ANSHU RAGHUVANSHI Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail order dated 6.2.2013 passed by 1st ASJ, Guna in bail application No.13/2013.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that this is second application for cancellation of bail before this Court. The first application numbered as M.Cr.C.No.971/2013 was filed by petitioner No.1 for modification/clarification of order dated 1/2/2013 passed in M.Cr.C.No.701/13. By order dated 15.3.2013, this Court modified the said order and deleted direction part of order dated 1/2/2013 upon which the order dated 6/2/13 passed by the First ASJ, Guna, in Bail Application No.13/13 granting bail to respondent No.1 was passed. Being dissatisfied with the same, respondent No.1 filed SLP(Cri.) No.2826/2013 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has been allowed on the ground that proceedings before this Court were misconceived. However, it was observed that the complainant will be at liberty to proceed against the order of trial Court. As per the FIR and the charge sheet, Dinesh Raghuvanshi was sitting alongwith others at Patanjali Kendra, Jagdish Colony, Guna. After some time, Dileep alongwith one another also joined them. Respondent No.1 alongwith others came there and after some wordy quarrel, respondent No.1 and Abhishek Hada took out Katta and fired at petitioner No.2 and deceased Dileep. One shot hit at the head of petitioner No.2 and deceased Dileep received injury at his chest, resulting in his death. As per the postmortem report, the bullet fired at the chest of the deceased resulted into injury to the right lung and the heart resulting into his death. Petitioner No.2 was also medically examined and wound on scalp from left fronto parietal to left temporal region was found. Respondent No.1 filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail before this Court, which was registered as M.Cr.C.No.8023/2012. The same was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed a second bail application for grant of anticipatory bail, which was registered as M.Cr.C.No.701/2013. The same was disposed of by order dated 1/2/13 with a short direction that "the petitioner shall surrender before the competent Court and shall apply for regular bail and the same shall be considered upon furnishing necessary bail bond." Respondent No.1 surrendered before the learned Sessions Judge on 6.2.2013 and preferred bail application.

(3.) It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.1 has been named as assailant of the deceased in a prompt FIR lodged by injured witness/petitioner No.2. Three other witnesses have also named respondent No.1 as firing at deceased. The aforesaid evidence is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. The learned First ASJ, Guna, did not consider merits of the case, but proceeded to grant bail by misreading the order passed by this Court. The learned First ASJ, Guna, has totally ignored the cardinal principles of law of bail resulting in miscarriage of justice. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 is a history-sheeter and after being released on bail, has threatened petitioner No.1. On 7.2.2013 petitioner No.1 has lodged an FIR at PS Nai Sarai, Distt. Ashoknagar, at Crime No.22/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 387 of IPC. Petitioner No.2 moved an application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court, but since in the meanwhile this Court cancelled the bail order, vide order dated 15.3.2013, therefore, the application was withdrawn by petitioner No.2. State Government also preferred an application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court, but since the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the complainant is at liberty to proceed against the order of trial Court granting bail, therefore, Petitioner No.1, who is the widow of deceased Dilip Singh, and petitioner No.2, who is the first informant and cousin father-in-law of the deceased and also an injured in the incident, have preferred this application. The respondent No.1 while filing the bail application before this Court falsely submitted that he is a Government servant, but the fact is that he has already been terminated from the service long back and the purpose was just to secure the bail order on the basis of suppression of facts of his occupation. After commission of the offence, respondent No.1 remained absconding for a long period, therefore, police declared a reward of Rs.20,000/- for his arrest. It is prayed that order dated 6.2.2013 passed in B.A.No.13/2013 be set aside and respondent No.1 be taken into custody.