Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 229 (MP)

Manoj Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-02-09

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2022
JUDGMENT G.S. ahluwalia, J. - This fifth application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of bail. Fourth application was dismissed on 04.01.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No.61653/2021. The applicant has been arrested on 17.01.2021 in connection with Crime No.447/2020 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, Distt. Gwalior for offence under Sections 376, 371, 323, 506, 363, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO act. This repeat application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail mainly on the ground that subsequent to the rejection of fourth bail application of the applicant on 04.01.2022, co-accused Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi has been granted bail by this Court by order dt.28.01.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No.2910/2022 and the case of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi. Although, the entire arguments of the counsel for the applicant are based on the bail granted to co-accused Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi but he has not filed the copy of the said order. Under these circumstances, this Court was left with no other option but to download the order of the co-accused Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi from the website of the High Court. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the co-accused Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi is aged about 70 years and the allegations against the applicant as well as co-accused Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi are that they had made preparation for the marriage of a minor girl. From the order dt.28.01.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No.2910/2022, it is clear that the co-accused Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi was granted bail by considering his advanced age of 70 years, whereas the applicant is aged about 40 years. Since the counsel for the applicant was well aware of this fact that his case is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi because he has been granted bail only on the ground of advanced age, therefore, the bail order was not placed on record and without filing the said order, the arguments were being advanced that the co-accused has been granted bail. The lawyers must realize that they must come to the Court with clean hands and should not make any effort to mislead the Court. Be that whatever it may be. The lawyers must realize that they must come to the Court with clean hands and should not make any effort to mislead the Court. Be that whatever it may be. From the arrest memo of Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi, it is clear that on 28.12.2020 his age was shown as 68 years and thus as a natural coronary he was 70 years on 28.01.2022 i.e. the date on which he was granted bail, whereas according to the applicant himself he is aged about 40 years. By no stretch of imagination the case of the applicant can be said to be at par to the case of co-accused Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi, who has been granted bail on the ground of his advanced age. accordingly, no case is made out for grant of bail. The application fails and is hereby dismissed.