Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind Kumar Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2021
Author: Akhil Kumar Srivastava
1 MCRC-35783-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-35783-2020
(ARVIND KUMAR DUBEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 01-04-2021
Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sent, learned counsel for the complainant.
Shri Anoop Sonkar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard.
Perused the case diary.
This is the third application filed by the applicant under Section 439
Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 212/2018 registered at
Police Station Rampur Naikin, District Sidhi (M.P.) for the offences
punishable under Section 307 of IPC. The first application was dismissed on
merits vide order dated 20/02/2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 48068/2018 and
the second application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
28/02/2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 30804/2019.
A s per the prosecution story, applicant has caused injuries to
complainant by means of knife.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
a n d has been falsely implicated. Counsel for the applicant has further
submitted that matter has been compromised between the complainant and
applicant and now complainant do not wish to continue the trial against him.
In this regard, affidavit of complainant and applicant has been filed with the
bail application. Counsel has relied on the order passed by the Apex Court in
the case of Bhausaheb Nagu Dhavare Vs. State of Maharashtra &
another passed in Cr.A. No. 301/2001 decided on 16/03/2021 and made
the submission that applicant is in custody since 1 and 1/2 years therefore, he
may be granted bail. On these changed circumstances, prayer is made to
enlarge the applicant on bail.
Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has vehemently opposed
Signature Not
SAN
Verified the application and prayed for its rejection
Digitally signed by
NAVEEN NAGDEVE
Date: 2021.04.01
17:50:04 IST
2 MCRC-35783-2020
Counsel for the complainant has submitted that he has no objection if
the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Having considered the contention raised by learned counsel for the
parties and perusal of the case diary, it appears that it is a case of causing the
incised injuries dangerous to life i.e. under section 307 of IPC which is non-
compoundable. As far as the case of Bhausaheb Nagu Dhavare (supra)
on which reliance has been placed by counsel for applicant is concerned is
distinguishable on facts of this case, 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. 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 therefore, the case of
Bhausaheb (Supra) would not attract in this case only on the basis of
period of custody undergone by applicant in jail. There are serious allegations
against the applicant for the alleged offence. The earlier bail application has
already been dismissed after considering the merits of the matter. There is no
substantial change in the circumstances to take a different view than the view
already taken by this Court on previous occasion.
Hence, this third bail application filed u/s 439 of Cr.P.C is hereby
dismissed.
(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
navin
