Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rehana Begum Kuraisi @ Neha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 December, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 MCRC-55352-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 55352 of 2021
(REHANA BEGUM KURAISI @ NEHA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 21-12-2021
Shri Arunodaya Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhay Raj Singh Chouhan, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is the third application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for
grant of bail. Applicant Rehana Begum Kuraisi @ Neha was arrested on
9/10/2020 in connection with Crime No.243/2020 registered at Police Station
Barhi, District Katni for the offence punishable under Sections 201, 302, 394,
396, 34 & 120 of IPC.
The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits
by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27/1/2021 passed in
M.Cr.C.No.48649/2020 and second bail application of the applicant has been
dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 3/8/2021 passed in
M.Cr.C.No. 9858/2021.
As per the prosecution story, on 07/07/2020 complainant Rajesh
Manglani lodged a report at police station Barhi District Katni regarding
murder of his brother deceased Suresh Manglani by unknown persons. On
that police registered inquest number 0/2020 under section 174 of the Cr.P.C.
and investigated the matter. During investigation it was found that the
applicant Rehana Begum Kuraisi @ Neha and co-accused Raees Mia, Raju @
Zaheer Alam, Manju @ Manzur Ansari, Avid Ali, Anwar @ Fahim murdered
the deceased, so police registered the crime no.243/2020 at Police Station
Barhi, District Katni for the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC
against the applicant and co-accused and arrested the applicant on
9/10/2020.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has falsely been implicated in the offence. There is no direct evidence on
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH
Date: 2021.12.24 15:53:27 IST
2 MCRC-55352-2021
record to connect the applicant with the crime. Police only on the basis of
memorandum of applicant and co-accused implicated the applicant with the
crime, while the confessional statement of applicant to the police cannot be
accepted as legal evidence against the applicant in the absence of any other
incriminating piece of evidence. The statements of Ramesh Manglani (PW-
1), Rajesh Manglani (PW-2), Kanahiyalal Manglani (PW-3), Kaushal
Vishwakarma (PW-4), Santosh Burman (PW-5), Ritesh Mishra (PW-6) &
Vyas Gupta(PW-7) have been recorded by the trial Court. They did not
depose anything against the applicant. Charge-sheet has been filed. Applicant
has been in custody since 9/10/2020 and conclusion of trial will take time.
Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that
first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits by the
coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27/1/2021 passed in
M.Cr.C.No.48649/2020, thereafter there is no change in circumstances, so
applicant should not be released on bail.
The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits
by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27/1/2021 passed in
M.Cr.C.No.48649/2020, thereafter, there has been no change in the
circumstances, except the custody period of the applicant. Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI
Through its Director reported in (2007) 1 SCC 70 held that bail, can not be
granted solely on the ground of long incarnation in jail and inability of
accused to conduct the defence. Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v.
K a ja d , (2001) 7 SCC 673 observed "It is true that successive bail
applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. But without
the change in the 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 v.
Signature Not Verified
Harbhajan Singh Bajwa [(2001) 1 SCC 169 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and
SAN
Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH
Date: 2021.12.24 15:53:27 IST
3 MCRC-55352-2021
various other judgments."
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity of
offence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, M.Cr.C. is rejected.
However, it appears from the record that applicant is in custody since
9/10/2020 and trial is still pending, so it is expected from the trial Court to
dispose of the case as early as possible preferably within six months from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned trial Court
for necessary compliance.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
VS
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH
Date: 2021.12.24 15:53:27 IST
