Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 July, 2019
1 MCRC-30098-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-30098-2019
(MUKESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated : 29-07-2019
Shri Raj Kumar Singh Kushwah, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vinay Kumar, learned Public Prosecutor, for the respondent/State.
This is second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
It is submitted that applicant is in custody since 24.04.2019 and charges against him are under Sections 343, 366, 316 (2)(G), 34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Morena. In trial which was conducted for co-accused, judgment has been passed on 17.07.2013 by the Court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, in Sessions Case No.46/2013 and finding the evidence of prosecutrix to be shaky and self contradictory, both the accused who were tried have been acquitted by the trial Court. Therefore, placing reliance on the judgment of M.P. High Court in case of Ujagar Singh Vs. State of M.P. as reported in 2000 (1) M.P.L.J.59 wherein, it has been held that accused applicant having earlier been absconding other two accused tried for offences and acquitted. Applicant who was the husband's brother having been absconding could not be prosecuted along with the other two accused. It has been held that rigour for bail has been granted to accused applicant had softened by judgment of acquittal of co-accused and, therefore, he was released on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that case against all the accused persons was registered in the year 2012. Applicant had applied for anticipatory bail vide M.Cr.C.No.2600/2013. His first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was withdrawn on 03.06.2019.
There are serious allegations against the present applicant of committing rape on the prosecutrix and case of the applicant cannot be tested on the basis of the evidence for acquitted co-accused persons. It is also submitted that in case of Ujagar Singh (supra), charges were as Sections 2 MCRC-30098-2019 498-A, 302/304-B and 201 of IPC concerning the death of Jawahar Singh whereas applicant before the High Court was brother of the husband of the deceased Smt. Sapnadevi and therefore that case of the facts is distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
It is also evident from the record that applicant has deliberately kept himself away from the process of law for long seven years. It is not the case of the applicant that he was not aware of the pendency of the case, inasmuch, as he had applied for anticipatory bail. After completion of trial in the year 2013 for co-accused, applicant continued to remain absconding till April, 2019.
In view of such facts mere acquittal of co-accused is not a sufficient ground to extend benefit of bail to the applicant who has deliberately kept the process of law in abeyance due to his deliberate act of not appearing before the Court. Therefore, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant Mukesh, S/o Shri Harishankar Baghel on bail till the trial is completed. Therefore, bail application fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE mani SUBASRI MANI 2019.07.29 18:27:34
-07'00'