The delay in framing charges and the nature of injuries are crucial factors in considering bail applications.

ORDER :

Vivek Rusia, J.

1. These are the second bail applications filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants, who are in custody since 13.05.2020 in connection with Crime No. 108/2020, Police Station Maksi, District Ujjain, for the offence punishable under Section 307, 353, 147, 148, 332, 363, 186, 188, 149, 34/2 of I.P.C. First bail applications of all the applicants were dismissed on 23.06.2020 and 27.06.2020 passed in M.CR.C. No. 17272/2020 and M.Cr.C. No. 17146/2020 respectively.

2. As per prosecution story, during lockdown period on 13.05.2020 the free fight was going on between two groups. ASI Rameshwar Patel S/o. Shriram Patel was on duty. He reached to the spot in order to stop the fight but he was attacked by the Babri community to whom this applicants belongs. He sustained as many as five injuries. Initially the FIR was registered under Section 353, 147, 148, 332,186, 188, 363, 149/34 of I.P.C. Since the Rameshwar Patel sustained head injury, therefore, section 307 of I.P.C. has also been added.

3. Shri A.S. Garg, learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are in jail since 13.05.2020. Thereafter, investigation is completed and final report has been filed. Since last five months, the trial court has not framed the charges, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Bal Krishna Pandey Vidur vs. State of U.P. reported in (2003) 12 SCC 186, the applicants are entitled for grant of bail. On the point of repeat application, it is submitted that this Court has held in the case of Mohan Raikwar vs. State of M.P. reported in 1999 (2) MPLJ 663 that repeat bail application is maintainable even if there is no substantial change in the circumstances. Shri Garg, senior counsel has also placed reliance upon the latest Supreme Court Judgment passed in the case of Jeetendra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 12 SCC 536. The applicants are youth aged about 19 years and they have not having any criminal case. They have suffered sufficient incarceration in jail and further detention in jail with hard and criminal may adversely affect their mind. It is further submitted that the police officers got injured therefore, FIR has been registered for serious offences but all the injuries are simple in nature, at the most offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. is made out. The applicants' parties have also lodged an FIR against the opposite party, which is registered at crime No. 106/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 232, 294, 506, 188/34 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PA) 1989 and they have been enlarged on bail.

4. Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the bail application by submitting that the applicants have caused the injuries to the ASI, while he was on duty. He was suffered the head injury, therefore, applicants are not entitled for grant of bail.

5. In M.Cr.C. No. 5805/2020 filed by the applicant Gangaram, Mr. Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per allegation the applicant caused the injury by means of Lathi on the head of the ASI, but as per the MLC report all the injuries are simple in nature and as per the X-ray report there is no bony injury, therefore, section 307 of I.P.C. is not made out. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Madhav Singh Vs. State of M.P. 2016 (3) MPWN 203, in which it has been held that the Lathi cannot be termed as weapon or instrument likely to cause death, therefore, at the most injury caused by the lathi, offence under Section 325 of I.P.C. is made out. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 13.05.2020. He is agriculturist by profession and has no criminal past. He is sole earning member of family. Investigation has been completed but charges has not framed since last six months. Therefore, he may enlarge on bail.

6. Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the bail application.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arg