Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vicim X vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2022
Author: Vishal Dhagat
1 MCRC-36016-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 36016 of 2021
(SMT.GIRJA PAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
MCRC/37715/2021
Jabalpur, Dated : 05-01-2022
Shri B.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sourabh Singh Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Shri Laven Arora, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.
Applicant has filed these application under Section 439(2) of the Code
o f Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail granted to respondents No.2
namely Gopal Pal and Ghanshyam Pal.
Application is filed on the grounds that respondents No.2 namely
Gopal Pal and Ghanshyam Pal are notorious criminals. Since the date of
incident, respondents No.2 were putting pressure on complainant through
Ghanshyam not to lodge FIR.
On 19.05.2020 Mate Pal, Raj Pal, Ghanshyam Pal and Kallu Pal arrived
at house of applicant armed with lathi and abused her. She was threatened
for dire consequences if she not compromise the matter with accused
persons. Applicant filed a complaint of incident on 20.05.2020 to
Superintendent of Police, Chattarpur MP. It is also submitted that Gopal Pal
and Mate Pal had tried to tamper with FSL and DNA report. In another
incident, Gopal Pal, Raju Pal, Hardayal Pal and Ghanshyam Pal had
restrained the complaint to go in Court and give evidence. Applicant made a
complaint and FIR was lodged against respondents No.2/accused persons by
police on 20.03.2021.
Learned counsel appearing for applicant relied on judgement passed by
Apex Court in case of Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and Another
reported in (2020) 2 SCC 118 and Myakala Dharmarajam and Others Vs.
State of Telangana and Another reported in (2020) 2 SCC 743.
Counsel appearing for applicant made emphasis on paragraph No.8 of
judgment of Myakala Dharmarajam (supra) which is reproduced as
under:-
2 MCRC-36016-2021
"8. In Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar this Court held that
bail can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty
by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the
course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence
or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar
activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there
is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to
ma k e himself scarce by going underground or becoming
unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place
himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. The above grounds
are illustrative and not exhaustive. It must also be remembered
that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of
bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the
individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to."
It is submitted that case of applicant is covered by Clause-III and IV of
condition mentioned in case of Raghubir Singh (supra). It this
circumstances, he prays for cancellation of bail granted to respondents No.2
namely Gopal Pal and Ghanshyam Pal.
Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 opposed the
application and submitted whole matter has been cooked up by the applicant
for cancellation of bail. It is further submitted that prosecutrix was cross-
examined in Court where she has made admission that she came to Court for
giving evidence. Admission in cross-examination shows that false FIR has
been lodged against respondents. Respondents had not made any attempt to
tamper with the evidence or threaten the applicant. In said circumstances,
application filed by the applicant may be dismissed.
Heard the counsel for the parties.
Perused the cross-examination of prosecutrix.
In paragraph No.7 of cross-examination, prosecutrix has stated that it
i s wrong to say that in month of March, 2021 she came to Court in
Chattarpur along with her mother Droupati and sister-in-law Geeta Raja. On
her own she stated that she had come to give statement but statement was not
recorded. She has denied that she has lodged a false report in March, 2021.
She has also asserted that accused persons were not allowing her to give her
3 MCRC-36016-2021
statement in Court, therefore, FIR was lodged.
Considering the cross-examination and FIR which have been filed by
applicant, it cannot be said that FIR is false. Police has registered FIR against
aforesaid respondents for threatening the witnesses and not allowing the
prosecutrix to go to the Court. The case of applicant is covered by Clause-III
and IV of Raghubir Singh (Supra). Allegation against the respondents are
serious and grave in nature and respondents have long criminal history,
therefore, in the interest of justice and for fair trial of the case, applications
under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by applicant
are allowed.
Bail granted to respondent No.2 namely Gopal Pal vide order dated
23.02.2021 passed in MCRC No.34089/2020 and to respondent No.2 namely
Ghanshyam Pal vide order dated 05.08.2020 passed in MCRC
No.24130/2020 and bail bonds of said respondents are cancelled.
A copy of this order be sent to trial Court for compliance and
necessary action.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
shabana
Digitally signed by RASHMI RONALD VICTOR
Date: 2022.01.11 10:42:37 +05'30'
