Karan Tandon vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7012 MP

                                    1                           MCRC-51831-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                  MCRC-51831-2021
                    (KARAN TANDON Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                 MCRC/51831/2021

Jabalpur, Dated : 29-10-2021
      Mr. Ajay Mishra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey,
Advocate for the applicants.
      Mr. Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Mr. Manish Datt, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yogesh Soni, Advocate for the objector.

Heard.

These are the first applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the applicants for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.499/2021 registered at Police Station Barela, District Jabalpur, for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are in jail since 06.09.2021 and 12.09.2021 respectively. He submits that the alleged incident occurred in a sudden provocation that too at about 2:30 am. when

some altercations ensued between applicant No.1 and the complainant. He submits that as per the complaint made by the complainant, at the time of incident, applicant No.1 was armed with baseball bat whereas applicant No.2 was with lathi and both have assaulted the complainant, cased injuries on his head. He also submits that one injury was caused on the occipital region and another one was on the forehead region of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant given the marg intimation and at that time, he was fully conscious and the FIR was also lodged at about 5:00 am. on the date of incident and from the contents of FIR, it can be easily gathered that the same got registered with open mind showing that the complainant was in sense at that time. He further submits that considering the injuries sustained by the complainant and as per the report of the doctor, it is clear that the injuries 2 MCRC-51831-2021 were not fatal and also not reported as grievous in nature. He submits that the doctor nowhere has mentioned that the injuries sustained by the complainant were danger to life, on the contrary, it was opined by the doctor that all the injuries sustained by the complainant were simple in nature. He submits that initially when the police was intimated, the complainant was not aware as to who has assaulted him, but, later on he has developed the story and

implicated the applicants. Mr. Mishra further submits that on 05.09.2021, the complainant was admitted in the hospital and on 09.09.2021, he got discharged. He submits that the police has also taken opinion from the doctors of the hospital about the status of the injuries sustained by the complainant, but opinion of the doctors very clearly indicates that the complainant had not suffered any fracture and all the injuries were simple in nature. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of this Court towards the prescription of the doctor written during the treatment of the complainant and also about the medicines prescribed therein. He also submits that as per the prosecution story, at the time of incident, the father of applicant No.1 was running a security agency and other employees of the agency were also available on the spot who were armed with gun, etc. and had it been an intention of the applicants to kill the complainant, then the applicants and other employees who were workers of security agency, would have been used the arm and weapon and hurt the complainant but that was not done because there was no intention with applicants to seriously hurt the complainant, however, it was only a sudden fight occurred between young boys. Learned senior counsel very categorically submits since no fracture is found over the body of the complainant, therefore, looking to the size of the injuries found over the head of the complainant, offence under Section 307 is not made out against them.

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that considering the nature of offence, the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail.

                                   3                           MCRC-51831-2021
      Mr.    Datt,    learned    Senior    Advocate      appearing    for    the

complainant/objector has also opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and has drawn attention of this Court towards the definition of grievous hurt provided under Section 320 of the IPC and according to him, the case of the complainant falls within those clauses in which explanation-viii also specifies that merely because no fracture is found, does not mean that the complaint does not sustain any grievous injury. He submits that two injuries were found over the head of the complainant and looking to size of the injuries, it is clear that those injuries were grievous in nature. He has also filed the objection along with several documents and has also filed the report of the CT Scan of the complainant. He submits that MLC

report was given by a doctor who was dentist, therefore, looking to the injuries, a neurosurgeon was also called namely Dr. Alok Agrawal. According to Mr. Datt, had it been a case of simple injury, then there would be no reason for calling the special surgeon. He submits that the Investigating Officer deliberately not submitted the documents of Dr. Alok Agrwal, who was the specialist and was called to examine the complainant along with the charge- sheet. He submits that merely because the patient was hospitalized for four days that does mean that the nature of injuries sustained could be of simple in nature. In support of his contention, learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance upon several judgments of the Supreme Court in which the Supreme Court has observed that the proof of grievous or life threatening hurt is not a sin qua non for offence under Section 307 of IPC, the intention of the accused can be ascertained from actual injuries and surrounding circumstances. He submits that causing injuries with the help of baseball bat and lathi over the head that too by the persons who were involved in another criminal case, speaks about their intention that they wanted to kill the complainant. He submits that if the whole story of prosecution is scrutinized, then it could be easily gathered that the workers of security agency were known to be bouncers and pulled away the complainant with them and 4 MCRC-51831-2021 produced before the applicants and thereafter they all started beating the complainant and caused several injuries over his body. He submits that there was every possibility that the complainant could suffer death because of excessive bleeding. He submits that the applicants belong to a very rich family having influence even over the investigating agency and they got the investigation completed as per their own convenience and placed the material along with the charge-sheet which was useful for them. He also submits that the criminal case registered against the applicants shows their attitude and their stubbornness. He has also submitted that the complainant has also filed a writ petition before the Court which was disposed of directing the Superintendent of Police to supervise the investigation already done and if any lacuna is found by the said authority, then additional charge-sheet be also produced.

Faced with this, Mr. Mishra submits that the expert doctor has also examined the complainant and those examinations slips are also available on record indicating the name of neurosurgeon as Dr. Alok Agrawal, but even after examining the complainant by Dr. Alok Agrawal, none of the documents reveal that even Dr. Alok Agrawal has opined and given opinion that the injuries sustained by the complainant were grievous and danger to life. He submits that the doctor who was said to be a specialist (Neurosurgeon) could have mentioned about the nature of injuries, but he has not done so, therefore, the submissions made by learned Senior Advocate for the objector does not have any substance. He submits that since the applicants are in jail, therefore, whatever conditions will be imposed by this Court while releasing them on bail, they would abide them and if any condition as imposed is violated by them, then this Court may direct for cancellation of their bail.

Considering the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and as per the opinion given by the doctor, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that the applicants since are in jail w.e.f. 06.09.2021 and 12.09.2021 and suffered almost two months in jail, therefore, 5 MCRC-51831-2021 they are entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the applications filed by the applicants are hereby allowed subject to the conditions that after releasing on bail, if the applicants create any problem or try to influence the trial by approaching the witnesses of case or to give any type of threat to them, then the bail granted to them shall stand cancelled automatically. The applicants are further directed that they will not commit any such type of offence in future.

It is directed that the applicants be released on bail upon their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) 'each' with one solvent surety 'each' of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

It is further directed that the applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Certified copy as per rules.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Devashish

DEVASHISH MISHRA 2021.10.30 17:14:15 +05'30'