SUGREEV Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard through Video Conferencing.

(2.) It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He has not committed any offence in any manner. Counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Ravi has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 15.9.2020 passed in M.Cr.C.No.33577/2020. The case of the present applicant is exactly identical to that of Ravi. The only difference being that the applicant is having a criminal history of 10 cases. It is pointed out that he has already been acquitted in four cases and is on bail in remaining cases. It is submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed on 25.8.2020 and there is no further requirement of custodial interrogation of the present applicant. It is the case of no injury and applicant is in custody from 9.7.2020. He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that looking to the present scenario of COVID-19 pandemic, he prays for grant of bail. The applicant has shown his willingness to cooperate in the pandemic situation of COVID-19 and is ready to contribute Rs.10,000/- in the account of High Court Bar Association, Gwalior for benefit of the lawyers during this COVID-19 scenario.

(3.) Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the bail application stating that there is active participation of the present applicant in commission of offence. However, he fairly submits that he could not dispute the filing of the charge-sheet on 25.8.2020, but contends that applicant is a histroy-sheeter and having a criminal history of 10 cases.