhishek Jharia and Executive Magistrate,
who recorded the evidence of deceased.
8. Superintendent of Police or Officer In-charge of taking discipline
or legal action against delinquent employee is directed to inquire into the
fact that who was officer and who was present in the Police Station and
refused to register the FIR. Misconduct of said police officer is contrary
to various judgments which has been passed by the Apex Court. It is the
duty of police officer to immediately register an FIR on report of
cognizable offence but he did not register the offence immediately. Had
the offence been registered immediately, life of an innocent person could
have been saved. In such circumstances, Superintendent of Police/DIG/IG
is directed to take action against delinquent police officer who refused to
register FIR at Police Station and also take action against all the Hospitals
which did not inform the police regarding police case.
9. Copy of this order be provided to learned Government
Advocates for information and necessary compliance.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
