Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkishore @ Kallu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 September, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 13th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 905 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
RAMKISHORE @ KALLU S/O SHRI
SURENDRA SINGH SIKARWAR, AGED ABOUT
37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
NANDPURA P.S. DEVGARH, PARGANA
JOURA, MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI R.K.SHARMA - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI ABHIJEET
SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH POLICE STATION JOURA
MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUBHASH SINGH @ PAPPU SINGH S/O SHRI
DARU SINGH SIKARWAR NANDPURA, AT
PRESENT SIDH NAGAR MORENA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
(SHRI R.S.KUSHWAHA-DY ADVOCATE GENERAL ..RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAKHAR DHENGULA AND SHRI RAVI VALLABH
TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The appellant has filed this criminal appeal under Section 14-
A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 being aggrieved by order dated 17.01.2022,
passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Morena whereby, bail application
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. of appellant has been rejected.
2. Appellant has been arrested on 19.10.2021 by the Police
Station- Jaura, Distrit Morena in connection with Crime
No.513/2019, registered in relation to the offence punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 212, 216, 302, 307, 420, 427, 468, 470, 149 of
IPC and Sections Section 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act and Section 11/13
of MPDVPK Act and Section 25/27 of Arms Act.
3. Learned Senior counsel refers the order dated 07.08.2023
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cr.A.No.2291/2023 arising
out of SLP (Cri.) No.1884/2022 Subhash Singh @ Pappu Singh Vs.
Ramkishore @ Kallu and another and submits that matter is to be
heard on merits in view of the said order.
4. Since matter is remanded back from the Hon'ble Apex Court
therefore, with consent matter heard finally today itself.
5. It is the submission of learned Senior counsel for the
appellant that appellant is facing trial on the allegations referred
above. Earlier some co-accused have been given benefit of bail vide
order dated 13.12.2021 passed in CRA No.6941/2021, (Ramraj
Singh @ Pappu Vs. State of M.P.), CRA No.7655/2021 (Neeraj @
Neeru Vs. State of M.P.), CRA.7713/2021 (Ravi Vs. State of M.P.)
and CRA No.7775/2021 (Ramu @ Somendra Vs. State of M.P.) and
therefore, appellant also sought parity. Vide order dated 27.01.2022
passed in present appeal, coordinate Bench allowed the appeal
preferred by the appellant and granted bail on the basis of parity.
The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court and
vide order dated 07.08.2023, matter is being remanded back.
Therefore, it amounts to hearing on cancellation of bail and
therefore, according to learned Senior counsel, this Court can only
consider the factors as referred by the Apex Court in the case of
Abdul Basit Vs. Md. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary reported in (2014)
10 SCC 754.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the case of
Bhagirathsing Judega Vs. State of Gujrat AIR (1984) SC 372, Dolat
Ram and Ors. vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) SCC 349, Ramcharan v.
State of M.P, 2004 (13) SCC 617 and Savitri Agarwal and Ors. Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 325. According to him,
no such circumfactors /circumstances exist to recall the earlier
order dated 27.01.2022 which amounts to cancellation of bail.
7. It is further submitted that appellant is on bail since last about
more than 1 year and 6 months (now 1 year and 8 months) and
therefore, this fact finds mention in order dated 07.08.2023 and
therefore, he has not misused the liberty by way of grant of bail by
this Court. Therefore, this factor goes in favour of appellant.
Another ground raised by the counsel for the appellant is, delay in
trial. According to him, complainant is not turning up for
deposition. However, learned senior counsel for the appellant fairly
submits that the case is not of parity vis-a-vis other co-accused who
were granted benefit of bail as referred above.
