Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 154 (MP)

Ranjeet Singh v. State of M. P.

2015-02-04

SHEEL NAGU

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sheel Nagu, J. 1. Case Diary is perused. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. 3. The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Kotwali, District Guna in connection with Crime No. 376/2012 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 302, 307/34,148, 149, 120-B of IPC and 25/27 Arms Act. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out. 5. This first bail application has been filed by the petitioner who is in custody since 21.2.2014 on various grounds, including that of statutory bail u/S. 167(2) of Cr.P.C by contending that no chargesheet has yet been filed and therefore he is entitled to statutory bail on expiry of the statutory period. 6. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard. This case has a chequered history. The rival parties have contested against each other at all forums from the trial court till the Apex Court. 7. So far as the merits of the case is concerned it is evident not only from the prosecution story but also from deposition of the prosecution witnesses that petitioner is one of the main accused who had caused gun shot injuries in the head of the deceased Dinesh Singh. 8. In view of prima facie evidence of commission of offence of murder available against the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner does not seek bail on merits and restricts his arguments on the ground that since no chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner he is entitled to statutory bail u/S. 167(2) Cr.P.C. 9. Without entering into the voluminous record and without referring to various documents cited by the rival parties this court would like to restrict its scrutiny to the order of rejection of prayer of statutory bail by order dated 28.11.2014 passed by learned trial judge. 10. The learned trial judge has noticed the following factual matrix attending this case; 1. Crime No. 370/12 alleging offence punishable u/S. 302, 307, 34, 147, 148, 149, 120-B IPC r/w Sec. 25/27 Arms Act was registered against the petitioner by Police Station Kotwali District Guna, in regard to an incident which occurred on 14.8.2012, 2. 10. The learned trial judge has noticed the following factual matrix attending this case; 1. Crime No. 370/12 alleging offence punishable u/S. 302, 307, 34, 147, 148, 149, 120-B IPC r/w Sec. 25/27 Arms Act was registered against the petitioner by Police Station Kotwali District Guna, in regard to an incident which occurred on 14.8.2012, 2. On 6.2.2013 the petitioner was enlarged on bail by the trial court, 3. By order dated 16.8.2012 the High Court in M.Cr.C. No. 3370/13 cancelled the above said bail granted by the trial court, 4. Since the petitioner did not surrender pursuant to cancellation of his bail bonds by the High Court, the trial court by order dated 24.8.2013 forfeited the bonds and security furnished by the petitioner and issued arrest warrant, 5. Since petitioner could not be arrested as he avoided arrest, permanent arrest warrant was issued against him on 16.1.2014 after declaring him to be an absconder, 6. On 21.1.2014 the petitioner was arrested, 7. From 25.4.2014 to 28.11.2014 prosecution witnesses have been subjected to examination and cross- examination . All these witnesses have been questioned by the counsel for the petitioner. 8. Presently in the trial examination of prosecution witnesses is over and the case was listed on 4.12.2014 for recording of statement of accused u/S. 313 Cr.P.C. 11. From the above said factual matrix what becomes obvious is that the petitioner on the technical ground of non-filing of chargesheet in respect of the petitioner attempts to seek statutory bail by default as per the provisions of Sec. 167(2) Cr.P.C. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this court to various lacunas in the stand of prosecution including that the final report dated 14.8.2012. Para 17 of statement of PW-31 Ramesh Dandey (Investigating Officer) clearly shows that against 12 accused including the petitioner chargesheet was not filed. 13. Learned counsel for State and the victim Shri Newaskar and Shri Dwivedi has invited the attention of this court to various documents primarily to demonstrate that the chargesheet qua the petitioner has infact been filed and served upon him which fact is evident from the material placed on record infra. 13. Learned counsel for State and the victim Shri Newaskar and Shri Dwivedi has invited the attention of this court to various documents primarily to demonstrate that the chargesheet qua the petitioner has infact been filed and served upon him which fact is evident from the material placed on record infra. Inter alia para 2 of the application filed by the petitioner u/S. 167(2) Cr.P.C, para 17 of the Cross-Examination of PW-31 Ramesh Dandey (Investigating Officer) and the final report filed by the Police in Crime No. 376/12 dated 14.8.2012 mentioned that u/S. 173 of Cr.P.C. further investigation is under way against 12 accused including the petitioner, are referred to. 14. After hearing learned counsel for rival parties and perusing the material available on record the glaring facts which come to light are that the chargesheet was initially filed against three accused and in regard to the remaining 12 including the petitioner further investigation was shown to be underway. Order sheet dated 23.11.2012 of the trial court discloses that chargesheet has been filed in respect of 13 co-accused including against the petitioner. The said order sheet further discloses that chargesheet could not be served on the petitioner on that date since proceedings u/S. 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C for declaring the petitioner as absconder were under way. This ordersheet further discloses that 10 accused including the petitioner are absconding and thus chargesheet has been filed before the Court by the investigating agency u/S. 294 IPC while keeping further investigation open u/S. 173(8). 15. Another Important aspect is that counsel for the petitioner has questioned almost all the 31 prosecution witnesses who have been subjected to examination- in-chief and cross- examination till date, meaning thereby the petitioner has been participating in the trial. Thus it can safely be concluded that on the basis of categorical material placed on record as above stated that the chargesheet has indisputably been filed qua the petitioner. 16. The fact remains that petitioner was absconding for a considerable period of time and was ultimately arrested after cancellation of his bail bonds. In this view of the matter the petitioner does not deserve sympathy of the court and is not entitled to favourable disposition by invocation of discretionary powers u/S. 439 of Cr.P.C. 17. 16. The fact remains that petitioner was absconding for a considerable period of time and was ultimately arrested after cancellation of his bail bonds. In this view of the matter the petitioner does not deserve sympathy of the court and is not entitled to favourable disposition by invocation of discretionary powers u/S. 439 of Cr.P.C. 17. Moreover the trial is now coming to an end and looking to past conduct of the petitioner and that implicative statements have come on record against him in shape of statements of PWs, this court declines grant of bail to the petitioner. 18. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.