BHARATSINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. the applicant Bharatsingh has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.94/2012 registered by Police Station Banganga, District- Indore for offence under Section 302 of the IPC.

(2.) Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that now all of the material witnesses have been examined and since the case was based on circumstantial evidence; Counsel submitted that there is no concrete evidence available on record against the present applicant. The witness Suresh has only stated that the accused used to take drinks along with the deceased Shetty, Kalu another witness also stated that he came to the place of incident after the murder of the deceased had occurred. Similarly, Santosh; the brother of the deceased has stated that one day prior to the incident on 23.01.2012, he had seen Shetty and Bablu, Bharat and Fakira near the Dipmala Dhaba, this should not lead to the conclusion that the accused was responsible for the offences. Hence, Counsel prayed for granted of bail.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant and stated that the FIR has named the accused/ applicant and Bablu, the brother of the deceased has also implicated the present applicant in the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. So also if the statements of Santosh are considered, he has stated that the accused was seen in the company of the deceased and on the principle of last seen the accused cannot be granted bail and he prayed for dismissal of the application.