Sonu vs State Of M.P

In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by

the Government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being

represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/ physical distancing in letter and spirit.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The applicant has filed this second application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 16.10.2019 by Police Station

Ambah, District Morena (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.233/2019 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 307/34 of IPC and

Section 25/27 of Arms Act.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 14.02.2020

passed in M.Cr.C.No.5695/2020. It is argued that the applicant is in custody since 16.10.2019. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Bhausaheb Nagu Dhavare Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2001 (3) Crimes 410 (SC), and has argued that

looking to the custody period of the present applicant, the benefit of bail should be granted to him. It is further argued that the applicant is not the main

assailant. Even the fatal injury is caused by the other co-accused. It is further argued that the earlier application was rejected owing to the fact that

the applicant is having criminal history of 23 cases. It is argued that in six cases, he has been acquitted. The order-sheets have been filed. Counsel for

the applicant has argued that the injured is also a criminal history sheeter and is having 23 cases registered against him. Therefore, there is every

possibility of false implication of the present application in crime. He prays for grant of bail looking to the custody period.

Per contra, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State has opposed the bail application stating that the applicant is a habitual offender and is having

criminal history of 23 cases including cases of heinous offences also. Mere acquittal in six cases does not absolve the applicant from other criminal

cases. It is argued that as soon as the applicant is being enlarged on bail in one offence, he immediately commits the other offence. Therefore, learned

counsel for the State has heavily objected for grant of bail to the present applicant.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant being habitual offender is having criminal history of 23

cases including the offences under heinous offences coupled with the fact that the present case is also, a gun shot has been fired by the present

applicant. Although the same is hit on non-vital part of body but looking to the antecedents of the present applicant, this Court is not inclined to allowÂ

this application. Accordingly, the second bail application is rejected.

Â