Madhya Pradesh High Court
Khemaji vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2021
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1 M.Cr.C.No.9076/2021
(Khemaji Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore : Dated 24.2.2021
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Arjun Pathak, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
This is second bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.653/2019 registered at P.S., Kukshi, District Dhar for the offence punishable under Section 304-A, 419, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. The first application viz. M.Cr.C.No.4025/2021 was dismissed on 8.2.2021 at the request of applicant seeking liberty to surrender before the trial Court and move an application for regular bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that there is no bar against applying for anticipatory bail by way of repeat application. It is settled law. Hence, the application may be considered.
True it is that principles of res judicata do not have application in the matter of repeat application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Nevertheless, once the counsel for the applicant seeks to withdraw the application with liberty to surrender before the trial Court and apply for regular bail, in the opinion of this Court, repeat application is not maintainable as it was not a case of withdrawal simplicitor. That apart, on perusal of the case diary and the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. prima facie complacency of the applicant in the alleged crime is writ large. A vehicle bearing registration No.MP-11- G-3674 alleged owned by one Babliya had met with an accident on 14.11.2019, wherein one Anil had died. On Marg intimation investigation had started and thereafter FIR was lodged. During course of investigation it surfaced that applicant was known to Babliya and had exploited him on many occasions. He had opened two accounts in the name of Babliya and his wife Sajan Bai. Babliya had died. The applicant is alleged to have manipulated claim case upon death of deceased Anil and against a fictitious claim managed deposit of the amount of compensation in the account of Babliya without her knowledge and consent. Thereafter, the amount so deposited was 2 M.Cr.C.No.9076/2021 (Khemaji Vs. State of M.P.) transferred at the behest of applicant in the account of father-in-law and brother-in-law. As such there appears to be a conspiracy, manipulation, forgery, false documentation by the applicant. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of no evidence. Accordingly, this second application for grant of anticipatory bail is dismissed on merits.
C.c as per rules.
(Rohit Arya) Judge Patil Digitally signed by Shailesh Patil Date: 2021.02.25 10:07:32 +05'30'