Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 921 (MP)

MITHLA KACHHI v. STATE OF M P

2009-08-04

INDRANI DATTA

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) HEARD. ( 2. ) PERUSED the case diary. ( 3. ) THISIS 12thbailapplicationunder Section 439 of Cr. P. C. filed by the applicant for grant of bail. ( 4. ) HIS first application (M. Cr. C No. 5942/06) was dismissed on 26. 2. 07 as withdrawn. Second application (M. Cr. C. No. 1547/07) was dismissed on 19. 4. 07 on merits. Third and Fourth applications (M. Cr. C. No. 3440/07 and 4146/07)were dismissed on 3. 7. 07 and 3. 8. 07 on the ground that there is no change in mithlakachhi Vs. STATE OF M. P. circumstance. Fifth application (M. Cr. C. No,6339/07) was dismissed on 2. 11. 07. Sixth application (M. Cr. C. No. 7198/07) was dismissed on 4. 1. 08 as withdrawn. Seventh application (M. Cr. C. No. 537/08) was filed on the ground of parity with co-accused Raj Kumar Yadav which also met with dismissal on 25. 1. 08. Eighth application (M. Cr. C. No,1315/08) was dismissed on 18. 3. 08 as withdrawn. Ninth application (M. Cr. C. No. 2781/08) was also dismissed on 9. 5. 08. Tenth application (M. Cr. C. No. 5330/08) was dismissed on 14. 8. 09 on merit. Eleventh application (M. Cr. C. No. 8224/08) was dismissed on 27. 2. 09 on the basis that no new ground is made out. Thus, this is 12th application for grant of bail. ( 5. ) APPLICANT has been arrested by the Police Station Sarsai, District Datia in connection with Crime No. 36/06, registered for offence punishable under section 364, 302, 120-B, 147, 148 IPC and Section 25/27 Arms Act. ( 6. ) IT is contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. Co-accused Surendra and Raj Kumar Yadav have already been enlarged on bail. It is further contended that in ST. No. 51/07 witness kalicharan is examined as PW-1 and witness Modi Kushwah is examined as pw-6 and both have been declared hostile and they have not uttered anything against the present applicant and witness Modi Kushwah has not identified deceased and he has stated that dead body shown to him was not dead body of deceased Laxmi. ( 7. No. 51/07 witness kalicharan is examined as PW-1 and witness Modi Kushwah is examined as pw-6 and both have been declared hostile and they have not uttered anything against the present applicant and witness Modi Kushwah has not identified deceased and he has stated that dead body shown to him was not dead body of deceased Laxmi. ( 7. ) TO bolster his contention, learned counsel for the applicant drew this Courts attention to a citation in the case of Kaniram and others v. State of M. P. reported in 1991 JLJ 273 and Babu Mulla and others v. State of M. P. reported in 1978 mplj 623 wherein accused persons were enlarged on bail on the ground of delayed trial. Furthermore, learned counsel for applicant also took this Court through a citation in the case of Ram Sahodar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1986 CRI. L. J 279 wherein, it has been held that circumstances may change and a person earlier found not entitled for bail may subsequently become so entitled for bail due to changed circumstances. ( 8. ) A close reading of the aforesaid citations reveals that the facts and circumstances of the case at hand are altogether distinguishable. The Supreme court in the case of Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2007)1 SCC 242 has held that though mere period of incarceration and/or likelihood of delays in conclusion of trial are not by themselves singly or conjointly enough for grant of bail. Yet both these factors may be taken into consideration while deciding the question of bail. Over and above, the Hon ble supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Rjan Yadav v. CBI reported in (2007) 1 scc 70 has held that there is no absolute rule that a long period of incarceration by itself would entitle an undertrial to bail. ( 9. ) CONSIDERING the above canons and the fact that bench of this Court while mitula KACHHI Vs. STATE OF M. P. deciding the 10th bail application (M. Cr. C. No. 5330/08) has considered statements of PW-6 Modi Kushwah and other relevant statements and thereafter rejected the application on merit there appears no change in circumstance. ( 10. ) ACCORDINGLY, the application is dismissed. However, looking to the period of custody of the applicant the trial court is expected tc expedite the trial. Application dismissed.