Tansu Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1204 MP

                                                        1                              MCRC-28298-2020
                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                        MCRC-28298-2020
                                        (TANSU YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


                      Jabalpur, Dated : 01-04-2021
                            Shri Rajkamal Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant.

                            Shri Gopal Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard. Perused the case diary.

This is the second bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.140/2016

registered at P.S. Bakshwah, District- Chhatarpur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under sections 302/149, 323/149 (3 count) in place of 324/149(3 counts), 148, 506(part 2) and 341 of IPC. First application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.08.2019 passed in M.CrC. No.16660/2019.

As per the prosecution story the allegation against the applicant is that on 28/08/2016 when Raja Ram Yadav was returning to his village present applicant alongwith other co-accused persons armed with axe, katarna and lathi have stopped him and assaulted with common intention to kill him. Raja Ram Yadav sustained the grievous injuries and died therefore, aforesaid

offence has been registered against the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he is in custody since last more than four years. It is further submitted that there is undue delay in trial and not even a single witness has been examined during period of last 12 months. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited attention of this Court towards contradictions and omissions coming in the testimony of witnesses examined before the trial court. Copy of which of them has been submitted by the applicant and in link matters by the co-accused. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that the applicants be released on bail on these changed circumstances.

Learned Panel Lawyer opposing the submissions made on behalf of the Signature Not SAN Verified applicant has submitted and prayed for rejection of the bail application. He Digitally signed by KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Date: 2021.04.03 14:35:08 IST 2 MCRC-28298-2020 has further submitted that due to Covid-19 pandemic outbreak, witnesses could not be examined and there was also a reason that co-accused Charley was sent to the Central Jail, Gwalior for treatment. Now, only cross- examination of investigating officer and one associate investigating officer remains to be examined in this matter as per status report submitted by the

trial court.

Considering rival contention of learned counsel for both the parties, entire record perused. Most of the prosecution witnesses has been examined and now court are engaged in physical hearing and only investigating officer remains to be examined. So far as contradictions and omissions in testimony of the witnesses recorded during trial are concerned, it is well settled that minute appreciation of testimony of witnesses are not required at the stage of consideration of bail application. In the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chhatisgarh 2007 Cr.LJ. 2766 (SC) has held that at the time of consideration of bail, the Court cannot consider the veracity of statements given by the prosecution witnesses, this can only be done at the time of disposal of the case on the basis of merit of the matter.

Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673 observed "It is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. But without the change in circumstances, the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law as has been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann Vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, (2001) 1 SCC 169 and various other judgments."

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav Vs. CBI Through its Director reported in (2007) 1 SCC 70 held that bail cannot be granted solely on the ground of long incarceration in jail and inability of accused to conduct the defence.

There are serious allegation against the applicant. Considering material placed in the file as well as in the case diary, this Court is of the view that this 3 MCRC-28298-2020 is not a fit case in which applicant's repeat (second) bail application be considered and allowed, therefore, bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE

kafeel