Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arsh @ Mohammad Kaif Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 July, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 20 th OF JULY, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 25672 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
ARSH @ MOHAMMAD KAIF KHAN S/O ANWAR KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT, R/O:
JHANDA CHOWK NEAR RANGREZWADI MASJID,
TESHIL AND DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI VIVEK SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION KHARGONE,
DISTRICT KHARGONE. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI K.K.TIWARI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE AND
SHRI AYUSH KATARIA - ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Applicant has filed this second bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the applicant for grant of regular bail relating to Crime No.262/2022 registered at P.S. Khargone, District Khargone (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 323, 427, 435 and 436 of IPC. He is in jail since 08.05.2022. His earlier bail application was dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 26.08.2022 passed in MCRC No.27175/2022.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 21-07-2023 10:17:35 22. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. Applicant is suffering jail incarceration since 08.05.2022. Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Prosecution has not examined any witness. Final conclusion of trial will take considerable long time. Under the above circumstances, prayer for grant of bail may be considered on such terms and conditions, as this Court deems fit and proper.
3. Per-contra, learned counsel for respondent/State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that there is no material change in the circumstances in which applicant may be enlarged on bail. His earlier bail application was dismissed on merit after considering all the facts and circumstances of case. Hence, present applicant does not deserve for bail.
4. Learned counsel for objector also opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection.
5. Perused the case diary as well as the impugned order of the court below.
6. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by counsel for the parties, nature and gravity of allegation as also taking note of the fact that applicant's first bail application was dismissed on merit after considering all the facts and circumstances of case and evidence available on record and also considering all the defence taken by the applicant; after rejecting his earlier bail application only charge-sheet has been filed, which cannot be considered; there is no material change in the circumstances in which applicant may be entitled for bail.
7. Accordingly, the second repeated bail application filed by the applicant Signature Not Verified under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is rejected.
Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 21-07-2023 10:17:35 3Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Anushree Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 21-07-2023 10:17:35