Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 357 (MP)

Anshu Raghuvanshi v. State of M. P.

2013-03-15

G.D.SAXENA, S.K.GANGELE

body2013
Judgment: By means of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the applicant/complainant is seeking recall/modification/clarification of order dated 1/2/2013 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.701/2013, whereby application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of Ranjeet Singh (respondent No.2 herein) was disposed of. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that a named FIR was registered against the respondent No.2-Ranjeet Singh with others at Crime No.376/2012 by Police Station Kotwali Guna for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307, 302/34, 147, 148, 149, 120-B of IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act. After registration of FIR, the respondent No.2 (Anshu Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P. and another) remained absconded for a considerable period and thereafter he moved an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20/11/2012 in M.Cr.C. No.8023/2012. Thereafter, second application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent No.2 which was decided vide order dated 1/2/2013 in M.Cr.C. No.701/2013. It is submitted by learned counsel that while disposing of the second bail application, direction was given to the respondent No.2 by this Court to surrender before the competent court and apply for regular bail, but at the same time it has also been mentioned in the order that his regular bail application shall be considered upon furnishing necessary bail bond, which has made the order ambiguous, more so when from the order itself it is clear that the intention of this Court was not to grant the benefit of bail to the respondent No.2, but due to such ambiguity in the order, respondent No.2 has been admitted to bail by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 6/2/2013 passed in Bail Application No.13/2013. (Anshu Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P. and another) Inviting attention of this Court to para 38 of the decision laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rashmi Rekha Thatoi and another Vs. (Anshu Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P. and another) Inviting attention of this Court to para 38 of the decision laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rashmi Rekha Thatoi and another Vs. State of Orissa and Others, (2012) 5 SCC 690 it is prayed that this petition may be allowed and the order dated 1/2/2013 passed in M.Cr.C. No.701/2013 may be modified and further the order dated 6/2/2013 passed by learned Trial Court whereby benefit of bail has been granted to the respondent No.2 may be set aside being based on the order dated 1/2/2013 passed by this Court. 3. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the order dated 1/2/2013 was passed by this Court after considering the bail application filed by the respondent No.2 and there is no ambiguity in the order. It is further submitted by him that the order dated 6/2/2013 passed by learned Trial Court, whereby bail has been granted to the respondent No.2, is in accordance with law and also in accordance with the direction given by this Court. Therefore, this petition filed by the applicant/complainant for modification of (Anshu Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P. and another) the order dated 1/2/2013 may be dismissed. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Since this petition has been filed seeking modification in the directions given by this Court while disposing of second bail application filed by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 1/2/2013 passed in M.Cr.C. No.701/2013, we think it apposite to quote the direction part of the said order in verbatim, which reads thus:- “Considering the nature of the allegation and the evidence collected in the case-diary, the petition is disposed of with a short direction that the petitioner shall surrender before the Competent Court and shall apply for regular bail and the same shall be considered upon furnishing necessary bail bond. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules.” 5. The above-mentioned direction given by this Court, makes the intention of this Court crystal clear (Anshu Raghuvanshi Vs. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules.” 5. The above-mentioned direction given by this Court, makes the intention of this Court crystal clear (Anshu Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P. and another) which was not to grant the benefit of bail to the respondent No.2, but liberty was given to the respondent No.2 to surrender before the competent Court and further to apply for regular bail, however, on account of mention of underlined portion in the abovequoted direction part, the Trial Court (First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna) misread the order although specific objection in this regard having been taken by the learned counsel for State. When the Trial Court was on the horns of a predicament, it was his bounden duty to approach before this Court for clarification of the order/direction, but instead of doing so, the Trial Court granted the benefit of bail to respondent No.2, which is unsustainable. 6. Resultantly, we hereby modify the order dated 1/2/2013 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.701/2013 to the extent that the underlined portion in the abovequoted direction part of the order shall stand deleted. Since the order dated 1/2/2013 has been modified, the order dated 6/2/2013, whereby benefit of bail has been granted to the respondent No.2 by the (Anshu Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P. and another) Trial Court, being based on the said direction, which has been deleted, is hereby set aside. Eventually, the bail bonds of respondent No.2-Ranjeet Singh are cancelled and it is directed that the respondent No.2 be taken into custody forthwith. Needless to say, respondent No.2 shall be entitled to move an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, which shall be considered and decided by the Trial Court on merits in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be faxed to the Trial Court forthwith for necessary compliance.