Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1391 (MP)

Parmal Singh Raghuvanshi v. State of M. P.

2014-10-30

B.D.RATHI

body2014
JUDGMENT : This application has been preferred under Section 439 II of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the following relief: “By allowing this application, bail order passed in favour of respondent No.2/accused Kailash Raghuvanshi on 02.01.2014 in be cancelled.” 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that one bail application was filed by respondent No.2 – Kailash Raghuvanshi under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.215/2013 registered at Police Station Kolaras, District Shivpuri (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 of IPC. That application was allowed vide order dated 02.01.2014 on the ground that applicant is 61 years of age and has no criminal antecedents. No specific role was assigned to the applicant Kailash Raghuvanshi in causing injuries to the deceased. 3. The order was passed by the then Hon’ble Judge of this Court. Prayer for cancellation of bail was made on the ground that in fact specific role was assigned to the accused Kailash Raghuvanshi but facts were concealed and bail order was obtained. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that in FIR lodged on 08.07.2013 specific allegations were made against the accused Kailash Raghuvanshi that during the course of quarrel Aman Singh, Jagdish, Pappu, Lallu, Bittu, Kailash and Arvind Raghuvanshi who were armed with lathis came on the spot, surrounded Lakhan and on the instigation of accused Jagdish, Lakhan was beaten by lathis by all the accused persons. In this manner, specific allegations were made against accused Kailash Raghuvanshi also. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that when co accused Aman Singh filed bail application the same was dismissed vide order dated 22.01.2014 in Mcrc No.135/2014 by the co-ordinate bench of this Court saying that case of accused Aman was not akin to Kailash. Not only this but also it was observed that after concealing the facts bail order was obtained in favour of Kailash. There is a specific role assigned in the FIR against Kailash, therefore, taking into consideration the observation made by the co-ordinate bench, this application should be allowed and the bail order passed in favour of respondent No.2 Kailash Raghuvanshi should be cancelled. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on Prakash Kadam and others Vs. There is a specific role assigned in the FIR against Kailash, therefore, taking into consideration the observation made by the co-ordinate bench, this application should be allowed and the bail order passed in favour of respondent No.2 Kailash Raghuvanshi should be cancelled. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on Prakash Kadam and others Vs. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta and another reported in (2011) 6 SCC 189 and Ash Mohammed Vs. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446 . 4. Prayer for cancellation of bail has not been opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/State. On behalf of respondent No.2 Kailash Raghuvanshi, it is submitted by Shri Raju Sharma, learned counsel, that any kind of observation made by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court cannot be taken into consideration because at that time opportunity of hearing was not afforded to respondent No.2. He was also not the party in the application at the time of passing of the bail order in Mcrc No.135/2014. Apart that no specific role was assigned to accused Kailash in the FIR. Not only this but also in the impugned bail order bail was not granted only on the basis that “specific role was not assigned” but it was also granted on the ground that applicant is aged 61 years of age and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case bail was granted. To strengthen his contention, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 relied on Omprakash Chautala Vs. Kanwar Bhan & Others reported in 2014(1) JT 417 and Manjit Prakash and others Vs. Shobha Devi and another reported in (2009) 13 SCC 785 . 5. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, impugned bail order dated 02.01.2014 has been perused. On perusal, it is gathered that bail order was granted on the following three grounds: (1) Applicant Kailash was 61 years of age (2) No specific role was assigned to him during course of quarrel (3) Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case 6. To decide the present application, only second ground has to be seen as to whether any specific role was assigned in the FIR to the applicant Kailash or not. To decide the present application, only second ground has to be seen as to whether any specific role was assigned in the FIR to the applicant Kailash or not. In the considered view of this Court, no specific allegations were made against respondent No.2 Kailash. In the FIR, omnibus allegations were made that Lakhan was beaten by all the accused persons including respondent No.2. To show the specific allegation further in the FIR it was mentioned that on the instigation of Jagdish, Lakhan was beaten. Similarly, Lallu inflicted lathi blow on the leg of Lakhan. When specific allegation could be made against Jagdish and Lallu then why such kind of specific allegation was not made against respondent No.2 Kailash and after taking into consideration this point benefit of bail was extended to respondent No.2. It is again made clear that not only on this ground but also on the grounds No.1 and 3 as mentioned above bail was granted. 7. So far as observation made by the co-ordinate bench of this Court against Kailash at the time of deciding the bail application of Aman Singh on 22.01.2014 in is concerned, it cannot be taken into consideration because at that time neither accused Kailash Raghuvanshi was party in that application nor was any opportunity of hearing given to him before making such observation against him. 8. In the aforesaid premises and in the considered opinion of this Court, the bail order which was passed in favour of respondent no.2 Kailash Raghuvanshi is well merited and requires no interference. Ex consequenti, application for cancellation of bail stands dismissed.