Ujyar Singh Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8264 MP

                                                                                                           1

                                           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                        M.Cr.C. No.35567/2021
                                                     (Ujyar Singh Rajput Vs. State of M.P.)

                                  Jabalpur; Dated 06/12/2021
                                         Shri Anil Khare, learned senior counsel with Shri Sahil Sharma,
                                  learned counsel for the applicant.
                                         Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned G.A. for the respondent-State.

Shri Manish Datt, learned senior counsel with Shri Madan Singh, learned counsel for the objector.

This is the first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Applicant Ujyar Singh Rajput was arrested on 30/09/2020 in connection with Crime No.329/2020, registered at Police Station Majholi, District Jabalpur (MP) for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323 and 34 of the IPC.

2. As per prosecution case, on 29/09/2020 complainant Prashant Singh Rajput lodged a report at P.S. Majholi, Distt. Jabalpur averring that, between 12 and 1 pm deceased Vikas Singh, Rajkishore, Dharmendra and he were standing at Negai Tiraha, Indrana, where applicant Ujyar Singh came in a jeep which was being driven by co-accused Jogendra Singh. Co-accused Suryabhan Singh and Chhotu @ Chandrabhan were also standing there. Due to previous enmity, applicant Ujyar Singh fired a gunshot targeting deceased Vikas Singh with intent to kill him. The bullet hit his stomach, thereafter, Chhotu @ Chandrabhan took the gun from his father Ujyar Singh and fired a gunshot at Vikas and the bullet hit his head. Co-accused Suryabhan assaulted him (Prashant Singh) by butt of the same gun, due to which he sustained injury in his head. He took Vikas to Metro Hospital Jabalpur then Medical College Jabalpur, where doctors declared him dead. On that, police registered Crime No.329/2020 at PS Majholi Distt. Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323 and 34 of the IPC against applicant Ujyar Singh Rajput and co-accused Suryabhan Singh, Jogendra Singh and Chhotu @ Chandrabhan and investigated the matter. During investigation, police on the basis of call details and the mobile tower location and CCTV Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.12.08 11:34:51 IST

footage, found that co-accused Suryabhan Singh and Jogendra Singh were not present on the spot at the time of incident. So, the police did not file a charge-sheet against them. On the charge-sheet filed by the police, learned Magistrate directed the police to further investigate the matter. The Police again after investigation, filed a further investigation report but even in that report, police stated that it was found that the offence was committed only by applicant Ujyar Singh and co-accused Chhotu Singh.

3. On 30/09/2020, applicant Ujyar Singh also lodged a report at P.S. Majholi, Distt. Jabalpur averring that on 29/09/2020 at around 12:45 pm, when he reached Negai Tiraha, Indrana, by his Jeep bearing registration No.MP20H5011 which was being driven by Bablu, he met Vikas Singh and Prasant Singh. They abused him and when he objected, Prashant Singh assaulted him by stick due to which he sustained injury in his head and Vikas Singh assaulted him by kicks and fists. On that, he fired with his point 0.22 licency gun, due to which Vikas sustained gunshot injuries in his stomach and head. Prashant Singh also assaulted him by stick, due to which his gun was broken and he sustained injury on fingers of his left hand. On that, police also registered Crime no.0331/2020 at P.S. Majholi Distt. Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 325, 506 and 34 of the IPC against deceased Vikas and complainant Prashant Singh Rajput.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submitted that on 30/09/2020 applicant Ujyar Singh himself lodged a report at Police Station Majholi, District Jabalpur. On that report Police registered Crime No.331/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 325, 506, 34 of the IPC against deceased Vikas Singh and complainant Prashant Singh Rajput. In that report it is clearly mentioned that at the time of incident Vikas Singh and Prashant Singh abused him and when he objected, Prashant Singh assaulted him with stick, due to which he sustained injury on his head and Vikas Singh also

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.12.08 11:34:51 IST

assaulted him by kicks and fists. This fact also corroborates from the injury report of applicant Ujyar Singh. Police also seized the broken piece of butt of the gun from the spot, which also corroborates the report lodged by applicant Ujyar Singh regarding the incident. From that FIR lodged by the applicant Ujyar Singh it is apparent that applicant Ujyar Singh fired gunshot at deceased Vikas Singh in self defence, so no offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is in custody since 30/09/2020. The charge-sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, hence it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail. In support of his contention learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2010), 2 SCC 333, Sukumaran Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, (2019) 15 SCC 117 and Bhagwan Swaroop Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1992) 2 SCC 406.

5. Learned counsel for the State as well as objector opposed the prayer and submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-27 of its order dated 08/10/2021 passed in Cr.A.No.1202/2021 considered the plea of self defence taken by co-accused and observed that "the supplementary challan dated 8th March 2021 indicates that more material had emerged during the course of investigation as against the events portrayed in the FIR registered at the behest of Ujiyar Singh. Hence, the case portrayed by the appellant could not have been ignored by solely relying on the counter-FIR". So, only on the basis of counter FIR lodged by applicant at this stage it cannot be said that the applicant fired at deceased Vikas Singh in his self defence. In the incident, the applicant fired a gunshot at deceased Vikas Singh, due to which he sustained injuries and died, so the applicant should not be released on bail.

