Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 465 (MP)

Tushar Bharduwaj v. State of M. P.

2014-04-25

SUJOY PAUL

body2014
Judgment: This is third bail application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant in connection with Crime No. 432/2012 registered at Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, Gwalior, for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 364, 404 r/w section 34 IPC and under Section 11/13 of the M.P.D.V.P.K. Act. 2. The first bail application was rejected by this court on 16.01.2013 and second one was rejected on 01.08.2013. Shri Arun Pateria, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is in custody since 31st July, 2012. 3. During this period, only one prosecution witness has deposed his statement. Trial may take long time and it will not be in the interest of justice to keep the applicant in custody. In addition, he submits that one main prosecution witness Pawan Mishra has deposed his statement on 14.02.2014 and has not stated anything against the applicant. Thus, for this reason applicant deserves bail. 4. Prayer is opposed by Mrs. Sangeeta Pachauri, learned Public Prosecutor. She submits that said witness has turned hostile. By drawing attention of this Court on the “challan”, it is submitted that there are many other important witnesses, who have to depose their statements before the Trial Court. In nutshell, prayer is opposed by Mrs. Pachauri. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 5. This Court rejected the first bail application on the ground that offences are serious and considering the gravity of allegations, possibility to influence the witnesses and considering the ultimate punishment in the event of conviction, it is not a fit case for grant of bail. Second bail application was also rejected on merits. The only changed circumstance is that the applicant remained in jail for some more time and one prosecution witness has deposed his statement. 6. The Apex Court in (2009) 6 SCC 316 (Jamiruddin Ansari Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another) opined that merely because accused has undergone some further period in custody, he is not entitled for bail. The witness, who deposed his statement, has turned hostile. 7. There is no other change in circumstances. Other prosecution witnesses who have to enter the witness box are material witness. 8. Considering the gravity of allegations/nature of accusation, possibility to influence material/witnesses and punishment in the event of conviction, it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. 7. There is no other change in circumstances. Other prosecution witnesses who have to enter the witness box are material witness. 8. Considering the gravity of allegations/nature of accusation, possibility to influence material/witnesses and punishment in the event of conviction, it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. Resultantly, bail application is dismissed.