Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mr. Balli @ Vinod Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 13TH OF OCTOBER, 2022
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.23232 OF
2022
Between:-
MR. BALLI @ VINOD TIWARI S/O
SHRI SURENDRA TIWARI, AGED 46
YEARS, OCCUPATION
AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF
GRAM BADONKALA, THANA
GORAGHAT, DISTRICT DATIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
........APPLICANT
(BY SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH POLICE STATION
JIGNA DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
........RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI C.P. SINGH- PANEL LAWYER)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This application coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed
2
the following:
ORDER
Case diary is available.
This first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed
for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested on 12.6.2020 in connection with
Crime No.10/2020 registered at Police Station Jigna, District Datia for
offence under Section 307 of IPC, 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and under
Section 25(1-b)(a) of the Arms Act.
The applicant was granted bail by this Court by order dated
10.5.2022 on furnishing cash surety of Rs.3,00,000/-. Thereafter, the
applicant preferred a Criminal Appeal No.1728/2022 before the Supreme
Court of India against the stringent condition of furnishing cash surety in
the sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.
The Supreme Court by order dated 30.9.2022 has allowed the
criminal appeal and has set aside the entire order with a direction to
reconsider the case for grant of bail.
Accordingly, the counsel for the parties are heard afresh on the
question of bail.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according to the
prosecution case, the police party received an information about the
movements of the miscreants and, accordingly when they tried to
apprehend them, they retaliated and gunshots were fired at the police
party. The SHO narrowly escaped from the gunshots fired by the accused
party. The police also fired gunshots. One miscreant was found injured
with .12 bore double barrel Adhiya who disclosed his name as Anil
Yadav. He had sustained injury in his left leg while making an attempt to
run away from hill area. Similarly one Satish @ Rammilan Yadav was
also arrested from the spot and was found in possession of .315 bore
katta with three live cartridges whereas it is alleged that three miscreants
succeeded in running away from hill area. The names of the remaining
miscreants were disclosed by co-accused persons. The aforesaid incident
took place on 22.1.2020 and the FIR was lodged on the very same day
including the name of the applicant as one of the miscreants who had run
away. Thereafter the applicant was arrested on 12.6.2020. His statement
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded in which he disclosed
that after his arrest in Crime No.27/2020 registered at Police Station
Sinawal, his .12 bore Adhiya with two live cartridges have been seized in
the said offence. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail for the last
more than two years and his bail application may be considered
sympathetically.
Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel
for the respondent/State. It is submitted that the applicant has a criminal
history.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
From the memorandum given by the applicant it is clear that one
Crime No.27/2020 has also been registered against him in Police Station
Sinawal but the police has sent the criminal antecedents of the applicant
which does not include the said offence. Thus, it is clear that the police
has not taken care to collect the complete criminal history of the
applicant. Even otherwise following criminal antecedents of the applicant
have been sent by the police along with the case diary:
vkjksih & cYyh mQZ fouksn frokjh iq= lqjsUnz mez& 40 lky fu- xzke cM+kSudyk
Fkkuk xksjk?kkV ftyk nfr;kA
Ø- Fkkuk vijk/k Ø- /kkjk fjekdZ
1 xksjk?kkV [email protected] 323]324]504]34]Hkknfo- jkthuke
2 xksjk?kkV [email protected] 341]294]323]506 ch] 34 Hkknfo- nks"keqDr
3 xksjk?kkV [email protected] 341]294]323]506 ch] 34 Hkknfo- nks"keqDr
