1 [CASE NUMBER] THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH [CASE NUMBER] (Haider Ansari vs. State of M.P.) Jabalpur, Dated 21.08.2019 Shri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the applicant. Shri [ENTITY], learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
Documents filed vide [CASE NUMBER] are taken on record. This is second application filed on behalf of the applicant under [SECTION] of [ACT] for grant of bail. Previous application [CASE NUMBER] has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 15.02.2019.
The applicant has been arrested on 31.10.2018 in connection with [CASE NUMBER] registered by Police Station Belbag, District Jabalpur for offence punishable under [SECTION] of [ACT].
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that seizure witness has turned hostile. The applicant is in jail since 31.10.2018. Trial will take a long time to conclude. The applicant is permanent resident of the district and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case. On these grounds prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. In [PRECEDENT]; a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that merely because independent witnesses of search and seizure turned hostile, Police Official witnesses could not be disbelieved for extending acquittal to accused. Coordinate Bench while passing the judgment has relied upon decision by Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT]; wherein, it is held :
" 7. The learned counsel then contended that in view of the fact that the Panch witness to the seizure has not supported the prosecution case, the seizure cannot be accepted. We have repeatedly, held that the mere fact that a Panch witness does not support the prosecution case be itself would not make the prosecution case any less acceptable, if otherwise the court is satisfied from the material on record and from the evidence of the seizing authority that such seizure was genuinely made. In the instant case also we are satisfied that from the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 the seizure has been proved by the prosecution. Therefore, this arguments also fails."
In view of aforesaid legal proposition and considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Apart from that, there is no substantial change in circumstances to take a different view in the matter, therefore, this repeat application is hereby dismissed.
([ENTITY]) Judge anand