The severity of the accusations, legal provisions, and judgments referenced influenced the court's decision to dismiss the bail application.

Headnote:
BAIL - Grant of bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C. - The court discussed and referenced several legal provisions including Article 21 of the Constitution of India, section 494 IPC, and various judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts. The court emphasized the need to consider the nature and gravity of the accusations, severity of the punishment, likelihood of the accused absconding, character and behavior of the accused, and reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced when deciding on bail applications.
Fact of the Case:

The applicant filed a bail application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. after being arrested for offences under sections 302, 307 of IPC. The applicant argued that rejection of bail application would violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The State opposed the application citing the severity of the accusations and the nature of the offence.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the nature and gravity of the offence, along with the legal provisions and judgments referenced, did not warrant the grant of bail. The court dismissed the bail application.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail despite the severity of the accusations and the legal provisions governing bail applications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the need to consider the nature and gravity of the accusations, severity of the punishment, likelihood of the accused absconding, character and behavior of the accused, and reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced when deciding on bail applications.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the bail application, finding that no case was made out for the grant of bail.

ORDER/JUDGMENT : – Shri Brajmohan Mahajan, Advocate for applicant.

Smt. Padamshri Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for State.

This fourth application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of bail. The third application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 2-11-2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 41498/2020.

2. The applicant has been arrested on 27-11-2017 in connection with Crime No. 418/2017 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Datia for offence under sections 302, 307 of IPC.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the basic law is that while deciding the bail application the Court must respect to the life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Although the bail application of the applicant has already been rejected thrice on earlier occasion, but he should be permitted to argue the matter on merits. Further the witnesses have been examined and there are material omissions and contradictions in their evidence and under these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail.

4. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that the previous bail application have already been withdrawn. The allegations against the applicant is that on 11-10-2017 at about 2-24 A.M. the mother of the complainant raised an alarm by alleging that the applicant has assaulted her by an axe, as a result, all the inmates woke up and found that the applicant was running away from the house along with an axe. The mother of the complainant was having incised wound on her leg, whereas the father of the complainant was having an incised wound on his neck. The father of the complainant, namely, Rajendra had expired, whereas the mother of the complainant was alive and she also stated that the applicant had assaulted her by means of an axe. It is submitted that the mother of the complainant expired at a later stage. The statement of the mother of the complainant, namely, Urmila was also recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C., however, subsequently she expired on account of injury sustained by her, therefore, the said statement can be treated as a dying declaration.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The counsel for the applicant in a very derogatory manner had argued that the basic law is that by rejecting the bail application, the fundamental life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India should not be violated. He further submitted that the bail application should be decided by keeping analogy in mind that unless and until the person is convicted, he is an innocent person. Accordingly, the counsel for the applicant was directed to develop his arguments and to submit as to whether rejection of bail application of an under trial would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India or not.

7. It is submitted by Shri Brajmohan Mahajan that although he has a read in this regard but he has not brought the judgments.

8. On 2-9-2021, the case was argued by Shri Brajmohan Mahajan for more than 45 minutes. In the bail application, itself it has been mentioned as under :

9. Since the applicant had given a declaration that it is his first bail application which he is arguing, therefore, on 2-9-2021, this Court after hearing the applicant at length again granted time to him to prepare the case specifically in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Satish Jaggi vs. State of Chhatisgarh, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 195.

10. Today, when it was found that the applicant has not brought any judgment and is making general statements, then he was asked that when time was granted to him to make preparation, then why he has not done so. In reply, it was submitted by Shri Mahajan that he did not get time because he was busy in other matters not related to advocacy.

11. Be that whatever it may.

12. The Supreme Court in the case of Lily Thomas and others vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2000