Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nana vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 July, 2021
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C. No.22114/2021
(Nana Vs. State of M.P.)
-1-
Indore, dated 23/07/2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Ajay Bagadiya and Shri Umesh Manshore, learned counsel for
the Petitioner .
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State.
Case-diary perused.
01. This is third application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail. The applicant is implicated in connection with Crime No.386/2018 registered at Police Station- Rajgarh, District-Dhar (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC. The applicant is in custody since 12.09.2021.
First application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.02.2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No.7398/2019 and second application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 10.02.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.4394/2020.
02. As per prosecution story in short, on 05.09.2018, the applicant came to deceased- Ramesh's house with the cane of kerosene oil (Ghaslate) which he threw on the house of the deceased which resulted in death of Hirubai @ Karkubai and the victim-Ramesh was taken to hospital at Indore in serious burn condition where he eventually succumbed to his burns and died on 06.09.2018.
03. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is suffering from sickle cell anaemia from past so many years and he is behind the bars since 12.09.2019 and he is not getting adequate treatment facility in the jail. He is the sole earning member of the family and he has no previous criminal history. He has been falsely implicated in the crime on the basis of dying declaration of the deceased, which is not admissible in law and such HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.22114/2021 (Nana Vs. State of M.P.) -2- dying declaration is not proved by the prosecution witnesses during testimony recorded in the trial court. It has been further stated that ST No.8/2019 is arising out of the above mentioned F.I.R. and the material witnesses have been examined and only expert witnesses remained for prosecution. Most of the witnesses including father of the deceased has turned hostile and during investigation, he has not supported the prosecution story. He submits that there have been changes in circumstances, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
04. Per contra, learned government advocate for respondent - State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that trial is still continuing and due to the Corona Pandemic crises, physical hearing was not possible in the district court, hence, trial could not be completed. But, at this stage, marshaling of incomplete evidence available on record is not permissible, this matter is related to a heinous offence of double murder.
05. After hearing both the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a matter of double murder and dying declaration is also available in the present case and trial is still continuing in the trial court and due to Covid-19 pandemic crises, the evidence of the prosecution is yet not completed and looking to the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant, hence, the present bail application is dismissed.
06. Trial court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(Anil Verma) Judge N.R. Digitally signed by NARENDRA KUMAR RAIPURIA Date: 2021.07.24 12:01:39 +05'30'