AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J. P. Gupta, J
This application has been filed under section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C for quashment of order dated 01/09/2020 passed in bail application no.181/2020 by
1st Additional Session Judge, Nagod District Satna in Criminal Case No. 487/2020 in connection with Crime No.111/2020 under section 147, 148, 149,
294, 323, 307, 506 (2), 325, 302 of IPC of police station Singhpur, District Satna, whereby the respondent no.2 and 3 have been granted bail under
section 439(1) of the Cr.P.C.
It is submitted that learned trial court has passed aforesaid order giving benefit of parity with the co-accused Raju Yadav, whose bail application as
M.Cr.C No.26403/2020 was allowed by this Court while the ground on which Raju Yadav was granted bail was totally different, therefore learned
trial court has committed legal error having arrived at the conclusion that the case of the respondent no.2 and 3 are same as co-accused Raju Yadav,
therefore the impugned order be set aside or cancelled.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 to 3 opposed the application and stated that once the bail is granted under section 439(1) of Cr.P.C merely on
the aforesaid ground their bail can't be cancelled, if the respondents otherwisely entitled to get benefit of bail. In the present case, the respondents
have not assaulted the deceased and they have been arrayed in this case on the basis of section 149 of Cr.P.C while looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, it appears that common object was only to cause grievous injury by sharp object, and their further custody not warranted,
therefore, learned trial court has released the respondents on bail and the application be rejected.
Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, undoubtedly the learned trial court has committed erred
in arriving at the conclusion that the case against the respondent no.2 and 3 are similar as against co-accused Raju Yadav and learned trial court has
failed to understand the ground mentioned in the order dated 24/08/2020 passed in M.Cr.C No.26403/2020 by this Court. However if the case of the
respondent no.2 and 3 considered otherwisely as learned trial court has released them on bail, in view of this Court it is not a fit case to cancel the
order of bail as looking to the other facts and circumstances of the case they are entitled to get aforesaid benefit. Hence the application is rejected.
A copy of the order be sent to the District Judge, Satna with a view to appraise the concerned Additional District Judge, Satna for remaining cautious
before passing such order.