Madhya Pradesh High Court
Achhelal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 July, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 MCRC-16133-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-16133-2021
(ACHHELAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 13-07-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Devraj Soni, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
This appeal is pending since 18/03/2021, even then learned counsel for
the applicant is not ready to argue the matter, so the case is considered on the
basis of averments mentioned in the bail application
Case dairy perused.
This is the fifth application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant
of bail. Applicant Achhelal was arrested on 07.11.2017 in connection with
Crime No.603/2017 registered at Police Station Kuthala, District Katni for the
offence punishable under Sections 363, 302, 201, 34 of IPC.
The first bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed on merit
by this Court vide order dated 28/06/2019 passed in M.Cr.C.No.17443/2019,
second and fourth bail application were dismissed for want of prosecution
vide orders dated 27/11/2019 & 04/03/2021 passed in
M.Cr.C.Nos.41291/2019 & 40645/2020 respectively and third application
was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 04/02/2020 passed in
M.Cr.C.No.3954/2020.
A s per the prosecution case, on 05.11.2017 applicant Achchhe Lal
Dahiya and co-accused Suresh Kol took deceased Sachin with him and
thereafter, on 07.11.2017 dead body of deceased Sachin was found in a water
tank situated at Indra Nagar, applicant and co-accused murdered him.
Applicant has averred in this petition that he has not committed any
offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence. There is no direct
evidence on record to connect the applicant with the crime. Police only on the
basis of memorandum of co-accused implicated the applicant with the crime,
Signature Not Verified
SAN
while confessional statement to police cannot be accepted as legal evidence
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI
Date: 2021.07.13 17:57:16 IST
2 MCRC-16133-2021
against the applicant in the absence of any other incriminating piece of
evidence. The applicant has been in custody since 07/11/2017 and the trial is
still pending, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that in
the case diary statements of Rajjul and Rakesh, it is clearly mentioned that on
the date of incident i.e. on 05.11.2017 deceased Sachin was last seen by them
in the company of applicant and co-accused. The first application filed by the
applicant was dismissed on merit, thereafter there is no change in
circumstance, so he should not be released on bail.
The first bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed on merit
by this Court vide order dated 28/06/2019 passed in M.Cr.C.No.17443/2019,
thereafter there is no change in circumstance except 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. Kajad, (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.
Harbhajan Singh Bajwa [(2001) 1 SCC 169 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and
various other judgments."
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegation
against the applicant and the fact that deceased Sachin was last seen in the
company of applicant and co-accused and police also seized blood stained
clothes from the possession of co-accused Suresh Kol, this Court is not
inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, M.Cr.C. is rejected.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
However, it appears from the record that applicant is in custody since
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI
Date: 2021.07.13 17:57:16 IST
3 MCRC-16133-2021
07/11/2017 and trial is still pending, so it is expected from the trial Court to
dispose of the case as early as possible.
Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned trial Court
for necessary compliance.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
as
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI
Date: 2021.07.13 17:57:16 IST
