Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gambhir Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3387
1 MCRC-52281-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 17th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52281 of 2024
GAMBHIR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri D.R. Sharma and ShriArjun Sharma - Advocates for the
applicant.
Shri Harish Sharma- Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Shri Ajay Singh Rathore- Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER
This is the fourth application filed by the applicant under Section 483
of BNSS for grant of bail relating to Crime No.09 of 2023 registered at
Police Station -Alampur, District -Bhind (M.P.) for the offence under
Sections 302, 294, 201, 34 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act and
Section 51/177 of Motor Vehicles Acts.
2. As per the story of prosecution, the allegation against present
applicant and co-accused Surendra, Tillu @ Tribhuvan to instigate the
accused Kalli to fire gun on Gajendra, the complainant's brother.
3 . It is submitted by counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent
and has falsely been implicated in the matter. He is in custody since
25.10.2023. His third bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3387
2 MCRC-52281-2024
order dated 14.11.2024. Thereafter, as many as three witnesses, Maan Singh
(PW-7), Kruparam (PW-18) and Sanjeev(PW-19) have been examined.
Sanjeev (PW-19) has turned hostile and did not the support the story of
prosecution. It is also submitted by drawing the attention of this Court on the
statement of Harendra (PW-5) that the exhortation on the behest of co-
accused Surendra Singh and present applicant Gambhir Singh was not
involved in such instigation. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to
paragraph 10 of the statement and submits that earlier also false report has
been lodged against innocent persons. The trial is likely to take sufficiently
long time. He is ready to comply with any condition which may be imposed
by the Court. It is also submitted that considering this material available on
record, the present applicant be given the benefit of bail.
4. It is submitted while placing the reliance on the judgments of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Singh & another Vs. State of M.P.
reported in 1999 CAR 126 that exhortation is a very weak evidence. In the
case of Idrish Bhai Daudbhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2005 SCC
(Cri.)700 is also on point of exhortation by itself is not enough to prove
common intention on the part of accused. He also placed reliance on the
judgment of Apex Court in the case of Jaleshwar Singh Vs. State of Bhihar
reported in 2009(2) CAR (SC) 660, it is held that in case of exhortation if
there is contradictory evidence of witness of prosecution, it cannot relied
upon. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of
Sham Lal Vs. State of Haryana reported in ((2006) 1 S.C.C.(Cri.) 344 and
submits that the present applicant has parity with other co-accused Surendra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3387
3 MCRC-52281-2024
Singh, who has been granted bail by the trial Court and Tillu @ Tribhuvan
Singh who has been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 23.06.2023 passed in M.Cr.C.No.266642 of 2023. He has placed
reliance of the Apex Court in the case of Manohar Vs. State of M.P. as
reported in 2007 (3) M.P.H.T.349 on the ground of parity.
Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant party have opposed the
prayer on the ground that after dismissal of the earlier application on
14.11.2024, no substantial change in the circumstances took place although
three witnesses have been examined thereafter, but they supported the story
of prosecution. The important witnesses including complainant and injured
examined earlier have supported the story of prosecution substantially. It is
also submitted that in the impugned order at page No.14 it is categorically
stated that the present applicant has been involved in the offence in Crime
No.9/23 of Police Station Alampur wherein the present applicant has
awarded imprisonment for life for causing murder and after that punishment,
he again committed the same nature of crime, therefore, he deserves no bail.
Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case
diary and material available on record.
Having considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the
parties and due regard to the law laid down in the aforesaid cases, but
without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered
view that in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, present
applicant does not have any parity with the co-accused persons granted bail,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3387
4 MCRC-52281-2024
rather looking to the earlier punishment and thereafter commission of same
nature of crime as well as the facts on rerecord, the present applicant
deserves no bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
mani
