Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mannu Solanki vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 9th OF JANUARY, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 118 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
MANNU SOLANKI S/O BILAM SOLANKI, AGED
ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOR R/O 81,
PATEL NAGAR AIRODRAM GANDHI NAGAR
MARG INDORE P.S. GANDHI NAGAR INDORE.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI RAVINDRA MARTAND DESHPANDE - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
GANDHI NAGAR DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI KAPIL MAHANT - PL )
_____________________________________________________________________
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
Applicant has filed this second bail application under Section 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Crime No.
182/2022 registered at P.S - Gandhi Nagar, Indore, District- Indore
(M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-
A of IPC and sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The applicant's earlier bail application was dismissed by this Court
onVerified
Signature Not merit vide order dated 13/12/2022 passed in MCRC no. 56024/2022.
Signed by: AMOL N
MAHANAG
Signing time: 1/10/2023
10:40:08 AM
The applicant filed this repeat bail application by stating that after
rejection of the earlier bail application, two witnesses Kailashibai and
Seema have been examined and they have turned hostile. Kailashibai
categorically stated in her cross-examination that present applicant was
living separately with the deceased and her husband, therefore, under
this changed circumstances, present applicant be released on bail.
In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the
judgments of this Court delivered in the case of Chandarbai Vs. State
of M.P. Reported in 2012 (II)MPWN 26; State of M.P. Vs. Lakhan
Singh reported in 2016 (III) MPWN 45; Babli @ Rubina Vs. State of
M.P. Reported in 2016(I) MPWN 76; SheshNarayan Vs. State of
M.P. Reported in 2013(III) MPWN 95 ; Sita @ Sita Pratap Vs. State
of M.P. Reported in 2008(I) MPWN 80.
Per-contra, learned PL for respondent - State opposes the bail
application and prays for its rejection by stating that only two witnesses
have been examined and rest of 23 witnesses are yet to be examined.
Perused the impugned order of the trial Court as well as the case
dairy.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments
advanced by both the parties, nature of allegation as also taking note of
the fact that applicant's first bail application was dismissed on merit and
after rejection of the said application, only two witnesses have been
examined; Kailashibai (PW-1) categorically stated in her statement that
the deceased told her that her fainer-in-law and mother-in-law abused
and beat her for non-fulfillment of demand of money; only two
prosecution witnesses have been examined at this stage and rest of the
witnesses are yet to be examined; at the time of consideration of bail,
marchalling of evidence of the prosecution witness cannot be permissible.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL N
MAHANAG
Signing time: 1/10/2023
10:40:08 AM
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of
Chattisgarh & Ors. (Cr.A. No.651/2007) decided on30.07.2007 has held
as under:-
"At the stage of granting of bail, the Court can
only go into the question of prima facie case established
for granting bail. It cannot go into the question of
credibility and reliability of the witnesses put up by the
prosecution. The question of credibility and reliability of
prosecution witnesses can only be tested during the
trial."
As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish
Jaggi (supra), this Court can only go into the question of the prima facie
case established for granting bail. At the stage of consideration of bail, this
Court cannot go into the question of credibility and reliability of the
witness put up by the prosecution, therefore, at this stage marshalling of
evidence of statement of the witness before this Court cannot be done.
At this stage, there is no material change in the circumstances, in
which, the applicant may be deserved for bail.
In light of the aforesaid discussions, present application filed under
section 439 of Cr.PC has no force and is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
amol
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL N
MAHANAG
Signing time: 1/10/2023
10:40:08 AM
