Rajendra Kumar vs State of M.P. and Ors

Brij Kishore Dube, J.—This petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioner herein/complainant for seeking the following relief:

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of passing an order dated 23/05/2013 in Mis. Cr. Case No. 2075/13 (Monu alias Krishna Kant Vs. State of M.P.,), a Single Bench of this Court imposed a condition that if any other criminal case is registered against the petitioner therein/accused then, he shall not be enlarged on bail but inadvertently, the aforesaid condition is missing in the order by way of typographical error. It is further submitted that this fact is supported by an order passed by this Court dated 06/06/2013 by which the operation of the impugned order dated 23/05/2013 (supra) was stayed by this Court. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 2 has criminal antecedents and, therefore, he is not entitled for the benefit of bail. On these grounds learned counsel prays for correction in the impugned order dated 23/05/2013 (Supra).

Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order dated 23/05/2013 (Supra). Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that no condition as claimed by the petitioner herein/complainant is imposed in the impugned order by this Court, therefore, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are erroneous and on extraneous consideration. It is further submitted that in spite of the order of bail passed on 23/05/2013 (Supra) by this Court, the respondent No. 2 is under detention and unable to avail the fruits of the bail. It is further submitted that if the petitioner has any grievance against the impugned order dated 23/05/2013 (Supra), the petitioner is at liberty to file an application u/s 439(2) of Cr.P.C., seeking cancellation of the bail. On these grounds, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 2 prays for dismissal of the petition.

Monu @ Krishna Kant (respondent No. 2) filed an application u/s 439 of Cr.P.C., for grant of bail. This Court passed the following order:

23/05/2013

Shri B.K. Saxena, Advocate, for the applicant.

Shri Vijay Sundaram, P.L. for the respondent/State.

Heard.

This is first application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 13/2013, registered at Police Station Lahaar District Bhind for commission of the offence punishable u/Ss. 302, 201/34 of IPC and 25, 27 of Arms Act.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the deceased is Beetu and the main accused person is Golu. At the relevant time the other accused was traveling on vehicle. It is submitted that the applicant was found threatening at the relevant time at the door of his house. It is submitted that there is no evidence against the applicant and no identification against him. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail w.e.f. 21/01/2013 for no fault of him. It is submitted that application of the applicant be allowed and the applicant be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the State submits that as per the statement which was recorded by the police the applicant has confessed the offence. Keeping in view the statement of Pushpa Devi which was recorded by the police application is allowed for releasing the applicant on bail.

Considering the nature of the allegation and the evidence collected in the case-diary, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one personal solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the JMFC for his regular appearance before the trial court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated u/s 437(3) Cr.P.C.

Certified copy as per rules.

It is transpired from a bare perusal of the record, the petitioner herein/complainant filed this petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., alongwith an application for stay. This Court vide order dated 06/06/2013 passed following interim:

Applicant by Shri Arun Pateria, Advocate. Respondent No. 1/State by Shri R.K. Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer.

Let notice be issued to the respondent No. 2 as per rules.

In the meanwhile, operation of the order dated 23.05.2013 passed in M. Cr. Case No. 2075/13 shall remain stayed.

Certified copy as per rules.

From a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 23/05/2013 (Supra), it is evident that none was appeared on behalf of the present petitioner/complainant. The impugned order dated 23/05/2013 (Supra) is very clear and there is no ambiguity in its terms and conditions, therefore, it cannot be said that there is any error apparent on the face of the record or typing error warranting interference by this Court while exercising the jurisdiction u/s 482 of Cr.P.C.

In view of the above, the admission is declined. Certified copy as per rules.