Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pappu @ Dashrath vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 April, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 8th OF APRIL, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 17505 of 2022
Between:-
1. PAPPU @ DASHRATH S/O DAN SINGH , AGED ABOUT 55
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: FARMER VILLAGE MUIAAR,
POLICE STATION NOHATA DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. ANNU @ ANRATH S/O DASHRATH SINGH , AGED ABOUT 31
YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER VILLAGE MUAAR POLICE
STATION NOHATA DISTRICT DAMOH M.P (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. INNA @ DEVI SINGH S/O DAL SINGH , AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER VILLAGE MUAAR POLICE
STATION NOHATA DISTRICT DAMOH M.P (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SACHIN SINGH S/O JUGRAJ SINGH , AGED ABOUT 25
YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER VILLAGE MUAAR POLICE
STATION NOHATA DISTRICT DAMOH M.P (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. RAJA SINGH S/O RAJENDRA SINGH , AGED ABOUT 25
YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER VILLAGE MUAAR POLICE
STATION NOHATA DISTRICT DAMOH M.P (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. JUGRAJ SINGH S/O DAL SINGH , AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: FARMER VILLAGE MUAAR POLICE
STATION NOHATA DISTRICT DAMOH M.P (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI MADAN SINGH, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION NOHATA DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AMIT MISHRA, PANEL LAWYER)
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
This is first application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Signature Procedure, Not 1973 (for brevity "Cr.P.C") for grant of anticipatory bail to the SAN Verified applicants, Digitally signed by who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2022.04.11 17:29:47 IST 2 No.142/2022 registered at Police Station Nohata, District Damoh for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506-B, 147, 148, 149, 325, 326 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that earlier vide order dated 15.03.2022 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Damoh had granted bail to the applicants as initially case was registered under Sections 324, 323, 294, 506-B, 147, 148, 149 of IPC. Learned trial Court took note of judgment of Supreme Court in case of Arnvesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, 2014 SC, 2756 and granted bail. It is noted in the order that there was no mention of any grievous injury caused to injured Devi Singh and Mrs. Jaya Bai but, later on, upon investigation police has added Section 326 as a result of which applicants apprehends arrest.
It is submitted that learned Court of IIIrd Sessions Judge, Damoh has rejected application for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat & Another, AIR 2015 SC 3090 , wherein it is submitted that under similar facts and circumstances when offence under Section 376 IPC was added, accused was given benefit of anticipatory bail.
Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Chhitu s/o Nansingh Bhil Vs. State of M.P., 2007(2) MPLJ, 219 , as the Court recorded that there was no material alteration while adding Section 307 IPC at the time of filing of the charge-sheet.
Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Anusuiya Daharwal Vs. Govind Ram Alias Tappu Kadve and Ors., 2017 CRI.L.J. 3140 to point out that upon recording a finding that injury was not on vital part of body and there was no possibility of causing death conviction under Section 326 IPC was altered to that under section 325 IPC.
Shri Amit Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State in his turn submits that as per the case diary C.T. Scan was carried out on Lal Singh on 3 14.03.2022 and its report is available in the case diary showing hairline fracture of left 3rd and 4th ribs in anterior aspect.
Similarly, C.T. Scan of Mrs. Jaya Bai dated 14.03.2022 reflect fracture of left temporo-parietal bone with extension in left mastoid portion and associated soft issue swelling noted.
It is submitted that fracture sustained by Mrs. Jaya Bai is on vital part of the body.
He opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, judgment rendered in case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth (supra) is distinguishable on its own facts. In that case charges were framed under Section 506(2) IPC in the year 2001. Prosecutrix had not protested. In the year 2010, prosecutrix made an application for including charge under Section 376 IPC. Charge under Section 376 IPC was added in the year 2014 and under such facts and circumstance Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that irrespective of fact that charge under Section 376 IPC is serious charge but taking note of the chronology of events allowed application for anticipatory bail.
In the present case, there is no such inordinate delay, therefore, ratio of said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
As far as law laid down in case of Chhitu s/o Nansingh Bhil (supra) is concerned in that case earlier offence was registered under Section 326 IPC and at the time of filing of charge-sheet Section 307 IPC was added, therefore, the Court observed that since both the offences are punishable with life imprisonment, allowed the application as there was no major alteration in the charge.
As far as law laid down in case of Anusuiya Daharwal (supra) is concerned, there were no injuries on any of the vital parts of the body whereas in the present case Mrs. Jaya Bai has sustained fructure on her head which is a vital part of the body.
In view of such facts, applicants case is not at par with any of the judgments 4 sighted by the petitioner above and is distinguishable, therefore, I do not find it a fit case to extend benefit of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicants.
Applicants if so desire may appear before the trial Court to surrender and apply for regular bail.
Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Tabish