MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.
Shekhar Berman @ Sikku - Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 29325 of 2020
Decided On : 13-10-2020
Bail - Assault - The court rejected the bail application of the applicant Shekhar Berman @ Sikku who was arrested for the offence of assault under Sections 307 / 34 of IPC, based on the gravity of the offence and the fact that the earlier bail application was dismissed on merits. The court also cited the principle that bail cannot be granted solely on the ground of long incarceration in jail and the inability of the accused to conduct the defense.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was arrested for assaulting an individual with a knife, causing grievous injury, and had filed a second bail application after the first one was dismissed on merits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that based on the gravity of the offence and the lack of change in circumstances since the earlier bail application, the applicant was not entitled to bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail despite the gravity of the offence and the dismissal of the earlier bail application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the gravity of the offence, the lack of change in circumstances, and the principle that bail cannot be granted solely on the ground of long incarceration in jail and the inability of the accused to conduct the defense.
Final Decision: The court rejected the bail application of the applicant based on the gravity of the offence and the lack of change in circumstances since the earlier bail application.
JUDGMENT
Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J. - Heard with the aid of case diary.
2. This is second application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. Applicant Shekhar Berman @ Sikku was arrested on 31.10.2019 in Crime No.512/2019 registered at Police Station Sehore, Jabalpur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 307 / 34 of IPC.
3. First application of the applicant was also dismissed on merits vide order dated 18.06.2020 passed in M.Cr.C.No.8933/2020.
4. As per prosecution case, on 29.10.2019 at 03:30 PM, when complainant Monu Burman and injured Shanky Burman were standing in front of Babatal Road, applicant Shekhar Burman @ Sikku and co-accused Ravi Burman came there by bike which was being driven by the co-accused Ravi and parked the motorcycle near the complainant Monu Burman and threatened him and applicant assaulted Shanky Burman by knife in his stomach due to which he sustained grievous injury in his stomach and co-accused Ravi assaulted Shanky Burman by stick on his back.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence. Charge sheet has been filed. The applicant has been in custody since 31.10.2019 and the conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant Shekar Burman assaulted injured Shanky Burman by knife due to which he sustained grievous injury in his stomach.
7. Although, the co-accused Ravi has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 07.02.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 54566/2019 but the case of the present applicant is not similar to the case of the co-accused Ravi. There is no allegation against the co-accused Ravi that he assaulted injured Shanky Burman by knife. It is alleged that applicant assaulted injured Shanky Burman by knife due to which he sustained grievous injury in his stomach, so he is not entitled to get bail on the basis of parity.
8. The earlier bail application filed by the applicant has been dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 18/6/2020 passed in M.Cr.C.No.8933/2019 and since then there is no change in the circumstances, except custody period and the trial is still pending. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI Through its Director, (2007) 1 SCC 70 held that bail, can not be granted solely on the ground of long incarnation in jail and inability of accused to conduct the defence.
9. It is alleged that applicant has assaulted injured Shanky Burman by knife due to which he sustained grievous injury in his stomach, so looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant, hence the M.Cr.C. is rejected.
Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav vs. CBI Through its Director
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.