Suryabhan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2075 MP

                                             1




          HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR


SINGE BENCH: HON. SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY, J.


                   MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No.18604/2021


                                   Suryabhan Singh
                                          Versus
                               State of Madhya Pradesh

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Shri Anil Khare, Senior Counsel with Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate
for the applicant.
        Shri Sanjay Kumar Malviya, P.L. for the respondent/State.
        Shri A.M. Trivedi, Senior Counsel with Shri Ashish Trivedi, Advocate
for the objector.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      O R D E R

(Reserved on 27/05/2021) (Delivered on 31/05/2021)

This is the first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of

anticipatory bail. Applicant Suryabhan Singh apprehends his arrest 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 co-accused Jogendra Singh. Applicant

Suryabhan Singh and co-accused 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 Singh took the gun from his father Ujyar Singh

and fired a gun shot at Vikas and the bullet hit his head. Applicant

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 Suryabhan Singh and co-accused Jogendra Singh, Ujyar Singh,

and Chhotu @ Chandrabhan and investigated the matter. During

investigation, police on the basis of call details and the mobile tower

location and CCTV footage, found that applicant Suryabhan Singh and co-

accused 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 co-accused Ujyar Singh and Chhotu

Singh. On that, learned JMFC, Sihora vide order dated 10/3/2021, issued

bailable warrant against applicant Suryabhan Singh and co-accused Jogendra

Singh. On that, applicant Suryabhan filed anticipatory bail application which

was rejected by the learned ASJ Sihora. On that, the applicant filed this

anticipatory bail application.

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.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 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 due to old enmity, the complainant implicated the whole family of Ujyar

Singh in the crime. At the time of incident, the applicant was not present at

the spot, but was at Jabalpur. Even co-accused Ujyar Singh himself lodged

the report regarding the incident stating that in the incident, he fired at Vikas

Singh. Police also after investigating on the basis of CCTV footage, mobile

location of the applicant and the statements of witnesses found that at the

time of incident, the applicant was not present on the spot but was at

Jabalpur. Learned JMFC wrongly issued warrant against the applicant.

5. 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 in the incident, he assaulted

Prashant Singh. While Prashant Singh sustained only simple injuries. The

charge sheet has also been filed, so the custodial interrogation of the

applicant is not required. There is no likelihood of his absconding or

tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is ready to cooperate

in the trial. In the event of arrest, his reputation will be ruined. Under these

circumstances, the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail. In this

regard, learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on Apex Court

judgments passed in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State

of Maharashtra & Others reported in (2011)1 SCC 694,Vasanti Dubey vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2012) 2 SCC 731 and Arnab

Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and others reported in

(2021) 2 SCC 427.

6. Learned counsel for the State as well as objector opposed the prayer

and submitted that before the incident, deceased Vikas lodged the complaint

against the present applicant on which, police registered NCR on 30/7/2020

at P.S. Panagar, Distt. Jabalpur and the applicant filed anticipatory bail

application. Since, deceased Vikas Singh had filed an objection in that case,

so in order to take revenge, the applicant and co-accused murdered the

deceased. The Sessions Court as well as High Court dismissed the bail

application of the applicant.

7. Learned counsel of the objector further submitted that in the FIR

lodged by complainant Prashant Singh, eye witness of the incident, it is

clearly mentioned that the applicant was present at the spot and he took part

in the incident and assaulted Prashant Singh by butt of the gun due to which

Prashant Singh sustained injury in his head. He also fired at Prashant Singh

by gun. Applicant is an influential person, so police wrongly exonerated the

applicant, who was very much involved in the crime. He further submitted

that police only on the basis of tower location of mobile no. 6261630433 and

9589791899 and the CCTV footage, took the view that at the time of

incident, the applicant was not present on the spot. But, there is no evidence

on record to show that sim no. 6261630433 and 9589791899 were allotted to

applicant by the service provider. The incident is said to have occurred

between 12 to 1 p.m., while the CCTV footage collected by the police was

of 2 p.m. So, only on the basis of tower location of mobile no. 6261630433

and 9589791899 and the CCTV footage, it cannot be said that at the time of

the incident, the applicant was not present on spot. If the applicant is

released on bail, he would tamper with the evidence, so the applicant is not

entitled to get anticipatory bail. In this regard, learned counsel for the

objector also placed reliance on the Apex Court judgment passed in State of

Maharashtra vs. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple reported in (1984) 1 SCC

446.

8. However, the name of the accused is mentioned in the First

Information Report, investigating officer after investigation, on the basis of

the statements of witnesses, tower location of mobile no. 6261630433 and

9589791899 and the CCTV footage, 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 judgement of the Apex Court passed in the case of State of

Maharashtra vs. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple (supra) does not help the

objector because the plea of alibi is proved or not will be decided at the time

of judgement after evaluating all the evidence. 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. The only

allegation, against the applicant in the FIR, is that he assaulted Prashant

Singh, who sustained a simple injury. Charge-sheet has been filed, custodial

interrogation of the applicant is not required. So, looking to the facts and

circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that if

the applicant surrenders himself before concerned court within fifteen days

from today, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal

bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one

surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his

regular appearance before the Court during trial.

9. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the

following conditions by the applicant :-

1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond

executed by him;

2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or

promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade

him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the

case may be;

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which

he is accused;

5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial

Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for compliance.

C.C. on payment of usual charges.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) V.Judge m/-

Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date:

2021.05.31 13:03:40 +05'30'