AHMED Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. the applicant Ahmed s/o Abdul Gafoor has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.261/2007 registered by Police Station Manasa, District-Neemuch for offence under Sections 302, 460 and 396 of the IPC.

(2.) Counsel for the applicant has candidly admitted that this is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant Ahmed. Counsel submitted that the earlier application has been withdrawn and liberty has been granted to file fresh application after material witnesses have been examined. Counsel now submitted that several witnesses such as Lal Shankar, Omprakesh, Sultan, Arpit, Ramgopal, Pankaj, Jitendra Soni, Sundarlal, Pramod Choudhary, Pradeep Soni, Radhyshyam, Ratan Soni, Dinesh Bansal and Prakesh Garg have been examined and no concrete evidence has come against the present applicant. Moreover the accused is in custody for more than 21/2 years. Hence Counsel prayed for granted of bail since applicant is only 22 years old driver and entire family is suffering. Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant and submitted that the applicant was fully implicated in the matter. In fact the accused has been arrested after the memo u/S.27 of Evidence Act of co-accused Shantilal has thus supported the prosecution case. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.

(3.) On considering the above submissions and the statement recorded in Court and testimony of eye- witness Lalshankar, I find that he is the witness of memo u/S.27 of Evidence Act of co- accused Shantilal and he has testified in Court that according to the statements of Shantilal along with present applicant Ahmed, they have strangulated deceased Bansilal and that is how the murder has occurred. Under these circumstances, the application cannot be allowed. Moreover according to the criminal record there is acquittal only in one case of the present accused and parity cannot be claimed co-accused Karulal, Bablu and Kanhaiyalal against whom there is only recovery of promissory notes.