AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.P. Sandesh, J
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
This Court earlier considered the bail petition of this petitioner along with other accused in Crl.P.No.1916/2022 and rejected the same vide order dated 03.06.2022. This Court while rejecting the petition, in paragraph No.7 taken note of that this petitioner and other accused person assaulted the victim and inflicted injuries. The prosecution case against the two petitioners is that they chased the victim and inflicted injuries to C.W.1, but injuries though are grievous in nature, C.W.1 is out of danger and has been discharged from the hospital. This Court also considered the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KUMER SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER reported in 2021 CRL.L.J. 4244, wherein the Apex Court observed with regard to sharing of common object and inflicting the injuries in paragraph No.14 of the said judgment. This Court also taken note of the fact that assault was made and C.W.1 sustained grievous injuries while rescuing the victim.
Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court granted bail in favour of accused Nos.10 and 11 in Crl.P.No.3213/2023 and in Crl.P.No.10598/2023 and the Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner assaulted the complainant with club and caused him grievous injuries. This Court having granted bail in favour of accused No.10, granted bail to accused No.11 on the ground of parity.
On perusal of the order passed by this Court, a reference is made that they assaulted the complainant, but they have not assaulted the complainant. The records discloses that, that is the allegation against C.W.2 and the material are not considered by the Court. Apart from that, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has not considered the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kumer Singh (supra). Hence, the question of parity does not arise.
The learned counsel submits that the injured C.W.1, to whom this petitioner has inflicted injuries, has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. The allegation against this petitioner is that he inflicted injuries with iron road. When this Court has already considered the judgment of the Apex Court in rejecting the bail petition earlier referring the case of Kumer Singh (supra), the question of now considering the ground of parity does not arise.
The Apex Court in the case of RAMESH BHAVAN RATHOD v. VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI MAKWANA (KOLI) AND ANOTHER reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230, held with regard to exercising the ground of parity. The Court has to take note of the very participation and inflicting of injuries and take note of the very intention and object in inflicting the injuries. The case against this petitioner is that all of them have chased the victim and when C.W.1 came to rescue the victim, at that time, he inflicted injuries with iron road on C.W.1. When such being the case, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner when there are no any changed circumstances and the Trial Court has to appreciate the evidence of C.W.1 and other witnesses while considering the matter. This Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Trial Court for appreciation of evidence and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.
In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is rejected. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter within six months from today.