Rajesh Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2256 MP

                                                                       1                               MCRC-7918-2021
                                            The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                      MCRC-7918-2021
                                                      (RAJESH RAJPUT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


                                   Jabalpur, Dated : 10-06-2021
                                           Heard through Video Conferencing.

                                           Shri Prasanna Namdeo, learned counsel for the applicant.
                                           Shri Amit Pandey, learned PL for the respondent-State.

Heard with the aid of case diary.

This is third application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of

bail. Applicant Rajesh Rajpoot @ Vikesh Rajpoot w a s arrested on 06.09.2019 in connection with Crime No.588/2019 registered at Police Station Bag Sewaniya, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 and 120-B of IPC.

The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 11.02.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.639/2020 and the second bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 05/11/2020 passed in M.Cr.C.No.16585/2020.

As per prosecution case, applicant had illicit relation with co-accused

Sunita wife of deceased Surendra, due to which in the intervening night of 3- 4.09.2019, applicant with the help of co-accused Sunita murdered Surendra.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence. It is further submitted that there is no direct evidence on record to connect the applicant with the crime. Police only on the basis of memorandum of applicant and co-accused Sunita, implicated the applicant in the crime while memorandum of applicant and co-accused is not admissible in evidence against the applicant. The memorandum of the co-accused has been recorded by the trial court. Even in the memorandum there are many contradiction and omissions. Applicant has been in custody since 06.09.2019. T h e charge-sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the applicants on Signature Not Verified SAN bail.

Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2021.06.10 17:05:20 IST 2 MCRC-7918-2021 Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant in connivance with co-accused Sunita murdered Surendra. There is sufficient evidence on record to connect the applicant with the crime. In the MLC report of the applicant, it is mentioned that as many as 20 injuries were found on his body at the time of his examination. Police also seized call

details showing communication between the applicant and co-accused Sunita wife of the deceased on the date of incident and also collected other evidence, so he should not be released on bail.

The earlier first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 11.02.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.639/2020 and second bail application of the applicant was rejected on merit by this Court vide order dated 05/11/2020 passed in M.Cr.C.No.16585/2020. and 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, (2007) 1 SCC 70 held that bail, cannot 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 that the applicant murdered deceased Surendra with the help of co-accused Sunita and the strength of evidence collected by the Police during investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

Hence, the bail application is rejected.

Signature Not Verified SAN (RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2021.06.10 17:05:20 IST 3 MCRC-7918-2021 JUDGE VS

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2021.06.10 17:05:20 IST