Vikesh Kumar Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 681 Chatt

                                1

                                                                 NAFR
       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                 M.Cr.C.(A) No. 1562 of 2022
Gulam Ahmad @ Gudda S/o Balliulla Hasan Aged About 54 Years R/o
Ward No. 1, Shivnandanpur Police Station Bishrampur Tahsil and
District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                         ---- Applicant
                              Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Vishrampur, District :
Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                      ---- Respondent
                               And

                 M.Cr.C.(A) No. 1563 of 2022
Vishwanath Singh S/o Late Manijar Singh Aged About 63 Years R/o
Ward No. 14, Pauwapara Bishrampur, Police Station Bishrampur,
Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                         ---- Applicant
                               Vs
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Vishrampur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                      ---- Respondent
                               And
                 M.Cr.C.(A) No. 1750 of 2022
Vikesh Kumar Singh S/o Vishwanath Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o
Ward No. 14, Pauwapara, Bishrampur, Police Station- Bishrampur,
Tahsil And District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                         ---- Applicant
                              Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Of Police
Station- Vishrampur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                      ---- Respondent


For the Applicants        :    Shri Devershi Thakur, Advocate in
                               M.Cr.C.(A) No.1562 of 2022.
                               Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate in M.Cr.C.(A)
                               Nos. 1563 of 2022 & 1750 of 2022.
For the Respondent/State :     Shri Sushil Sahu, P.L.



        Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
                              ORDER

02.02.2023

Heard.

1. All the three bail applications are being decided by this common order

as they arise out from same crime number. These are the first bail

applications under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants for grant of

anticipatory bail, who are apprehending arrest in connection with Crime

No.183 of 2022 registered at Police Station - Vishrampur, District Surajpur,

for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323 & 307 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. As per prosecution story, on 7.9.2022 the present applicant alongwith

one Nitesh Kumar Singh in furtherance of common intention abused the

complainant using filthy language and assaulted him by means of fists and

kicks. At the same time, Nitesh Kumar Singh assaulted the complainant by

means of iron rod. Earlier, offence punishable under Section 294, 506, 323

read with Section 34 of the IPC was registered and after medical

examination of the complainant, Section 307 of IPC was added.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the nature of

injuries sustained by the complainant was simple and iron rod was used by

Nitesh Kumar Singh. They would further submit that the allegation against

the present applicant is that while they were in company of Nitesh Kumar

Singh, they assaulted the complainant by hands and fists and thus, the

offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC is not made out against

them.

Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon

paragraph No.25.10(g) of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the

matter of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat and Another,

reported in (2016) 1 SCC 152.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail

applications and the arguments submitted in this respect. It is submitted that

the present applicants and Nitesh Kumar Singh in furtherance of common

intention reached the spot and assaulted the complainant. Nitesh Kumar

Singh was already having an iron rod and he assaulted over the vital part of

the complainant and it was done in furtherance of common intention,

therefore, the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC is also made

out against all the applicants. He would further submit that the applicants in

all the three cases have criminal antecedents. Applicant - Gulam Ahmad @

Gudda in M.Cr.C(A) No. 1562 of 2022 - 4 criminal cases, applicant -

Vishwanath Singh in M.Cr.C(A) No. 1563 of 2022 - 1 criminal case and

applicant - Vikesh Kumar Singh in M.Cr.C(A) No. 1750 of 2022 - 7 criminal

cases, therefore, none of the applicants deserve to be enlarged on

anticipatory bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case

diary.

6. In case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held as under:

'25.10. We shall also reproduce para 112 of the judgment in Siddharam Satlingappa case, wherein the Court delineated

the following factors and parameters that need to be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail:

(a) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

(b) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(c) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

(d) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;

(e) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;

(f) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;

(g) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution, because overimplication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;

(h) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to free, fair and full investigation, and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;

(i) The Court should consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the

complainant;

(j) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused in entitled to an order of bail.'

7. Considering the previous criminal records of the applicants and further

considering the fact that the applicants in furtherance of common intention

have assaulted the complainant, therefore, I am not inclined to allow the bail

applications filed by the applicants in all the three cases.

8. Accordingly, the bail applications filed by the applicants in all the three

cases under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. are rejected.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi