Madhya Pradesh High Court
Laxman Singh Raghuvanshi vs The State Of M.P. on 7 April, 2021
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
M.Cr.C. No. 1757/2021
( Laxman Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & another )
(1)
Gwalior, dated :07/04/2021
Shri Pawan Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Rohit Mishra, learned Additinal Advocate General for the
respondent-State.
Shri V.K. Jha, learned counsel for respondent No.2. This petition under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioner for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 vide order dated 15/12/2020 by the learned Sessions Judge, Vidisha (M.P.) in B.A. No. 702/2020.
Pursuant to the FIR registered against respondent No.2 at Crime No.99/2020 at Police Station Karariya District Vidisha (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 341, 323, 294, 506, 149, 148 and 147 of the IPC, respondent No.2 moved an application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail before the court below, which was allowed vide order dated 15/12/2020 and respondent No.2 was enlarged on bail.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.2 has been enlarged on bail on the basis of parity claimed with that of Heny @ Ranjhana, who was granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 34054/2020 vide order dated 22/09/2020. The learned Trial Court without considering the fact that in Heny @ Ranjhana's case charge sheet was filed and investigation was over, whereas in the prsent case charge sheet was filed under Section 299 of the Cr.P.C, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C. No. 1757/2021 ( Laxman Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & another ) (2) respondent No.2 was absconding and was arrested recently within one day, deeming the case of respondent No.2 identical to that of Heny @ Ranjhana's case, enlarged her on bail.
Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Abdul Basit @ Raju and others Vs Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary & another (2014) 10 SCC 754 to contend that since the order granting bail is illegal and perverse, therefore, this Court being a superior to the Court which granted bail, can cancel the same.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that none of the conditions have been violated by her. Respondent No.2 is having parity with Heny @ Ranjhana's case, therefore, the courts below has rightly granted bail. No case for cancellation of bail is made out, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. The Apex Court in the case of Bhagirath Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1984 SC 372 and Raghubir and others Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1987 SC 149 has consistently held that the bail should not be cancelled on mere asking and if there is no ground for cancellation of bail. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the application.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. From the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that the petitioner has not been able to make out any ground successfully for invoking Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. No case for cancellation of bail is made HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C. No. 1757/2021 ( Laxman Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & another ) (3) out.
Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge Prachi PRACHI MISHRA 2021.04.08 14:46:34 +05'30'