Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivraj Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 February, 2022
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 6898 of 2022
(SHIVRAJ AHIRWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 21-02-2022
Shri Sankalp Kochar, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Puneet Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Heard.
T h e applicant has been arrested on 16/11/2021 by Police Station
Gairatganj District Raisen (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.342/2021 for
the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 307/34 & 302 of IPC.
It is pointed out that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case
and has not committed any offence in any manner. Counsel for the applicant
submits that in view of the allegations made against the applicant, it is clear
that he has not caused any injury to the deceased Sukhram. He submits that the
applicant even reached the spot after sustaining injuries by deceased
Sukhram. He further submits that there was no meeting of minds and marpeet
was developed at the spur of moment; there was no prearrangement and
premeditated concert amongst the accused persons, therefore, the applicant
cannot be held vicariously liable for committing offence of murder, merely
because Section 34 of IPC has been registered against him. He submits that
from FIR and marg intimation, it is clear that applicant has only kicked the
complainant at his back, as such he cannot be held guilty for the offence of
Section 302 of IPC. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon
the judgments passed the Supreme Court in Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain and
another Vs. State of Gujarat, (2019) 14 SCC 339, Bishnupada Sarkar and
another Vs. State of West Bengal, (2012) 11 SCC, 597, Veeran and others
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 11 SCC 367, Nachhattar Singh and
others Vs. The State of Punjab, (1976) 1 SCC 750, Balbir Singh and
others Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2005) 9 SCC 299, Jasdeep Singh
Signature Not Verified
SAN
@ Jassu Vs. State of Punjab passed in Criminal Appeal No.1584/2021,
Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA
Date: 2022.02.25 14:56:23 IST
Hallu and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1974 SCC 1936 and
Jai Bhagwan and others Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1999, SC 1083. He
further submits that the applicant is ready to abide by all the terms and
conditions that may be imposed by this Court while considering the bail
application. On these grounds, he prays for grant of bail.
Per contra, counsel appearing for State has vehemently opposed the
prayer stating that there was active participation of the present applicant in the
commission of offence. He submits that it was a case of common intention,
therefore, offence under Section 34 has rightly been registered against him. In
support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the order passed in
Criminal Appeal No.97/2022 (Mannulal Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P.& others )
and Criminal Appeal No.95/2022 (Sunil Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and
others).
Considering the rival contentions of learned counsel for parties and
taking note of overall facts and circumstances existing in the case, since the
presence of present applicant has been acknowledged by the prosecution and
he has also participated in the crime, although not caused any injury to the
deceased but at this stage, when his custody period is insufficient as he was
arrested only on 16/11/2021 and offence of murder is involved, his
participation is also there, I am not inclined to grant bail to the application.
Application is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
sushma
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA
Date: 2022.02.25 14:56:23 IST
