Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivraj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 2023
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 12 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 54972 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SHIVRAJ S/O SHRI SURAJ SINGH, AGED ABOUT 40
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O VILLAGE
NARAYANPURA POLICE STATION RAGHOGARH
DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI RAVI DWIVEDI - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE POLICE
STATION THROUGH POLICE STATION RAGHOGARH
DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRABHAKAR KUSHWAHA- PANEL LAWYER )
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
1. The applicant has filed this second application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail. First application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.6.2023 passed in M.Cr.C.No.23884 of 2023.
2. Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.138 of 2023 registered at Police Station Raghogarh, District Guna for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 452, 294, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 15-12-2023 01:29:31 PM 23. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 19.03.2023 the complainant Rahul had lodged a Dehati Nalishi against the present applicant and nine other accused persons to the effect that he is running a hotel in the name of Rajhans and one B.S. Gurajar Hotel is situated adjacent to his hotel. One Bablu Gurjar is the owner of the said hotel. On 19.03.2023, Pitambra Bus and Bijasen Bus stopped infront of the complainant's hotel. The staffs and passengers of the bus took meals. One of the passengers had gone to B.S. Gurjar's hotel to purchase Bidi Bandal and a dispute arose between him and Bablu Gurjar. After departure of the bus, they took dinner. At about 2 am, accused Shivraj Gurjar (applicant), Mohar Singh, Sangram Singh Gurjar, Malkhan Singh, Govind Gurjar, Sanju Gurjar, Rahul Gurjar, Raman Gurjar and Kalla Gurjar and one another person with common intention armed with Pharsi, Lathi, Lohangi and Danda hurling abuses entered into the Rajhans Hotel. Having seen them, the complainant party, ran towards field. At that time, accused Shivraj Gurjar (applicant) with intention to kill assaulted Paramsukh Meena, father of the complainant with Pharsi on his head due to which he sustained head injury thereafter blood started oozing out. Govind Gurjar and Rahul Gurjar assaulted him with Lathi and Luhangi due to which he sustained injuries on his left hand elbow and waist. When Harbhajan Kevat came to save his father, accused Raman Gurjar assaulted him with Luhangi due to which he sustained injury on his left hand elbow and accused Sangram Gurjar assaulted him with Pharsi due to which he sustained injury on his waist. Mohar Singh assaulted Manoj Meena with Lathi due to which he sustained Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 15-12-2023 01:29:31 PM 3 injury on his hip and waist. Accused Malkhan Gurjar assaulted the complainant with Pharsi due to which he sustained injuries on his left hand and abdomen. On his report, aforesaid offences were registered against the accused persons. Injured were sent for medical examination.
4. It is the submission of counsel for the applicant that this is the case where cross FIR on behalf of applicant's side has been registered vide crime No.140 of 2023. It was further submitted that on a minor pretext, dispute erupted and soon converted into free fight. He placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex court in the matters of Gajanand Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1954 SC 695, Munir Khan Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1971 SC 335 and Puran Vs. State of Rjasthan reported in AIR 1976 SC 912 to submit that when two parties are involved in free fight then individual act of the persons are to be seen and since no grievous injuries had been caused to the injured, which is evident from the MLC, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail. It was further submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons had already been enlarged on bail vide M.Cr.C.No. 16976 of 2023, M.Cr.C.No.19396 of 2023, M.Cr.C.No.22356 of 2023 and M.Cr.C.No.22355 of 2023. The applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation/trial as well as to abide by any condition which may be imposed by this Court. Under these grounds, counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State has opposed the bail application and had submitted that the case of the applicant is not similar to those co-accused persons, who had been granted Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 15-12-2023 01:29:31 PM 4 bail and thus prayed for its rejection.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
7. Admittedly on the date of incident i.e. 19.3.2023 due to some business rivalry concerning stoppage of the passenger buses at their respective hotels, as per the prosecution story, the present applicant along with co-accused persons armed with Pharsi, Lathi, Luhangi, Danda (Stick) and hurling filthy abuses entered the hotel of the complainant and having seen them the complainant party ran towards field but the present applicant Shivraj Gurjar along with other co-accused persons followed them and had assaulted Paramshukh Meena, father of the complainant with Pharsi on his head due to which he sustained head injury, due to which blood started oozing out.
8. Counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance in the matter of Gajanand Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1954 SC 695, Munir Khan Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1971 SC 335 and Puran Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1976 SC 912 had contended that when two parties are involved in free fight, then individual act of the person are required to be seen. In that context when the allegations levelled against the present applicant are seen in its entirety, it prima facie appears that he was one of the aggressors and his role is of causing injury to Parasram Meena on his head which is a vital part of the body. If the role of the other co-accused persons who have been granted anticipatory bail are seen; Rahul Gurjar have assaulted the injured by means of Luhangi and had inflicted injury on left hand elbow and waist. Similarly Raman Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 15-12-2023 01:29:31 PM 5 Gurjar has assaulted with Luhangi and had caused injury on left hand elbow and likewise Sangram Gurjar is said to have assaulted the injury with Pharsi sustaining injury on his waist. Another co-accused Mohar Singh Gurjar is said to have assaulted Manoj Meena with lathi and has caused injury on his hip and waist and accused Kalla have assaulted complainant with hands and fists and co-accused Sanju is stated to have caused injury on the shoulder of complainant, which all are non-vital part of the body. The alleged injury caused by the applicant is on the head which is a vital part of the body, and therefore, his act is distinguishable from the other co-accused persons who have been granted anticipatory bail. It is also noteworthy that the first application for anticipatory bail was rejected in the month of June, 2023 and thereafter the present applicant after a lapse of more than five months had preferred this application which does not appear to be bonafide.
9. Accordingly, this second anticipatory bail application being devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Pawar Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 15-12-2023 01:29:31 PM