Anoop Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 431 MP

                                                           1                              MCRC-50811-2020
                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                        MCRC-50811-2020
                                          (ANOOP SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                     MCRC-52035-2020
                                   (RAJESH KUMAR VERMA @ SHASHIKANT VERMA Vs THE STATE OF M.P.)


                      Jabalpur, Dated : 03-03-2021
                            Shri Pushpendra Kumar Verma, counsel for the applicant in
                      M.Cr.C.No.52035/2020.
                            Shri      Prakash     Upadhyay,      counsel     for    the     applicant   in
                      M.Cr.C.No.50811/2020.

                            Shri Sanjay Yadav, Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/State.

Heard on both petitions filed under section 439 of CrPC on 17.12.2020 and 11.12.2020 on behalf of applicant Rajesh Kumar Verma alias Shashikant Verma, aged about 28 years and applicant Anoop Singh, aged about 28 years, who have been arrested on 4.9.2020 and 3.9.2020 respectively in connection with Crime No.164/2020, registered at Police Station Sohagi, District Rewa, under sections 394, 412, 413 read with section 34 of IPC.

Learned counsel Shri Prakash Upadhyay submitted that applicant Anoop Singh is confined in custody since 3.9.2020. His test identification

parade was conducted after a long time from the date of incident. Therefore, he should be enlarged on bail.

The State opposed the application. It is submitted that the applicant having criminal background. Previously, Crime No.20/2009 under sections 341, 204, 323, 327 and 506/34 of IPC, Crime No.13/2018 under section 379 of IPC and Crime No.34/2018 under section 379 of IPC were registered against the applicant. In this case, the applicant has been identified by the complainant and the recovery was also made from him. Therefore, the applicant should not be enlarged on bail.

Shri P.K.Verma, learned counsel for applicant Rajesh Kumar Verma submitted that as per the prosecution case, the applicant was not involved in the original crime of loot. Only looted motorcycle has been seized from his Signature Not SAN Verified possession. Applicant was the bonafide purchaser of the motorcycle. He is Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 2021.03.03 16:57:03 IST 2 MCRC-50811-2020 also having no any criminal background. Therefore, he should be enlarged on bail.

The State opposed the aforesaid application also. It is submitted that the applicant is involved in the similar type of business. He also purchased another motorcycle from the accused Sonu. Therefore, he should not be

enlarged on bail.

T h e photocopy of challan has been filed by the applicant Anoop Singh. As per prosecution case, complainant Naibul Hasan R/o Teonthar was going upon motorcycle from Village Gangeve to Teonthar on 9.7.2020. Near Parasigarh, he noticed that 4 persons upon one motorcycle were stalking him. When the complainant crossed Suhagi Toll Barrier and reached near Adgadnath Mandir, the aforesaid persons snatched his bag, which was holding on the back of complainant. The complainant along with the motorcycle fell down. Then the accused persons beat him and looted his bag and motorcycle. In the head-light of other vehicles crossed from the spot, the complainant saw the faces of accused persons. The bag, which was looted, contained the clothes and mobile of the complainant and the motorcycle bearing no.MP 17 MM 4263 was also looted.

During investigation police came to the conclusion that 5 accused persons were involved in this case. Accused Anoop Singh, Aditya Pratap Singh alias Sonu, Ankit Mishra and Raja Babu Sharma alias Kajju committed loot. Accused Rajesh Kumar Verma received the motor cycle, which was looted. Accused Anoop, Rajesh and Aditya have been arrested by the police and the challan has been filed against them. Accused Raja Babu Sharma was found juvenile, therefore, his case was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board. Accused Ankit Mishra is still absconding. Challan has been filed by showing him as an "absconded accused" under section 299 of CrPC. It is also appeared from the challan that the looted mobile has been seized from accused Sonu. Looted motorcycle was sold by accused Anoop Singh to

Signature Not accused Rajesh Verma, which was seized from his possession. The looted SAN Verified

Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 2021.03.03 16:57:03 IST 3 MCRC-50811-2020 bag has been seized from the possession of accused Anoop Singh. In test identification parade, the complainant identified the accused Anoop Singh. Accused Rajesh Kumar Verma was not identified, but it is natural because Rajesh Verma was not involved in the loot. He only purchased or received the motorcycle from one accused Anoop Singh. Accused Anoop Singh also having criminal background.

T he counsel for applicant Anoop Singh submitted that he has filed some documents showing the result of all three previous cases registered against the applicant. The aforesaid documents show that Criminal Case No.295/2009 was under sections 341, 294, 323, 327, 506-I and 323/34 of IPC in which the judgment of acquittal has been passed on 31.1.2017. Crime

No.34/2018 was under section 379 of IPC in which also the applicant has been acquitted upon the basis of compromise on 8.12.2018 and the third case Crime No.11/2018 under sections 294, 341, 327, 323 and 506/34 of IPC is pending and the aforesaid case No.11/2018 is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Teonthar, which was listed on 18.9.2020. Hence, it may be presumed that the aforesaid case is still pending.

Looking to aforesaid all documents annexed with the challan, the involvement of accused Anoop Singh in the crime cannot be disputed.

In the aforesaid situation, keeping in view the role of applicant Anoop Singh in the crime, previous criminal background and other circumstances of the case, he is not entitled to get the bail.

Hence, M.Cr.C.No.50811/2020 is dismissed. A s far as applicant Rajesh Kumar Verma alias Shashikant Verma is concerned, then it appears that he was not involved in the loot. But it appears that he purchased the motorcycle from accused Anoop Singh on 14.7.2020. He admitted in his memo that on 14.7.2020 he purchased the Passion Motorcycle White Colour without number from accused Anoop Singh in Rs.10,000/-. He also admitted that before 6 months, he also purchased another TVS motorcycle without number from accused Sonu Singh in Signature SAN Not Verified

Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 2021.03.03 16:57:03 IST 4 MCRC-50811-2020 Rs.6000/-.

Therefore, it appears that the aforesaid accused purchased two motorcycles without any registration numbers and without getting any valid documents. A person, who purchases the motorcycle without number and without valid documents, definitely comes under the category of person, who knowingly purchased the property, which was the subject matter of crime.

But it appears that he is confined in custody since 4.9.2020 and having no any criminal antecedents. The State did not point out any previous crime registered against this applicant. He is a person, aged about 28 years.

Therefore, looking to the aforesaid situation, M.Cr.C.No.52035/2020 is allowed. It is ordered that applicant Rajesh Kumar Verma alias Shashikant Verma shall be released on bail upon his furnishing a bail bond worth Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) and a personal bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

At the time of releasing the applicant from custody, all the instructions issued by the State Government related to COVID-19 shall also be followed by the concerned authorities.

The trial court is also requested to dispose of the case on priority basis as early as possible.

Certified copy as per rules.

(B. K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE

TG /-

Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
TRUPTI GUNJAL
Date: 2021.03.03
16:57:03 IST