Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neelam Puri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 December, 2014
M.Cr.C.No.18192 of 2014
1
Neelam Puri vs State of M.P .
10 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 4
Shri Ajay K. Jain, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Umesh Pandey, Govt. Advocate for the
respondent /S tate.
Heard finally. Case diary is perused.
This is first bail application on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is in custody since 14.09.2014 in connection with Crime No.753 /2014 registered at Police Station Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 294 and 302 of 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 all the family members of the applicant have been made accused in the case and there is no male member to look after the family. The applicant alleged to have inflicted injury by means of lathi and the injury sustained by means of lathi is simple in nature. The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, hence, prayed that the applicant be released on bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer vehemently opposed the application for grant of bail on the ground that nature of allegation is heinous in which two young boys were murdered, blood stained shirt and weapon were also recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is further submitted that there is named FIR, there are three eye witnesses to the incident and medical report is also corroborated by the prosecution evidence.
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 M.Cr.C.No.18192 of 2014 2 the satisfaction about prima facie case and not an exhaustive exploration of merits in the order itself.
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 there is indication prima facie that the applicant is alleged to have committed a heinous crime. Looking to the nature and gravity of the accusation, this is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. Consequently, his application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.
(SUBHASH KAKADE)
SJ/ - JUDGE