Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra Chaubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 2014
( Dharmendra Chaubey Vs. State of M.P.) 1 M.Cr.C. No.10427/2014
04.12.2014
Shri Arsad Ali, Advocate, for the applicant.
Shri P.S. Raghuwanshi, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard.
This is the first application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant.
The applicant is in custody since 10th October, 2014 in connection with Crime No. 505/2014 registered at Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, district Gwalior, for the offence punishable under Sections 399, 400, 402 IPC & Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act alongwith Section 11 & 13 of MPDVPK Act.
It is alleged that on 10.10.2014 at about 9.45 P.M. near Jaderua Talab (Pond) the applicant alongwith other accused persons armed with 315 bore country made gun, live cartridges, iron rod and sword (Talwar) were preparing to commit dacoity. They were apprehended by the Police party.
On behalf of the applicant it is submitted that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. He is not likely to abscond. He be granted regular bail. He is not a habitual offender.
On the other hand, on behalf of the State, the bail ( Dharmendra Chaubey Vs. State of M.P.) 2 M.Cr.C. No.10427/2014 application is opposed on the ground that the applicant has been apprehended and a "sword" has been seized from the applicant. Besides that there are 17 other criminal cases registered against him.
Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that out of these cases, four cases have been registered under Section 110 Cr.P.C. In another case under Section 392 read with Section 13 of MPDVPK Act, applicant Dharmendra Choubey has been acquitted on 3.10.2012. It is also stated that in Crime No.322/02 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 25 (1-a) of Arms Act, the applicant has been acquitted. The applicant has also been acquitted in Crime No.272/07 under Section 452 of IPC. Applicant also similarly acquitted in Crime No.177/12 under Section 392 of IPC on 6.12.2012. In Crime No.458/11 under Section 392 read with Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act, the applicant has been acquitted on 30.10.2012. He has also been acquitted in Crime No.507/11 under Section 25(1-B) of Arms Act on 13.09.2013.
But, besides these, there are other several Crimes registered against the applicant.
On behalf of the applicant reliance has been placed on Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of UP and Another reported in 2012 (1) Crimes ( Dharmendra Chaubey Vs. State of M.P.) 3 M.Cr.C. No.10427/2014 145 SC., in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the application for bail was granted on 6.8.2010 imposing certain conditions--He was in jail since 24.8.2009 --Trial has commenced, two witnesses of prosecution has been examined-- Assurance of the State that trial will not be prolonged-- High Court has imposed several conditions for strict adherence during the period of bail -- The order of the High Court is not liable to be interfered with.
Hon'ble the Apex Court has passed this order while deciding application for cancellation of bail. But, in the present case, the arguments forwarded by the learned counsel for the applicant seeking assistance of the view expressed in the Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (supra) is not attracted. The argument by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite three dozen cases involving serious offences against the petitioner, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has allowed the application for bail and directed that the present case will only be considered and the other cases registered against the applicant will not be considered, is not correct. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not expresses the same as has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. Hon'ble the Supreme Court disallowed the application for cancellation of bail. The factum of ( Dharmendra Chaubey Vs. State of M.P.) 4 M.Cr.C. No.10427/2014 the present case is different and the ratio cannot be applied in the present case.
Applicant having criminal background and keeping in view that several other crimes are still pending, there is every likelihood of the applicant to commit offence again if granted bail cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. The application is dismissed.
(S.K. Palo)
mani Judge