Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ganga Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 April, 2024
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 18 th OF APRIL, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12410 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
GANGA SINGH, S/O SHRI RAM PRASAD, AGED ABOUT
72 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O WARD
NO 11, BAJRAIYA MOHALLA, NAWGONG, DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SANKALP KOCHAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION NAWGONG, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. VINEETA SHARMA - PANEL LAWYER)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is Third application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of bail filed on behalf of the applicant who has been arrested relating to FIR/Crime No.619/2022 dated 22.10.2022 registered at Police Station Nawgong, district Chhatarpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506, 34, 307 and 302 IPC. His first bail application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 26.7.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No.31748/2023. second bail application was also dismissed on merits vide order dated 21.12.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No.53031/2023 Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 4/22/2024 11:20:53 AM 2
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 30.10.2022. The applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. The applicant is a permanent resident of district and is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the conditions to be imposed by the Court. Trial will take considerable time to be concluded. Upon these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
5. This third bail application has been argued on the basis of inconsistency in the testimony of four prosecution witnesses. Although meticulous analysis of this testimony is not possible here but it is noteworthy that they have made improvements about the role of co-accused Abhishek @ Lucky Yadav and Viru @ Vivek Yadav and they have been consistent upon the fact that it was the applicant who had struck a blow with Danda on the back side of the head of Upendra. The postmortem report suggests that Upendra died of head injury. Although, it is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that he was under treatment for the long time an there is also possibility that he was not given proper treatment but that issue cannot be investigated here.
6. The statements of eye witnesses recorded before the trial Court suggests that they have been consistent on the narration of facts given about the role of applicant in the commission of crime. Though it is argued here that it was a case of free fight, for that reason alone, the co-accused persons have been granted bail.
Signature Not Verified7. Considering the allegations made against the applicant and rejection Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 4/22/2024 11:20:53 AM 3 orders on the earlier bail applications, this Court does not find it proper to allow this repeat bail application only on the ground of age of the applicant.
8. It has also been argued here that statement of only four witnesses have been recorded out of 23 listed in the charge sheet but the order sheets of the trial Court have not been filed to suggest that there is any delay being committed by the prosecution before the trial Court.
9. On the basis of aforesaid facts, this third bail application is dismissed.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE DevS Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 4/22/2024 11:20:53 AM