Deepak Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6181 MP

                                                1
                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                       AT JABALPUR
                                                BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                        ON THE 26th OF APRIL, 2022

                                          MCRC-08013-2022

                      Between:-
                      GOPAL SINGH SOMWANSHI S/O SHRI ASHWINI
                      KUMAR SINGH , AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
                      OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB R/O VILLAGE
                      NAGLAHUSA,   POST     AMRITPUR,    DISTRICT
                      FARUKHABAD U.P. 209622 (UTTAR PRADESH)

                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                      (BY SHRI AMITABH GUPTA, ADVOCATE)

                      AND

                      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)) THROUGH
                      POLICE STATION CRIME BRANCH BHOPAL
                      DISTRICT BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SHRI AJAY TAMRAKAR, PANEL LAWYER ALONG WITH
                      DEVENDRA SAHU, I.O.)

                            MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5037 of 2022

                      Between:-
                      ((DEEPAK KUMAR S/O SANJAY KUMAR SINGH ,
                      AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE
                      JOB R/O 135, RATUAMPAR GOVINDPUR, DISTRICT
                      AAJAMGARH, (U.P.) (UTTAR PRADESH)

                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                      (BY SHRI JITENDRA ARYA, ADVOCATE)

                      AND

                      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)) THROUGH
                      POLICE STATION CRIME BRANCH BHOPAL (M.P.)
                      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SHRI AJAY TAMRAKAR, PANEL LAWYER ALONG WITH
                      DEVENDRA SAHU, I.O.)

                            MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8008 of 2022

                      Between:-
                      (DEEPAK KUMAR S/O SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH ,
                      AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE
Signature
 SAN      Not         JOB   R/O VILLAGE NAGARIYA JAWAHAR
Verified
                      SABALPUR, DISTRICT FARUKHABAD U.P. 209621
Digitally signed by   (UTTAR PRADESH)
MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Date: 2022.04.29
12:26:31 IST
                                     2
                                                                  .....PETITIONER
        (BY SHRI AMITABH GUPTA, ADVOCATE)

        AND

        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)) THROUGH
        POLICE STATION CRIM BRANCH BHOPAL
        DISTRICT BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                .....RESPONDENTS
        (BY SHRI AJAY TAMRAKAR, PANEL LAWYER ALONG WITH
        DEVENDRA SAHU, I.O.)

                 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8013 of 2022

        Between:-
        DEEPAK KUMAR S/O SHRI ARUN KUMAR , AGED
        ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB R/O
        VILLAGE NAGARIYA JAWAHAR SABALPUR,
        DISTRICT FARUKHABAD U.P. 209621 (UTTAR
        PRADESH)

                                                                  .....PETITIONER
        (BY SHRI AMITABH GUPTA, ADVOCATE)

        AND

        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)) THROUGH
        POLICE STATION CRIME BRANCH BHOPAL
        DISTRICT BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                .....RESPONDENTS
        (BY SHRI AJAY TAMRAKAR, PANEL LAWYER ALONG WITH
        DEVENDRA SAHU, I.O.)

      These applications coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
                                     ORDER

All these first bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the applicants.

Case Crime No.319/2021 is registered at Police Station - Crime Branch Bhopal, District Bhopal (M.P.) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 34 of IPC. Applicant Gopal Singh Somwanshi is in custody since 13.12.2021, Applicant Vivek Vikram Singh is in custody since 12.12.2021, Applicant Anshu Singh is in custody since 13.12.2021 and Applicant Deepak Kumar is in custody since 13.12.2021.

It is submitted that applicants are innocent. There are several lacunae in the conduct of the investigation. Just to prevent benefit of the default bail on

incomplete investigation, charge sheet is filed against the present applicants.

