Monday, 11, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ashish Rai @ Sonu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2768 MP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2768 MP
Judgement Date : 28 June, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashish Rai @ Sonu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 June, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
                            1
               HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          MCRC-31446-2021
              (ASHISH RAI @ SONU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)



Gwalior, Dated : 28.06.2021

      Heard through video conferencing.

      Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for applicant.

      Shri Vinod Pathak, learned P.L., for respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The applicant has filed this second application under Section

438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Earlier bail application was

dismissed on merits vide order dated 04.05.2021 in M.Cr.C. No.

21620/2021.

The applicant has filed this second application u/S.438 Cr.P.C.

For grant of anticipatory bail as he has apprehension of his arrest in

connection with Crime No.264/2020 registered at Police Station

Bahodapur, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under

Sections 34(2) and 42 and 44 of M.P. Excise Act.

It is submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in

the present case and he has not committed any offence in any manner.

He has drawn attention of this Court to earlier rejection order, wherein

the Hon'ble Court has considered the application and rejected on the

basis of the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. one

Raghuveer who stated that the present applicant has loaded the liquor

in the vehicle. He has been roped up in the present case only on the

basis of memo of 27 of Evidence Act which is not permissible in the

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-31446-2021 (ASHISH RAI @ SONU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

law laid down by this Court in the case of Suresh Upadhyay vs. State

of M.P. And Grajendra reported in 2017 (1) M.P.L.J (Cri.) 623,

wherein, this Court has quashed the FIR registered under the Excise

Act, wherein the accused has been roped up only on the basis of Memo

of 27 of Evidence Act. He has further relied upon the judgment passed

in M.Cr.C. No. 24305/2021 (Dharmveer Vs. State of M.P.), wherein,

the similar analogy was followed by this Court. It is submitted that

looking to the present scenario of COVID-19 and the law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of

Bihar, reported in 2014 (8) SCC 469, he prays for grant of second

anticipatory bail. He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions as

may be imposed by this Court and prays for grant of bail and also

shown his willingness to render his services during this COVID 19

pandemic scenario.

Per contra, State counsel has opposed the bail application stating

that earlier bail application was rejected on merits vide order dated

04.05.2021. Filing of subsequent application under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C. is barred and is not maintainable in terms of the law laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.R. Ananda Babu vs

The State Of Tamil Nadu passed in Cri. Appeal No. /2021 arising

out of SLP (Cri.) No. 213 of 2021 and has argued that from the case

diary, the statement of one Rajendra Kushwaha is clearly reflected,

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-31446-2021 (ASHISH RAI @ SONU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

wherein he has seen the present applicant in committing the offence. In

such circumstances, no case for bail is made out against the present

applicant. It is further submitted that he is still absconding in the matter

and is not cooperating in the investigation. Apart from this, applicant is

having a criminal history of six cases out of which four cases

registered under Excise Act and two cases registered under Section 302

of IPC.

At this Stage, counsel for the applicant submits that all the cases

registered under the Excise Act are closed down.

Taking into consideration over all facts and circumstances of the

case and also the fact that on earlier occasion, this Court has dealt with

the earlier application in detail and has rejected the same on merits, no

new ground is available to the applicant for grant of bail. Accordingly,

the present bail application is hereby rejected. However, he is directed

to surrender and apply for regular bail.

                                                   (Vishal Mishra)
LJ*/-                                                  Judge

            LOKENDRA
            JAIN
            2021.06.30
            11:02:13
            -07'00'
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter