Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brajesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 MCRC-31926-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-31926-2021
(BRAJESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 14-07-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Madan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned PL for the respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is fifth application under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail.
Applicant Brajesh was arrested on 6/2/2018 in connection with Crime
No.24/2018 registered at Police Station Batiyagarh, Distt. Damoh (M.P.) for
the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323, 307 and 302/34 of the
IPC and Sections 25/27 and 29/30 of the Arms Act.
The first application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a
fresh application after recording the statement of the complainant vide order
dated 8/8/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No.19549/2018. The second, third and
fourth bail applications were dismissed on merits vide order dated 5/2/2019,
14/1/2020 and 20.08.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.40623/2018, M.Cr.C.
No.52252/2019 and M.Cr.C. No.24198/2020.
A s per prosecution story, on 20/1/2018 at about 8.15 p.m. when
complainant Vishal Singh Lodhi was returning with his son Hemraj to his
house by bike from the hospital after the treatment of his son Hemraj, on the
way at village Khiriya Batiyagarh, co-accused Lakkhu and Roop Singh and
applicant Brajesh met him. At that time, co-accused Roop Singh armed with
gun and they abused the complainant. At that time, Hanumat, the father of
complainant Vishal also came there. Applicant Brajesh and co-accused
Lakkhu told to co-accused Roop Singh that kill Hanumat. On that, co-
accused Roop Singh fired at Hanumat by gun due to which Hanumat
sustained injury and died.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
Signature Not Verified
SAN
and has falsely been implicated in the offence. There is no allegation against
Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR
Date: 2021.07.15 18:46:07 IST
2 MCRC-31926-2021
applicant Brajesh that he fired at Hanumat. Statements of Vishal Lodhi
(PW1), Madhav Lodhi(PW2), Prayag Singh (PW3) and Hemraj Singh (PW6)
have been recorded by the trial Court. They did not depose anything against
the applicant. In this regard learned counsel for the applicant also placed
reliance upon this Court order dated 31.05.2021 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.18604/2021 (Suryabhan Singh vs. State of M.P.). The applicant is in
custody since 6/2/018. Charge sheet has been filed and the conclusion of trial
will take time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed
the prayer and submitted that second third and fourth bail applications of the
applicant have been rejected on merits thereafter, there has been no change in
the circumstances. Even from the statements of Vishal Lodhi (PW1), Madhav
Lodhi (PW2), Prayag Singh (PW3) and Hemraj Singh (PW6) recorded by the
trial Court, during trial of the case, it appears that the applicant is also
involved in the crime. So, he should not be released on bail.
The facts of the case Suryabhan Singh vs. State of M.P. (supra)
relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant do not match with the
present case. In that case after investigation police found that applicant was
not present on the spot at the time of incident and did not file charge-sheet
against him while in this case after investigation police found that the applicant
was involved in the crime and filed charge-sheet against him, so that order
does not assist the applicant.
The first application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a
fresh application after recording the statement of the complainant vide order
dated 8/8/2018 passed in MCrC No.19549/2018. The second, third and
fourth bail applications were dismissed on merits vide order dated 5/2/2019,
14/1/2020 and 20.08.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.40623/2018, M.Cr.C.
No.52252/2019 and M.Cr.C. No.24198/2020. Thereafter, there has been no
change in the circumstances, except the custody period.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias
Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR
Date: 2021.07.15 18:46:07 IST
3 MCRC-31926-2021
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."
From the statements of the prosecution witnesses i.e., Vishal Lodhi
(PW1), Madhav Lodhi (PW2), Prayag Singh (PW3) and Hemraj Singh (PW6)
recorded by the trial Court, it appears that the applicant is also involved in the
crime. So looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the
allegation against the applicant, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the
applicant.
Hence, application is rejected.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
mn
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR
Date: 2021.07.15 18:46:07 IST
