Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ladkunwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2024
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1 MCRC-23582-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23582 of 2024
LADKUNWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vishal V.R. Daniel - Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Vinita Sharma - Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State.
ORDER
This is second application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973 for grant of bail filed on behalf of the applicant who has
been arrested relating to FIR/Crime No.181/2022 dated 02.11.2022
registered at Police Station Badagaon, District Tikamgarh for the offences
punishable under Sections 342, 341, 148, 149 and 302 of IPC.
2. His first application being M.Cr.C. No.55651/2023 was dismissed
on merits by this Court vide order dated 12.01.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Trial will take
considerable time to conclude. He further submits that the applicant is
innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. The applicant is a
permanent resident of district and there is no likelihood of his absconding or
tampering with prosecution evidence. He is ready to furnish adequate surety
and shall abide by all the conditions to be imposed by the Court. Upon these
2 MCRC-23582-2024
grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. This second bail application has been argued on the grounds that
there is considerable delay in trial and the applicant being a lady should be
given the benefit of bail in the light of the provision of Section 437 of
Cr.P.C. and the decision of Apex Court given in the case of Satender Kumar
Antil Vs. CBI and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 . During the course of
arguments, the counsel for applicant has also relied upon the decision of
Apex Court delivered in the case of Ashish Mishra alias Monu Vs. State of
U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine 86 and Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No.7857/2022.
7. It is claimed by the applicant that she is in custody since 05.11.2022
and the trial before the Court below is not progressing at a satisfactory pace.
The State has filed the status report which reveals that out of total 22 listed
witnesses, now 14 remain to be examined. It has also been submitted by the
State that so far no prosecution witness has been declared hostile.
Considering the nature of the offence involved herein and the number of
witnesses examined so far, this Court does not find it fit to allow the bail
application on the ground of delay in trial. The decision of Apex Court given
in the case of Ashish Mishra alias Monu (supra) cannot be invoked here as
for the same incident there were two completely different narratives placed
before the Apex Court requiring a full blown trial to hunt for the actual facts
but, here, we do not have any different narrative involved in the case.
3 MCRC-23582-2024
8. This bail application has also been argued on the ground that
applicant is a lady and in the light of the decision of Satender Kumar Antil
(supra) she should be considered for grant of bail but an exception has been
carved out in that judgment itself by observing that the provision needs not
to be considered favourable to be in all cases and its application would
depend upon those facts. In the case on hand, the facts and circumstances of
the case have already been considered in the earlier bail application which
was dismissed on merits.
9. In the light of aforesaid discussion this repeat bail application is
dismissed.
10. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. stands dismissed.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
NP
