Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 394 (MP)

Shyamkumar v. State of M. P.

2001-05-04

N.G.KARAMBELKAR

body2001
Short Note Heard on second bail application under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The first application was rejected on merits on 13.9.2000. In this application issues concerning merits of the case have been raised again, which have already been considered while rejecting the earlier application. The only new circumstance canvassed is that the applicant is in custody or about 10 months. A rejoinder too bas been filed incorporating issues touching the merits of the case and bringing to the notice of the Court that the case has been committed and is likely to be tried by Sessions Judge at Gwalior and the trial has yet to begin. As regards merits of the case. no such ground was shown or demonstrated justifying reopening or reconsideration of the case. During arguments, it was submitted that all the male members of the family of applicant are in jail. It was further submitted that wife of the applicant is also apprehended in the present case and her application for grant of anticipatory hail has been rejected. It was submitted that the wife of the applicant is very much willing to surrender after rejection of her bail application, but the only practical difficulty coming in the way of her surrendering is that the two minor children are also dependent on her and in the event of her detention in jail, there is no body left to look after them. Learned counsel assured and wanted to undertake the responsibility to make the wife surrender if the applicant was released on bail so that the two children could be looked after by the applicant. It may appear a practical solution convenient to the parties, but as regards the Court, it may not be practical. As a matter of law, release of one accused on bail cannot be exchanged for detention of other. The detention or release on hail of an accused has to be adjudged individually on merits of the case and it could never be a matter of bargain or barter. The submissions of the learned counsel for applicant are, therefore, not valid and not acceptable. The application is, Therefore, rejected.