Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish Singh @ Santosh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 January, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No. 2430/2022
(SATISH SINGH @ SANTOSH Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Through Video Conferencing
Gwalior, Dated : 24/01/2022
Shri Rahul Bansal, Counsel for applicant.
Shri Avdhesh Parashar, Counsel for State.
Case diary is available.
This is fourth application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for
grant of bail. The third bail application was dismissed by order dated
21.12.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.61735/2021 as withdrawn with
liberty to file a fresh application with all necessary mandatory
declarations.
The applicant has been arrested on 09.07.2020 in connection
with Crime No.01/2020 registered at Police Station Gohad Chauraha,
District Bhind for offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 34 of IPC
and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
It is submitted by Counsel for the applicant that after rejection
of previous bail application, all the material witnesses have been
examined and they have not supported the prosecution case. The trial
is likely to take sufficiently long time and there is no possibility of
his absconding or tampering with prosecution case.
Per contra, the application is opposed by the Counsel for the
respondent/State. It is submitted that it is true that prosecution
witnesses have not supported the prosecution case but it appears that
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No. 2430/2022
(SATISH SINGH @ SANTOSH Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
either the witnesses had not given the correct information to the
Police or they have not narrated the truth before the Court, and
therefore, they are liable to be prosecuted.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
So far as the question of prosecution of witnesses is concerned,
the same is left with the discretion of the Trial Court. However, it is
directed that the Trial Court while deciding the trial shall address to
the question as to whether the prosecution witnesses are required to
be prosecuted or not.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Considering the fact that prosecution witnesses have turned
hostile and without commenting on the merits of the case, the
application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on
bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lac Only) with one surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court/Committal Court to appear before the
Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.
This order shall remain effective till the end of the trial but in
case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the
case of Aparna Bhat & Ors. vs. State of M.P. passed on 18/3/2021
in Criminal Appeal No.329/2021, the intimation regarding grant of
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No. 2430/2022
(SATISH SINGH @ SANTOSH Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
bail be sent to the complainant.
Certified copy as per rule.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
Aman
AMAN TIWARI
2022.01.24 16:28:19
+05'30'
