Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 738 (MP)

Lal Singh v. State of M. P.

1999-09-15

R.B.DIXIT, S.P.SRIVASTAVA

body1999
JUDGMENT I.A. Nos. 3570/99 and 7201/99. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants as well as the learned Govt. Advocate, representing the State-respondent. Perused the record. The present one is the second application filed by Rajaram, the appellant No. 6, seeking suspension of sentence and grant of release on bail during the pendency of the appeal. The first application for the same purpose had been rejected by this Court vide the order dated 6.4.98, where in paragraph 2 of the order, it had been observed as follows: "The case of the appellants is distinguishable from the case of the other co-appellants Bhavani Singh and Vijay Singh, who have been released on bail. Lal Singh is stated to have caused the injury by farsa used from blunt side and Rajaram by means of lathi." With the aforesaid observation, the application for the grant of release on bail filed by the present applicant was rejected noticing the facts as indicated above. The application of the present applicant was rejected observing that the Bench was not inclined to grant the bail at that stage. Learned counsel for the application has stated that the order rejecting the application filed by the applicant seeking the suspension of sentence awarded to him and the grant of release on bail had been rejected vide the order dated 6.4.98 on an entirely erroneous assumption to the effect that the applicant had used lathi and the injury inflicted thereby had resulted in the death of Bhanwar Singh. What has been contended is that his case stood at par with the cases of Bhavani Singh and Vijay Singh who were alleged to have been armed with Ballam and still vide the order of this Court dated 16.3.98 they had been granted release on bail. It has been urged that not only the assertions made in the first information report hut also from a perusal of the allegations made in the deposition of PW 4 Sardar Singh. it was apparent that the present applicant had in fact been alleged to have been armed with a Ballam but no injury caused by Ballam had been found Oil the body of the deceased as is clear from the post-mortem report. In the circumstances, it is urged that there was no distinguishing feature in the case of the applicant and the cases of Bhavani Singh and Vijay Singh, the other co-accused. In the circumstances, it is urged that there was no distinguishing feature in the case of the applicant and the cases of Bhavani Singh and Vijay Singh, the other co-accused. From the evidence on record. it is urged. it was clear that all the three accused i.e. Bhavani Singh, Vijay Singh and Rajaram were alleged to have used the Ballam and in case considering the circumstances as brought on record Bhavani Singh and Vijay Singh were found entitled to grant of their release on bail, the applicant could not be deprived of the said benefit which was allowed to them. Learned counsel for the applicant relying upon the ratio of the decision of this Court in LA. No. 754/99 filed in the case of Ramdayal and others v. State of M.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 87/96) has asserted that the present application for reconsideration of the order dated 6.4.98 falls within the exceptions provided in the decision in the case of Ramdayal (supra) while disposing of the application, I.A. No. 754/99, vide the order dated 22.3.99. The learned Govt. Advocate, representing the State-respondent, has not been able to demonstrate any such feature which may distinguish the cases of Bhavani Singh and Vijay Singh from the case of present applicant. In fact, it has been conceded that from the evidence and materials on record, the observation made in the earlier order dated 6.4.98 to the effect that Rajaram was stated to have caused the injury by means of lathi is not borne out from the record. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that sufficient ground has been made out for the grant/release on bail of the applicant Rajaram during the pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, it is directed that the applicant Rajaram shall be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction on A.C.J.M., Ganj Basoda. It is further directed that the applicant shall appear before the said Magistrate within a month from his release on bail on a date fixed by the said Magistrate for the purpose and on such future dates as may be fixed by the said Magistrate. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction on A.C.J.M., Ganj Basoda. It is further directed that the applicant shall appear before the said Magistrate within a month from his release on bail on a date fixed by the said Magistrate for the purpose and on such future dates as may be fixed by the said Magistrate. It is, however, made clear that in default of complying with any of the conditions indicated hereinabove, this order granting bail to the applicant shall stand automatically revoked.