Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Belvanshi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2020
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 MCRC-16527-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-16527-2020
(RAVI BELVANSHI Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 06-08-2020
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Smt. Indu Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Punit Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is first bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Applicant Ravi Belvanshi was arrested on 11/08/2019 in connection with Crime No.227/2020 registered at Police Station Junnardeo, District Chhindwara for the offence punishable under Section 457, 427 & 380 of IPC and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
As per prosecution case, in the intervening night of 23-24/07/2019, the applicant and other co-accused Kailash, Tahir, Shakib, Vasim, Raies, Iklakh and Saddam stole a sum of Rs.45,30,700/- from two ATM machines located at Main Branch, S.B.I., Junnardeo and Jaiswal Market, Junnardeo after cutting the ATM machines by the gas cutter. Police arrested the applicant on 11/08/2019 and seized Rs.1,00,000/- and one cash tray of ATM Machine from the possession of the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence. There is no direct evidence on record to connect the applicant with the crime. Police only on the basis of memorandum of co-accused, implicated the applicant in the crime, while memorandum of co-accused is not admissible in evidence against the applicant without other evidence. This Court has granted bail to other co- accused Majid Khan, Hashim, and Sabir vide order dated 14/02/2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 50121/2020. The case of the applicant is similar to the other co-accused who have been granted bail by this Court, so applicant is also entitled to get bail on the basis of parity. Applicant is in custody since Signature Not Verified SAN 11/08/2019 and the conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2020.08.07 13:52:51 IST 2 MCRC-16527-2020 of the applicant on bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that the applicant committed theft from two ATM machines after cutting those machines by gas cutter. Police seized Rs.1,00,000/- and one cash tray of ATM machine from the possession of the applicant. Other offences are also registered against the applicant. So, he should not be released on bail.
The case of the applicant is not similar to the co-accused who have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14/02/2020 passed in M.Cr.C.No.50121/2019. Against those accused there is no allegation that they took part in the incident. Against them only allegation was that they took share from the stolen property. While against the applicant it is alleged that the applicant and other co-accused took part in the incident and stole the money from two ATM machines after cutting those machines by gas cutter. So, the applicant is not entitled to get bail on the basis of parity.
Police seized Rs.1,00,000/- and one cash tray of ATM machine from the possession of the applicant. Applicant has criminal past, so looking to the allegations, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage.
Hence, the M.Cr.C. is rejected.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE as Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2020.08.07 13:52:51 IST