6. The above mentioned judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court upon which reliance is placed by the counsel for the applicant do not assist the applicant because in those cases Hon'ble Apex Court at the stage of judgement after evaluating all the prosecution evidence in peculiar facts

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.12.08 11:34:51 IST

and circumstances of those cases held that the applicants/accused acted in their right of private defence, while in this case evidence has to be recorded. Moreso, the alleged incident is said to have occurred on 29/09/2021, while applicant Ujyar Singh lodged the report on 30/09/2020 at 10:05 P.M. The Doctor examined him on 01/10/2020 at 10:15 A.M. Though, in the medical examination report it is mentioned that the Doctor found four external injuries on his body, but duration of those injuries is not mentioned in the report.

7. Earlier this Court vide orders dated 31/05/2021 & 01/07/2021 passed in M.Cr.C.Nos.18604/2021 & 31835/2021 granted anticipatory bail to co-accused Suryabhan Singh & Jogendra Singh respectively. Against the said orders complainant Prashant Singh Rajput filed Criminal Appeal Nos.1202/2021 & 1203/2021 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 08/10/2021 set aside the said orders and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case held as under :-

"27. In relation to the present incident, the appellant's case is supported by the FIR, his statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC, and the statements of the other two eye-witnesses under Section 164 of the CrPC. On the other hand, Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh rely on the counter FIR filed by Ujiyar Singh according to which they were not present at the scene of crime and Ujiyar Singh shot the deceased-Vikas Singh in self-defense. The orders of the JMFC dated 13 January 2021 and 10 March 2021 advert to the contents of the FIR registered at the behest of the appellant. The investigating officer's first report dated 15 December 2020 indicated that there was a prima facie case against Ujiyar Singh and Chandrabhan Singh. The supplementary challan dated 8 March 2021 indicates that more material had emerged during the course of investigation as against the events portrayed in the FIR registered at the behest of Ujiyar Singh. Hence, the case portrayed by the appellant could not have been ignored by solely relying on the counter-FIR.

28. The High Court has placed reliance upon the report submitted under Section 173 of the CrPC on 15 December 2020 to hold that Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh were not present when the incident occurred. However, the High Court has not addressed the clear deficiencies in the course of the investigation which have been highlighted in the order of the JMFC dated 13 February 2021 and the trial Court's order dated 24 March 2021. These are, inter alia: (i) the failure to notice eyewitness statements; (ii) reliance on CCTV footage for the period of time after incident had occurred, ignoring prior or contemporaneous footage; (iii) not collecting CCTV footage between Jabalpur and the scene of offence; (iv) relying on CDRs without determining if Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh had actually used the number; and (v) not Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.12.08 11:34:51 IST

conducting any fingerprint analysis. In the order dated 13 February 2021, the JMFC identified these deficiencies with the investigation and directed further investigation. Upon the submission of the supplementary challan, the JMFC noted in their order dated 10 March 2021 that the challan was only in relation to Ujiyar Singh and Chandrabhan Singh, and did not address the role of Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh. The obvious deficiencies in the investigation have pointed out the errors in the trial Court's order dated 24 March 2021 rejecting Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh's applications for anticipatory bail. The Single Judge has, however, overlooked these crucial aspects.

29. Finally, it has also been argued on behalf of Suryabhan Singh that while the appellant's statement under Section 164 of the CrPC is that Suryabhan Singh also shot at the appellant, the FIR and his statement under Section 161 of the CrPC only record that he hit him with the butt of the gun. The trial is yet to take place where the evidence adduced by the prosecution will be appreciated, and the veracity of appellant's claim in his statement under Section 164 can be determined there. However, at the present stage, the FIR and both the appellant's statements under Section 161 and 164 are consistent in as much as that Suryabhan Singh did hit him in his head with the butt of the gun. An argument has also been raised in relation to the nature of the injury caused to the appellant, but this has to be decided at the stage of trial after evidence has been led.

30. The Court has to determine whether on the basis of the material available at this stage, the High Court has applied the correct principles in allowing the applications for anticipatory bail. The offence is of a serious nature in which Vikas Singh was murdered. The FIR and the statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC indicate a specific role to Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh in the crime. The order granting anticipatory bail has ignored material aspects, including the nature and gravity of the offence, and the specific allegations against Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh. Hence, a sufficient case has been made out for cancelling the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court."

8. It is alleged that in the incident the applicant fired gunshot at the deceased Vikas Singh, due to which he sustained injuries and died. So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the case diary statements of complainant Prashant Singh Rajpoot and other eyewitnesses of the incident Dharmendra Patel & Raj Kishore and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

9. Accordingly, M.Cr.C. is rejected.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge as/

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.12.08 11:34:51 IST