Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sumit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 May, 2024
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 15 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12834 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SUMIT S/O LATE SHRI TIKAMCHANDRA JI VERMA,
AGED: 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABORER, R/O: 61,
HUKUMCHAND COLONY, INDORE, POLICE STATION
MALHARGANJ, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI YOGESH KUMAR GUPTA - ADVOCATE.)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION MALHARGANJ,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI AMIT RAVAL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE APPEARING ON
BEHALF OF ADVOCATE GENERAL.)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on IA No.7832 of 2024, which is an application for taking
documents on record.
2. The document (s) may be relevant for proper adjudication of this bail
application, therefore, IA is allowed and the documents are taken on record.
3. This is repeat (second) application filed by applicant under Section 439
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail relating to Crime
No.121 of 2022 registered at Police Station Malharganj, District Indore (MP) for
offence punishable under Section 306, 201, 176 and 506 Part-II read with
Section 34 in alter 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The applicant is in custody
since 25.02.2022. His first bail application Miscellaneous Criminal Case
No.2236 of 2023 has already been dismissed by this Court as withdrawn after
arguing for some time vide order dated 17.02.2023.
4. As per the prosecution, brief facts, of the case are that the deceased was
having love affair with applicant Sumit Verma since last three years and the
deceased wanted to marry with him; and they entered into physical relationship,
but later on, the applicant denied to marry her.
On 31.01.2022, present applicant Sumit Verma along with co-accused
Vishal Parmar brought the deceased in a dead condition to the house of the
deceased and threatened the mother of the deceased that you should narrate that
the deceased has committed suicide by handing in her own house. On
02.02.2022, the mother of the deceased lodged the First Information Report;
and accordingly, offence has been registered.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is innocent and
he has been falsely implicated in this matter. He is in custody since 25.02.2022
and already suffered jail incarceration for a period of more than two years and
two months. It is also submitted that most of the material prosecution
witnesses have already been examined before the trial Court. There is material
contradictions and omissions in the statement of mother of the deceased
Kalabai (PW-1) as well as father Gajju @ Gajendra (PW-2) and sister Nandani
Yadav (PW-3) of the deceased regarding the place of the incident. There is no
direct evidence against the present applicant to connect him with the
aforementioned offence. The applicant is a permanent resident of District
Indore. Final conclusion of trial will take considerable long time. Hence, he
prays that applicant be enlarged on bail.
6. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent -
State of Madhya Pradesh opposes the bail application and prays for its
rejection.
7. Perused the case diary and the documents as well as the impugned order
of the court below.
8. Considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments
advanced by counsel for the parties, nature and gravity of allegation as also
taking note of the fact that as per postmortem report, two injuries have been
found over the person of the deceased including head injury as well as the
parents and sister of the deceased deposed against the present applicant in
respect of the aforesaid offence.
9. At the stage of consideration of bail, detailed marshalling of the
prosecution witnesses is not permissible, as per the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chattisgarh & Ors.
(Cr.A.No.651/2007) decided on 30.07.2007 , wherein it has been 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."
10. 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 witnesses put up
by the prosecution.
Delay in trial is not the sole ground for releasing the applicant on bail.
11. In view of the evidence available on record, this Court is not inclined to
grant bail to the present applicant. Hence, the present miscellaneous criminal
case is dismissed.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
rcp
