IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANJULI PALO th ON THE 5 OF DECEMBER, 2022 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39046 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

SHUBHAM S/O RAJKUMAR BANOTE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVT. SERVICE R/O VILLAGE SAVRI, P.S. AND TAHSIL KHAIRLANJI, DISTRICT BALAGHAT (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANT (BY SHRI NARENDRA VAIDHYA, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION KHAIRLANJI DISTRICT BALAGHAT (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SUNANDA D/O DASHRATH ATARAHE OLD ADDRESS GRAM SAWARI, P.S. KHAIRLANJI, TEHSIL BARASEONI, NEW ADDRESS SUNANDA, W/O ASHISH R/O POST AT KHAPA. P.S. SAONER, TEHSIL SAONER, DISTRICT NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA (MAHARASHTRA)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI HARSH GUPTA, PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1/STATE ) This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This is fourth application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail. First and third applications were dismissed as withdrawn whereas second application was dismissed on merit.

The applicant is in custody since 1.9.2022 in connection with Crime No.263/2021 registered at Police Station Khairlanji, District Balaghat for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(N) of IPC and Section 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent.

He has been falsely implicated in the case. On the date of applicant was on his duty at Dongargarh (Chhattisgarh), which is about 120 Kms. from the place of incident. It is further submitted that there are no incriminating circumstances or evidence against the applicants in the case. The applicant is a government employee. He is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he may be released on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar etc. Vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another - AIR 2005 SC 921 and Ansaar Mohammad Vs. The State of Rajasthan & another - 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 599 and of this Court in the case of Mohan Raikwar Vs. State of M.P. - 1999 (2) MPLJ 663.

Learned Panel Lawyer opposed the application.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Earlier, second application filed by the applicant for bail was rejected on merits considering the nature of allegation levelled against the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant approached to the Supreme Court for bail, which application has also been rejected by the Supreme Court. After rejection of earlier application on merit, learned counsel for the applicant is unable to point out any change in the circumstances. The Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra) has observed that it is not necessary for us to weigh the evidence at this stage since we have already come to the conclusion that the prosecution on the basis of the material available on record has established a prima facie case against the accused and we are also of the opinion that the conduct of the respondent-accused as brought on record clearly indicates that enlarging the said accused on bail would impede the progress of the trial.

Considering the aforesaid, I am not inclined to entertain this repeat application for want of change of circumstances. Accordingly, this application is hereby dismissed. (SMT. ANJULI PALO)

JUDGE PB PRADYUMNA BARVE +05'30'