Surendra Singh Raghuwanshi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This is fourth application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant.

The applicant has been arrested on 12/02/2019 in connection with Crime No.42/2019 registered at Police Station Nateran District Vidisha for offence under Sections 307 and 302 of the IPC.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant- Surendra Singh Raghuwanshi that this is fourth bail application of the applicant. Earlier applications were decided on merits and were rejected. Application is in custody since 12/02/2019. The evidence recorded during investigation and trial is in favour of the present applicant. Last bail application of the applicant was decided on 20/09/2019 and this Court had granted liberty to file application afresh after recording the evidence of some important prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, four witnesses have also been recorded wherein two of them have become hostile before the trial Court and have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that in the present case, there are three dying declarations. In earlier two dying declarations, no evidence has come against the present applicant; but third dying declaration is suspicious as there is no specific format used and had impression of toe instead of thumb impression which creates suspicion on recording of the dying declaration. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that no important witness has been remained in this case. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since last more than 10 months and the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time. Hence, prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.

Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the same and has submitted that in the last dying declaration it is specifically stated by the deceased that incident was not an accident; rather it was murder on the part of the applicant. The deceased was died due to fire which was the result of the act of present applicant. It is further submitted by learned Panel Lawyer that the offence is of serious nature and previous three bail applications of the applicant were decided on merits and rejected by this Court. Hence, prayed for not to grant bail to the applicant.

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

Looking to the allegations levelled against the applicant and its gravity and as the offence is of grievous nature, without commenting on the merits of the matter, at this stage, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. Hence, the application is rejected.

Let a copy of this order be given to learned State counsel for keeping the same in the concerned case diary.