Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 11, Cited by 1]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Toram Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2015

                           MCRC-8730-2015
               (TORAM SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


21-09-2015

Shri Raju Sharma, Advocate for applicant.

Shri Amit Bansal, Public Prosecutor for the State. Shri S.S.Raghuvanshi, Advocate for the complainant. This is third bail application of the applicant filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant has been arrested for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 302, 34 of IPC and under Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, registered at Crime No.663/2012 by Police Station Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha.

Shri Raju Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant fairly submits that the applicant's first bail application (Misc.Cri.Case No.9998/2012) was rejected by this Court on 24.1.2013. However, his second bail application (M.Cr.Case No.6833/2013) was allowed on 8.10.2013. This bail was cancelled in M.Cr.Case No. 8992/2013 on 12.12.2013. This cancellation of bail order was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court gave stamp of approval to the order of cancellation of bail. The applicant is in custody since 1.11.2012. Only 24 witnesses have entered the witness box. In view of (2001) 1 SCC 247 (State, CBI/Spe, New Delhi vs. Pal Singh), the applicant be enlarged on bail. Lastly, it is urged that the Coordinate Bench has enlarged co-accused Kamal Singh on bail in Misc.Cri.Case No.6250/2015.

Prayer is opposed by the other side.

Shri Amit Bansal, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Shri S.S.Raghuvanshi, Advocate, contends that the trial is being conducted in a proper manner. Because of huge pendency before the court below, it is taking some time but it has not come to a standstill. The Coordinate Bench in Misc.Cri.Case No. 8785/2015 (Deepak Raghu-vanshi vs. State of MP) has rejected the bail of co-accused.

No other point is pressed by the parties.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. It is seen that while cancelling the bail of present applicant in Misc.Cri.Case No. 8992/2013, this Court gave following findings:-

“ 15. The judgment of Prakash Kadam is followed by the Supreme court in (Ash Mohammad Vs. Shivraj Singh and another) reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446 . As noticed above, the judgment of Dolat Ram was considered by the Supreme court in the latest judgment in Prakash Kadam (supra). It is held in the case of Prakash Kadam that once bail is granted it can be cancelled if there is likelihood of misuse of the bail. In the considered opinion of this Court, Toran Singh is the accused in both the crime vide crime No. 227/11 and 663/12. He violated the conditions of bail. Complainant Rajesh Raghuvanshi died in the second incident. Harishankar is admittedly not an accused in the first crime. Thus there is no absolute parity between Toran Singh and Harishankar. Since Toran Singh is an accused in two criminal incidents, gravity of offence on his part is much higher.
16. Apart from this, likelihood of misuse of bail by Toran Singh cannot be ruled out. In view of the law laid down in Prakash Kadam (supra), I deem it proper to cancel the bail granted to Toran Singh by order dated 08.10.2013. Accordingly, the said order dated 08.10.2013 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 6833/2013 is cancelled.

The Coordinate Bench granted bail in Misc. Cri.Case No.No.6250/2015 (Kamal Singh vs. State) because Kamal Singh did not have any criminal antecedents. However, in Deepak Raghuvanshi (supra) the Coordinate Bench has opined as under:-

“However, considering the fact that till January, 2015, 16 out of 24 prosecution witnesses have been examined whereafter three more prosecution witnesses have been examined on 5.11.2014, 10.11.2014 and 12.5.2015, this court is of the considered view that trial is moving at slow pace but yet has not come to standstill, and therefore, ground raised of prejudice on account of delayed trial which appears ostensibly to exit but in actually does not.

Moreover, the prejudice that may have been caused to the petitioner get out weighed the gravity of offence.” The aforesaid factual matrix makes it clear that trial is smoothly going on. In Pal Singh (supra), the facts were totally different. Para 5 of the said judgment shows that trial was not proceeding and it was almost in a hibernating stage. In that factual backdrop, the Supreme Court interfered with the matter.

In the present matter, the factual background is totally different. The cancellation of bail of applicant by order dated 12.12.2013 shows that there were serious allegations against the applicant. The possibility of misuse of bail by the applicant could not be ruled out. The detailed order passed by this Court (affirmed by Supreme Court) shows that if bail is granted to the present applicant at this stage, there is every likelihood of influencing the witnesses/trial.

I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail, more so when bail of co- accused Deepak Raghuvanshi (supra) has already been rejected by Coordinate Bench on 24.8.2015.

Apart from this, there is no other reason to enlarge the applicant on bail. The bail application is devoid of any substance and is hereby dismissed.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE