Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Juber Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 July, 2021

Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey

Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey

                                                                          1                              MCRC-27137-2021
                                               The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                         MCRC-27137-2021
                                                           (JUBER KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


                                       Jabalpur, Dated : 28-07-2021
                                             Heard through Video Conferencing.

                                             Smt. Archana Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
                                             Shri Vinay Kumar Sharma,             learned    Panel Lawyer for the
                                       respondent/State.

Case diary perused.

This is third bail application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. Applicant Juber Khan was arrested on 24.09.2019 in Crime No. 386/2019 registered at Police Station Mandla, District Mandla for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 427 & 380 of IPC.

First bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 3/3/2020 passed in MCrC no.50063/2019 and second application was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 1/6/2020 passed in MCrC no.14035/2020.

As per prosecution case, in the intervening night of 22-23/09/2019, the applicant and other co-accused persons stole the money, from two ATM machines located at Bineka Tiraha, Mandla and Badi Kheri after cutting the ATM machines by the gas cutter. On 24.09.2019 police arrested the applicant and seized Rs.1,25,900/- from the possession of applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the 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 the confessional statement to police cannot be accepted as legal evidence against the applicant in the absence of any other incriminating piece of evidence. It is alleged that the police seized Rs.1,25,900/- from the possession of the applicant and statements of the independent witness of the seizure memo have Signature Not Verified SAN been recorded by the trial Court. They did not support the prosecution story Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2021.07.28 17:14:16 IST 2 MCRC-27137-2021 and turned hostile. Charge sheet has been filed. Applicant has been in custody since 24.09.2019 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. Other offence are also registered against the applicant in the state of Madhya Pradesh and other state. So, he should not be released on bail.

The earlier first bail application filed by the applicant has been dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 3/3/2020 passed in MCrC nos.50063/2019 and since then, there has been no change in circumstances except custody period of the applicant. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI Through its Director reported in (2007) 1 SCC 70 held that bail, can not be granted solely on the ground of long incarnation in jail and inability of accused to conduct the defence.

It is alleged that the applicant, who is resident of Haryana was arrested by the police from Mandla next day of the incident and police also seized Rs.1,25,900/- from the possession of applicant. So, looking to the allegation and the fact the applicant has criminal past, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

Hence, the M.Cr.C. is rejected.

However, it appears from the record that applicant is in custody since 24.09.2019 and the trial is still pending, therefore, it is expected from the trial Court to dispose of the case as early as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

Office is directed to send the copy of this order to the concerned Court for information and necessary compliance. Learned trial Court is also directed to send progress report of the trial every month to the Principal Signature Not Verified SAN Registrar (J-II).

3 MCRC-27137-2021 (RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE m/-