Dhan Singh Prajapati vs Mangal Singh Kushwah
2021 Latest Caselaw 5679 MP

                                   1



              HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     M.Cr.C. No.11499/2021
        (Dhansingh Prajapati Vs. State of M.P. and Anr.)
Gwalior, Dated:20.09.2021
      Shri     Shivam    Savita,       learned   counsel   for    the
applicant/complainant.
      Smt. Monika Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.1

accused.

Shri B.S. Gaur, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2/State.

The instant application under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. has

been preferred at the instance of applicant seeking cancellation of

bail of respondent No.1/accused who was granted bail vide order

dated 08.07.2020 passed in CRA. No.3823/2020 by this court.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondent

No.1/accused is a habitual offender. Some more criminal cases have

also been registered against him. Counsel referred the FIR vide

Crime No.72/2020 at Police Station- Bhaguapura, District Datia for

alleged offence under Sections 323, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC and

another FIR vide Crime No.166/2020 at Police Station Tharet,

District Datia for alleged offence under Section 25 (1-A) of Arms

Act in which anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has

already been dismissed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide

order dated 08.02.2021 in M.Cr.C. No.6255/2021. Respondent

No.1/accused violated the condition of anticipatory bail granted

earlier and he is evading his arrest in another crime therefore, he

prayed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the

respondent No.1/accused.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State supported the

submissions of counsel for the applicant and submitted that suitable

action shall be taken against the accused/respondent No.1. Thus

prayed for allowing the application.

Counsel for the accused/respondent No.1 opposed the prayer

on the ground that earlier a case was registered against the

respondent No.1 for the offence under Sections 323, 294, 506 and

34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(d) and 3(1)(dh) of the Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in which

anticipatory bail was granted by this Court but thereafter, the cases,

which registered against the respondent No.1 are different and

committed with other persons, not with the present applicant. So far

as first offence registered vide Crime No.72/2020 under Sections

323, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC is concerned, accused pleaded that plea

of alibi as the time when this incident is said to have been

committed at that time he was at his work place and hosting the

flag.

It is further submitted by counsel for the accused that so far as

another case registered under Section 25 (1-A) of Arms Act is

concerned, the respondent No.1/accused has been falsely implicated

in the case which reflects from the statement of seizure witness

recorded before the trial Court namely Sarnam in which he turned

hostile and did not support the prosecution story. Therefore, the

applicant is trying to implicate respondent No.1/accused somehow

in false cases.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/accused relied upon

the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of State of

Rajasthan Vs. Mubin,2011 Cr.L.J.3850, wherein it has been held

that cause for successfully seeking cancellation of bail on the

ground of commission of subsequent offence gets matured only

when the subsequent offence ripen into framing of charge.

Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of present application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered

the arguments advanced by them.

The case in hand pertains cancellation of bail filed by the

applicant/complainant alleging that after release on bail in the

present matter vide order dated 08.07.2020, accused has committed

two other offences in which one of the offence applicant is

absconding. So far as the contention of applicant in relation to

registration of subsequent offences is concerned, counsel for the

accused submitted that all the subsequent offences have been got

registered by the applicant against the respondent No.1/accused so

as to embarrass and harass him. Statement recorded before the trial

court in the case registered under Sections 25(1-A) of the Arms Act,

the seizure witness namely Sarnam deposed before the court that

alleged weapon was not recovered in front of him and he has no

knowledge about the recovery of the said weapons. Plea of alibi has

also been taken by the counsel for the respondent No.1/accused in

relation to another subsequent offence registered against him.

Matter pertains to personal liberty and since the offence

registered subsequently against the respondent No.1 is minor in

nature and alleged stated to be false one. Further, learned counsel

for the applicant does not show any concrete violation of condition

of bail order. Apart from this, subsequent offence has also been

registered against the respondent No.1, in which the complainant is

different than the present one. If offence is registered subsequently

against the respondent No.1, then he will face trial for said offence.

In the considered opinion of this court, no ground warranting

cancellation of bail granted earlier by this court vide order

08.07.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.3823/2020 is made out.

Application stands rejected accordingly.

                                                     (Anand Pathak)
Ashish*                                                  Judge