Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/14888/2023 of CHHOTU @ SOURABH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 14888 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
CHHOTU @ SOURABH S/O SHRI KISHAN PRASADMISHRA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SELFEMPLOYED R/O VILLAGE KAPURIYA, POLICE STATIONCANTT, SAGAR, DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI JAFAR KHAN - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1-STATE BY SHRI D. K. SHUKLA - PANEL LAWYER)
This appeal 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 second Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant ofbail filed on behalf of appellant against the order dated 12.10.2023 passed inB.A. No.1649/2023.
T he appellant has been arrested on 01.12.2022 in connection with(FIR)/Crime No.671/2023 dated 17.09.2023 registered at Police Station Cantt., district Sagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 ofIPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant isinnocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The appellant is in judicialcustody since 01.12.2022 and the trial will take long time to conclude. Theappellant is a permanent resident of district Sagar and there is no likelihood ofhis absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. In view of theaforesaid, prayer has been made to enlarge the appellant on bail.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail tothe appellant.
Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary andjudgment of the trial court.
This repeat bail application has been argued on the ground that there wasan exceptional delay of almost three months in lodging the FIR and pre-MLCreport shows that the victim sustained injuries upon falling from the roof.Although it is claimed that a cutter was used to cause injuries but no incisedwound caused by a sharp cutting weapon was found on the person ofdeceased. The case diary statements were recorded with a delay.
It may be mentioned here that the delay in lodging the FIR wasconsidered in the earlier application, hence it need not to be revisited. Nowherein the statements of witnesses it is mentioned that the sharp-edged side of thecutter was used to cause injuries. There might have been delay in recording thepolice statements of witnesses but the Marg statements of these witnesses wereavailable before the registration of FIR and some of these Marg statements bearthe date of 16.7.2023. Therefore, the argument that witnesses revealed the prosecution story in the month of October, 2023 is not acceptable.
Having considered the aforesaid facts, but without commenting on meritsof the case, this repeat bail application is dismissed.
ps
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)JUDGE
Digitally signed by PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2024.02.03 11:23:01 +05'30' Adobe Reader version: 11.0.8