AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 377 wordsG.S. Ahluwalia, J
This third application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of bail. The second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 19.7.2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.34510/2021.
The applicant has been arrested on 19.8.2019 in connection with Crime No.88/2019 registered at Police Station Barohi, District Bhind for offence under Sections 302, 294, 323, 34 of IPC and under Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that all the three eyewitnesses have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case.
Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent/State. It is submitted that it is true that the eyewitnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
During the course of arguments, it was fairly conceded by Shri Gupta that apart from the eyewitnesses, there is a circumstantial evidence against the applicant. The applicant was also found injured on the spot with gunshot injury and a counter-case is pending against the complainant party. One of the cartridge found on the spot had matched with the gun seized from the possession of the applicant. However, it is submitted that at present some seizure witnesses and the armorer have not been examined so far to prima facie show that the cartridge seized from the spot was fired from the gun of the applicant.
In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2019) 17 SCC 523 it is clear that even if eyewitnesses do not support the prosecution case, then, the accused can still be convicted with the help of forensic/scientific and circumstantial evidence. In the present case, the applicant was not only found on the spot with gunshot injury but according to the prosecution case, the gun seized from the possession of the applicant was also found to have been used and the fired cartridge had matched with the gun of the applicant.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for grant of bail.
The application fails and is hereby dismissed.