Nanu @ Akram Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2041 MP

       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       M.Cr.C. No.18020/2021
            (Nanu @ Akram Khan Vs. State of M.P. )
                                                                         1

Jabalpur, Dated : 27/ 05/ 2021
       Shri Aman Dawra, counsel for the applicant.
       Shri Sanjay Kumar Malviya, P.L. for the respondent / State.

Heard with the aid of case diary.

This is fourth application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. Applicant Nanu @ Akram Khan was arrested on 02.08.2019 in Crime No. 258/2019 registered at Police Station- Patan, District-Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C.

The first and second bail applications of the applicant have been dismissed on merits vide orders dated23.11.2019 and 11.02.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.37758/2019 and M.Cr.C. No. 784/2020 while the third bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 03.09.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 24497/2020.

As per the prosecution case, on 16/04/2019 at around 04:00-05:00 pm Mohan Singh along with the deceased Sattu @ Satyendra went to applicant Nanu @ Akram Khan's Motorcycle repairing shop located at Patan Market, Patan, where an altercation took place between applicants Baba Bhaijan @ Anwar, Nanu @ Akram Khan and deceased Sattu @ Satyendra. On this, applicant Nanu @ Akram Khan assaulted Sattu @ Satyendra with a stick and the applicant Baba Bhaijan @ Anwar, assaulted him with Pana on his head with the intention to kill him. Due to which Sattu @ Satyendra sustained injury in his head and fell down on the ground. Mohan Singh, Saurabh and Ashish took Sattu @ Satyendra to Patan Government Hospital for treatment. From where they took Sattu @ Satyendra to Metro Hospital, Jabalpur, where Sattu @ Satyendra died, due to the injury suffered by him in the incident.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the statements of alleged eyewitnesses i.e. Mohan Singh (PW-1), Ashish Bhurrak (PW-2) and Saurabh (PW-3) have been recorded by the trial court. There are many contradictions and omissions in their THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.18020/2021 (Nanu @ Akram Khan Vs. State of M.P. )

statements regarding the incident which shows that they are planted and interested witnesses. Even otherwise as per postmortem report applicant sustained only one injury and according to the prosecution case that injury was caused by co-accused Anwar. The applicant has been in custody since 02.08.2019 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. Earlier first and second bail applications of the applicant have been rejected on merits by this Court vide orders dated 23.11.2019 and 11.02.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.37758/2019 and M.Cr.C. No. 784/2020 while the third application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 03.09.2020, thereafter there is no change in circumstances except the period of detention.

Apex court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. (2005) 2 SCC 42 observed "While deciding the cases on facts, more so in criminal cases the court should bear in mind that each case must rest on its own facts and the similarity of facts in one case cannot be used to bear in mind the conclusion of fact in another case (See: Pandurang and Anr. vs. State of Hyderabad (1955 1 SCR 1083). It is also a well established principle that while considering the ratio laid down in one case, the court will have to bear in mind that every judgement must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be true. Since the generality of expressions which may be found therein are not intended to be expositions of the whole of the law, but are governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. A case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it."

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 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.18020/2021 (Nanu @ Akram Khan Vs. State of M.P. )

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.

All the three eyewitnesses deposed that applicant also took part in the incident. At this stage, this court is not inclined to ascertain the veracity of their statements by evaluating their statements on merits.

So looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the statements of prosecution witnesses, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

Hence the M.Cr.C. is rejected.

                                                                  (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
sarathe                                                                V. Judge




          Digitally signed by
          NAVEEN KUMAR
          SARATHE
          Date: 2021.05.27
          16:32:26 +05'30'