Vicky Khan @ Mustkeen Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 5993 MP

                                                           1
                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                          AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR SHARMA
                                               ON THE 12 th OF APRIL, 2023
                                         MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3994 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          VICKY KHAN @ MUSTKEEN KHAN S/O LATE SHRI
                          NASEEM KHAN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          BUSINESS R/O ADARSH NAGAR, TIKURIYA TOLA,
                          POLICE STATION KOLGAWAN DISTRICT SATNA
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....APPLICANT
                          (BY SHRI PRAMENDRA SINGH THAKUR - ADVOCATE )

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
                          STATION KOLGAWAN, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI T.R. KURMI - PANEL LAWYER )

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

This repeat (third) bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail relating to FIR No. 878/2019 dated 18/07/2019 registered at Police Station Kolgawan, District Satna (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 307, 353, 332, 294 and 506/34 of the IPC.

Earlier bail applications of the applicant were dismissed on merits vide order dated 03/12/2021 and 04/05/2021 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 4/13/2023 10:12:07 AM

41767/2021 and 39695/2020 respectively.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not caused any injuries to the complainants; whereas the fracture injury was found on the body of the complainant during scuffle between them, hence, no alleged offence is made out against the present applicant. It is also submitted that there is no direct evidence available on record against the applicant to implicate him with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the challan has been filed before the trial Court and the applicant is in custody since 22/07/2019 and conclusion of trial would take considerable time. After rejection of earlier bail applications , material prosecution

witnesses have been examined before the trial Court and they did not support the prosecution case. Under these change of circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2020) 11 SCC 648, Sagar Tatyaram Gorkhe and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 3 SCC 725 and in Criminal Appeal No. 1525 of 2021 in the case of Ashim @ Asim Kumar Harnath Bhattacharya @ Asim Harinath Bhattacharya @ Aseem Kumar Bhattacharya Vs. National Investigation Agency so also in the order dated 13/12/2021 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 36551/2021.

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer has vehemently opposed the bail application by contending that Sandeep Namdeo (PW 2) and injured

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 4/13/2023 10:12:07 AM

Manoj Singh Baghel (PW 3) have supported the prosecution case and after rejection of earlier bail applications of the applicant on merits, there seems to be no change of circumstances. Under these circumstances, he prays for rejection of bail application.

Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that there is sufficient evidence available on record to connect the applicant with the alleged offence and learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any change of circumstances, in which this repeat application can be considered. So far as the judgments/orders relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, they are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Even though, at the stage of grant of bail, detailed appreciation of the evidence is not permissible.

In view of above, no case for grant of bail to the applicant is made out. Accordingly, this repeat (third) application deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA) JUDGE skt

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 4/13/2023 10:12:07 AM