Mohit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2895 MP

                                 - : 1 :-
                                                           CRA No.3745/2021



HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
       (SINGLE BENCH : HON. Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)

                         CRA No. 3745 of 2021
             (Mohit S/o. Kamlesh Namdev V/s. State of M.P.)

Date: 01.07.2021 :
        Applicant by Deepak Rawal, Advocate.
        Respondent/State by Shri Palash Choudhary, Panel Advocate.
        Heard the learned counsel for the parties through video
conferencing.
                               ORDER

This is an appeal u/s. 14-A of Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) [ST SC (PA)]Act filed by the appellant - Mohit S/o. Kamlesh Namdev against order dated 16.6.2021 passed by Special Judge (SC ST) whereby his application filed u/s. 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail has been rejected. The appellant is in custody since 13.10.2020 in connection with Crime No. 776/2020 registered at Police Station Chandan Nagar, Indore for the offence/s punishable u/s. 449, 302, 452, 323, 294, 34 of the IPC and u/s. 3(2)(v) of ST ST (PA) Act.

As per the prosecution story, on 11.10.2020 near about at 9 pm., the complainant - Gokul along with his son - Abhishek was in his house. Abhishek informed his father Gokul that today in the day-time Mohit, Shubham and Dilip were demanding money from him. At about 9 pm. Dilip armed with knife; Mohit and Shubham armed with sticks entered inside the house of the complainant and started abusing by filthy language. When complainant - Gokul objected to it, Mohit and Shubham gave a blow by stick due to which he fell down. Abhishek ran away inside the house, then Dilip followed him and inflicted the knife on his chest and thereafter they all left the house by threatening the complainant. Abhishek was taken to the hospital where he succumbed to the injury. Thereafter the complainant lodged the report against all the three accused i.e. present appellant and two others.

- : 2 :-

CRA No.3745/2021

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the only allegation against the present appellant is that he said to have assaulted Gokul by stick, but as per MLC report, he did not sustain any injury. Co-accused Dilip inflicted the fatal injury to Abhishek, therefore, the present appellant has been implicated with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC. There was no common intention to cause murder of Abhishek. The appellant is aged about 22 years. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance over the judgment of apex Court in the case of Harjit Singh V/s. State of Punjab : AIR 2002 SC 3040. He, therefore, prayed for grant of bail to the appellant.

On the other hand, learned Panel Advocate appearing for the respondent/State opposes the prayer by submitting that the appellant gave a block by stick on Gokul due to which he fell down and tried to prevent the appellant and others to save his son. They all entered inside the house of Gokul in furtherance of common intention and committed the crime. Hence, the appellant is not entitled for bail.

Recently, in the case of Asharam TiwariV/s. State of M.P. : (2021) 2 SCC 608 in similar facts and circumstances, the apex Court has held that common intention is evident from the accused persons coming to the lands of PW 1 armed and intimidating him to return the lands followed by assault upon him and those who came to his rescue. Para 11 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below :

"11. The number and nature of hard blunt injuries on the two deceased make it apparent that the assailants were more than one. Injuries by hard and blunt substance corroborate the evidence of the injured witnesses and PW 2 of assault on the two deceased by lathis also. Common intention is evident from the accused persons coming to the lands of PW 1 armed and intimidating him to return the lands followed by assault upon him and those who came to his rescue. The accused then immediately proceeded to the house of the second deceased. The recovery of a bloodstained lathi and bloodstained clothes of the appellant on his confession, leaves us satisfied, on a cumulative appreciation of the evidence, that the accused were actuated by a common intention. The conviction of the appellant therefore calls for no interference."

In the present case, present appellant and Shubham gave a blow by

- : 3 :-

CRA No.3745/2021

stick on the head of the complainant - Gokul due to which he fell down and meanwhile Dilip followed the deceased and inflicted the knife on his chest. They all entered in the house of the complainant with a common intention. Hence at this stage, the appellant is not entitled for bail.

Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the appellant may revive the prayer after examination of complainant - Gokul.

( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE Alok/-

Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV Date: 2021.07.02 18:39:43 +05'30'