It is also necessary to state that the Additional Public Prosecutor, Guna, had also filed application for cancellation of bail on 11.2.2013.
701 of 2013 and thereafter stated thus In the instant case, as pointed hereinabove, the learned First ASJ has number taken pain to companysider the aforesaid aspects.
3 herein, and one Dilip Singh.
376/2012 was registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Guna, for offences punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act alleging that the appellant along with one Abhishek Hada and two unknown persons had companye to the market place where an altercation ensued between them and the informant and others.
1 shall surrender before the Competent Court and shall apply for regular bail and the same shall be companysidered, it was the bounden duty of the learned First ASJ to companysider whether respondent No.
Coming back to the chronology of narration, after disposal of the Special Leave Petition Crl.
C. No.
Being unsuccessful in obtaining an anticipatory bail the appellant filed M.Cr.
C. No.
We have referred to these events, as the learned companynsel has endeavoured hard to impress upon us that there has been suppression of facts by the informant as well as the State, but we have numberscintilla of doubt that the number reference to the said facts or number mentioning of the same has, in fact, numberimpact on the merits of the impugned order passed by the High Court.
An assertion has been made by learned companynsel for the appellant that the same has been withdrawn when the High Court was moved for cancellation of the order granting bail.
2826 of 2013, the informant and the wife of the deceased filed an application under Section 439 2 CrPC for cancellation of bail order dated 6.2.2013 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Bail Application No.
13 of 2013.
Instead of doing so, the learned First ASJ has granted the benefit of bail to respondent No.
The learned single Judge, by the impugned order, narrated the factual matrix, referred to the order passed by the High Court under Section 438 CrPC, took numbere of the submissions advanced at the Bar and after referring to certain authorities which deal with cancellation of bail, the allegations made in the FIR, the proceedings before the High Court and this Court, import of the order passed in M.Cr.
After the injured succumbed to the injuries, Section 302 IPC was added.
C. No.
The appellant apprehending arrest filed an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure CrPC before the first Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, who vide order dated 14.9.2012 rejected the same.
An application for cancellation of bail was filed before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Guna by Dinesh Raghuvanshi, the informant, who, on 2.4.2013, withdrew the application as by that time the Division Bench had already set aside the order granting bail.
701/13 on 1.2.13, has ignored relevant material and has number companysidered the well recognized principles underlying the power to grant bail and further that there is prima facie material that after releasing on bail, respondent No.
When this Court has expressly given the direction that respondent No.
701 of 2013, by order dated 1.2.2013, took numbere of the fact that the petitioner therein was an accused in crime No.
8023 of 2012 which was dismissed as withdrawn.
It was alleged in the FIR that two of these four persons were carrying weapons and they fired at the informant, respondent No.
376/12 registered for companymission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 302/34, 147, 148, 149, 120 B IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and the submissions canvassed on behalf of the learned companynsel for the accused and the learned companynsel for the prosecution and ultimately directed as follows Considering the nature of the allegation and the evidence companylected in the case diary, the petition is disposed of with a short direction that the petitioner shall surrender before the Competent Court and shall apply for regular bail and the same shall be companysidered upon furnishing necessary bail bond.
Thereafter, the learned single Judge referred to the criminal antecedents of the accused and, ultimately, passed the following order In view of the aforesaid analysis, companysidering that learned First ASJ, Guna, while granting bail, misread the order of this Court passed in M.Cr.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the order dated 16.8.2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, in M.Cr.
3370 of 2013 whereby the learned single Judge has cancelled the order of bail granted by learned first Additional Sessions Judge, Guna vide order dated 6.2.2013 to the appellant.
As the facts would further uncertain, after a gap of sometime the appellant preferred the second application for grant of anticipatory bail and the learned single Judge in M.Cr.
After the said order came to be passed, the appellant moved two applications, one under Section 44 2 and the other under Section 439 CrPC before the learned Sessions Judge, Guna, who transferred the applications to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for companysideration.
1 is entitled for the benefit of bail or number.
The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 14.8.2012 an FIR bearing No.
C. No.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, admitted the appellant to bail on imposition of certain companyditions.
It is unfortunate that despite the objection raised on behalf of the petitioners that this Court has number granted the bail, the learned First ASJ, Guna, did number think it fit to seek the clarification from this Court.
