[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra Parashar @Honey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:628
1 MCRC-37766-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
ON THE 6 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 37766 of 2023
DHARMENDRA PARASHAR @HONEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amanulla Usmani, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Atma Ram Lakhera, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, 3
and 4.
Shri Kamal Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed
for following prayers:-
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to cancel bail order dated 21/07/2023
in BA No.- 1993/2023 and order dated 26/07/2023 in
BA No.-2064/2023 arising out of FIR No.-413/2023
P.S. Gorakhpur, Jabalpur for offences U/s 294, 323,
506, 307, 34 of IPC passed by Shri S.R Senam, learned
22nd ASJ Jabalpur in the interest of justice and to
prevent abuse of the process of Court of Law and to
secure the ends of justice and for just decision of the
case."
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Court has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:628
2 MCRC-37766-2023
committed gross error in not observing that the injury in the brain is on the
vital part of the body and, therefore, the consideration of application for bail
by the trial Court is erroneous. By referring to the judgment reported in
(2022) 13 SCC 286 in the case of Centrum Financial Services Limited vs.
State of NCT of Delhi and another he has submitted that the Court has to
consider the relevant aspect that whether there is any prima facie or
reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed offence and
also by considering nature and gravity of accusation and also considering the
severity of the punishment in the event of conviction, while considering
application for bail. He has submitted that these aspects were not properly
considered and, therefore, in view of the judgment of Supreme Court, the
order passed by the trial Court for granting bail is required to be set aside.
4. Counsel for the original accused Shri Atma Ram Lakhera, has
submitted that in the FIR there are allegation against the unknown persons.
He has further submitted that the trial Court has given cogent and convincing
reasons, though he has submitted that the trial Court might have committed
any mistake in writing one line in the judgment that itself is not sufficient to
interfere with a detail order of granting bail after considering various aspects.
He has further submitted that in view of the settled position of law that the
Court should be very slow in interfering with the order of granting bail by
the competent Court, once the bail is granted after giving proper reasons. In
support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Himanshu Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2024)
4 SCC 222]
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:628
3 MCRC-37766-2023
5. Learned counsel for the State has also submitted that since the
applicant is raising valid point in support of his case, therefore, after
considering other aspects appropriate order may be passed.
6. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and also
perused the order passed by the trial Court and other material available on
record.
7. From the FIR, it transpires that the FIR was registered against the
unknown persons. Subsequently, present accused, who were granted bail by
the trial Court were arrayed as accused. The trial Court while considering the
application for bail that too after filing of charge sheet has considered various
aspects. It transpires that while discussing the nature of injuries, Court has
not properly dealt with the nature of injury, but at the same point of time, the
Court has given cogent and convincing reason for granting bail.
8. Considering the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Centrum Financial Services Ltd. (supra), where also the Court has said that
the Court has to consider three aspects while granting bail, more particularly;
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe
that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
And the Court has also observed in that particular case that High Court
does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail
and, therefore, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application
of mind, rendering it to be illegal.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:628
4 MCRC-37766-2023
9. In the present case, on perusal of the order passed by the trial Court,
I found that sufficient consideration of these aspects are dealt with by the
trial Court in its reasoning part, therefore, no interreference is called for,
more particularly considering the settled position where once the bail is
granted the Court should be very cautious and slow in cancellation of such
bail granted by the competent Court. Therefore, present application is
required to be dismissed. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
b
