Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Shukla@Monu Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2010
M.Cr.C. No.4700/2010
07/07/2010
Shri Manoj Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the
applicant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent-State.
Heard both the parties.
Case diary of Crime No.309/2009 registered at Police Station Bhedaghat District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 328, 394 of IPC is perused.
The applicant is arrested on 12/1/2010 in connection with the aforesaid crime.
The prosecution story in short is that in the midnight of 12/13-12/2009, few persons had broken the ATM machine and killed the security guard and took the entire money kept in the ATM machine.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no evidence against the present applicant. There is a statement of co-accused Raghuvar Singh against him, but that is not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. A sum of Rs.26,500/- was recovered from the applicant, but actually that amount was withdrawn by his father on 11/1/2010 from ATM and then police took that amount from the applicant. The entire evidence is created against the applicant. He is a youth of 22 years of age and he has no criminal past, therefore, he prays for bail.
Learned panel lawyer for the State opposes the application mainly on the ground that it is a serious matter. 4-5 persons had broken the ATM machine after killing the security guard, in such circumstances the application cannot be allowed.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and gravity of offence, at present I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case in which bail may be granted to the present applicant .
Therefore, the application of the present applicant Santosh Shukla @ Monu Shukla under Section 439 Cr.P.C is hereby dismissed.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari