Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 366 (MP)

Mulayam Singh v. State of MP

2013-03-18

SHEEL NAGU

body2013
Judgment: Heard. 1. This application under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed seeking cancellation of the order of enlargement on bail passed on 01.03.2012 in M.Cr.C. No. 782/2012 on the ground that after enlargement on bail, the respondent no.2 has misused his liberty by indulging in another offence of the similar kind punishable under Sections 307, 294 read with S. 34 of IPC, for which FIR was filed on 27.07.2012 bearing Crime No.553/2012, wherein the respondent no.2 is alleged to have abused and intimidated Ashok Singh Parmar, who is said to be a material witness in the prosecution pertaining to Crime No.900/2010 in regard to which the respondent no.2 was enlarged on bail on 01.03.2012. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for respondent no.2 that on earlier occasion, similar application (M.Cr.C. No.2159/2012) for cancellation of bail under Section 439 (2), Cr.P.C. was filed, which was dismissed on 20.07.2012 and, therefore the present application has been filed with malafide intention. 3. On perusing the record, it is seen that the earlier order dated 20.07.2012 dismissing the application u/S. 439 (2), Cr.P.C. was passed solely on the ground that cancellation was sought on the ground that delay in trial was occasioned due to non-arrest of co-accused and filing of supplementary chargesheet subsequently and, therefore the enlargement on bail of the respondent no.2 by the order dated 01.03.2012 merely on the ground of prejudice on account of delayed trial, was improper. While rejecting the earlier application for cancellation of bail on 20.07.2012, this Court was of the view that no sufficient ground was made out for cancellation of bail. 4. In the instant case, cancellation has now been sought for the cause of action which arose on 27.07.2012 when the FIR bearing Crime No.553/2012 was lodged alleging abuse and intimidation leading to registration of Crime No.900/2010. 5. Learned counsel for State has informed that the chargesheet has since been filed in the prosecution launched pursuant to Crime No.553/2012 and the trial is in progress. 6. Learned counsel for applicant has contended that the jurisdiction for cancellation of bail is to be sparingly exercised for very pressing reasons and cannot be equated with the power of grant or refusal of bail. Learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court Bhagirathsinh Judeja Vs. 6. Learned counsel for applicant has contended that the jurisdiction for cancellation of bail is to be sparingly exercised for very pressing reasons and cannot be equated with the power of grant or refusal of bail. Learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court Bhagirathsinh Judeja Vs. State of Gujarat : AIR 1984 SC 372 ; Dolatram Vs. State of Haryana : 1995 (I) MPWN SN 219; and Manjit Prakash Vs. Shobha Devi : 2008 Cri.L.J. 3908. 7. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for applicant are of no avail since none of these judgments provide that the bail once granted cannot be cancelled even if the Court finds the person enlarged on bail to have breached one of the conditions subject to which bail was granted. 8. It is undisputed that the respondent no.2 after being enlarged on bail by the order dated 01.03.2012 has committed an offence punishable under Ss. 294 and 307/34 of IPC, which not only amounts to misuse of the liberty of bail granted by this Court but also results into breach of condition nos. 3 and 4 of the bail order dated 01.03.2012 in M.Cr.C. No.782/2012, which bound the respondent no.2 in the following manner :- “3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be; 4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused.” 9. In view of the above, the respondent no.2 is found to have prima-facie committed breach of two conditions as stated above subject to which he was enlarged on bail. 10. Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this application under Section 439 (2), Cr.P.C. and hence the order dated 01.03.2012 passed in M.Cr.C. No.782/2012 pertaining to respondent no.2 Ballu alias Bablu alias Dharmendra Singh deserves to be and is hereby cancelled. Accordingly the same be informed to the trial Court.