8. It is the submission of learned Senior counsel for the
appellant that appellant had no previous enmity with the deceased-
Shivcharan Shakya and it is highly improbable that at the time of
indiscreet firing, complainant side remembered the exact weapon
and the source from where the bullets hit the victims. Since,
appellant and complainant side shared electoral rivalry of
concerned Gram Panchayat and appellant is husband of present
Sarpanch therefore, this false case has been registered.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State
vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that role of appellant
is specifically narrated in FIR and statement of witnesses. He was
instrumental in hatching the conspiracy and with premeditated mind
encircled the complainant side and opened fire in-discriminatory
After arrest, one 315 bore gun with one live cartridge were seized
from the possession of appellant. Appellant bears criminal record of
two cases although of minor denomination. Not only this, appellant
remained in absconsion since the date of incident dated 07.08.2019
and arrested after more than two years on 19.10.2021 when
proceedings under Sections 82/83 of Cr.P.C. were undertaken and
award of Rs.30,000/- was declared by the Superintendent of Police
Morena over his arrest. He stressed over the fact that there is no
parity vis-a-vis other co-accused who were given benefit of bail. He
prayed for dismissal of bail application.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant also
opposed the prayer and submitted that they are cooperating in trial
and ready to appear before the trial Court. Earlier accused persons
tried to get the case adjourned on the pretext or other. Because of
their conduct, bail application of one of the co-accused Mukesh
stands cancelled by the trial Court. He relied upon the judgment of
Apex Court in the case of Centrum Financial Services Limited
Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 103 and
Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana
(Koli) and Anr., (2021) 6 SCC 230. According to him, concept of
parity has been discussed into it. He prayed for dismissal of
application.
11. Learned counsel for the complainant further relied upon the
Section 301 of IPC to establish the principle of transfer of malice.
According to him no such benefit can be given to the accused on
the basis of his misdeed, even if some other person has died.
12. Heard the counsel for the parties at length and perused the
case diary.
13. This is the case where appellant/accused is before this Court
seeking bail. Perusal of order dated 07.08.2023 passed by Hon'ble
Apex Court indicates that present appellant is required to be heard
on its own merits. Therefore, contention of counsel for the appellant
so far as it relates to scope of hearing of this bail application
appears to be misplaced. Reason is obvious. This is not a case
where this Court is hearing the application for cancellation of bail.
It is a case for hearing on bail simplicitor. Since, matter has been
remanded back from the Apex Court therefore, this Court is legally
bound to hear the matter on its own merits as per the directions.
Therefore, judgment relied upon by the learned Senior counsel for
the appellant as pronounced in the case of Abdul Basit (supra) or
other judgments are not applicable in the present set of facts. This
application is to be heard afresh on its own merits.
14. So far as role of appellant prima facie in the present case is
concerned, it appears that complainant in his FIR and statement
specifically mentioned the name of appellant alongwith his role. He
was instrumental in opening indiscreet spree of firing which
resulted into death of a pillion rider and two other persons suffered
injuries therefore, offence is not only of 302 of IPC but also of 307
of IPC. Nature of offence is heinous to the extent where public
order and tranquility was challenged and disturbed by the act of
appellant.
15. So far as plea of parity is concerned, it appears that both the
parties are agreed upon the fact that no parity exist as such. Other
co-accused have been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench
after they suffered two years of incarceration as pretrial detention.
Here in the present case, only after three months, appellant was
enlarged on bail that too when appellant appears to be the kingpin
of the offence.
16. Cumulatively, looking to the role of appellant, seizure of
weapon and description of witnesses, no case for grant of bail is
made out. Hence, bail application stands dismissed.
17. Since, vide order dated 07.08.2023 while remanding the
matter, Hon'ble Apex Court has treated the order dated 27.01.2022
passed in CRA No.905/2022 as an order of interim bail and
appellant is at present not in confinement therefore, in the given
facts and circumstances of the case, he shall have to surrender
immediately before the trial Court. In absence thereof, trial court
/police shall ensure arrest of appellant without any delay.
18. Appeal stands dismissed.
(Anand Pathak)
Ashish* Judge
ASHISH
CHAURASIA
Digitally signed by ASHISH CHAURASIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=bf81a9adb1da24e4bc7b5195154c3d4de08c6bb9303e52e
2e7e728d9bac85bd3,
pseudonym=CA2EA6EDDF504F8F9C2790FA9A0FD201D0242B64,
serialNumber=A926F3CBF979ECA6A4C477577EEDBA3AB4F94593A
930B98DAE1B0AD16F90B5FD, cn=ASHISH CHAURASIA
Date: 2023.09.13 20:00:16 -07'00'
