Wednesday, 20, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Shanu Kahar @ Deepak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 12890 MP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 12890 MP
Judgement Date : 26 September, 2022

Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shanu Kahar @ Deepak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 September, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
                                                             1
                                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                        AT JABALPUR
                                                              BEFORE
                                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                   ON THE 26th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                                              MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 45688 of 2022

                                        BETWEEN:-
                                        SHANU KAHAR @ DEEPAK S/O SUMERI KAHAR,
                                        AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, VILLAGE GURAIYA P.S.
                                        CHAURAI DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
                                        PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....APPLICANT
                                        (BY SHRI MRIGENDRA SINGH - SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED
                                        WITH SHRI RISHABH SINGH - ADVOCATE)

                                        AND
                                        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                        P.S. CHAURAI   CHHINDWARA    (MADHYA
                                        PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENT
                                        (BY SHRI VIVEK LAKHERA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                              MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 45506 of 2022

                                        BETWEEN:-
                                        SACHIN SHARMA S/O YASHWANT SHARMA,
                                        AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, VILLAGE GURAIYA P.S.
                                        CVHAURAI DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
                                        PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....APPLICANT
                                        (BY SHRI MRIGENDRA SINGH - SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED
                                        WITH SHRI RISHABH SINGH - ADVOCATE)

                                        AND
                                        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                        P.S. CHAURAI   CHHINDWARA    (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
  SAN
                                        PRADESH)

Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2022.09.27 16:39:40 IST
                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                                        (BY SHRI VIVEK LAKHERA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
                                                                            2
                                               This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                                        following:
                                                                            ORDER

These repeat applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. are filed by the applicants, seeking grant of regular bail, in connection with Crime No.627/2021, registered at Police Station Chaurai, District Chhindwara (M.P.), for offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

2. It is submitted that applicants are in custody since 24.09.2021. It is submitted that applicants have been made an accused on the basis of memorandum of main accused Rahul Nema.

3. It is submitted that allegation is that Rahul Nema had taken about Rs.12 lacs from deceased Vijay Baghel and since Vijay Baghel was pressing for return of his amount, Rahul Nema had hatched the conspiracy to eliminate him in which allegation is that present applicants were also party. It is submitted that except for blood stained cloths, no item has been recovered from the possession of the present applicants. Witnesses of seizure are not independent witnesses in terms of the provisions contained in Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C.

4. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Madhav Vs. State of M.P. (2021 SCC Online SC 613), wherein in para 33, Supreme Court has held placing reliance on its earlier judgment in Balwan Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [(2019) 7 SCC 781], holding that there cannot be any fixed formula that the prosecution has failed to prove or need not proved that the blood groups match, but the judicial conscientious of the Court should be satisfied both abut the recovery and about the origin of the human blood. Signature Not Verified

5. Placing reliance on this judgment, it is submitted that indulgence be shown SAN

Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.09.27 16:39:40 IST in the matter.

6. It is also submitted that earlier bail application was dismissed with a direction to the trial Court to conclude trial within a period of six months, but though a period of more than two months has lapsed, but trial Court has examined only two witnesses.

7. Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned Government Advocate, in his turn, submits that there are no changed circumstances, seizure witnesses have supported the seizure. In furtherance of the memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, recovery of articles has been made to connect the present applicants with the crime. Their call details are being looked into to show their involvement.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, according to me, there are no changed circumstances to show indulgence in the matter. However, trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conduct day to day trial so to complete the trial, expeditiously, without affording any undue endorsement adjournment or showing undue leniency in favour of the prosecution witnesses.

9. These repeat bail applications fail and are dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE A.Praj.

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.09.27 16:39:40 IST

 
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 : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter