M.Cr.C.No.7952 of 2016 11/05/2016 Shri Subhash Patel, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Ajay Shukla, GA for the respondent/State.
Heard finally. Case diary is perused.
This is repeat fifth bail application on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Earlier applications of the applicant were dismissed by the Court on 25.03.15,14.05.15,09.03.16 and on 25.04.16 in M.Cr.C.No.3464/15, M.Cr.C.No.6034/15, M.Cr.C.No.20303/15 and in M.Cr.C.No.6711/16 respectively.
Applicant Smt. Kastoori Bai is in custody since 17.11.14 in connection with Crime No.106/2014 registered at Police Station Lavkushnagar, District Chhatarpur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A,307,302,304-B/34 of IPC and Sections 3/4of Dowry Prohibition Act.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that co-accused Ramvishal and Bablu @ Jitendra Choubey were already enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on decisions of Apex Court in Amol Singh vs. State of M.P. (2008) 5 SCC and in Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam vs. State of A.P. (1993) 2 SCC 684 and submits that as per first dying declaration of deceased Pushpa no case is made out against the applicant because third dying declaration is not having any evidentiary value. Applicant is in custody since 17.11.14 and conclusion of trial would take considerable time. On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.
Learned GA for the State has vehemently opposed the application on the ground that except the time period, there is no change in any of the circumstance after rejection order dated 09.03.16, and in such type of heinous offence period of custody is not the only criteria to release the applicant on bail. It is also pointed out by learned counsel that aforesaid M.Cr.C.No.7952 of 2016 cases cited by learned counsel for the applicant are distinguishable in the facts and circumstances as those directions were given at the stage of appeal .
At the stage of considering bail matters it would not be proper for the Court to express any opinion on the merits or demerits of the prosecution case as well as the defence as any expression of opinion by the Court would undoubtedly affect the trial.
Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case , the evidence collected by the prosecution, and looking to the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find that this is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. Consequently, this repeat fifth application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.
However, learned trial Court is directed to make every endeavour to conclude the trial as early as possible.
(SUBHASH KAKADE) Jk. JUDGE