13. A reference was made to a ruling of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shivraj Singh v. State of M.P., 1975 Cri LJ 1458. Apart from the aforesaid propositions, it was observed in that ruling that the burden on the accused could not be equated with the burden of proof on the prosecution in criminal cases and could not be rated higher than a burden on a party to civil proceedings wherein a finding could be based on preponderance of probabilities. It was also pointed out that there was no conflict between the general burden, which was always on the prosecution and which never shifted, and the special burden that rested on the accused to make out of insanity. On examination of the evidence before the High Court, it was concluded that the accused was not insane in any sense at the relevant point of time.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is
further submitted that the applicant is not having any
criminal background. Moreover, the alleged offence is
triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Hence, on
2 M.Cr.C.6546/14
(Shivraj Vs. State of M.P.)
these grounds learned counsel prays for allowing the
application.
The application is opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but
without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the
application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be
released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent
2
(Shivraj Vs. State of M.P.) M.Cr.C.No.10443/14
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial
Court/Committal Court.