Pramod Vishwakarma vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Heard with the aid of case diary.

This is Fifth bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. Applicant Pramod Vishwakarma was arrested on 18.02.2018 in connection with Crime

No.74/2016 registered at Police Station Ayodhya Nagar, District Bhopal for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 470 & 471 of IPC.

A s per the prosecution case, applicant committed fraud with the complainant and embezelled the amount around Rs.50,00,000/-.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence. The

applicant has been in custody since 18.02.2018 and trial is still pending, hence it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that earlier one bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed on

merit and since then there is no change in circumstances, so he should not be released on bail.

The first bail application of the applicant was allowed subject to depositing Rs.20,00,000/- vide order dated 09.05.2016 passed in

M.Cr.C.No.5340/2016 by the coordinate Bench of this Court but applicant failed to deposit the amount so applicant was arrested on 18.02.2018.

Second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.05.2018 passed in M.Cr.C.No.17146/2018 by the coordinate Bench of this

Court. Third bail application was dismissed vide order dated 08.02.2019 passed in M.Cr.C.No.3007/2019 by the coordinate Bench of this Court.

Fourth bail          application was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 13.11.2019 passed in

M.Cr.C.No.43680/2019 and thereafter there has been no change in circumstances except the period of detention.

The Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI Through its Director reported in (2007) 1 SCC 70 held that bail

cannot be granted solely on the ground of long incarnation in jail and inability of accused to conduct the defence.

Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 6 7 3 observed ""It is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the

changed circumstances. But without the change in the circumstances, the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier

judgment which is not permissible under criminal law as has been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa [(2001) 1 SCC 169

: 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and various other judgments."" I t is alleged that applicant embezzled a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-. So, looking to the facts and

circumstances of the case and the gravity of offence and the fact that other offences are also registered against the applicant, this court is not inclined

to grant bail to the applicant.

Hence, this application is rejected.