Madhya Pradesh High Court
Labbu @ Gajadhar Nishad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 September, 2017
MCRC-13349-2017
(LABBU @ GAJADHAR NISHAD Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
15-09-2017
Shri Vijay Chandra Rai, counsel for the applicant.
Shri S.D.Khan, Government Advocate, for the
respondent/State.
Shri Yogesh Soni, counsel for the objector. This is second bail application moved under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to applicant Labbu alias Gajadhar Nishad. His earlier bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.6.2017 passed in M.Cr.C.No.9654/2017.
The applicant has been arrested on 18.4.2017 in connection with Crime No.170/2017 of Police Station Kotwali, District Katni, for an offence punishable under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in this offence. The complainant has received simple injury at the time of incident. There is no injury of gun-shot fire caused to him. Applicant is in custody since 18.4.2017. Investigation is over. Chargesheet has been filed. The police has falsely implicated him in many other offences earlier, but in most of the cases the applicant has been found innocent, therefore, applicant may be enlarged upon bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant is a habitual offender. There are 10 criminal cases registered against him prior to the incident. He had attempted to commit murder of the complainant. Therefore, bail may not be granted.
On perusal of case diary, it is alleged that the applicant Labbu had fired a gun-shot at the complainant whereas co- accused Raj Nishad had assaulted the complainant by a knife. It is also alleged that there are more than 8 cases for the offences u/s 323, 324, 327, 452 of IPC, 25/27 of Arms Act and section 5 of Explosive Act are registered against the applicant earlier. He seems to be a habitual offender.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and criminal antecedents of the applicant, it is not a fit case where he be granted bail.
Hence, the application is dismissed.
(ANURAG SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE TG /-