Sourabh Shukla vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 o f Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is in jail in connection with Crime

No.169/2013 registered at Police Station Kuthla, District Katni for commission of offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC and

Section 25 of Arms Act.

The facts giving rise to this application, in short, are that the applicant along with other co-accused have been chargesheeted for the offences

punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act. Criminal case was registered as Session Trial No.174/2013 in the Court

of 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Katni. During pendency of trial, two accused persons namely applicant-Sourabh and co-accused Manish remained

absconded at the stage of examination of accused. After several efforts, Police failed to arrest them. Thereafter, a permanent arrest warrant was

issued against the applicant and absconded co-accused. Learned trial Court proceeded the trial against remaining 3 accused namely Upendra Singh,

Bhagirath Patel and Gopal Nishad, who have been convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 22.11.2019 and their appeals are pending before this

Court.

Police executed the permanent arrest warrant and arrested the applicant-Sourabh on 17.03.2020. Learned trial Court sent him to judicial custody. In

the meantime, record of the trial Court has been called in connection with pending appeals of the co-accused.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that record of the trial Court is attached with the pending appeal and applicant is unnecessarily detained in

the jail. The applicant was admitted in ""Nasha Mukti Kendra"", therefore, he could not appear before the trial Court. As a result of which, trial Court

issued a permanent arrest warrant. In execution of that warrant, Police arrested the accused. The trial would take considerable time for its final

disposal, therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant may be released on bail.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State submits that the applicant absconded at the stage of examination. After closing of the prosecution

evidence, learned trial Court convicted other co-accused persons on the basis of evidence. There is a strong prima-facie case found against the

applicant and if the applicant is released on bail, he would again abscond; therefore, prays for dismissal of this application for bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking to the conduct of the applicant, it is reflected that the applicant remained absconded after

closing of the prosecution evidence at the stage of examination of accused. On the basis of prosecution evidence, learned trial Court convicted other

three accused persons, who were present during trial. This situation shows that a strong prima-facie case found against the applicant and history of

applicant shows that the applicant may abscond again, if he is released on bail.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, looking to act of the applicant and in the opinion of this Court, it is not a fit case

to enlarge the applicant on bail.

Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant-Sourabh Shukla deserves to be

and is accordingly dismissed.