Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lajjaram Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 2020
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
1 MCRC-10015-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-10015-2020
(LAJJARAM SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
2
Gwalior, Dated : 19-03-2020
Shri B.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-
State.
Shri A.R. Shivhare, learned counsel for the complainant. I.A. No.2362/2020, an application under Section 301 (2) of CrPC, is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein and Shri A.R. Shivhare, Advocate and his associates are permitted to assist State counsel in the prosecution of the case.
Case diary is available.
This is second application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 24/6/2019 in connection with Crime No.140/2019 registered at Police Station Bagchini, District Morena for offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 34 of the IPC and later added 302, 201 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that this is the second bail application of the applicant. First application was dismissed on merits with liberty to file afresh after recording of evidence of some prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that despite the efforts of trial Court, prosecution witnesses are deliberately not turning up to linger on the trial proceedings. The complainant party is taking advantage of the order passed by this Court on in earlier bail application. Further, the applicant is an old man aged about 80 years and is in custody since last nine months. Under these circumstances, prayed to allow the bail application of the applicant.
Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the same and have submitted that there is specific allegation against the present applicant. It is further submitted by learned 2 MCRC-10015-2020 counsel for the complainant that the summons issued by the trial Court have not been received back, therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution witnesses are deliberately not turning up for recording of evidence. He further submitted that the next date fixed by the trial Court for recording of prosecution evidence is 24/3/2020 and prosecution witnesses who are summoned by the trial Court will appear positively before the trial Court for recording of their evidence. Hence, prayed to reject the bail application of the applicant.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. Looking to the age of the applicant and the version submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that the prosecution witnesses will positively appear before the trial Court on 24/3/2020 for recording of their evidence, in the interest of justice, list the case on 26/3/2020 for consideration of grant of bail to the applicant.
(RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE AKS ALOK KUMAR 2020.03.20 10:46:50 +05'30'