Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra Prajapati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2018
1
Cr.A. 2048/2018
High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Mahendra Prajapati v. The State of MP and Anr.
Gwalior dated, 07.05.2018
Shri Padam Singh, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent No. 1/State.
Shri Shiv Pratap Singh, counsel for the complainant/respondent no. 2.
Appearing counsel for the parties are heard on I.A. No. 2683/2018 filed on behalf of complainant Pradeep (respondent no.
2) for granting permission to his counsel for assisting learned public prosecutor. In view of the reasons mentioned in application, I.A. No. 2683/2018 is allowed and respondent no. 2/complainant Pradeep's counsel is permitted to assist public prosecutor.
Appearing counsel for the parties are heard on alleged first Criminal Appeal filed u/s. 14-A (2) of the SC and ST Act by appellant against the order dated 26.02.2018 passed by Special Judge (SC and ST Act), Vidisha whereby regular bail petition filed on behalf of appellant u/s. 439 of the Cr.P.C in relation to crime no. 62/2018 registered at police station, Dehat, Vidisha for offences punishable u/s. 302, 323, 294, 506, 34 of the IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (r)
(s), Sec. 3 (2) (v) (a) and Sec. 3 (2) (v) of the SC and ST Act and the produced case diary and impugned order and papers filed by appellant are perused.
Appearing counsel for appellant vehemently contended that appellant Mahendra has been falsely implicated in the crime and even according to detailed dehati nalisi lodged by complainant/respondent no. 2 Pradeep in relation to incident, appellant Mahendra did not inflict any injury on deceased Mangal Singh and it is alleged that co-accused Vikas inflicted injury by his axe over head of Mangal Singh and in dehati nalisi, it is alleged that present appellant Mahendra by his stick gave beating to 2 Cr.A. 2048/2018 complainant/respondent no. 2 Pradeep, his brother Raj and his mother and two sisters with co-accused persons Bharat and Sanju. It is also argued that even according to certified copies of MLC of complainant Pradeep, his brother Raj and sister Varsha that at the time of their medical examination they were complaining of pain in some organs and joints, but no visible injury was found on them and in investigation allegedly a stick (danda) of bamboo was seized from Mahendra. It is also contended that on report lodged by appellant's father Bharat, a cross case in shape of crime no. 63/2018 has been registered at same police station, Dehat, Vidisha for offences punishable u/s. 294, 323, 324, 506 and 34 of the IPC against deceased Mangal Singh, present complainant Pradeep, his brother Raj alias Chotu, Sarita and Varsha, wherein it is alleged that respondent no. 2/complainant Pradeep inflicted injury by his sword (talwar) over head of Bharat and Mangal Singh and his daughters by their sticks gave beating to reporter Bharat and in that incident appellant's father Bharat and appellant's mother have also received injuries.
Appellant's learned counsel placing reliance on certified copy of the spot map prepared at instance of complainant Pradeep contends that it is clear from spot map that incident had occurred nearer to house of appellant and comparatively away from the house of deceased. It is also submitted that one day prior to the above mentioned incident occurred on 24.1. 2018 at 9 a.m., appellant's father has also lodged report of non-cognizable offence at same police station regarding incident of 23.1.2018 at 21=30 hours against Pradeep/present respondent no. 2 and placing reliance on the case of Bachan Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab reported in 1993 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 490, it is argued that it is well settled that when free-fight occurs between two groups resulting in death of one belonging to prosecution party and injuries to members of both the parties, then in such a situation, each accused will be liable for his 3 Cr.A. 2048/2018 individual act attributed to him and cannot be convicted for murder with the aid of Sec. 34 or Sec. 149 of the IPC. Hence, it is argued that looking to the role attributed to present appellant Mahendra as he did not cause any injury to deceased Mangal Singh, his case is fit for granting him benefit of regular bail, as he is detained in jail from 27.01. 2018 and the conclusion of relating trial shall take sufficient time. It is argued that Special Judge erred in dismissing appellant's regular bail application. Hence, it is prayed that his appeal be allowed and impugned order be set-aside.
Per contra, above mentioned prayer has been strongly opposed by the appearing learned public prosecutor on behalf of respondent no. 1 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2/complainant Pradeep that murder of complainant Pradeep's father Mangal was allegedly committed in furtherance of common object of four accused persons, namely, Bharat Singh, Vikas, Sanju and Mahednra (present appellant) and offence punishable u/s. 302 is punishable with death or life imprisonment and in view of the above facts and circumstances, the Special Judge did not err in dismissing appellant's regular bail petition. Hence, it is prayed that appeal filed on behalf of appellant be dismissed and impugned order be affirmed.
It is well settled that stage of consideration of bail application is not a stage of appreciation or evaluation of evidence, but it appears from perusal of the case diary that charge-sheet has been filed on 14.2.2018 before relating court and present appellant is having no criminal history and according to dehati nalisi lodged by respondent no. 2, it is clear that solitary fatal blow over head of his father Mangal Singh was inflicted by Vikas by an axe and after receiving this sole injury Mangal Singh became unconscious and thereafter complainant, his brother Raj, mother and sisters were beaten by present appellant Mahendra, co-accused Bharat and Sanju by sticks. From report of complainant, it is clear that present appellant Mahendra did not inflict any injury on deceased Mangal 4 Cr.A. 2048/2018 Singh. Postmortem report of Mangal Singh also reveals that he has received a single incised wound over his head on left side of parietal region. A stick (danda) has been seized from appellant Mahendra. It is clear from certified copy of report lodged by appellant's father Bharat that a cross case in shape of crime no. 63/2018 was also registered against deceased Mangal Singh, present respondent no. 2 and his other family members. In view of above mentioned citation, and considering the rival contentions raised by the counsel for the parties, without commenting on the merits of the case and specially to the fact that appellant did not inflict any injury to deceased, his case is appearing fit to be granted benefit of regular bail to him, but it appears that learned Special Judge erred in dismissing appellant's regular bail application filed before him. Hence, this appeal filed by appellant appears to be worthy of acceptance.
Consequently, the appeal filed by appellant Mahendra Prajapati is allowed and order dated 26.2.2018 passed by Special Judge (SC and ST Act), Vidisha is set-aside and in relation to relating bail petition, it is ordered that on appellant's furnishing a personal bond for Rs. 60,000/- with a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Vidisha, for his regular appearance before the court concerned on fixed dates with following conditions, he be released on bail:-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him.
2. The applicant will not commit any offence in future.
3. The applicant shall not try to influence prosecution witnesses in any manner.
C.c as per rules.
(Ashok Kumar Joshi)
ar Judge
Digitally signed by ABDUR RAHMAN
Date: 2018.05.08 16:44:56 +05'30'