Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gulsan Choubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 April, 2021
Author: Akhil Kumar Srivastava
1 MCRC-5729-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-5729-2020
(GULSAN CHOUBEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
12
Jabalpur, Dated : 09-04-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Ajay Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sourabh Soni, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard.
Case diary is available with the counsel for the State.
This is the third bail application filed by the applicant under Section
439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail as he is in custody since 05.04.2019 in
connection with Crime No. 458/2018 registered at P.S. Gopalganj District
Sagar for the offence punishable under sections 302/34 of IPC and under
Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
First application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
02.08.2019. The second bail application was dismissed after considering the
merits of the matter vide order dated 22.10.2019 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.37551/2019.
It is alleged that applicant along with other co-accused caused injuries
to one Tarun by means of knife, as a result of which, he died. On the basis of
aforesaid offence has been registered against him.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the case. He has not committed any offence
and he is in custody since last more than 14 months. It is further submitted
that there is undue delay in trial. 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. On the aforesaid
grounds, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that the applicants be
released on bail on these changed circumstances.
Signature Not Learned Panel Lawyer opposing the submissions made on behalf of the
SAN
Verified
Digitally signed by
PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Date: 2021.04.09
15:29:00 IST
2 MCRC-5729-2020
applicant and prayed for rejection of the bail application. There is no
substantial change in the circumstances to consider this repeat bail
application.
Considering rival contention of learned counsel for both the parties,
entire record perused.
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
c anno t 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.
Looking to the gravity of the offence so also considering the
aforesaid legal position and the fact that there is no substantial change to take
a different view than the view already taken while dismissing the second bail
application. Consequently, the repeat (third) bail application filed u/s 439 of
Cr.P.C is hereby dismissed.
3 MCRC-5729-2020
(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
pb
