Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 103 (MP)

CHHITU s/o NANSINGH BHIL v. STATE OF M. P.

2007-01-24

S.C.VYAS

body2007
ORDER : Mr. M. S. Dwivedi learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Bhagwan Singh learned panel lawyer for respondent/State. 2. This is first application filed by the applicant under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 369/2006 registered under sections 294, 323, 324, 326, 506 and 307 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code by police Rajpur, Barwani regarding which Criminal Case No. 744/06 is pending. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that an application under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was moved on behalf of the present applicant earlier, in connection with the same crime number and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 27-11-2006 and applicant was ordered to be released on bail. In compliance of that order bail bonds were furnished and applicant was released on bail. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that later on at the time of filing of charge-sheet section 307 of Indian Penal Code was also added along with other offences and thereafter, vide order dated 5-1-2007 First Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani has refused to release the applicant on bail in connection of that offence under the provisions of section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, in spite of the fact that applicant was already on bail in connection with the same crime number. 5. He prays that in such a situation applicant is entitled to be released on bail under the provisions of section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, as he is having apprehension that he will be arrested again and will be sent to judicial custody. 6. I have anxiously gone through the order passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani on 5-1-2007 and the order passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 5811/06 on 27-11-2006. It is clear from both these orders that in the same Crime No. 369/06 applicant was ordered to be released on bail. At that time offences which were registered against applicant were under sections 294, 323, 324, 326 and 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is clear from both these orders that in the same Crime No. 369/06 applicant was ordered to be released on bail. At that time offences which were registered against applicant were under sections 294, 323, 324, 326 and 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. This order was in the knowledge of learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing order on 5-1-2007, but in spite of that he conveniently avoided this order and held that looking to the role played by present applicant in connection with commission of the offence he is not entitled to be released on bail. This type of remarks were unwarranted on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He should have taken note of the finding recorded by this Court while allowing the application of bail of the present applicant and then while considering another application of the same accused after addition of some more serious offence in the same case the order of this Court should always be kept in mind. 7. I do not think that there was any material change in the facts of the case by adding section 307 of Indian Penal Code at the place of section 326 of Indian Penal Code in the case, because both the offences are punishable with life imprisonment. 8. Considering the overall circumstances, the application deserves to be and is hereby allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest or surrender before trial Court applicant be released on bail, as per the directions given by this Court in order dated 27-11-2006 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 5811/06. 9. With this direction the application is disposed of.