Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 August, 2021
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
1
MCRC. No.35524/2021
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC. No.35524/2021
(VISHAL SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated: 23/08/2021
Heard through video conferencing.
Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Mayank
Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri A. Rajeshwar Rao, learned Government Advocate for
the State.
Heard on the question of grant of bail.
This is fourth bail application at the instance of the
applicant (accused) under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The first bail
application being M.Cr.C. No.33153/2020 was dismissed on
merits by order dated 15.10.2020. The second bail application
being M.Cr.C. No.50373/2020 was also dismissed on merits by
order dated 18.01.2021. The third bail application being M.Cr.C.
No.53208/2020 was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated
29.04.2021
The applicant is facing trial for the offences punishable
under Sections 307, 395, 294, 506, 186, 353, 397, 398, 427, 450
and 458 of IPC, Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3
& 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984
registered with Police Station Rehli, District Sagar in Crime
No.377/2020.
An F.I.R. was registered on 01.07.2020 in the Police Station
Rehli, District Sagar with the allegation that the 6-7 persons had
come in a Maruti Omni Car and had forcibly entered the Forest
Chowki and had taken away pump action gun, five live bullets and
Rs.5,000/-. They had also fired two gunshots in the air.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. has
been registered against the unknown persons. He further submits
that nothing has been recovered from the applicant. He further
submits that even identification witness Rajesh Sahu (PW/4) has
not supported the prosecution case and in this regard he has
MCRC. No.35524/2021
referred to Para 24 of the statement of Rajesh Sahu (PW/4). He has
submitted that no one has been injured in the alleged incident and
that on account of subsequent development specially recording the
statement identification witness, there remains no material to
connect the applicant with the alleged offence. He further placed
reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Ram
Sahodar vs. State of M.P. reported in 1985 MPLJ 722 and has
submitted that this fresh bail should be considered in the light of
the changed circumstances. He has also submitted that the
applicant is in custody since 10.07.2020 and more than one year of
custody period is over and trial is likely to take time.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail
application. However, he fairly submitted that the applicant has no
criminal antecedents.
Having regard to the submission of counsel for the parties
and considering the fact that the identification witness whose
statement has been subsequently recorded, has not supported the
prosecution case and also considering the period of custody, I am
of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the
MCRC is allowed.
Applicant- Vishal Singh is directed to be released on bail
upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.
Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance as and when
directed.
The applicant will attend each hearing of his trial before the
trial Court out of which this bail arises. Any default in attendance
in Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this
Court.
C.C. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava)
Judge
mohsin
Digitally signed by MOHAMMED MOHSIN
QURESHI
Date: 2021.08.24 16:50:53 +05'30'
