Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rishikesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 August, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
MCRC-38553-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-38553-2021
(RISHIKESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated : 13-08-2021
Shri Sarang Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ramadhar Chaubey, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
I.A. No.24396/2021, an application under Section 301(2) of CrPC, is taken
up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.
Accordingly, Shri Anil Mishra, learned counsel and his associates are
permitted to appear on behalf of the complainant to assist the State counsel.
The applicant has filed this second application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of
bail. Applicant has been arrested on 12/05/2021 by Police Station Civil Lines, Distt.
Morena (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.241/2021 registered for offence under
Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 294, 427 of IPC and Section 30 of Arms Act.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant- Rishikesh that the
applicant has not committed any offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case.
Applicant is in custody since 12/05/2021, i.e. for around three months. This is
second application on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail. Earlier application
was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 24/06/2021 passed in
M.Cr.C. No.30423/2021. Now the change circumstance after withdrawal of earlier
bail application is the filing of charge-sheet. It is further submitted that present
applicant is not the main accused of this case. Only omnibus allegations are made
against him. It is also submitted that there is cross-case also registered against the
complainant of this case. As per medical report no fracture was found on the body
part on which injury alleged to be caused by the fire arm and the injury reflects that
there was no intention of committing murder. Learned counsel for the applicant
relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Hitesh
Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand in Cr.A. No.707/2020 decided on 05.11.2020.
Hence, looking to aforesaid facts and changed circumstance, learned counsel prays
for grant of bail to the present applicant. He further undertakes to abide by all the
terms and conditions of guidance, circulars and directions issued by Central
1 of 2
MCRC-38553-2021
Government, State Government as well as Local Administration regarding measures
in respect of COVID-19 Pandemic and maintain hygiene in the vicinity while
keeping physical distancing.
Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant have
vehemently opposed the application and have submitted that the case is registered
against the applicant under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 294, 427 of IPC and Section
30 of Arms Act, wherein injuries were caused by the fire arm to the victim, who is in
coma and admitted in the hospital. It is further submitted that after dismissal of
earlier bail application, there is no change in circumstance under which this repeat
second application could be considered. Hence, learned State counsel as well as
learned counsel for the complainant prayed to reject this second bail application filed
for grant of bail to the applicant.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the case diary and
documents available on record.
On perusal of case diary as well as documents available on record, it is
apparent that the case is registered under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 294, 427 of
IPC and Section 30 of Arms Act against the present applicant, wherein fire arm was
used for commission of offence. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of
offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
Consequently, this repeat second application filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.
(RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
Shubhankar
Digitally signed by
SHUBHANKAR MISHRA
Date: 2021.08.13
16:52:03 +05'30'
2 of 2
