Deepak Shakya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

I.A. No. 13163/2020, an application for urgent hearing, is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.

This is fifth application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 07/1/2019 in connection with Crime No.19/2019 registered at Police Station Gwalior, District Gwalior for offence under Section 304-B/34 of IPC.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that this is fifth bail application of the applicant. Earlier applications were dismissed on merits by this Court. New ground raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that the deceased was minor on the date of marriage i.e., 10/11/2016 as the date of birth of the deceased is 10/3/1999, thus there was no legal marriage in between applicant and the deceased. No saptapadi was taken by them. They solemnized their marriage in a temple by only offering varmala to each other and started living in live-in-relationship. As there was no legal marriage between applicant and the deceased, therefore, Section 304-B of IPC is not made out against the applicant. At the most, Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant is in custody since last almost one year and eight months. Investigation is complete, charge-sheet has been filed and there is no progress in the trial. Hence, prayed for grant of bail to the applicant. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande vs. State of Maharashtra, [1965 AIR SC 1564] and Surjit Kaur vs. Garja Singh, [1994 SCC (Cri) 259] and judgments passed by this High Court in the cases of Ramnarayan vs. State of M.P., [1998 (3) Crimes 147 M.P.] and Sandeep vs. State of M.P., [MCRC No.27701/2020].

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the submissions and has submitted that earlier bail applications of the applicant were dismissed on merits by this Court looking to the gravity of offence alleged against the applicant as well as facts and circumstances of the case. The facts submitted by learned counsel for the applicant today were already existing and this Court had considered all the facts while dismissing the earlier bail applications of the applicant. As there is no changed circumstance, hence, prayed to reject this fifth bail application of the applicant.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the materials available on record.

Earlier bail applications of the applicant were rejected on merits. The facts put forth by learned counsel for the applicant today while arguing this fifth bail application were already existing when previous bail applications of the applicant were rejected, therefore, it cannot be said to be changed circumstance whereunder this fifth bail application could be considered. Furthermore, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant are the subject matter of evidence, therefore, benefit of the aforesaid facts mentioned by learned counsel for the applicant cannot be granted to the applicant at this stage. Therefore, looking to the nature of offence and its gravity, this Court is not inclined to allow this fifth bail application of the applicant.

Hence, the application is hereby rejected.

E-copy of this order be sent to the concerning trial Court for information.