Rakesh Singh Chandel @ Lallan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 17804 MP

                                                            1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
                                              ON THE 26 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                            CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11291 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RAKESH SINGH CHANDEL @ LALLAN S/O B. ANAND
                           SINGH   CHANDEL,   AGED    ABOUT   33   YEARS,
                           OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB R/O VILLAGE KHAIRA
                           POLICE STATION KOTWALI DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI BHUPENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 POLICE STATION KOTWALI DISTIRCT SIDHI
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    MST. RAMRATI KOL W/O LATE RAMPRASAD
                                 KOL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
                                 KHOHA P.S. JAMODI DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY MS. SHIPRA GUPTA - PANEL LAWYER)

                                 This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                             ORDER

This is second Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant against the order dated 24.04.2023 passed in SC No.13/2023.

T h e appellant has been arrested on 31.12.2022 in connection with Signature Not Verified Signed by: POONAM MANEKAR Signing time: 10/27/2023 5:46:22 PM

(FIR)/Crime No.1085/2022 dated /31.12.2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali, district Sidhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 307, 302 of IPC, Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The appellant is in judicial custody since 31.12.2022 and the trial will take long time to conclude. The appellant is a permanent resident of district and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to enlarge the appellant on bail.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant.

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary and judgment of the trial court.

This repeat bail application has been argued on the ground that material witnesses have been examined before the trial Court, certified copies of whose statements have been filed along with the application and they have not supported the prosecution story. These witnesses are the father-in-law and wife of the deceased including two other witnesses.

The first bail application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 19.06.2023 passed in Cr.A. No.6052/2023 and the reason for dismissal was that the statements of deceased were recorded on next date of his hospitalization i.e. on 15.12.2022. These statements were considered as dying declaration and therein the deceased had named the appellant as his assailant.

Counsel for the appellant has relied upon decision of Supreme Court passed in Ranvir Singh etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Cr.A. Nos.1384- Signature Not Verified Signed by: POONAM MANEKAR Signing time: 10/27/2023 5:46:22 PM

1385/2009), but that decision is not applicable here because the person who recorded dehati nalishi on the basis of information given by the deceased in that case failed to corroborate the prosecution version. The discrepancy in the two versions further extended to the identification of place where the body was found when these statements were recorded. It was also observed by the Apex Court that if the deceased was badly injured then the services of the Magistrate or Doctors should have been taken for recording the statements of deceased. None of these conditions prevailed here.

Looking to the dismissal of first bail application and finding no substantial change in circumstances for re-consideration of this second bail application, this Court does not find it appropriate to release the appellant on bail Accordingly, this criminal appeal is hereby dismissed.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE pnm

Signature Not Verified Signed by: POONAM MANEKAR Signing time: 10/27/2023 5:46:22 PM