Ashish Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3088 MP

                                                                   1
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                             BEFORE
                                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                        ON THE 4th OF MARCH, 2022

                                           MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8266 of 2022

                                 Between:-
                                 ASHISH SAHU S/O SHRI LATE SANTOSH SAHU ,
                                 AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
                                 R/O VILLAGE AND POST DEVARI PATPARA TEHSIL
                                 AND DISTRICT JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                                 (BY SHRI MANISH DATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE)

                                 AND

                                 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 POLICE STATION BARELA DISTRICT JABALPUR
                                 M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                                 (BY SHRI VIVEK LAKHERA, GA FOR STATE )

                              This anticipatory bail application coming on for hearing this day, the
                      court passed the following:
                                                                     ORDER

Shri Manish Datt, learned senior counsel with Shri Nishank Pal Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned G.A for the respondent/State.

Shri Rakesh Gupta, learned counsel for Objector.

This is second bail application filed by the applicant/Ashish Sahu under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.629/2021 registered at Police Station-Barela, District Jabalpur (MP) for offences punishable under Sections 307, 294, 34 of IPC.

Shri Manish Datt, learned senior counsel for applicant submits that first application (M.Cr.C No.64536/2021) was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to surrender before the trial court vide order dated 21/01/2022. It is submitted that his client wants an order on merits.

Learned senior counsel for applicant submits that in fact present applicant is a seller of land and complainant is a purchaser. Complainant had issued certain cheques toward the sale consideration of land in question, which were dishonoured. Therefore the complainant with a view to avoid his liability Signature SAN Not Verified to make payment has lodged this false complaint.

Digitally signed by TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Date: 2022.03.08 10:49:04 IST

It is submitted that place of aggression is shown to be the shop of the present applicant, which reveals that complainant had visited present applicant and it is not that present applicant had reached the place of complainant and acted as an aggressor. It is submitted that there are two lacerated wounds, two abrasions and two swellings on the body of the complainant, therefore, none of the ingredients of section 307 IPC are made out. At best it will be a case under section 324 IPC

Learned Government Advocate, Shri Vivek Lakhera submits that to constitute an offence under section 307 IPC, it is to be seen that whether any injury was caused on the vital part of the body and what was the intention of the aggressor. Nature of the injury is not material. It is submitted that it is the intention, which is sufficient to draw inference about the case under section 307 IPC. It is further submitted that the cheques which have been enclosed are respectively in the name of one Rajendra Prasad Sahu and Shree Mangalam Associates and not in the name of present applicant. Therefore this story of selling land and dishonor of cheques are not made out from the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Learned counsel for Objector has filed his objections pointing out that the nature of injuries was grievous. Complainant was treated at Barela and thereafter at Victoria Hospital Jabalpur. It is submitted that complainant had purchased said land situated at Village Devari Patparam three years prior to the incident but accused wanted to forcefully acquire that land and therefore were causing disputes with common intention and with a view to eliminate the complainant incident took place. If applicant is given benefit of anticipatory bail then he will not allow the complainant to lead independent evidence in the present case and pressurized him for compromise. It is also submitted that use of iron rods clearly reveals the intention of the applicant.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the case diary, it is evident that the ingredients of section 307 are that an act attempted must be such that if not prevented or intercepted, it would be sufficient to cause death of the victim. In case of Sarju Prasad Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1965 SC 843, it is held that to constitute the offence no injury need be caused to the victim. If in the course of the attempt bodily injury is caused the accused would be liable to enhanced punishment. To sustain charge under section 307 IPC intention to kill should be clearly proved like persistence of attack on the vital parts of the body or assailant being armed with dangerous weapons. The intention is not gatherable merely from the seriousness of the resultant injury. Same is the ratio of law laid down in the case of Bhagwandin & ors Vs State, AIR 1967 ALL 580.

In view of such judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court, I am of the opinion that looking to the nature of weapons deployed, nature of injuries becomes secondary and it cannot be said that applicant is falsely implicated on account of some rivalry, therefore this is not a fit case to extend benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Application fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE tarun