RAJU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on the bail application. Case -diary has been perused.

(2.) THIS is the first bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. Case has been registered at crime No.172/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 436, 323, 353, 147, 148 read with Section 149 of IPC against about 500 -600 persons. However, FIR is only against 29 persons. It is case of applicant that his name does not find place in the FIR. Facts necessary for consideration of instant bail application are to the extent that in the night hours of 11 -04 -2014 in village Beenaganj a heinous crime of commission of rape on a minor girl was committed and on resistance being exercised by her grandmother she was also brutally beaten up by the miscreants. As a sequel to that, there was restlessness amongst the villagers against the Government Doctor, Community Health Centre who did not provide instant medical aid to the victim and her grandmother resulting into aggravation of injuries sustained by them. That apart, even local police also showed indifferent attitude and did not take prompt action to arrest the miscreants and allowed them to free away. As a result, villagers en masse about 500 -600 started pelting stones and caused damage to the government property at the Community Health Centre, Beenaganj. As a result, police registered the case against the villagers numbering 500 -600 persons and registered the FIR against 29 persons. However, name of applicant does not appear in the FIR in fact the applicant submitted that he is innocent person and he was neither one of the persons who has invaded the Community Health Centre nor did commit any offence. He further submitted that one of the accused namely, Vishnu Sharma has already been enlarged on bail by the trial Court on 22nd April, 2014 whose name also does not appear in the FIR and his case is similar to that of Vishnu Sharma.

(3.) GOVERNMENT property in fact there was threat perception because of such act of villagers, in such circumstances, applicant should not be enlarged on bail. Having considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties that the name of applicant does not figure in the FIR and it was the crowd of 500 -600 persons invaded Community Health Centre as a retaliatory measure lodging protest against the inaction of police in a matter of heinous crime of rape on minor girl as well as physical assault on old lady by miscreants who were neither apprehended nor were searched by the police, besides, there is nothing on record suggesting any overt act on the part of applicant causing damage to the Government property, furthermore in view of the fact that one of the co -accused namely, Vishnu Sharma has already been enlarged on bail, impugned order does not reflect any distinguishing feature in the instant case with the case of Vishnu Sharma, hence applicant is found to be also entitled to be enlarged on bail.