KISHOR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Diary of Crime No. 162/98 of police station Sahaspur Lohara, Distt. Kawardha, for offence punishable under Section 379 IPC perused.

(2.) It appears that somewhere between 7-12-98 and 9-12-98 Telephone cables were stolen; thereafter, co-accused was arrested, who in his memorandum made certain allegations against the present applicant. The applicant was arrested on 15-5-2000, but no recoveries were made from him. Barring the statement of the co-accused contained in the memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the case diary does not contain any other evidence to connect the applicant with the alleged crime.

(3.) It is most unfortunate that in a case like present, the Court below did not consider present to be a fit case for admitting the applicant to bail. Even though he is in jail for last more than 10 months. This Court had been repeatedly saying that changed circumstances is not a simple technical term. It is unfortunate that the Courts below are rejecting the repeat application simply on the ground that there were no changed circumstances. The delay in disposal of trial, delay in examination of the witnesses, non- appearance of the witnesses, gravity of the offence, pre-trial detention and myriad examples can provide the changed circumstances. Simply writing that there are no changed circumstances would not justify the rejection of a repeat application for grant of bail. It is not expected of a judicial officer that he would simply reject the application observing that there are no changed circumstances.