Devendra Kumar Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2803 MP

                                                                       1                         MCRC-28828-2021
                                          The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                    MCRC-28828-2021
                                               (DEVENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


                                  Jabalpur, Dated : 29-06-2021
                                        Heard through Video Conferencing.

                                        Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Siddharth Sharma,
                                  learned counsel for the applicant.
                                        Shri Devendra Shukla, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.

Case dairy perused.

This is the third application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Applicant Devendra Kumar Tripathi was arrested on 05/06/2018 in connection with Crime No.220/2018 registered at Police Station Chorahata, District Rewa (M.P) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The first application filed by the applicant was dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 02/08/2019 passed in M.Cr.C.No.22161/2019 and second application for temporary bail was allowed vide order dated 03/03/2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.11564/2021 and applicant was directed to

be released on temporary bail upto 09/03/2021.

As per the prosecution case, on 27/05/2018 at about 09:30 am when complainant Savita Chaturvedi and her husband injured Kushal Prasad Chaturvedi and her two sons deceased Rajnish Chaturvedi @ Vikas and Rajlallan Chaturvedi were on his field, at that time applicant Devendra Kumar Tripathi and co-accused Lavkush Prasad Shukla, Yamuna Prasad Tripathi @ Chhote and Krishna Kumar Pandey along with other 3-4 persons came there on Scorpio Jeep and assaulted Kushal Prasad Chaturvedi, Rajnish Chaturvedi @ Vikas and Rajlallan Chaturvedi by tangi, farsa and fawda with intend to kill them, due to which Kushal Prasad Chaturvedi, Rajnish Chaturvedi @ Vikas and Rajlallan Chaturvedi sustained injuries on their head and Rajnish died on the spot due to that injury.

Signature Not Verified SAN Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.06.29 17:16:15 IST 2 MCRC-28828-2021 committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence. It is alleged that the applicant and co-accused assaulted deceased Rajnish by tangi, farsa and fawda, while deceased sustained only one injury which clearly shows that the police falsely implicated the applicant in the crime. Although, first application filed by the applicant for grant of bail was dismissed on

merit, but thereafter statement of eyewitness of the incident Savita Chaturvedi has been recorded by the trial Court. There are many contradiction and omission in her statement. The applicant has been in custody since 05/06/2018 and the trial is still pending, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that the first bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed on merit by this Court, thereafter there is no change in circumstance. Complainant Savita Chaturvedi in her court statement deposed that the applicant was also involved in the crime, so he should not be released on bail.

The first application filed by the applicant was dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 02/08/2019 passed in M.Cr.C.No.22161/2019, 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 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."

Signature Not Verified SAN The name of the applicant is mentioned in the F.I.R. which was lodged

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.06.29 17:16:15 IST 3 MCRC-28828-2021 by the complainant Savita Chaturvedi soon after the incident and in the F.I.R. it is also mentioned that applicant also took part in the incident. So looking to the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

Hence bail application is rejected.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE

as

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.06.29 17:16:15 IST