Madhya Pradesh High Court
Fodi @ Krishna vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2019
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Misc.Cri.Case No. 50955/2018
(Fodi @ Krishna Vs. State of MP)
1
Gwalior, dated 09.01.2019
Shri A.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.N.Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. The applicant has filed this repeat (second) bail application under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.185/2018 registered at Police Station Dimni, District Morena in relation to the offences punishable under sections 306, 34 of the IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is second bail application under Section 438 of CrPC. First bail application was rejected on the ground that Somesh Sharma, son of the deceased has stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC that the accused persons were extorting his father and on 7.9.2018 the accused persons again extorted his faher and due to their extortion his father ran away from the house and thereafter his father did not turn up.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that vide previous order dated 7.1.2019, learned Public Prosecutor was directed to submit the statement of Neeraj Sharma recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. On perusing the statement of Neeraj placed in the case diary, it is evident that her husband (deceased) was habitual drinker and no offence had been committed by the accused persons against her husband. Therefore, on The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Misc.Cri.Case No. 50955/2018 (Fodi @ Krishna Vs. State of MP) 2 this ground, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection on the ground that this is second bail application of the applicant and there is no any change of circumstance, which could be a ground to allow the second bail application of the applicant.
Present set of facts cannot be said to be change of circumstance in the present case to allow this second bail application. Hence, the application is rejected.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
(yog) Judge
YOGESH VERMA
2019.01.10
17:56:55 +05'30'