Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Pradeep @ Lalla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2019

                                -1-                               CRA NO.467/2019

                                           HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
                                                      BENCH AT INDORE
                                                       CRA NO.467/2019
                                      Pradeep @ Lalla s/o Kailash Chouhan vs. State of M.P
                                05.03.2019 (INDORE):
                                        Shri Nilesh Manore, learned counsel for the applicant.
                                        Shri Nilesh Patel, learned GA for the respondent/State.

Shri Yogesh Purohit, learned counsel for the objector. This is second criminal appeal (bail) under section 14- A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the SC/ST Act') seeking bail in connection with Crime No.322/16 registered at Police Station Neelganga (AZAK), Ujjain for the offences punishable under sections 302, 201, 394 & 202 of the IPC and under section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act. The first criminal appeal has been dismissed as withdrawn on 04.12.2017.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are no eye witnesses, the appellant has been made an accused on false grounds and that none of the nine witnesses examined so far have adduced against the appellant.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and belongings of the deceased were recovered at the instance of the appellant.

The appellant is facing trial under sections 302, 201, 394 & 202 of the IPC along with section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act. The deposition sheets of nine witnesses examined so far have been produced for perusal.

It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the case is based on circumstantial evidence. He has cited an Apex Court judgment pronounced in Bharat vs. State of M.P 2003 (3) SCC 106, in which it has been held that ornaments recovered were of common pattern, commonly available in the market and such ornaments recovered from the house of the accused would not lead to any conclusion against the appellant. A perusal of the deposition sheets show that witnesses are being examined regularly. Last witness was examined on 04.01.2019 and it does not appear that there is undue delay. The impact of items seized would be determined only at the time of pronouncement of judgment. At this stage, when the trial is in progress, it would not be in the fitness of things to give an opinion as to reliability or otherwise of the evidence available. The case is of serious nature and trial is in progress, I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. In such circumstances, the appeal stands rejected.

                                                             (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
                                hk/                                   JUDGE


Digitally signed by Hari Kumar Nair
Date: 06/03/2019 10:16:01