Karu @ Umesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3248 MP

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 34174/2021 Karu alias Umesh vs. State of MP

Through Video Conferencing.

Gwalior, Dated : 13-07-2021

Shri Anant Kumar Bansal, Counsel for the applicant.

Shri Rajeev Upadhyaya, Counsel for the State.

Case diary is available.

This first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been

filed for grant of bail.

The applicant has been arrested on 03.02.2019 in connection

with Crime No.651/2017 registered at Police Station Dehat Distt.

Bhind for offence under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 341, 294

of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act.

It is submitted by the Counsel for applicant that although the

complainant in his FIR has alleged that one gun shot was also fired

by the applicant causing injury on the neck of the deceased, but the

other eye witnesses who were sitting in the car have not stated that

any gun shot was fired by the applicant. However, it is fairly

conceded that all the eye witnesses have stated that the applicant also

came on the spot and was armed with a fire arm. It is next contended

by the Counsel for the applicant that although the applicant was

arrested on 3.02.2021, but the fire arm was seized on 2 nd of February,

2020 ie after one year after the date of his arrest, therefore, seizure of

fire arm is suspicious. During the course of arguments, it is fairly

conceded by the Counsel for the applicant that after the arrest of an

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 34174/2021 Karu alias Umesh vs. State of MP

accused, if the police does not get the remand of the same, then he

has to be sent to jail and under these circumstances there can be

delay in seizure of incriminating article. Further, Counsel for the

applicant could not point out any judgment according to which the

non-recovery of weapon of offence or late recovery of weapon of

offence would give any dent to the prosecution story. No other

arguments have been advanced by the Counsel for the applicant.

Considering the statements of witnesses in which they have

specifically stated that the applicant was also armed with a fire arm

and he came on the spot, as well as in the light of the postmortem

report, no case is made out for grant of bail.

The application fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge

ar

ABDUR RAHMAN 2021.07.14 14:53:34 +05'30'