Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandan Singh Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 September, 2019
Author: Shailendra Shukla
Bench: Shailendra Shukla
M.Cr.C. No.27725/2019 1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.27725/2019
(Chandan Singh Rajput Vs State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated: 09/09/2019
Shri Jalaj Pawar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for Objector.
Shri Anand Soni, learned counsel for Objector.
Shri Anil Oza, learned Public Prosecutor for the non-
applicant/State.
Submissions were made on third bail application filed
u/S.439 of the Cr.P.C on behalf of applicant Chandan Singh
Rajput against whom an offence u/Ss, 147, 148, 149, 341, 307,
302 of the IPC read with Sec.25/27 of the Arms Act has been
registered in Crime No.226/2017 by Police Station, Pithampur,
District Dhar who is facing trial in ST No.89/2017 for the
offences. His earlier two bail applications have been rejected on
20/8/2018and 12/4/2019 respectively. The first application have been dismissed on merits and the second application has been withdrawn with liberty to file afresh application before learned Sessions Judge. The bail application subsequently filed before Sessions Court on 22/4/2019 was also dismissed. It has been stated in the application that all the other co-accused persons have already been given the benefit of bail.
The prosecution story in short is that on 3/6/2017 complainant Balmukund Goutam lodged a report against applicant along with 13 other co-accused persons for allegedly wrongfully restraining the complainant and his companions at Ghatabillod while the complainants were coming from a function. The complainant who was travelling in a Scorpio car was thus stopped and the accused persons damaged the Scorpio Car, breaking its glasses. The complainant some how came back M.Cr.C. No.27725/2019 2 and while he was going on to lodge a report the accused persons stopped them on the way and the applicant Chandan Singh and other co-accused persons fired at the complainant party with fire arms. Pintu Jaiswal and Bablu suffered gun shot injuries, other co-accused also indulged in inflicting stick blows causing hurt to Vishal and Ankursingh. FIR No.226/2017 was registered under the provisions of Secs.341, 147, 148, 149 and 307 of the IPC along with Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. Lateron Bablu Choudhary succumbed to his injuries and offence which was registered was enhanced to Section 302 of the IPC. Apart from Bablu, Pintu Jaiswal has also suffered bullet injuries. All the other co-accused persons who were wielding weapons attacked the two Scorpio car, one Safari car and one Indica Car. FIR was reported at Police Station, Betma. In this matter the report lodged by complainant against the applicant is the first one being Crime No.217/2017 and the second one being Crime No.226/2017 which pertains to this incident in which Bablu Choudhary who had died.
Learned counsel for applicant has pointed out that in this matter 12 bore gun was seized from the applicant Chandan Singh whereas the empty catridges of EC1 to EC5 were found from the spot were subjected to ballistic test and it was found that these catridges were fired from the rifle. Learned counsel submits that there was only one gun which was 12 bore calibre which has been seized from the applicant and from the complainant party five firearms have been seized which included a rifle 0.315 bore (A3), a revolver 0.23 bore (A4), a pistol 12 bore (A5) and a rifle 0.275 bore (A6). Learned counsel submits that as many as five firearms were seized from the possession of the complainant party whereas only one 12 bore gun has been seized from the applicant Chandan Singh and as already stated all the catridges M.Cr.C. No.27725/2019 3 have been found to have been fired from rifle. He has also pointed out the post-mortem report of Bablu Choudhary in which medical specialist has stated that Bablu Choudhary had suffered a rifle shot. Learned counsel submits that one of the complainant party members had fired from his own rifle which caused injury to Bablu Choudhary who was member of complainant party. He also stated that as per the ballistic report EC1 to EC5 catridges were in fact fired from a rifle which is A6 and A6 rifle belong to Chandrabhushan, one of the members of the complainant. Learned counsel also submits that the incident had occurred before the house of Chandansingh which implies that it was the complainants who armed with firearms and other weapons had come to attack Chandan Singh. Under these circumstances it has been prayed that Chandan Singh be granted bail who is in jail since more than two years and all other co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned counsel on behalf of Objectors and State have opposed the application stating that son of Chandan Singh, Mahendra and one another co-accused Raghunath are still absconding and that Mahendra Singh has issued threat that any attempt of opposing the bail application of Chandan Singh would be avenged. An FIR against Mahendra Singh has been lodged regarding such threat meted out. It is stated that if Chandan Singh is granted bail, then it would be difficult to apprehend Mahendra and Raghunath. It was also pointed out that the complainant Shailendra had specifically stated that Chandan Singh had fired from a rifle and the catridges were in fact rifle catridges. It has also been stated that Chandan Singh is habitual criminal, as many as six cases have been registered against him, one of them being case u/S.302 of the IPC. In the last, it has been stated that two bail applications of Chandan M.Cr.C. No.27725/2019 4 Singh have already been rejected and there is no reason to consider the third bail application and all the submissions made on behalf of Chandan Singh can be considered only after appreciation of evidence.
Considered rival submissions and perused the case diary. It appears that this bail application was earlier listed before another co-ordinate bench which had vide order dated 26/7/2019 direted the State to produce ballistic report. Subsequently Hon'ble The Chief Justice had directed that this matter be listed before this court and thereafter the submissions have been made before this court.
The ballistic report has been made available consequent to order of co-ordinate bench dated 26/7/2019. It is clear that the earlier bail application dated 20/8/2018 was rejected, however, the ballistic report has been made available subsequently and submissions have now made on the basis of ballistic report.
Learned counsel for applicant while answering the objection raised by the Objectors has stated that out of six cases registered against the applicant Chandan Singh, four have resulted in acquittal and the orders of acquittal have been filed for perusal which shows that the case u/S.302 of the IPC earlier registered against the applicant has also resulted in acquittal. The submissions which have been made on the basis of ballistic report were considered. The objections raised by the Objector that the ballistic report be considered at the time of evidence is not appropriate as it contains specific conclusions which cannot be looked over. It is not the case that the ballistic report needs to be looked into at the time of pronouncement of judgment. If there are specific indications available from the report, the same cannot be looked over.
The fact that two other co-accused persons have been M.Cr.C. No.27725/2019 5 absconding cannot be a consideration against the applicant as the absconders have been eluding arrest even when Chandan Singh is in jail, hence situation would not change if Chandan Singh is granted bail. For arresting the absconders, the investigating agency shall have to make its own efforts.
On due consideration of ballistic report coupled with other submissions made on behalf of the applicant, the case is made out for grant of bail to Chandan Singh.
Consequently, it is ordered that on furnishing local solvent surety of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) along with personal bond of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with a condition that he shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C., Chandan Singh Rajput be enlarged on bail.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Shailendra Shukla) Judge vm Digitally signed by Varghese Mathew Date: 2019.09.12 13:46:41 +05'30'