Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yagyadutta @ Pawan Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 October, 2016
M.Cr.C.No.18214 of 2016
1
17/10/2016
Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Hemlata Kshatriya, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard finally. Case diary is perused.
This is a repeat fourth bail application on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Earlier applications of the applicant were dismissed by the Court on 20.10.15, 27.11.15 and on 16.06.16 in M.Cr.C.No.17432/15, 20528/2015 and in M.Cr.C.No.364/2016 respectively.
Applicant Yagyadutta @ Pawan Tiwari is in custody since 04.07.15 in connection with Crime No.213/2015 registered at Police Station Ramnagar, District Satna (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 489-A and 489-D/34 of the IPC .
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that after rejection order dated 16.06.16 passed in M.Cr.C.No.364/2016, two important independent witnesses Mohd.Hasan (PW.1) and Ravendra Prasad Mishra (PW.2) were examined by the prosecution and they were declared hostile, therefore, no case is made out as against the applicant, hence he is entitled to be released on bail as the applicant is in custody since his date of arrest i.e. 04.07.15 and already suffered custody period for more than one year and three months, and conclusion of trial would take considerable time.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has vehemently opposed the application on the ground that colour printer and other incriminating articles were seized from the possession of the applicant on his information and other important prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
Detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of merits is not desirable and should be avoided while passing orders on bail applications. What is necessary is the satisfaction about prima facie case and not an exhaustive exploration of merits in the order itself. It is the duty of the M.Cr.C.No.18214 of 2016 2 parties as well as the Court to see that at the stage of deciding bail application, the Court is not dragged into minutest details and in an arena of conjectures of hypotheses.
Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case , the evidence collected by the prosecution, and looking to the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find that this is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. Consequently, this repeat fourth application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.
However, learned trial Court is directed to make every endeavour to conclude the trial as early as possible.
(SUBHASH KAKADE)
Jk. JUDGE