Lakhan Barman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3743 MP

      THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      M.Cr.C. No. 27328/2021
             ( Lakhan Barman Vs. State of M.P.)
                                                                   1

Jabalpur, Dated : 30 / 07/ 2021
      Heard through video conferencing.
      Shri Krishna Dev Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Sunil Gupta, learned P.L. for the respondent-State.

Heard with the aid of case diary.

This is fifth application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. Applicant Lakhan Barman was arrested on 28.05.2017 in Crime No. 98/2017 registered at Police Station Belkheda, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 294, 506, 34 of the IPC.

The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed as withdrawn by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.10.2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 15685/2017 while the second, third and fourth bail applications of the applicant were dismissed on merits by coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 02.04.2018, 05.04.2019 and 08.10.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 7726/2018, 4553/2019 and 31314/2020.

As per prosecution story, 18.05.2017 at around 7:30pm when complainant Vishal Barman and his son deceased Govind were sitting out side of their house. Due to some old dispute applicant Lakhan Barman and co-accused Chhotu and Rajesh came to their house and abused them. When they objected applicant Lakhan Barman assaulted deceased Govind with sickle and inflicted injury on his head and co-accused Chhotu and Rajesh assaulted the deceased Govind by sticks due to which he sustained injury and died.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is alleged that applicant assaulted the deceased Govind by sickle THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 27328/2021 ( Lakhan Barman Vs. State of M.P.)

while the doctor who conducted the postmortem in his statement clearly deposed that the injury sustained by the deceased in the incident was not caused by sickle which clearly shows that applicant has falsely been implicated in the crime. The statement of complainant and other prosecution witnesses have been recorded by the trial court. There are many contradiction and omission in the statement of prosecution witnesses regarding involvement of the applicant in the crime. The applicant has been in custody since 28.05.2017 and the conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that earlier three bail applications of the applicant have been dismissed on merits thereafter there has been no change in circumstance. It is alleged that applicant and co-accused Chhotu and Rajesh assaulted the deceased due to which he sustained injury and died, so applicant should not be released on bail.

The second, third and fourth bail applications of the applicant were dismissed on merits by coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 02.04.2018, 05.04.2019 and 08.10.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 7726/2018, 4553/2019 and 31314/2020. Thereafter, there has been no change in the circumstances, except the custody period.

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 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 27328/2021 ( Lakhan Barman Vs. State of M.P.)

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."

The complainant Vishal Barman (PW-1) and eyewitnesses Maya Bai Barman (PW-2), Harprasad Barman (PW-3) in their statements clearly deposed that applicant and other co-accused Chhotu and Rajesh assaulted the deceased Govind due to which he sustained injury and died. At this stage, this court is not inclined to ascertain the veracity of statement of the witnesses after evaluating their statement on merit. So, looking to facts and circumstance of the case and the allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, M.Cr.C. is rejected.

                                                     (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
sarathe                                                    Judge



           Digitally signed
           by NAVEEN
           KUMAR
           SARATHE
           Date: 2021.07.30
           17:27:07 +05'30'