Madhya Pradesh High Court
Atar Singh Narwariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 April, 2019
1 MCRC-13000-2019
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-13000-2019
(Atar Singh Narwariya Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated : 02/04/2019
Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Purushottam Pandey, Public Prosecutor for
respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
This is fifth repeat application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested on 13.02.2018 in connection with Crime No.339/2016 registered by Police Station - Mehgaon District Bhind for offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, 294, 147, 148, 149 of IPC.
This repeat application has been filed for grant of bail on the ground of delay only. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the charges were framed on 29.10.2018 and thereafter not a single witness has been examined so far and the complainant and all other witnesses are criminal and they are absconding and, therefore, their appearance before the Trial Court in near future is not bright.
When the attention of the counsel for the applicant was drawn towards the contents of the bail application and was pointed out that in fact, it is not mentioned in the application that complainant and other witnesses are criminal and they are absconding, then it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that it is mentioned in the order dated 2 MCRC-13000-2019 04.12.2018 passed by the Trial Court.
After going through the order of the Trial Court dated 04.12.2018, it appears that the summons issued to Ramendra and Ashok were served and since they were not present, therefore, the bailable warrant of arrest were issued. The fact that summons were served by the police on Ramendra and Ashok clearly indicates that they are not absconding, otherwise police would have arrested them in the criminal case if it is registered against them.
It is next contended by the counsel for the applicant that from the order dated 22.02.2019, it is clear that the witnesses Ashok Singh and Ramendra Singh are absent, therefore, warrants of arrest have been issued against them. Thus, it should be presumed that these witnesses are absconding.
The said submission made by the counsel for the applicant cannot be accepted. Merely because the witness has failed to appear before the Trial Court, is not sufficient to raise a presumption that he is absconding from the law. Even otherwise it is not known that whether any criminal case has been registered against these witnesses or not ?
It is next contended by the counsel for the applicant that the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has held that the accused is entitled for bail on the ground of delay.
Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
3 MCRC-13000-2019 The applicant is facing trial for offence under Section 302 of IPC. According to the counsel for the applicant, the charges were framed on 29.10.2018. The applicant has not filed copies of the order- sheets to show that no adjournment was sought by the applicant or co- accused persons before framing of charges.
The Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported in (2018) 12 SCC 129, has held that if an accused is facing trial for offence under Section 302 of IPC then the incarceration of one year cannot be said to be excessive. Furthermore, the bail application of the co-accused Mukesh has been rejected by this Court on 11.02.2019 and the last application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court on 07.12.2018.
Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for reconsideration of the application for grant of bail on the ground of delay.
The application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2019.04.03 17:37:19 +05'30'