Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Saturday, November 23, 2024

Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To ABVP Students Who Stole Judge’s Car To Take Dying Man To Hospital

Posted in: Criminal Law
Tue, Dec 26, 23, 13:54, 12 Months ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 9822
Himanshu Shroti vs State two students named Himanshu Shroti and Sukrit Sharma who were booked in Padav police station in Gwalior for stealing a High Court Judge’s car to transport a dying person to the hospital and jailed under robbery charges.

While rising up to the occasion and most courageously displaying the highest level of humanity to help an ailing person by going to the extent of stealing a High Court Judge’s car as they were short of time and taking the patient named Ranjit Singh Yadav who was the Vice Chancellor of a private University in Jhansi in Uttar Pradesh to hospital to save his life even though the patient could not be saved and reportedly succumbed to cardiac failure, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a most learned, laudable, logical, landmark and latest judgment titled Himanshu Shroti & Anr vs State in Misc. Criminal Case No. 56249 of 2023 that was pronounced as recently as on December 18, 2023 also took the most sagacious decision to very rightly grant bail to the two students named Himanshu Shroti and Sukrit Sharma who were booked in Padav police station in Gwalior for stealing a High Court Judge’s car to transport a dying person to the hospital and jailed under robbery charges.

Speaking for myself, I very strongly fell that they not only deserve bail but also deserve to be grandly honoured for having the courage to do anything to save the life of a dying person even though he could not be saved and it is a heroic act which must be always adored and emulated in similar such circumstances! What if they had done virtually just nothing acting on the vested mindset that what will go from our pocket if he dies? Why should we risk our own safety?

It must be asked: If such brave acts are punished by jail then who will ever try to save the life of another person? What will we get if we take the risk will be the thinking of every individual if these two youths are punished? Can this be ever justified under any circumstances? You tell me!

It must also be asked: What trend will be set if such brave young men are jailed for trying to save the life of a patient who still died and who needed prompt help which is what these two young boys were attempting to give? Those Judges who deny bail to such brave acts must feel terribly ashamed of themselves as by rejecting the bail they are lending credence to the belief that we should not risk helping a person who is on the verge of dying and should allow them to die unattended!

I must candidly confess that I am completely bowled over to read the valour of these young boys who demonstrated so much of courage to take the risk of taking away a vehicle and that too of a Judge to save the life of a patient who was on the verge of death without caring that what would happen to them when caught and I will not hide my feelings in expressing my views straight from my heart! I just cannot control my tears from flowing freely on reading the brave act of these young boys who have no criminal past record and who did not damage the vehicle in anyway or had no intention of stealing it then why should they be jailed? For helping a person who was on the verge of dying?

I have just no hesitation to say that only granting bail to them is just not enough! We all who believe in humanity must be proud of these two young boys! They definitely deserve to be greatly honoured on Republic Day as what they have done cannot be done by everyone and in fact is an unpalatable truth that most of us always prefer to care first for our own safety which these young boys just simply disregarded caring only for saving the life of the patient and definitely also displayed the highest level of humanity, courage, greatness and simplicity not caring the least about what would happen with them when caught by police for taking away the car of a Judge and that too a serving Judge!

We had seen how earlier a Special Judge had earlier denied them bail noting that the argument that they were trying to help a sick person was not justified. It was in the fitness of things that former Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh Mr Shivraj Singh Chouhan intervened urging the Madhya Pradesh High Court Chief Justice to drop the case against the two individuals on humanitarian grounds, given the circumstances surrounding the incident. But the case was still heard on merits as ideally should be done by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Smt Justice Sunita Yadav of Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court and bail was very rightly granted for which this Justice also shall always be remembered at least by those who believe in humanity.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Smt Justice Sunita Yadav of Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in the opening para that:
This is the first application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail relating to FIR No. 730 of 2023 registered at Police Station Padav, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 395 of IPC and section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.

To put things in perspective, the Bench then while elaborating on the facts of the case envisages in the next para of this robust judgment that:
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that applicants are innocent person and have been falsely implicated. He further argued that applicants are law students and are pursuing their studies.

Further submission is that the entire act of the applicants is bona fide just to save the life of the person, who suffered cardiac arrest. It is further argued that applicants were travelling in the train, in which, the person namely Ranjeet Singh suffered cardiac arrest before them and the Doctor at Morena advised to admit the said person in some hospital at Gwalior for his medical treatment so that his life can be saved.

Therefore, the moment train arrived at Gwalior railway station, the applicants in the state of anxiety and hurry took the vehicle to admit the said person in the hospital for medical treatment. It is further argued that intention behind it was not malafide.

The person who suffered cardiac arrest was admitted in the hospital and had died during medical treatment. The vehicle was not taken away or stolen by the applicants for other than to save the life of the said person who was suffering from cardiac arrest and was on the verge of dying. No damage has been caused to the vehicle.

The police has already recovered the vehicle, therefore, further custodial interrogation of the applicants may not be required. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. The applicants are in custody since 11/12/2023. The applicants are permanent resident of District Gwalior and Shivpuri. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time and there is no likelihood of their absconsion, if released on bail. On these grounds, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants.

It is definitely most gladdening to note that the Bench then notes in the next para of this refreshing judgment that:
Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that he has no objection in case bail is granted to the present applicants.

Needless to say, the Bench then states in the next para of this cogent judgment that:
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary available on record.

As it turned out, the Bench then further hastens to add in the next para of this commendable judgment that:
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicants be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with two local solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Adding more to what has been already stated hereinabove, the Bench then further stipulates in the next para of this noteworthy judgment that:
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicants:

 

  1. The applicants will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by them;
  2. The applicants will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
  3. The applicants will not indulge themselves in extending inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
  4. The applicants will not commit any other offence or will not repeat the offence in the future. In case, if they are found involving in the offence of the same nature, this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to the Bench.
  5. The applicants will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
  6. The applicants will not leave India without the previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.


Be it noted, the Bench then further directs in the next para of this recent judgment that:
Learned State counsel is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and necessary action.

What’s more, the Bench then also further directs in the next para of this creditworthy judgment that:
E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible, by the office of this Court.

Finally, the Bench concludes by holding in the final para that:
Certified copy as per rules.

All said and done, it must be conceded that the bail was very rightly granted to these two youths. Advocate Bhanu Pratap Singh Chouhan who fought their case very rightly pleaded that the intention of the students was not criminal and they did everything possible to save the life of a person. Why the hell then should they be jailed or punished?

No doubt, we definitely need such brave youths to save the lives of those in distress! So it is really good to note that these two youths were most commendably granted bail by the Gwalior Bench of High Court which they certainly richly deserved also! These two youths are a rare breed who step forward and try to save the life of a person for which they definitely must be honoured and not sent to jail or punished! I am also fully sure that our lawmakers and Judges too will concede with what I have said here!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top