Govind Singh vs State of M.P.

D.K. Paliwal, J.

Heard.

This petition has been filed u/s 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted by this Court to the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 24.3.2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 2147/2014.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant has lodged the report that Mahesh Singh, Devendra Singh, Brijendra Singh, Ramnarayan @ Baba, Manish Singh, Chhotu Singh, Ashish Singh, Balister Singh, Ravi Singh and Lala armed with Kanta and Lathi gave beating to the complainant. Mahesh Singh gave Kanta blow on the head of the complainant. Ravi Singh gave Kanta blow on the head of Abhilakh and other accused persons gave beating by means of lathi to complainant and Omprakash. A Crime No. 34/2013 under sections 307, 147, 148, 149 and 294 of IPC was registered at P.S. Umri, District Bhind. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. During investigation Mahesh Singh, Balister Singh and Ravi Singh were arrested and other co-accused persons were absconded and charge-sheet was filed in their absence.

The respondent no. 2 has filed an application for anticipatory bail before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind which was dismissed vide order dated 30.9.2013. The respondent was declared absconder vide order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind in Criminal Case No. 577/2013. The Superintendent of Police, Bhind has declared a reward on the arrest of respondent no. 2 along with co-accused Ashish Singh, Devendra Singh, Brijendra Singh, Ramnarayan Singh alias Baba Lala alias Udai Singh, Chhotu alias Bhupendra and Manish Singh. The respondent filed an application for anticipatory bail before this court which was registered as M.Cr.C. No. 9766/2013 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2013. The second application for anticipatory bail on behalf of respondent was filed, which was registered as M.Cr.C. No. 2147/2014 and the same was allowed vide order dated 24.3.2014. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.3.2014, this petition for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent no. 2 has been filed.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no. 2 was declared absconder by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhindvide order dated 10.10.2013 and Superintendent of Police Bhind has declared a reward on arrest of the respondent no. 2. This fact has been concealed by the respondent no. 2 in his bail application. It is further submitted that second anticipatory bail application has been allowed considering that the co-accused Manish has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 4.2.2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 357/2014. Infact the application of Manish has been disallowed by this Court, hence, on the aforesaid ground, it is prayed that anticipatory bail granted to the respondent no. 2 be cancelled.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 has submitted that the respondent no. 2 has not concealed any fact before this Court and further he fairly conceded that anticipatory bail application of co-accused Manish was dismissed by this Court. It is submitted that the respondent no. 2 has not misused the liberty, hence, prayed for rejection of this petition.

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From perusal of the copy of the charge-sheet, it appears that charge-sheet was filed against the respondent no. 2 showing him absconder. From the copy of the statement of Ranjeet Singh Tomar, ASI it appears that he has gone to execute the arrest warrant of the respondent no. 2-Devendra Singh along with others, but he was absconding and copy of the order-sheet dated 10.10.2013 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind in Criminal Case No. 577/2013 reveals that on the basis of the statement of ASI Ranjeet Singh Tomar, the learned Magistrate has directed to issue non-bailable warrant and also called the list of immovable property belonging to the respondent no. 2. The order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bhind on 28.1.2014 goes to show that because of respondent no. 2 was absconding, a reward of Rs. 1000/- for his arrest was declared. From the order passed by this Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondent no. 2, it appears that the aforesaid facts have not been brought into notice of this Court.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in the matter of Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), has observed that a Court should not exercise its discretion for grant of anticipatory bail when the accused is absconding and declared proclaimed offender.

From the perusal of the order dated 24.3.2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 2147/2014, it appears that on the ground of parity with the co-accused Manish the bail was granted to the respondent no. 2, however, the order passed in M.Cr.C. No. 357/2014 reveals that the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of Manish was rejected by this Court. Thus, the anticipatory bail has been granted to the respondent no. 2 due to misreading of the fact that the co-accused Manish has been enlarged on anticipatory bail. Had the fact of rejection of the bail application of co-accused Manish being pointed out, then prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the respondent no. 2 might have been rejected. Similarly had the fact that the respondent no. 2 has been declared absconder and a reward has been declared by the Superintendent of Police, Bhind been pointed out, the prayer of the respondent no. 2 might have been disallowed.

Considering that the anticipatory bail to the respondent no. 2 has been granted on the ground of parity with the co-accused Manish, while the anticipatory bail was refused to co-accused Manish, and the material fact that respondent has been declared absconder and reward has been declared has not been disclosed at the time of consideration the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent no. 2 deserves to be cancelled.

Consequently, this petition is allowed. The anticipatory bail granted to the respondent no. 2 is hereby cancelled. The respondent no. 2 is directed to surrender before the competent Court and move for regular bail within 45 days from today.