Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 567 (MP)

Bablu @ Irshad v. State of M. P.

2015-05-11

SUJOY PAUL

body2015
ORDER 1. This is second bail application filed under section 439 CrPC arising out of Crime No.17/2015 by police station Madhavganj, Gwalior for the offences punishable under section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 and section 147 of IPC. 2. Shri Bhadoria submits that the applicant is in custody since 14.1.2015. The offences are triable by Magistrate. Challan has already been filed. The complainants are interested persons who have falsely implicated the applicant. The applicant has lodged FIR against certain person who became complainant/witness in the matter. His uncle namely, Aslam Sherkhan has lodged report on 25.4.2013 against certain persons and, therefore, the applicant has been falsely implicated. 3. Prayer is opposed by Mrs. Patankar, learned Public Prosecutor. 4. She submits that similar application of co-accused has been rejected by this Court on 30.3.2015. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is seen that this Court has passed a detailed order on 30.3.2015. The relevant portion reads as under :- “Learned counsel for the applicant, at the outset, submits that in the previous round (Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.858/2015) [Published in 2015(II) MPWN 6 ], a wrong legal stand was taken by the applicant that the offence is bailable. He fairly submits that it was a wrong statement and in fact the said offence is not bailable. He submits that the applicant is in custody since 14.1.2015. 'Challan' has already been filed. The investigation is over. The respondent has not even seized the alleged flag, on which the applicant has allegedly written something. In addition, it is submitted that there was no intention on the part of the applicant to cause any disrespect towards the national flag. Lastly, it is contended that the applicant is a poor labourer and it will be difficult for his family members to keep their body and soul together in absence of bread-winner. In support of his contention, Shri Shah relied on an order of Kerala High Court in Bail Application No.6697/2008 (Sanjeev v. State of Kerala). Prayer is opposed by the other side. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. Along with the record, the respondent has produced the photographs. The photographs show that on the entire flag, the applicant has written something in Urdu. Prayer is opposed by the other side. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. Along with the record, the respondent has produced the photographs. The photographs show that on the entire flag, the applicant has written something in Urdu. It has covered the white portion of the flag and the entire “Ashok Chakra”. On the green portion of the flag, it is mentioned as “GAUSS-E-PAAK KI FAUJ”. In the upper portion of the flag, something is written in English. The photograph shows that there was a huge gathering on the date of the incident. The prosecution has not led evidence. In the judgment cited by Shri Shah, a jewelery house/businessman mentioned the words of his business house on the flag. The same was published in 'Malyalam Daily'. In the present case, the facts are totally different. On the national flag, in big letters something has been written because of which whole “Ashok Chakra” is covered. The name of an army is written (GAUSS-E-PAAK KI FAUJ) on the national flag of the country. In these circumstances, in my view, the judgment of Kerala High Court has no application in the present case. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of admission of Shri Shah that the offences are not bailable, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage when evidence is yet to be recorded. Thus, at this stage bail is declined. The applicant may file separate application for bail after prosecution evidence is over. Bail application is rejected.” 7. The question whether applicant has been falsely implicated or not will be dealt with by the trial Court. In view of the rejection of second bail of co-accused, I find no reason to entertain this application. 8. Application is dismissed. .......................