Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chain Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 March, 2021
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
MCrC No.47167/2020
(Chain Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh)
Jabalpur, dated : 10.03.2021.
Shri Satyam Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORDER
Crime No. Under Section Police Station
455/2020 294, 323, 506/34, 324 and Berasiya, District Bhopal
326 of IPC.
As declared by the petitioner, this is the first application under section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.
2- The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.08.2020 at about 9 am, the complainant Kapil alongwith his brother Anil was grazing his cattle. At that time, Bhujbal, Chain Singh (present petitioner), Golu and Gorelal were sprinkling pesticides by their tractor. Anil asked them not to sprinkle the pesticide as his cattle were grazing but instead they all started abusing and assaulted him. Chain Singh and Gorelal wielded battle axe and caused injury on the head of Anil. Kapil with his father Jeelal intervened, then Gorelal wielded Lance (Ballam) and caused injury above the left eye of Kapil. Bhujbal caused injury on the shoulder of Jeelal by plow of tractor. They also threatened them to kill. 3- The police registered the crime and sent all the three injured namely Kapil, Anil and Jeelal for medical examination to the Government hospital. The Doctor observed abrasions with clotted blood above left eye of Kapil, three lacerated wounds on different parts of the body of Anil and laceration with clotted blood over left shoulder and 2 swollen ribs of Jeelal. The Doctor further opined that all the injuries of all the three injured were caused by hard and blunt objects. Injuries of Kapil and Anil were simple in nature, while x-ray was advised for injuries of Jeelal. Jeelal was referred to the Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal for x-ray but he preferred to go to a private hospital viz. Bhopal Care Hospital, Bhopal where the Radiologist observed fracture in his glenoid naile scapula. The Radiologist also mentioned in his x-ray report that there was a sharp cut wound on the left shoulder of Jeelal. 4- It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that it is a case of free fight. There was no common intention, preparation or pre-meditation. The allegation against the petitioner is that he caused simple injury to Anil by battle axe, therefore, at the most, the charge under Section 324 IPC can be framed against him. Infact in the incident, the petitioner and his companion themselves sustained simple injuries and a cross case bearing crime number 456/2020 has been registered against the complainant and his companion under Section 294, 506 and 323 of IPC. 5- It is further argued that initially offence was registered under Section 323 of IPC against the petitioner and co-accused. They were arrested and thereafter released by the police but later on the police have enhanced Section 326 of IPC and want to arrest the petitioner again, therefore, petitioner be granted anticipatory bail. It is further contended that as per the x-ray report, it was given on the date of incident itself. The police arrested the petitioner after 15 days of the incident i.e. on 28.08.2020. It appears that the x-ray report of Jeelal was not available with the police by that time, therefore, the x-ray report is seriously doubtful and it also appears to be antedated document.
36- Per contra, Shri Shukla submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR as well as in the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Injury of Jeelal has been found grievous in nature. The petitioner has actively participated in the incident and has caused injury to Anil by sharp object like battle axe. Earlier he was granted bail by the police as the injury report/x-ray report was not available with the police. Later on it was found that the offence under Section 326 IPC has been made out, which is a serious offence, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
7- Having regard to the nature of the dispute and of incident, the allegation made against the petitioner, observation of the Government Doctor, x-ray report scribed by the Radiologist of private hospital and other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed.
8- It is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner - Chain Singh or his surrender before the Investigating Officer or before the concerned Judicial Magistrate within 30 days from today in connection with the aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.
9- This order shall be governed by the conditions No.1 to 3 of sub Section (2) of Section 438 Cr.P.C.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE anand Digitally signed by ANAND KRISHNA SEN Date: 2021.03.10 17:10:16 +05'30'