4 xksjk?kkV [email protected] 307]147]148]149 Hkknfo- [email protected] vkElZ U;k;ky;
,DV fopkjk/khu
5 xksjk?kkV [email protected] 294]327]506 ch] Hkknfo- nks"keqDr
6 xksjk?kkV [email protected] 327]34 Hkknfo- U;k;ky;
fopkjk/khu
7 xksjk?kkV [email protected] [email protected] vkElZ ,DV U;k;ky;
fopkjk/khu
8 xksjk?kkV [email protected] 323]504]324]34 Hkknfo- U;k;ky;
fopkjk/khu
9 xksjk?kkV [email protected] 294]336]506 ch Hkknfo- U;k;ky;
fopkjk/khu
10 xksjk?kkV [email protected] [email protected] vkElZ ,DV U;k;ky;
fopkjk/khu
11 xksjk?kkV [email protected] 323]294]506]34 Hkknfo- U;k;ky;
fopkjk/khu
12 xksjk?kkV [email protected] 302]341]294]147]148]149 Hkknfo- U;k;ky;
fopkjk/khu
13 ftxuk [email protected] 307 Hkknfo- 11]13 ,eihMhihds ,DV U;k;ky;
[email protected] vkElZ ,DV fopkjk/khu
Fkkuk izHkkjh
Fkkuk&ftxuk] ftyk𝔫k ¼e-iz-½
Co-accused Anil Yadav who was arrested from the spot also has a
criminal history and the following offences were registered against him:
uke vkjksih & vfuy iq= Lo- vk'kkjke ;kno mez 32 lky fuoklh jkojh Fkkuk flukoy
ftyk nfr;kA
Ø- Fkkuk vijk/k Ø- /kkjk orZeku fLFkfr
1 flukoy [email protected] 454]511]380 rkfg U;k;ky;
fopkjk/khu gSA
2 fp:yk [email protected] 392 rkfg 10 o"kZ dh ltk
3 flfoy ykbu [email protected] 392 rkfg] 11]13 ,eihMhihds ,DV U;k;ky;
nfr;k 25]27 vkElZ ,DV fopkjk/khu gSA
4 xksanu [email protected] 147]148]149]302 rkfg U;k;ky;
fopkjk/khu gSA
5 Fkkuk djSjk [email protected] 395]397] rkfg 11]13 U;k;ky;
ftyk f'koiqjh ,eihMhihds ,DV fopkjk/khu gSA
6 Fkkuk djSjk [email protected] 147]148]149]307 rkfg 25]27 U;k;ky;
ftyk f'koiqjh vkElZ ,DV fopkjk/khu gSA
7 ljlbZ [email protected] 302]395 rkfg 25]27 vkElZ ,DV U;k;ky;
fopkjk/khu gSA
8 djSjk ftyk [email protected] 394]397 rkfg 11]13] U;k;ky;
f'koiqjh ,eihMhihds ,DV fopkjk/khu gSA
9 dksrokyh [email protected] 147]148]149]307] rkfg U;k;ky;
fopkjk/khu gSA
10 flukoy [email protected] 323]294]336]506]34 rkfg U;k;ky;
fopkjk/khu gSA
11 flukoy [email protected] 394]395 rkfg 11]13] U;k;ky;
,eihMhihds ,DV 25]27 vkElZ ,DV fopkjk/khu gSA
12 flukoy [email protected] 307]34]rkfg] 11]13 ,eihMhihds U;k;ky;
,DV 25]27 vkElZ ,DV fopkjk/khu gSA
13 xksjk?kkV [email protected] 400 rkfg 11]13 ,eihMhihds ,DV U;k;ky;
25]27]29]13d vkElZ ,DV fopkjk/khu gSA
14 cMkSuh [email protected] 336]147]148]149]323]294]506] rkfg U;k;ky;
fopkjk/khu gSA
15 ftxuk [email protected] 307]148]148]149 rkfg 25]27 U;k;ky;
vkElZ ,DV 11]13 ,eihMhihds ,DV fopkjk/khu gSA
16 dksrokyh [email protected] 302]34 rkfg U;k;ky;
fopkjk/khu gSA
17 dksrokyh [email protected] 307]327]34 rkfg 3¼2½]5 U;k;ky;
,[email protected] ,lVh ,DV fopkjk/khu gSA
18 ftxuk [email protected] 365]368]330]347]120ch] 394 rkfg U;k;ky;
11]13 ,eihMhihds ,DV fopkjk/khu gSA
19 ftxuk [email protected] 307]323]294]147]148]149 rkfg U;k;ky;
fopkjk/khu gSA
20 dksrokyh [email protected] 399]400]402 rkfg 11]13 U;k;ky;
,eihMhihds ,DV 25]27 vkElZ ,DV fopkjk/khu gSA
21 fp:yk [email protected] 195¼d½]294]506 rkfg U;k;ky;
fopkjk/khu gSA
22 ftxuk [email protected] 307 Hkknfo 11]13 ,eihMhihds ,DV foospuk/khu gSaA
25]27 vkElZ ,DV
Fkkuk izHkkjh
Fkkuk ftxuk ftyk nfr;k ¼e-iz½
From the criminal history of the applicant as well as the co-accused
persons it is clear that the applicant was not only in the company of hard
core criminal but he himself has a criminal history involving offence
under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC also apart from the offence under
Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant
has been acquitted in 10 criminal cases. However, he fairly conceded that
he has no document to support his contention.
Considering the fact that the applicant went absconding after the
offence in question and also has committed various heinous offences
including under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC and since the applicant was
in jail in connection with other offences also, therefore, it cannot be said
that he is in jail for the last two years in connection with the present case
only, this Court is of the considered opinion that looking to the conduct
of the applicant as well as the criminal antecedents he is not entitled for
bail. However, liberty is granted to revive the prayer along with the
judgments of acquittal as pleaded by the counsel for the applicant.
The application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
(alok)
ALOK KUMAR
2022.10.14 16:40:23 +05'30'
