MAHENDRA RAWAT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case diary perused. The applicant has filed this first application u/S.439, Cr.P.C . for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Civil Lines, District Datia (M.P.), in connection with Crime No.192/2004 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/Ss.302, 201, 147, 148, 149, 120B of IPC and u/S. 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and Section 25 / 27 of Arms Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. He has not committed the offence in any manner. The applicant is in custody since 11.07.2019. It is further submitted that all other accused person have been acquitted by learned trial court vide judgment of acquittal dated 10-9-2008 and no appeal has been preferred by the State against the same and the order attained finality. It is further submitted that applicant has not been declared as an absconder by the prosecution at any point of time. He was not having the knowledge regarding pendency of criminal case against him, therefore, he could not cooperate in the investigation at the relevant time. However, he was arrested on 11.7.2019 and since then he is in custody. He has drawn attention of this Court to the para-6 of the judgment passed learned trial Court and has argued that all the witnesses have turned hostile. He has further relied upon the order dated 15.11.2019 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 47088/2019 (Matre @ Brijesh Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh), wherein similar circumstances this Court has allowed the application. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and contended that the offence was registered in the year 2004 and he has remained absconded almost 15 years. It is further submitted that there are specific allegations against the present applicant in the statement of witness Natthu but he fairly accepts that Natthu was not examined by prosecution and was given up by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the order passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.47088/2019 is not applicable to the case and has prays for rejection of the application. diary.