Sumit Rai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 13543 MP

                                                             1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                            BEFORE
                                              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                                  ON THE 14th OF OCTOBER, 2022

                                          MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 41303 of 2022

                                   BETWEEN:-
                                   SUMIT RAI S/O SHRI PRATAP SINGH RAI, AGED
                                   ABOUT         36      YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                   AGRICULTURIST 177 NEAR TILAK PARK KASBA
                                   DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....PETITIONER
                                   (BY SHRI ANIL KHARE - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI SATYAM
                                   AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)

                                   AND
                                   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                   POLICE STATION MANDI DISTRICT SEHORE
                                   (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENT
                                   (BY SHRI AMIT MISHRA - PANEL LAWYER)
                                   (SHRI ESHAAN DATT - ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)

                                 This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

Heard on I.A.No.16759/2022, an application seeking permission to assist the prosecution.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Counsel for the objector is permitted to assist the prosecution. This is the second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C filed by the applicant for grant of bail. First application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.05.2022 passed in M.Cr.C.No.21911 of 2022.

The applicant has been arrested on 11.10.2020 by Police Station Mandi, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10/18/2022 10:01:28 AM

District Sehore Anuppur (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.261/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 294, 323, 506, 34 & 325 of Indian Penal Code.

This repeat application has been filed on the ground that statements of witnesses have been recorded before the trial Court and to certain extent, they have not supported the prosecution case. There is a cross-case registered against the complainant party vide crime No. 262/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 294, 323, 506 & 34 of Indian Penal Code, wherein, the applicant has also sustained injuries. The applicant is in custody since 11.10.2020. The trial is progressive at a very slow pace. There was only one

fatal injury which has been caused by the present applicant, but there was no pre-meditation or intention to cause an injury which resulted into death of the deceased. Therefore, the matter does not fall under the category of Section 302 of IPC and at the least it falls under the category of 304 Part-II of the IPC. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Stalin vs. State reported in (2020) 9 SCC 524 and submits that keeping the applicant in custody for longer period amounts to pre-trial detention as has not been convicted till date. He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while considering his bail application. As far as other criminal cases are concerned, the applicant has already been enlarged on bail in other cases. In view of the aforesaid, he prays for grant of bail.

Per contra, counsel appearing for the State as well as counsel appearing for the objector have vehemently opposed the contentions stating that he is the principal accused in the matter and inflicted the fatal injury resulting into death. Offence under Section 302 of IPC is clearly made out against the present applicant. As far as contradictions and omissions in the statements of witnesses Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10/18/2022 10:01:28 AM

are concerned, the same cannot be looked into in a bail application in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others reported in 2007 Vol 11 SCC 195 . The trial is going on a good pace and statements of witnesses are being recorded regularly. Merely registration of a cross-case against the complainant party, that too, for minor offence, does not entitle the applicant to enlarge on bail.. Even if the individual act is seen, then also the applicant is the principal accused who had inflicted fatal injuries resulting into death. There is a recovery of knife from the present applicant by which the fatal injuries are stated to be caused. They pray for dismissal of the application.

Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case and the fact the applicant is the principal accused in the case, coupled with the fact that he is a history sheet having four other criminal cases registered against him, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the application is hereby rejected.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE sj

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 10/18/2022 10:01:28 AM