Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rupeesh Meena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9138
1 CRA-1793-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 25th OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1793 of 2025
RUPEESH MEENA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Singh Jadoun - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Saket Udeniya - Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Sonu Rawat - Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
1. This is second criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has
been filed against the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by Special Judge
(SC/ST Act), District Guna (M.P.), whereby the application moved by the
appellant for grant of bail under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with
Crime No.88/2024 registered at Police Station Vijaypur, District Guna for
the offences punishable under Sections 324, 506, 452, 458, 147, 148, 149 of
IPC and and Sections 3(1)(द), 3(1)(ध), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act has been
dismissed.
2. The allegation levelled against the present appellant is that he,
along with other co-accused persons abused the complainant party and
assaulted them by means of sword, knife and danda due to which they
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9138
2 CRA-1793-2025
sustained grievous injuries.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He is in custody since
26.06.2024. The first bail application of appellant was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 17.01.2025 passed in CRA No.12308/2024 by
the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Thereafter, since no evidence has been
adduced before the learned trial Court, the present second bail application
has been filed. The appellant does not have any criminal antecedents.
Further, in support of his arguments, learned counsel placed reliance upon
the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra
Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 , and
submitted that the appellant is ready and willing to comply with any
conditions which may be imposed by the Court. Since the conclusion of trial
may take time, on these grounds, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to
the appellant.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent
No.2 opposed the appeal and prayed for its rejection on the ground that first
bail application of appellant was dismissed on 17.01.2025. Thereafter, only
one hearing was fixed by the learned trial Court on 06.02.2025 and
subsequently, this application has been filed on 13.02.2025. It is contended
that there is no inordinate delay in producing the witnesses before the trial
Court and no substantial change in the circumstances has occurred to justify
the present subsequent bail application. Therefore, the appellant does not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9138
3 CRA-1793-2025
deserve to be released on bail.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. In case of Sanjay Chandra (Supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble
Apex Court that bail is the rule and jail an exception. However, each case be
decide on its own merits. Denial of bail on the count of apprehension of
tempering evidence is not proper. But, in this case, it is found that bail
application was filed on 13.02.2025 while last bail application was dismissed
as withdrawn vide order dated 17.01.2025 and in between these two dates,
only one date was fixed by the trial Court for evidence on 06.02.2025. The
order sheets of the trial Court which are on record do not indicate that
inordinate delay has been caused in examination of witnesses, therefore, no
substantial change in the circumstances is found after dismissal of last bail
application to enable this Court to take a different view than the earlier taken.
Accordingly, having considered the arguments advanced by the parties and
attending facts and circumstance of the case, at this stage, no ground is made
out to release the applicant on regular bail.
7. Consequently, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Adnan
