Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 January, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.20163/2017 & M.Cr.C. No.27432/2017
(Rakesh & Soddan Singh vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated 16.01.2018
Shri Manoj Saxena & Shri Jeevan Singh Gurjar, learned
counsel for the applicants.
Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
As both the M.Cr.Cs. are arising out of the same Crime No.421/2016, they have been decided by this common order.
These are second bail applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Earlier applications were dismissed on 31.07.2017 as withdrawn by the co-ordinate Bench with the observations that after arguing at length on the merits, the counsel sought leave of this Court to withdraw the applications of the applicants. The applicants along with Radheshyam, Indersingh, Maansingh, Sundar, Charansingh, Dilipsingh, Soddan, Mangilal, Ramcharan and Antarsingh have been implicated in connection with Crime No.421/2016 registered at Police Station-Kanad, District - Agar for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 307, 302, 325, 336 of IPC and 25, 27 Arms Act. The applicants have been arrested on 03.12.2016. Co-accused persons Radheshyam, Indersingh, Maansingh, Sundar, Charansingh, Dilipsingh have been enlarged on bail by the co- ordinate Bench by different orders. The applicants (supra) and Mangilal, Ramcharan and Antarsingh are in jail.
As per the prosecution story, Mokamsingh and his brother Ishwarsingh while ploughing field applicants along with co-accused persons were found to be members of unlawful assembly armed with talwar, danda and kulhadi and attacked THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.20163/2017 & M.Cr.C. No.27432/2017 (Rakesh & Soddan Singh vs. State of M.P.) them with the common intention to cause grievous hurt and homicidal death to the complainant Ishwarsingh and Mokamsingh. Thereafter, Mokamsingh died due to injuries inflicted upon him and complainant Ishwarsingh suffered grievous hurt. While enlarging on bail co-accused named above, the co-ordinate Bench has found that they had not inflicted grievous injuries. Relying upon the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. found that such co-accused persons were not alleged to have caused injuries to deceased Mokamsingh and had caused injuries to the complainant Ishwarsingh.
From reading of the FIR and submission of the complainant Ishwarsingh, it is evident that applicants along with co-accused Mangilal, Ramcharan and Antarsingh have caused injuries on the body of the deceased Mokamsingh albeit applicants armed with kulhadi likewise Mangilal with talwar, which led to death of deceased Mokamsingh.
Learned counsel for the applicants contends that allegations of hitting deceased Mokamsingh were also made against Radheshyam but he has been enlarged on bail, therefore, applicants are entitled for parity and pray for enlarging the applicants on bail.
Per contra, Ms. Nidhi Bohra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail applications with the contention that due to number of blows hit by the applicants and other four co- accused named above were caused seviour blow by Mangilal. Due to excess bleeding the deceased Mokamsingh died.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.20163/2017 & M.Cr.C. No.27432/2017 (Rakesh & Soddan Singh vs. State of M.P.) Referring to postmortem report of the deceased, she points outs that deceased suffered five injuries including head injury, therefore, applicants are not entitled for grant of bail.
Heard.
This Court has carefully perused the FIR, the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and upon concentration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, prima facie it is a case where the applicants along with co-accused formed unlawful assembly with common intention to cause grievous hurt to the complainant and deceased and commit murder. Accordingly, attacked the complainant Ishwarsingh and deceased Mokamsingh by the applicants armed with deadly weapons.
Both; deceased and complainant have suffered grievous injuries. The deceased died due to head injury and excessive bleeding.
Applicants have caused injuries to the deceased unlike other co-accused so far enlarged on bail.
In the obtaining facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of injuries caused on the body of the deceased, the applicants are not entitled for bail. The contention for seeking parity with Radheshyam (supra) is found to be of no substance in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, both the applications [M.Cr.C. No.20163/2017 & M.Cr.C. No.27432/2017] are dismissed.
(Rohit Arya)
Jyoti Judge
Jyoti Chourasia
2018.01.16 16:59:12
+05'30'