Ganesh Prasad Yadav vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Akhil Kumar Srivastava, J

This is repeat (Second) application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The first application was dismissed as withdrawn.

The applicant is in custody since 16.04.2019 for the offences under Sections 302, 304-B, 316 and 201 of IPC in connection with Crime No.110/2019

registered by Police Station - Jaisingh Nagar, District Shahdol.

As per the prosecution case, the applicant is alleged to have committed murder of his wife-deceased.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Counsel for the applicant

further submitted that the applicant never demanded any dowry nor committed any offence with the deceased. The incident was just an accident. He

is in custody since 16.04.2019. The applicant is the permanent resident of the district, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding and tempering

with the prosecution evidence. The trial will take considerable time in disposal of the case. Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn attention

of this Court regarding statement of prosecution witnesses, who have been examined in the trial Court during trial. He also contended that the

witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. On these grounds, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant/accused on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the bail application and prayed for rejection of the same on the ground that there are

sufficient evidence against the applicant even witnesses examined in the Court have deposed against the applicant. However, he also contended that

the Apex Court in the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chhatisgarh 2007 Cr.LJ. 2766 (SC) has held that at the time of consideration of bail, the Court

cannot consider the veracity of statements given by the prosecution witnesses, this can only be done at the time of disposal of the case on the basis of

merit of the matter.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available in PDF file.

On perusal of the PDF file of this case as well as case diary, this Court is of the considered view that there is ample evidence against the present

applicant, even the prosecution witnesses have deposed in the trial Court moreover, there is well settled principle on this point that at the time of

consideration of bail application, meticulous consideration and appreciation of prosecution evidences is not required.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, without commenting anything on the merit of the matter,

this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, in which, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.