Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shishupal Gujar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 March, 2022
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
MCRC No. 14221 of 2022
(SHISHUPAL GUJAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 29-03-2022
Shri Jayant Neekhra, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vijay Soni, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Shri Aman Dawra, counsel for the objector.
This first application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
has been filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail in connection with Crime
No.758/2021 registered at Police Station Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur, for the
offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 506, 458, 325,
294, 326, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25, 27,30 of Arms Act, 1959.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since
08/10/2021. He submits that in an open fight, the applicant as well as complainant
both have sustained injuries and First Information Report was lodged by them
against each other. He submits that however in the present crime number, offence
under Section 302 of the IPC has also been registered because in the fight took
place infront of residence of the applicant, the complainant party sustained injuries
with fire arms and out of the same, two persons succumbed. He submits that from
the contents of FIR of Crime No.758/2021, it is clear that the incident occurred in
two places as initially the applicant went to tin-shade where the complainant party
was sitting and some altercation took place between them, however, at that time,
the applicant ran away from the spot and thereafter, the complainant party came
infront of the house of Purshottam Gurjar and Chain Singh then open fight took
place between them, in which Purshottam Gurjar and Chain Singh said to have
used the fire arms and fired gunshots upon Neeraj Gurjar and Bhaiya Ji Gurjar,
who thereafter died.
Counsel for the applicant submits that it was a sudden provocation and the
applicant was not aware of the fact that anybody from his side would use fire arms
and assault the opposite party by gunshots. He further submits that the applicant at
Signature Not Verified
SAN
the time of incident was armed with Farsa and this fact can be ascertained from
the contents of FIR and also from the statement of the witnesses recorded under
Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA
Date: 2022.03.31 13:13:25 IST
Section 161 of the CrPC. He submits that though the applicant was armed Farsa,
but no injuries of Farsa have been found over the body of the deceased and as per
the case for prosecution deceased died due to gun shot injury. Therefore, he prays
that keeping in mind the applicants' custody period, his limited role in the fight and
the fact that the complainant party was the aggressor one, he is entitled to be
released on bail.
Counsel for the applicant relied upon a judgment reported in AIR 1976 SC
912 (Puran Vs. State of Rajasthan) in which Supreme Court has observed that
when there is a case of open fight and several persons were involved in the crime
having different nature of weapons and fight started due to sudden provocation
then individual act of the accused has to be seen. He has also relied upon a
decision reported in AIR 1980 SC 573 (Maridasan and others Vs. State of
Tamil Nadu).
O n the other hand, Panel Lawyer while opposing the prayer of bail has
submitted that merely because the applicant at the time of incident was armed with
Farsa does not mean that he can be enlarged on bail and his individual act shall not
be taken note of under the facts and circumstances of the case when offence under
Section 149 has been registered against him.
Counsel for the objector has also opposed the prayer of bail and submitted
that the applicant has actively participated in the crime. He has submitted that only
because the applicant used Farsa does not mean that his role in the crime was
limited because at the time of incident, the co-accused persons who were present
along with the applicant caused gunshot injuries to the deceased, therefore, this
application deserves to be dismissed.
Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties,
from the contents of FIR as also the statement of the witnesses recorded under
Section 161 of the CrPC, it is clear that the incident occurred in two phases. First
phase took place at tin-shade which was the area within the premises of
complainant party and in that phase no severe injury was caused to any of the party
Signature Not Verified
whereas second phase took place in front of the house of Purshottam Gurjar and
SAN
Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA
Chain Singh who belonged to the applicant party and fire arms were used in that
Date: 2022.03.31 13:13:25 IST
phase as the complainant party came to their place. So far as the case of the
applicant is concerned, it was an open fight, counter case has also been registered
vide Crime No.759/2021 on the date of incident, therefore, keeping in mind the
applicant' limited role in the crime as he caused injuries only with the help of
Farsa, I am inclined to enlarge him on bail. Thus, without commenting anything on
the merits of the case, this application is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with one solvent
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned for his
appearance on the dates given by it.
I t 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
sushma
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA
Date: 2022.03.31 13:13:25 IST
