Jogendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8266 MP

                                                                                                          1

                                          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                       M.Cr.C. No.56751/2021
                                                      (Jogendra Singh Vs. State of M.P.)

                                  Jabalpur; Dated 06/12/2021
                                        Shri Narayan Prasad Dubey, 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 Jogendra Singh was arrested on 20/10/2021 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 co- accused Ujyar Singh came in a jeep, which was being driven by applicant Jogendra Singh. Co-accused Suryabhan Singh and Chhotu @ Chandrabhan were also standing there. Due to previous enmity, 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 P.S. Majholi Distt. Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323 and 34 of the IPC against applicant Jogendra Singh and co-accused Suryabhan Singh, Ujyar Singh and Chhotu @ Chandrabhan and investigated the matter. During investigation, police on the basis of call details and the mobile

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.12.08 11:34:55 IST

tower location and CCTV footage, found that applicant Jogendra Singh and co-accused Suryabhan 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 co-accused Ujyar Singh and Chhotu Singh. On that, learned JMFC, Sihora vide order dated 10/3/2021, issued bailable warrant against applicant Jogendra Singh and co- accused Suryabhan Singh. On that, applicant Jogendra Singh filed anticipatory bail application which was rejected by the learned ASJ Sihora. On that, the applicant filed an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 01/07/2021. Against the said order complainant Prashant Singh Rajpoot filed an appeal (Cr.A.No.1202/2021) before the Supreme Court, which was allowed vide order dated 08/10/2021. So, Police arrested the applicant on 20/10/2021 and since then the applicant is in judicial custody.

3. On 30/09/2020, co-accused 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.MP-20-H-5011 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 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 Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.12.08 11:34:55 IST

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 due to old enmity, the complainant implicated the whole

family of co-accused Ujyar Singh in the crime. At the time of incident,

the applicant was not present at the spot. Even co-accused Ujyar Singh

himself lodged the report regarding the incident stating that in the

incident, he fired at Vikas Singh. He further submitted that even

otherwise, in the FIR lodged by complainant Prasant Singh, alleged

eyewitness of the incident, there is no allegation against the applicant

that the applicant fired at deceased Vikas Singh. The only allegation

against him is that at the time of incident he was present on the spot.

Learned counsel further submitted that earlier this Court vide order

dated 01/07/2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.31835/2021 after appreciating

all these facts of the case granted anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Though, Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 08/10/2021 passed

in Cr.A.No.1202/2021 set aside the order dated 01/07/2021 passed by

this Court in M.Cr.C.No.31835/2021, but only on that basis it cannot

be said that the applicant is not entitled to get regular bail. The

applicant is in custody since 20/10/2021. The charge-sheet has also

been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, hence it is prayed that

the applicant be released on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the State as well as objector opposed the

prayer and submitted that from the FIR and the statements of

complainant Prashant Singh Rajpoot and other eyewitness of the Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.12.08 11:34:55 IST

incident i.e. Dharmendra Patel & Raj Kishore it is clear that appellant

is also involved in the crime. He further submitted that earlier this

Court vide order dated 01/07/2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.31835/2021

granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. Thereafter, Hon'ble Apex

Court after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case set

aside the order and held that "the offence is of serious nature, in which

Vikas Singh was murdered and the statements under Sections 161 and

164 of the Cr.P.C. indicate a specific role to Jogendra Singh and

Suryabhan Singh in the crime". So, looking to the role of the applicant

in the incident and the case diary statements of Prashant Singh Rajpoot,

Dharmendra Patel and Raj Kishore the applicant is not entitled to get

bail. Hence, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected.

6. Earlier this Court vide order dated 01/07/2021 passed in

M.Cr.C.No.31835/2021 granted anticipatory bail to the applicant on the

ground that "investigating officer after investigation, on the basis of the

statements of witnesses found that the accused was not on the spot at

the time of the incident. His presence was found at Jabalpur at that

time. The veracity of the investigating officer's report can not be

ascertained at this stage, because it requires evidence to decide. But, at

this stage that report is one of the favouring factors to grant the

anticipatory bail to the applicant. In the FIR, there is no such allegation

against the applicant that he fired at the deceased or instigated co-

accused Ujiyar Singh to fire at the deceased. Charge-sheet has been

filed and custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required".

Against the said order complainant Prashant Singh Rajput filed a

Criminal Appeal No.1202/2021 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and

Hon'ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 08/10/2021 set aside the Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.12.08 11:34:55 IST

said order (order dated 01/07/2021) 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 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 Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.12.08 11:34:55 IST

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."

7. So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, contents

of FIR, 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.

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

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge as/

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.12.08 11:34:55 IST