Khuman Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Shri Rajmani Bansal, learned counsel for the complainant. I.A No.1037/2020, an application under section 301(2) of Cr.P.C. for assisting learned

Public Prosecutor for the State is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.

Learned counsel for the complainant is permitted to assist learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

Case diary is perused.

This is second application under Section 439 of Cr.PC for grant of bail. Earlier application was rejected on merit on 26/04/2019 with liberty to file

fresh application after recording of some important prosecution witnesses.

The applicant has been arrested on 20/02/2019 in connection with Crime No.26/2019 registered at Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri (M.P.) for

offence under Sections 302, 364 of IPC and under Section 24, 27 of Arms Act.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The applicant is in custody since last one

year. It is further submitted that after the rejection of previous application, now change circumstances is that now four important prosecution

witnesses have been examined and the witnesses of last seen have not supported the prosecution case. It is also submitted that FIR is delayed and

unnamed and statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded with the intention to involve the present applicant falsely. It is further submitted

that applicant is ready to abide by any condition which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for grant of bail to the applicant looking to the

change circumstances and custody period.

Per contra, learned State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant has opposed the same and has submitted that offence committed by the

applicant is of grievous nature. It is also submitted that after the rejection of previous application, there is no change circumstances under which the

present application could be considered. It is further submitted that there is one criminal antecedent against the present applicant. Hence, prayed for

rejection of the application.

Heard learned counsel for rival parties and perused the case diary.

Considering the allegations levelled against the applicant and its gravity, the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on merits of

the case, at this stage, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, it is rejected.

A copy of this order be given to learned Public Prosecutor for keeping the same in the concerned case diary.