Deepak Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6187 MP

                                                                      1




                                               HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

                                           SINGLE BENCH : RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY, J

                                                       M.Cr.C.No.42817/2021
                                                              Deepak Thakur
                                                               Vs.
                                        State of M.P. through Special Police Establishment

                                                         =================
                                  Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Tanvi Khare,
                                  learned counsel for the applicant.
                                  Shri Abhijeet Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent-
                                  Lokayukt.
                                           ==================================
                                                                  ORDER

(29/09/2021)

This is the first application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Applicant Deepak Thakur apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.273/2015 registered at Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta Office, Bhopal for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the IPC.

2. As per the prosecution story, on 28/12/2012 & 25/02/2013 Rini Johar and Gulshan Johar respectively lodged complaints to Lokayukt, Bhopal averring that they were the authorised dealers of Aura Photo Frame (a foreign Company), in India. Owing to a dispute about the sale of two cameras to one Vikram Rajput, regarding which he had filed a complaint at State Cyber Cell, Bhopal and the cell had registered an FIR (Crime No.24/2012) for the offences punishable under Section 420, 34 of the IPC and Section 66-D of the Information & Technology Act against Rini Johar and Gulshan Johar. It is further alleged that applicant Deepak Thakur, the Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.09.29 16:38:39 IST

then Dy. Superintendent of Police, Cyber Police, Bhopal in connivance with other co-accused persons demanded Rs.10,00,000/- as a bribe for filing a closure report in the crime against the complainant Gulshan Johar and for early filing the charge-sheet against complainant Rini Johar in the crime. In lieu of that, applicant and other co-accused extracted Rs. five lakhs from the complainants. On 15/12/2012 complainant Gulshan Johar gave a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to applicant Deepak Thakur as a bribe and on 19/12/20212 Titus Joseph (a client of complainant Gulshan Johar) gave a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to co-accused Indrapal & Sourabh Bhatt (both Constable) as bribe. On that complaint, officials of the Lokayukt, Bhopal investigated the matter and during investigation recorded the statements of Gulshan Johar, Titus Joseph, Amit Gadok, Sunny @ Navjeet. After investigation, officials of Special Police Establishment Lokayukt, Bhopal found that the applicant in connivance with other co-accused persons illegally extracted money from the complainants and registered Crime No.273/2015 at State Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta, Office, Bhopal for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the IPC against applicant and co-accused persons. Thus, the applicant is apprehending his arrest in the crime.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the Crime No.24/2012 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 34 of the IPC and Section 66-D of the Information & Technology Act was registered against the complainants Rini Johar and Gulshan Johar on the report of Vikram Rajput. The complainants were arrested in that crime under the pressure of the President of Madhya Pradesh Human Right Commission and the applicant did not arrest the complainants. It is alleged that the complainants gave money to the applicant for filing an early charge-sheet and for filing a closure report against Gulshan Johar in the crime, while the applicant filed charge-sheet against both the complainants, which clearly shows that they filed false complaints against the applicant because the applicant had filed a charge-sheet against the complainants. The alleged offence was registered in the year 2015 and the applicant fully cooperated in Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.09.29 16:38:39 IST

the investigation and thereafter charge-sheet has also been filed, so the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. Even, Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 03/11/2016 passed in M.Cr.C.No.20366/2015 granted interim protection to the applicant against arrest, which still exists. The applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be released on anticipatory bail. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director, passed in Criminal Appeal No.929/2021, Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another passed in SLP (Cri.) 5191/2021, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, (2011) 1 SCC 694, and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and others, (2021) 2 SCC 427.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Lokayukta opposed the prayer and submitted that due to interim protection given to the applicant by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated order dated 03/11/2016 passed in M.Cr.C.No.20366/2015, Lokayukta Police could not arrest the applicant. From the statements of complainant Rini Johar & Gulshan Johar and Titus Joseph it is clear that on 15/12/2012 applicant took Rs.2,50,000/- from complainant Gulshan Johar and thereafter on behalf of applicant on 19/12/20212 co-accused Indrapal Singh & Sourabh Bhatt (both constable) took Rs.2,50,000/- from Titus Joseph (a client of complainant Gulshan Johar). Co-accused Indrapal Singh & Sourabh Bhatt were frequently in touch with Titus Joseph on phone and as per the call details report between 27/11/2012 to 19/12/2012 they talked many times with Titus Joseph. Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.30/2015 filed by Rini Johar and Gulshan Johar held that applicant wrongly arrested the complainant in Crime No.24/2012 registered at State Cyber Cell, Bhopal for the offences punishable under Section 420, 34 of the IPC and Section 66-D of the Information & Technology Act and quashed the whole proceedings of that crime, in which applicant had filed charge-sheet against the complainants. Applicant who is a police officer by misusing his official possession Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.09.29 16:38:39 IST

extracted money from complainants. So he should not be released on anticipatory bail.

5. The facts of the cases Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director (supra), Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another (supra), Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, (supra) and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and others (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant do not match with the present case. In the first two cases Hon'ble Apex Court did not lay down any principle regarding granting of anticipatory bail. In the third case Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that "No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. The grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on the fact and circumstances of each case". In the fourth case applicant had filed a writ of Habeas Corpus, claiming that he had been illegally arrested and wrongfully detained by the Station House Officer at Alibaug Police in relation to a First Information Report (registered on 5 May 2018 under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in spite of an earlier closure report which was accepted by the Magistrate and for quashing of the FIR. So these judgements do not assist the applicant.

6. It is alleged that the applicant who is a police officer by misusing his official position extracted money from complainants. So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent-Lokayukta and the strength of evidence collected by the prosecution during investigation against the applicant, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

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

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) JUDGE

as/

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.09.29 16:38:39 IST