TIKARAM @ ABHISHEK BANAFAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned PL submits that he is under receipt of the case diary. Heard.

(2.) On behalf of the applicant, this third repeat petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. as the applicant is in custody since 12.9.2013 in connection of Crime No. 598/13 registered at Police Station Belbagh, district Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 147, 148, 149, 302 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant after taking me through the petition as well as earlier rejection orders of this court whereby in view of some query of the court, the applicant's counsel had withdrawn the earlier petition filed for grant of bail as not pressed with liberty to revive the prayer after recording the deposition of material prosecution witnesses said that this petition is preferred after recording the deposition of sole alleged eye witness Rahul Sonkar, (PW -1). In continuation, by referring the interrogatory statements of the case diary of Rahul Sonkar, (PW -1) recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation said that according to that the name of Teekaram was stated as Teekaram @ Niraj while Teekaram and Niraj are different persons and both have been impleaded in the case as accused. So, firstly he said that identity of Teekaram at the place of the incident is doubtful and his name was wrongly impleaded in the case while the impleaded co -accused is Niraj. In continuation he said that on recording the deposition of Rahul Sonkar, (PW -1), he has stated contrary version to the aforesaid case diary statements and said that the present applicant Teekaram and Niraj are different persons. So such material inconsistency from the interrogatory statements makes suspicious the deposition of this witness. In continuation by referring the order dated 14.11.2014 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this court in M.Cr.C.No. 7046/2014 extending bail to the co - accused, Niraj as alleged the main culprit of the incident, as per prosecution case stated that there is no distinguishable case against the applicant in comparison of such Niraj and prayed for grant of bail on the ground of parity. In further arguments, he also said that on taking into consideration the deposition of said Rahul Sonkar, (PW -1) there is no distinguishable case against the present applicant in comparison of aforesaid co - accused, Niraj. So on such count also after passing the order by the Coordinate Bench for grant of bail to Niraj, this applicant also deserves for the same relief and prayed to extend such benefit to the applicant by allowing this petition.