Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 729 (MP)

Ramdas Singh v. State of M. P.

2010-07-22

I.S.SHRIVASTAVA

body2010
ORDER 1. By this first bail application filed under section 439 (2) of the CrPC the applicant Ramdas Singh has prayed for cancellation of bail order of the respondent No.2 Rajesh Singh granted on 11.8.2009 by the Court of Shri R.P. Makheliya, ASJ (under SC & ST Act), Jaura, District-Morena in bail application No. 259/2009. 2. According to the prosecution story, in the night of 28.5.2009, accused Ramroopsingh, Rajesh Singh and Pappu Baluwa assaulted Vishambharsingh by means of lathies and axe, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries on the head and other parts of the body, hence Crime No. 54/2009 under section 147,148,149,307,326,324,341,294 and 506 (b) of the IPC was registered. Thereafter, respondent/accused Rajesh Singh was granted bail vide order dated 11.8.2009 by ASJ. Jaura, District-Morena. Hence, being aggrieved by that bail order, this application has been filed by the applicant. 3. It has been argued on behalf of the applicant that the injuries sustained to Vishambharsingh were dangerous to life, which were supported by medical evidence, still the trial Court accepted the bail application of respondent No.2 while investigation was not completed. The trial Court did not consider the fact that the injured Vishambaharsingh sustained grievous injuries on the head by axe, due to which he was under treatment for two months. It has been further argued by the applicant's counsel that on 21.8.2009 at about 7.30 pm, brother of the applicant Ajay pal who is the son of injured Vishambharsingh was also assaulted with axe and kicks and fists and he was also pressurized to compromise in the case under section 307 of the IPC. The report of which was lodged at the police Station Morena by Ajaypal, but the police lodged the report under section 323, 504 of the IPC. Hence, this application for cancellation of bail of respondent No.2 Rajesh Singh be accepted. 4. Respondent's counsel opposed the application and argued that the Court after considering the fact and circumstances of the case granted the bail, there is no ground for cancellation of bail. Hence, the application being devoid of merit be dismissed. 5. Considered the circumstances. Record of the trial Court perused. 6. 4. Respondent's counsel opposed the application and argued that the Court after considering the fact and circumstances of the case granted the bail, there is no ground for cancellation of bail. Hence, the application being devoid of merit be dismissed. 5. Considered the circumstances. Record of the trial Court perused. 6. From perusal of the impugned order passed on 11.8.2009, it reveals that all the facts had been mentioned by the Court in the order that Vishambharsingh was having injury on his head by axe, but it is not necessary that if a person has sustained grievous injuries and dangerous to life, bail application should be rejected. The Court has exercised his judicial discretion and it cannot be said that it was exercised arbitrarily. The Court has simply mentioned the fact that co-accused are on bail. It has not been mentioned that the bail is being granted on the ground of parity. 7. The incident which had taken place on 21.8.2009 was registered on 22.8.2009 10.45 am in which the incident of assault and abuses have been mentioned, but it has not been mentioned in it that the complainant was pressurized by respondent No.2 Rajesh Singh for compromise in the case of section 307 of the IPC, hence it cannot be said that the above incident of 21.8.2009 was to pressurize him for compromise. 8. The applicant has relied on the case law of Subodh Kumar Yadav v. State of Bihar and another [ 2009 (14) SCC 638 ]; Sumani Kumar Rathi v. State of U.P. and another [2009 Cri.LJ 1453] & Dinesh M.B. (SP) v. State of Gujrat [2008 CriLJ 3008]. 9. In the case of Subodh Kumar Yadav (supra), it has been held that if superior Court finds that Court granting bail had acted on irrelevant material or if there was non-application of mind or failure to take note of any statutory bar to grant bail: or if there was manifest impropriety e.g. failure to hear public prosecutor/complainant where required, order for cancellation of bail can be made. 10. In the case of Dinesh M.P. (SP) (supra), it has been held that bail can be cancelled, if the Court has taken into consideration irrelevant material substantial in nature. 11. In the case of Sumani Kumar Rathi (supra) it has been held that bail can be cancelled, if it is granted on irrelevant material without considering seriousness of offences. 10. In the case of Dinesh M.P. (SP) (supra), it has been held that bail can be cancelled, if the Court has taken into consideration irrelevant material substantial in nature. 11. In the case of Sumani Kumar Rathi (supra) it has been held that bail can be cancelled, if it is granted on irrelevant material without considering seriousness of offences. 12. In this case while granting the bail, the Court has not considered any irrelevant material. 13. In the case of Asalam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1993 SC page 1], it has been held that: "bail granted under sections 437 (1) or (2) or 439 (1) of the CrPC can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity (ii) interferes with the course of investigation (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence of witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc., these grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individuals and hence it must not be lightly resorted to." 14. Considering the above grounds, in this case, no ground has been made out for the cancellation of the bail. 15. Hence on the above discussion, I am of the view that no mistake has been committed by the Court in granting bail. Hence, there is no ground for cancellation of the bail order. Hence, this application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.