Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ganga Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 December, 2023
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 21 st OF DECEMBER, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 53031 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
GANGA SINGH S/O SHRI RAM PRASHAD, AGED ABOUT
72 YEARS, R/O WARD NO 11 BAJARIYA MOHALLA
NAWGONG DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SANKALP KOCHAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION NAWGONG
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. SHIPRA GUPTA - PANEL LAWYER)
Heard on : 15.12.2023
Pronounced on: 21.12.2023
This application having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on
for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
This is second application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of bail filed on behalf of the applicant who has been arrested relating to FIR/Crime No.619/2022 dated 22.10.2022 registered at Police Station Nawgong, district Chhatarpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506, 34, 307 and 302 IPC.
2 . Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in 2 custody since 30.10.2022 and the trial will take considerable time to conclude. He further submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. The applicant is a permanent resident of district Chhatarpur and there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence. He is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the conditions to be imposed by the Court. Upon these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
5. This is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. His earlier one was dismissed vide order dated 26.7.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No.31748/2023.
6. The grounds taken in this application are that the statements of prosecution witnesses, namely Rajni Yadav and Gopal Yadav have been recorded before the trial court and they have failed to give any incriminating evidence against the applicant. Further, from their statements it appears that the deceased Upendra Yadav did not suffer any significant injury in the incident as his health condition was found fit many days after the incident.
7. The statements given by the prosecution witnesses, namely Rajni Yadav (P.W.1) and Gopal Yadav (P.W.2) have been examined. They have stated the facts on oath implicating the applicant in the alleged murder of Upendra Yadav. A close scrutiny of their statements is not required at this stage. Further, there were many other injured witnesses whose statements are yet to be recorded. Regarding the health status of deceased Upendra Yadav 3 just after the incident and the nature of injury suffered by him cannot be considered at this stage as the statements of medical officers are yet to be recorded in that regard.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the citations of Apex Court given in the cases of Bhagirath v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1976) 1 SCC 20, Nachhattar Singh and others v. The State of Punjab (1976) 1 SCC 750, Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 10 SCC 450 and Golbar Hussain and others v. State of Assam and another (2015) 11 SCC 242 but they are based upon the appreciation of evidence and final decision on merits, therefore they cannot be applied here.
9. Having considered the aforesaid facts, the application is dismissed.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE ps Digitally signed by PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2023.12.22 17:30:13 +05'30' Adobe Reader version: 11.0.8