Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1033 (MP)

Vinod v. State of M. P.

2015-09-30

P.K.JAISWAL

body2015
ORDER 1. This application under section 439(2) of CrPC has been filed by the applicant – Vinod Thakre s/o Namdev Thakre for cancellation of bail of the non-applicant No.2 Kishore Patel. Kishore Patel is implicated in Crime No.223/2011 registered at Police Station, Lasudia, District Indore for the offence punishable under sections 302, 147, 148, 149 and 120B of the IPC and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act for committing the murder of deceased – Sanjay Thakre. His application for grant of bail has been allowed vide order dated 15.2.2013 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.575/2013. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that immediately thereafter, he started giving threats to the prosecution witnesses and the applicant. On 17.3.2013, a report has been registered by the non-applicant No.1 at the instance of Pradeep Thakre. It is submitted that the non-applicant No.2 and his friends are consistently giving threats to the applicant and his family members. On the intervening night of 16-17.3.2013, some unknown persons damaged his vehicle bearing registration No.MP09-BA-1411 and report to this effect was lodged by the police personnel. It is also pointed out that on 25.3.2015 when witness Vinod Thakre came to give evidence in pursuance to the summons issued by the trial Court, he was threatened by the non-applicant No.2 and his friends. The non-applicant No.2 is intervening with the trial and trying to influence the prosecution witnesses and threatening them so that they may not adduce their evidence. 3. Shri R. S. Sondhi, learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 has denied the allegations made in the application for cancellation of bail. He submits that the applicant - Vinod Thakre is not a material witness. The statement of the material prosecution witnesses have been recorded and now the witnesses of seizure/recovery memos along with the Investigating Officer is to be examined before the trial Court. He submits that the applicant has made omnibus statement that all the accused persons gave threats without naming specific person and prayed for rejection of the application. 4. It is well settled that the power of cancellation of bail should be exercised with care and circumspection as cancellation of bail jeopardize the personal liberty of person and involves the review of a decision already made. 5. In the present case, specific allegation has been made by the applicant regarding the incident of 17.3.2013 and threats given by the non-applicant No.2. 5. In the present case, specific allegation has been made by the applicant regarding the incident of 17.3.2013 and threats given by the non-applicant No.2. The application dated 25.3.2015 (Annexure A-2) has been filed before the trial Court. The application dated 20.3.2014 has been given to the Superintendent of Police, Indore. The mother of the applicant also made an allegation by filing an application before the police personnel, the relevant part of which reads as under:- eSa ,d o`) chekj vkSj fo/kok efgyk gw¡A esjs iq= lat; Bkdjs dks dqN yksxksa us tks Hkw&ekfQk gS us feydj gR;k@eMZj dj fn;k gS] ftudk dsl vHkh Hkh ls’ku dksVZ bUnkSj esa py jgk gSA bl dkj.k esjh fo/kok cgw ,oa mldh nks NksVh cfPp;k¡ tks 8 o”kZ ,oa 5 o”kZ dh mez dh gS jgrh gSa] ges vk, fnu Hkw&ekfQk okyksa ls èkkSal feyrh gS fd os eq>s ekj Mkysaxs vkSj esjh fo/kok cgw Jherh lhek dks vkSj mldh NksVh&NksVh cfPp;ksa dks mBk ys tk,aaxsA pawfd ge vHkh iqfyl DokVZj esa jgrs gS] bl dkj.k ge lqjf{kr gSA esjs vU; nks iq= Hkh gSa tks Hkw&ekfQk okyksa ds Mj ds dkj.k bUnkSj NksM+dj egkjk”Vª es jgus pys x, gS vkSj vc ge flQZ efgyk,a gh ;gka jgrh gSA bl dkj.k eq>s Hkh gekjs fuokl dk DokZVj [kjhnus dh vuqefr nh tkus dh Ñik gksA 6. Due to fear of non-applicant No.2 and other accused persons, the applicant left Indore and started residing at Aurangabad. 7. Considering these facts and the order dated 15.2.2013, wherein this Court while granting bail very categorically directed that the non-applicant No.2 shall fully cooperate with the trial and shall not directly or indirectly try to influence the trial and in case, if it is found that the non-applicant No.2 is trying to influence the trial directly or indirectly, then the objector is at liberty to file an appropriate application for cancellation of bail. From the documents filed along with the application and averments made in the cancellation application, the non-applicant No.2 himself is the author of the situation. He has violated the terms and conditions of the bail granted to him on 15.2.2013 and started giving threats to the applicant and other prosecution witnesses. 8. From the documents filed along with the application and averments made in the cancellation application, the non-applicant No.2 himself is the author of the situation. He has violated the terms and conditions of the bail granted to him on 15.2.2013 and started giving threats to the applicant and other prosecution witnesses. 8. While cancellation of bail under section 439(2) of the CrPC, the primary consideration which weigh with the Court are whether the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence or interfere or attempt to interfere with the due course of justice or evade the due course of justice. 9. In the case in hand, an attempt has been made by the non-applicant No.2 to tamper with the evidence and interfere with the due course of justice and trying to weaken the prosecution case which will have adverse impact on the society. 10. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the considered view that in the instant case, the attempts made by the non-applicant No.2 to pressurize the witnesses and tamper with evidence, the non-applicant No.2 is not entitled to continue benefit of bail, prayer for cancellation of bail is allowed. The non-applicant No.2 – Kishore Patel is directed to surrender within two weeks before the concerned trial Court, failing which, learned trial Court shall issue arrest warrant against the non-applicant No.2 and submit a report within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Trial Court to make all endeavour for early completion of trial, preferably, within six months from the date of receipt of copy of order. 11. With the aforesaid, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.3645/2015 stands disposed of.