Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandramani Sharma @ Sonu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 October, 2020
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
[1]
MCRC-32611-2020
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-32611-2020
(CHANDRAMANI SHARMA @ SONU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 12-10-2020
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Siddharth Datt, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Amti Bhurrak, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
With the consent of the parties, finally heard. This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail on behalf of applicant- Chandramani Sharma @ Sonu in connection with Crime No.158/2020, registered at Police Station Kolgawan, District Satna (M.P.) for offences under Sections 394, 397, 398, 307, 120-B of IPC and also under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Mr. Datt, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is in judicial custody since 03.03.2020. He has been falsely implicated. Applicant is running a Betel (Pan) Shop. This Court in MCRC-23642-2020 (Sunil Sharma vs. State of M.P.) decided on 28.08.2020 granted bail to similarly situated co-accused. Hence, on the principle of parity, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
The prayer is opposed by Mr. Bhurrak, learned panel lawyer. He submits that as many as 13 criminal cases of different nature are pending against the applicant. A 'katta' (country made revolver) is recovered from the possession of present applicant. As per the material gathered during the investigation, it is applicant's 'katta' by which the injured was shooted on his cheek and the applicant is not exactly similarly situated qua Sunil Sharma. Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Date: 2020.10.12 16:57:33 IST [2]
MCRC-32611-2020 Faced with this, Mr. Datt, learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are five cases of petty offences registered against the applicant, whereas in three cases applicant has already been acquitted. The documents/orders showing the same are already filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on this aspect and perused the record.
Considering the criminal history of the applicant, it is not a fit case to enlarge the present applicant on bail at this stage. Further, considering the nature of accusation and gravity of offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant.
Accordingly, present bail application is rejected.
(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE s@if Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Date: 2020.10.12 16:57:33 IST