PRADESH) v. This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed

( BY SHRI APURV JAIN- ADVOCATE ) AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION HEERANAGAR DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....APPLICANT ( BY SHRI SUHAS PUNDLIK GA ) _____________________________________________________________________ This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed .....RESPONDENTS the following: ORDER This is the second application filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to FIR No.698/2021 registered at P.S-Heeranagar, Indore, District-Indore (M.P.) for the offence under sections 356, 379, 392 of IPC. 2/ As per prosecution story, on 07/10/2021 at about 8.20 pm, while the complainant Sushama Tiwari along with her daughter was Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 20-09-2023 16:45:59 2 going for walking, at that time, present applicant along with co-accused came there on motorcycle and snatched gold chain in her neck.

She lodged FIR at police station – Heeranagar, Indore. During investigation, the looted property was recovered from the possession of present applicant. 3/ Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this offence. Applicant is in custody since 02/11/2021 and has alredy suffered one year and 11 months judicial incarceration. Complainant Sushama Tiwari along with ten prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial Court. The complainant in her cross-examination has made false deposition by stating that she has identified the applicant in test identification parade. T.I.P of the property has not been established. Final conclusion of trial shall take sufficient long time. Hence, he prays that the applicant be released on bail. 4/ Per-contra, learned counsel for respondent – State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by stating that seven criminal antecedents have been found against the applicant and most of the them are related to theft, look and decoity.

He is habitual offender and therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5/ Perused the impugned order of the trial Court as well as the case dairy. 6/ Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by both the parties, nature of allegation as also taking note of the fact that complainant Sushama Tiwari (PW-1) in her statement before the trial Court categorically deposed that present applicant looted her gold chain; she identified the applicant very well; other eye witness Shivani Tiwari (PW-2) also identified the applicant; Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 20-09-2023 16:45:59 3 seven criminal antecedents have been found against the applicant, in view of the material evidence available on record, this Court is not inclined tor grant bail to the applicant. 7/ Accordingly, this second bail application filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C by the applicant has no merit and is hereby dismissed. Certified copy, as per Rules. (ANIL VERMA) J U D G E Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 20-09-2023 16:45:59