Madhya Pradesh High Court

Braj Kishore Chidar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2024

                                    1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT GWALIOR
                             CRA No. 668 of 2014
                (BRAJ KISHORE CHIDAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 02-05-2024
      Shri Ashok Jain - Advocate for appellant.

      Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla - Additional Advocate General for
respondent/State.

Order on I.A. No. 4428/2024.

This 8th application filed by the appellant under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the appellant, arising out of judgment dated

16.05.2014 delivered in Sessions Trial No.10/2014 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in connection with Crime No.152/2013 registered at Police Station Sirsod District Shivpuri. All the previous applications have been dismissed as withdrawn.

Heard learned counsel for the accused/appellant and learned Additional Advocate General for the State.

Main submission of learned counsel for the accused/appellant is that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no reliable evidence against the present accused/appellant. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of

the accused/appellant. There is no motive of the accused/appellant to commit murder of the deceased. Co-accused Smt. Babita has already been bailed out on 23.11.2014 and accused/appellant is languishing in jail since the date of conviction. He further submits that witnesses have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. It was also argued that the appellant is languishing in jail for more than 10 years and as there is no possibility of hearing of this appeal in near future, he may be released on bail and if the

accused/appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty. It was also submitted that the accused/appellant was on bail during pendency of trial and had not misused his liberty at any time.

Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the accused/appellant and submitted that dead body has been recovered by the police at the instance of the accused person. Blood stained stone was also recovered by the police. Accused/appellant had an illicit relation with the wife of deceased and he had a strong motive to commit murder of accused/appellant.

Looking to the period of detention, this Court asked the learned counsel

to argue the matter finally, to which learned counsel for the accused/appellant declined.

Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, rival submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and the fact that dead body of deceased has been recovered up on the disclosure of accused/appellant, no case is made out for grant of bail.

In view of above, I.A.No.4428/2024 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is dismissed.

   (RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV)                                         (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
          JUDGE                                                         JUDGE
 Abhi