Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saddam vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 August, 2020
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 MCRC-20344-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-20344-2020
(SADDAM Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 25-08-2020
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Nitin Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is first bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Applicant Saddam Musalman was arrested on 4/12/2019 in connection with Crime No.227/2019 registered at Police Station Junnardeo, District Chhindwara for the offence punishable under Section 457, 380, 427, 120-B of the IPC and Section 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
As per prosecution case, in the intervening night of 23-24/07/2019, the applicant Saddam Musalman and other co-accused Kailash, Tahir, Shakib, Vasim, Raies, Iklakh stole a sum of Rs.45,30,700/- from two ATM machines located at Main Branch, S.B.I., Junnardeo and Jaiswal Market, Junnardeo after cutting the ATM machines by the gas cutter. Police arrested the applicant on 4/12/2019 and seized Rs.1,00,000/- and one cash tray of ATM Machine from the possession of co-accused Ravi Belvanshi, Rs.3,20,000/- from the possession of co-accused Kailash Pal and Rs.30,000/- from the possession of applicant Saddam Musalman.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence. There is no direct evidence on record to connect the applicant with the crime. Police only on the basis of memorandum of co-accused, implicated the applicant in the crime, while memorandum of co-accused is not admissible in evidence against the applicant without other evidence. This Court has granted bail to other co- accused Majid Khan, Hashim, and Sabir vide order dated 14/02/2020 passed Signature Not Verified SAN in M.Cr.C. No. 50121/2020. The case of the applicant is similar to the other Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2020.08.26 14:15:39 IST 2 MCRC-20344-2020 co-accused who have been granted bail by this Court, so applicant is also entitled to get bail on the basis of parity. Applicant is in custody since 4/12/2019 and the conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that the applicant committed theft from two ATM machines after cutting those machines by gas cutter. Police seized Rs.30,000/- from the possession of the applicant. Other offences are also registered against the applicant. So, he should not be released on bail.
The case of the applicant is not similar to the co-accused who have b een granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14/02/2020 passed in M.Cr.C.No.50121/2019. Against those accused there is no allegation that they took part in the incident. Against them only allegation was that they took share from the stolen property. While against the applicant it is alleged that the applicant and other co-accused took part in the incident and stole the money from two ATM machines after cutting those machines by gas cutter. So, the applicant is not entitled to get bail on the basis of parity.
P o lic e seized Rs.30,000/- from the possession of the applicant. Applicant has criminal past, so looking to the allegations, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage.
Hence, the M.Cr.C. is rejected.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE VS Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2020.08.26 14:15:39 IST