Madhya Pradesh High Court: S.A. Dharmadhikari, J., allowed an application for bail which was filed for the fourth time, the first one was dismissed on merits while the second and third applications had been rejected for want of material change in the circumstances of the case.
The applicant had been arrested in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 307, 294, 323, 506, 147, 148 of the Penal Code, 1860. Counsel for the applicant, Mr Prabal Pratap Singh Solanki submitted that the applicant was falsely implicated and was in custody since then. He further submitted that charge-sheet had been filed and no further custodial interrogation of the applicant was required. He further submitted that the applicant had not used any dangerous weapon and the injuries received were simple in nature, therefore, offence under Section 307, IPC was not attracted against the applicant. The counsel further placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhausaheb Nagu Dhavare v. State of Maharashtra, 2001 (3) Crimes 410 where the Supreme Court while taking into account that the injured had survived and as on that day there was no prospect of the offence being escalated to higher counts, had given the benefit of bail.
The Court decided that even though earlier applications had been decided on merits, yet looking to the period of custody and the fact that trial was not likely to conclude in near future and prolonged pre-trial detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty, the applicant was inclined to be extended the benefit of bail.
The Court allowed the application furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs 50, 000.[Bhupendra Singh Kansana v. State of M.P, 2021 SCC OnLine MP 652, decided on 31-03-2021]
Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant ahs reported this brief.
