Laxman Singh Raghuvanshi vs The State Of M.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 1364 MP

              HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
                    BENCH AT GWALIOR
                      M.Cr.C. No. 1757/2021
   ( Laxman Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & another )
                                  (1)

Gwalior, dated :07/04/2021
        Shri Pawan Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

       Shri Rohit Mishra, learned Additinal Advocate General for the

respondent-State.

Shri V.K. Jha, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

This petition under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C has been filed

by the petitioner for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2

vide order dated 15/12/2020 by the learned Sessions Judge, Vidisha

(M.P.) in B.A. No. 702/2020.

Pursuant to the FIR registered against respondent No.2 at

Crime No.99/2020 at Police Station Karariya District Vidisha

(M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 341, 323, 294,

506, 149, 148 and 147 of the IPC, respondent No.2 moved an

application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail before

the court below, which was allowed vide order dated 15/12/2020 and

respondent No.2 was enlarged on bail.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.2 has

been enlarged on bail on the basis of parity claimed with that of

Heny @ Ranjhana, who was granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.

No. 34054/2020 vide order dated 22/09/2020. The learned Trial

Court without considering the fact that in Heny @ Ranjhana's case

charge sheet was filed and investigation was over, whereas in the

prsent case charge sheet was filed under Section 299 of the Cr.P.C, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C. No. 1757/2021 ( Laxman Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & another )

respondent No.2 was absconding and was arrested recently within

one day, deeming the case of respondent No.2 identical to that of

Heny @ Ranjhana's case, enlarged her on bail.

Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of Apex

Court in the case of Abdul Basit @ Raju and others Vs Mohd.

Abdul Kadir Chaudhary & another (2014) 10 SCC 754 to

contend that since the order granting bail is illegal and perverse,

therefore, this Court being a superior to the Court which granted

bail, can cancel the same.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2

contended that none of the conditions have been violated by her.

Respondent No.2 is having parity with Heny @ Ranjhana's case,

therefore, the courts below has rightly granted bail. No case for

cancellation of bail is made out, therefore, the present petition

deserves to be dismissed. The Apex Court in the case of Bhagirath

Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1984 SC 372 and Raghubir

and others Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1987 SC 149 has

consistently held that the bail should not be cancelled on mere asking

and if there is no ground for cancellation of bail. Thus, he prays for

dismissal of the application.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

From the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that the petitioner

has not been able to make out any ground successfully for invoking

Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. No case for cancellation of bail is made HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C. No. 1757/2021 ( Laxman Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & another )

out.

Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.

(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge Prachi

PRACHI MISHRA 2021.04.08 14:46:34 +05'30'