RAMESH KATEHA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Individual liberty is a priceless treasure and no one would like to lose it for all the wealth in the world. In the drama of life liberty plays a highly significant role and no protagonist would like to abdicate it even for attaining longevity till eternity. Life without liberty is a body without a soul. But the core question that arises for consideration in this application for cancellation of bail is whether the adroit efforts an ingenious attempts of an accused, to obtain liberty, be ignored at the cost of impropriety. To elaborate whether an accused should be conferred allowances to make false declaration and get the concession of bail, and whether he should be exonerated solely on the foundation that he has enjoyed liberty for some length of time.

(2.) The essential facts which require to be stated for disposal of this application for cancellation of bail are that the respondent No. 2, Brijkishore Kateha, an accused in Crime No. 62/96 instituted for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC') which has eventually given rise to the Sessions Trial No. 103/96 before the learned Sessions Judge, Panna, moved an application before this Court forming the subject-matter of M.Cr.C. No. 6495/96 which was rejected by order dated 12-2-1997 by Rajeev Gupta, J. Thereafter, the second bail application was filed by the respondent No. 2 along with some other accused persons which formed the subject-matter of M.Cr.C. No. 7712/97. The matter was placed before the learned Judge who had rejected the earlier application. As the learned Judge directed, the matter to be placed before the regular Bench, it came to be listed before S. P. Khare, J. who by order dated 4-3-98 rejected the prayer for bail. It is to be noted that the said bail application was heard along with M.Cr.C. Nos. 7669/97, 7718/97, 7720/97 and 491/98. Though the second application for bail had not met with success the respondent No. 2 with unsurpassable will and indomitable aspiration made his third journey to this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 2186/98. In the said application for bail it was mentioned that it was the second bail application filed by the accused. It was also set forth therein that his previous bail application forming subject-matter of M.Cr.C. No. 6496/97 was rejected on 12-2-97. As the prayer in the aforesaid application was negatived by Rajeev Gupta, J. the matter was placed before him. The learned Judge by order dated 3-4-98 directed that the matter should be placed before another Bench. The order passed by the learned Judge and brought to the notice of Hon'ble The Chief Justice who directed the matter to be placed before me. Under these circumstances the bail application filed by the respondent No. 2 came to be heard by me. On consideration of the circumstances and taking note of the fact that one Durga Prasad Pandey had been released on bail in M.Cr.C. No. 5809/97 this Court admitted the respondent No. 2 to bail on certain conditions.

(3.) After the respondent No. 2 was enlarged on bail the present applicants have moved this Court for cancellation of the order passed by this Court enlarging the said accused on bail. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner No. 1 is the informant and petitioner No. 2 is the brother of the deceased-Ramkrishna Tiwari. It has been put forth in the petition that the respondent No. 2 on deliberate suppression of material fact has obtained the order of bail which deserves to be cancelled. It is also putforth that on earlier occasion the learned Judge had rejected the bail application of the respondent No. 2, though it was contended that he was similarly placed as Durga Prasad Pandey.