Subrat Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2391 MP

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 24218 of 2021 Subrat Singh Vs. State of M.P.

Jabalpur, dated 15-6-2021

Shri Mrigendra Singh, Senior Counsel with Shri Navtej Singh,

Counsel for the applicant.

Shri B.D. Singh, Counsel for the State

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for

for rehearing of the bail application as well as for rectification of

order dated 4-5-2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 12328/2021, by which

the application filed by the applicant for grant of bail has been

rejected.

It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant, that while

deciding Fifth bail application, this Court had observed that by order

dated 5-11-2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 34201 of 2019, the Trial

Court was directed to decide the trial within a period of nine months,

but in fact, by order dated 5-11-2020, this Court had directed the Trial

Court to decide the Trial within a period of six months. It is further

submitted that accordingly, this Court has wrongly held that the

period granted by this Court has not expired.

Considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the

applicant.

By order dated 16-9-2019 passed in M.Cr.C. NO. 34201/2019,

this Court had directed the Trial Court to decide the Trial within a

period of nine months, and since, the Trial Court was unable to

decide the trial within stipulated period, therefore, PUD was sent

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 24218 of 2021 Subrat Singh Vs. State of M.P.

which was disposed of by order dated 5-11-2020, thereby, extending

the time by further period of six months. It is true that there is a

typographical error in order dated 4-5-2021 passed in M.Cr.C.

No.34201/2021, but it is clear that due to second wave of Covid 19

pandemic, the normal Court functioning has been suspended and the

Trial Court could not conclude the Trial within the extended period of

six months. The applicant has not filed the copies of the ordersheets

of the Trial Court, to show that he is not responsible for the delay.

The applicant has filed the copies of the depositions of the witnesses,

however, in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in

the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chhatisgarh, reported in

(2007) 11 SCC 195, this Court cannot consider the reliability and

credibility of evidence of witnesses at the stage of bail.

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the

present application is misconceived, and no good ground has been

made out for rehearing of M.Cr.C. No. 34201/2021. Further in view

of bar as contained under Section 362 of Cr.P.C., review of order

dated passed in M.Cr.C. No.34201/2021 is not permissible. If the

applicant feels that he is entitled for grant of bail, then he can always

file repeat application, which shall be decided on its own merits.

Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby Dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge

ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2021.06.16 17:57:24 +05'30'