Toran Singh vs. Suraj Singh

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.31566/2018

(Toran Singh Vs. Jagdish Gujar & Another) &

M.Cr.C. No.22379/2018

(Toran Singh Vs. Suraj Singh & Others)

Jabalpur, Dated: 25.02.2020

Shri Ganga Prasad Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

Shri Ramanuj Choubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 in M.Cr.C. No.31566/2018.

Shri Ajay Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents No.2, 3 and 5 in M.Cr.C. No.22379/2018.

Heard and perused the case diary.

This order shall also govern the disposal of above mentioned bail application, as the same have arisen out of the same crime number.

These are the applications filed by the applicant under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.1-Jagdish Gujar (M.Cr.C. No.31566/2018) and the other accused persons namely Suraj Singh, Dinesh Kumar, Kamal Singh, Keshar Singh & Ounkar Prasad (M.Cr.C. No.22379/2018), who were granted bail by the Court below vide order dated 05.05.2018 & 26.04.2018, respectively.

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that these accused persons were involved in commission of the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 325, 308, 506 & 34 of IPC wherein the serious head injury was caused to the applicant Toran Singh. It is further submitted that the incident took place on 21.03.2018 whereas the applicant Toran Singh was required to be hospitalized for a period 25 days but the bail application of the respondent No.1-Jagdish Gujar which was allowed by the learned Judge of the trial Court on 05.05.2018 and the other accused persons were granted bail on 26.04.2018.

The main plank of the contention of the counsel for the applicant is that all these accused persons are habitual offenders but in spite of this the learned Judge of the trial Court has allowed their application within a week's time from their arrest. Thus, it is submitted that looking to their criminal antecedents bail ought not to have been granted by the learned Judge of the trial Court to the accused persons.

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand have opposed the prayer and have submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Judge of the trial Court in granting bail as the main accused Hemraj against whom the allegation was in respect of causing injury on the head of the applicant has not been granted bail by the trial Court, however, he has also been released on bail after 9 months by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.17186/2018 on 19.06.2018. Thus, it is further submitted that even in the trial Court all the prosecution witnesses have been examined except the Investigating Officer and in support of their contention copy of the trial Court proceeding dated 06.02.2020 has also been place on record.

On due consideration of the submissions and considering the fact that after their release the respondents have not indulgence in any offence or have threatened the applicant and also taking note of the fact that the trial is at the fag end as the Investigating Officer only is required to be examined, no case for interference is made out.

Accordingly, the aforesaid applications for cancellation of bail are hereby rejected.

(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge

sjk

Digitally signed by SHARAN JEET KAUR JASSAL Date: 2020.02.29 17:39:36 +05'30'