Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/56801/2023 of BASANT BUWADE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 56801 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
BASANT BUWADE S/O JHAPU BUWADE, AGED ABOUT 70YEARS, R/O VILL. JAM POLICE STATION MULTAIDISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI ANIL KUMAR DWIVEDI - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICES TATI O N MULTAI DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY MS. PRITI SINGH - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENT
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This is first application under Section 439 of the Code of CriminalProcedure 1973 for grant of bail filed on behalf of the applicant who has beenarrested relating to FIR/Crime No.261/2023 dated 13.04.2023 registered atPolice Station Multai, district Betul for the offences punishable under Sections294, 323, 506, 307, 302, 34 of IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is incustody since 20.04.2023 and the trial will take considerable time to conclude.He further submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicatedin the case. The applicant is the permanent resident of district and there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence. He isready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the conditions to beimposed by the Court. Upon these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant bereleased on bail.
3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application andpayed for its rejection.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
5. This bail application has been argued on the ground that prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial Court and complainant AnilBuwade (PW-1) has not supported the prosecution story during the Courttestimony. It was a case where original FIR was registered under Sections 294,323 and 506 of IPC, but later the victim succumbed to his injuries as thecharge-sheet was filed under Section 302 of IPC. The daughter of victim hasalready been examined but the wife of deceased namely Lalli and other personsalso were the eye witnesses to this incident and their testimony is yet to berecorded before the trial Court.
6. Having considered the fact that this is a case of directed evidence andthe statements of all eye witnesses have not been recorded yet, the applicantcannot be granted the benefit of bail in this case of murder.
7. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. stands dismissed.
pnm
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)JUDGE