Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kanchedi Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 August, 2018
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A.No.5517/2018
(KANCHEDI LAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, dated: 21.08.018
Shri Abhay Upadhyay, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ramji Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on this application under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail granted to respondent no.2 Ratan Patel in crime no.224/2018 registered by P.S.Panagar, District-Jabalpur under Sections 341, 294, 307 read with section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(2) (v), 3(2) (a) and 3(1) (da)(dha) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by order dated 13.07.2018 passed by the Court of Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jabalpur.
As per the prosecution case, there was enmity between victim Kanchedi Lal kori on one hand and accused persons Ratan Patel, Jitendra Patel and Narendra Patel on the other, on account of preparation of a road on disputed land. At about 6:15 p.m. on 06.03.2018, when the victim was going to Panagar on his motorcycle to distribute milk, accused persons Ratan Patel, Jitendra Patel and Narendra Patel intercepted. Ratan and Narendra were armed with knives. After stopping the victim, Ratan and Narendra filthy abused the victim and addressed him in a derogatory manner with regard to his Scheduled Caste. They threatened that they would not let him go that day. Thereafter, respondent no.2 Ratan, with intend to kill, assaulted the victim with a knife on left thigh. As a result, the victim fell down. Narendra also assaulted the victim with knife on chest; however, since the victim pulled away, the knife landed on his left hand. Jitendra Patel beat the victim with fisticuffs. As a result, he started 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A.No.5517/2018 (KANCHEDI LAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) to bleed. When the victim raised an alarm, the accused persons left him and ran away.
A perusal of impugned order reveals that this Court had granted bail to co-accused persons Narendra Patel and Jitendra Patel by order dated 02.07.2018 and 23.04.2018 passed in Cr.A. No. 4335/2018 and Cr.A. No. 2334/2018 respectively and respondent no.2 Ratan Patel was granted bail by the trial Court by impugned order on the grounds of parity.
Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that there is no parity between the cases of Narendra and Jitendra Patel released by the High Court on bail and present respondent Ratan Patel because Ratan Patel is main accused in the case. He is said to have assaulted the victim with a knife on thigh. It has also been submitted that respondent Ratan Patel was in jail only for a period of two days. There is another criminal complainant pending against respondent Ratan Patel under Sections 325 and 323 of the IPC, filed by the present victim. In support of aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the appellant has filed copy of the first information report lodged by the victim in the year 2014; therefore, it has been prayed that the bail granted to respondent no.2 Ratan Patel be canceled.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has conceded that there is no indication in the case diary that respondent no.2 Ratan Patel has any criminal antecedents.
A perusal of first information report reveals that there is no fundamental distinction between the cases of Ratan Patel and Narendra Patel. Both were armed with knives. The blow delivered by Ratan Patel with knife landed on the thigh; whereas, the blow delivered by Narendra Patel landed on hand. A perusal of the MLC 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A.No.5517/2018 (KANCHEDI LAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) report of the victim reveals that though, he had sustained two stab wounds one on the thigh and other one on the hand, both are simple and superficial in nature. It is settled position of law that a bail once granted can be canceled only on substantial grounds and for compelling reasons. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that there is no parity between the cases of Narendra Patel on one hand and Ratan Patel on the other hand, it is obvious that the victim has not sustained any injury on any vital part of the body. The accused persons had opportunity to kill the victim but they refrained from doing so. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the order granting bail is unsustainable.
Therefore, this petition under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail has no substance.
Consequently, it is dismissed in liminie.
(C.V. Sirpurkar) Judge vai Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2018.08.23 03:42:51 -07'00'