Reliance is placed on the decision of a Coordinate Bench in case of Hargovind Bhargava & Anr. Vs. State of M.P. & Anr, decided on 12.05.2016 at Gwalior Bench in M.Cr.C. No.9024/2015, wherein Hon'ble Coordinate Bench has held that the provisions of Section 178(8) of Cr.P.C. does not give any right to the investigating officer to keep the investigation pending against few accused persons. It is for him to complete the investigation of the case within a period prescribed under S. 167 of Cr.P.C. and if he wants to ensure as to whether any offence is made out against any person or not then such conclusion should be

obtained prior to filing of charge-sheet against any of the accused persons. After due investigation, it is a right of the police to declare some of the accused persons as absconding or at the time of filing of charge-sheet he may file the report under Section 169 of Cr.P.C. against some of the accused persons with the opinion that no offence is made out against them but the police has no right to reserve the investigation against few accused persons under the residuary provisions of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. either to give advantage to a particular accused person or otherwise. If such procedure is not followed then the Magistrate can refuse to take cognizance of the case because the investigation is incomplete and arrested person can be released on bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.

Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, it is submitted that notices were issued to certain applicants under Section 160 of Cr.P.C.

I.O. was out of Bhopal and had left Bhopal on 07.12.2021 by showing his departure and thereafter he had shown his return on 13.12.2021 whereas arrest of two of the accused namely Deepak Kumar and Vivek Vikram Singh has been shown on 12.12.2021 which points out towards major lacunae in the prosecution story.

It is submitted that there is no material to connect present applicants with the mobile numbers of Lakhan Singh, Hardeep Goel, Ritik, Raja Phogle.

It is submitted that even identity of the complainant Ujjwal Dubey is doubtful as he keeps on changing his mobile identification. It is submitted that there is no material to connect any of the accused to this alleged offence accept Vivek Vikram Singh, who received certain amounts in Indusind Bank account number ending

with last four digits 1323. It is submitted that applicants are innocent, they are youth and they have been falsely implicated, therefore, they be enlarged on bail.

I.O. Shri Devendra Sahu, in his turn, admits gracefully that there has been mistake on his part in recording his return on 13.12.2021 whereas he had returned on 12.12.2021 itself. It is further submitted that Mobile of Lakhan Singh was used by Gopal Singh Somwanshi, that of Hardeep Goel by Anshu Singh. There is another account in the name of Vivek Vikram Singh with the Kotak Bank. Vivek Vikram Singh received Rs.28 lakhs in his Indusind Bank Account on First December. He transferred around Rs. 11 lakh in the account of Yogesh. He transferred Rs.1 lakh in his own account maintained with Kotak Bank. Various amounts were transferred totalling about 9 lakhs + from the account of Ashish Kumar and Vivek Vikram Singh to the accounts of Praveen Kumar.

It is pointed out that Gopal Singh Somwanshi purchased a Car from Samarth Show Room, Gwalior for which payment of Rs.2,50,000/- was made by Praveen Kumar. Gopal Singh Somwanshi is using mobile phone of his brother-in- law. He has a criminal record.

It is further submitted that Deepak Kumar was using account of Vivek Vikram Singh and was carrying out transactions.

Deepak Kumar was maintaining 3 mobile phones bearing No.7318363191 on which he had talk with Gopal Singh Somwanshi carrying Mobile Number 9691141852 on 03.07.2021, 04.07.2021, 10.12.2021 and 19.12.2021. He also talked to Gopal Singh Somwanshi from his another Mobile Number 7880525245.

He was in constant touch with Yogesh on his Mobile Number ending with last four digits 5472. There is a call detail record of communication between Yogesh Kumar and Vivek Vikram Singh. Yogesh was using Mobile No.7016045472 and was talking to Vivek Vikram Singh on his Mobile Number 9336231803. It is submitted that memo of Deepak Kumar was obtained on 12.12.2021 at 7.30 pm. and ATM of Vivek Vikram Singh from Indusind Bank was seized from the possession of the Gopal Singh Somwanshi. It is thus submitted that involvement of Gopal Singh Somwanshi, Vivek Vikram Singh, Anshu Singh and Deepak Kumar having close nexus over telephone and exchanging several calls

makes it abundantly clear that they are hand in glove. Ashish transferred several amounts from his Bank Account with Federal Bank, to one Praveen Kumar and another Ashok Chouhan.

It is pointed out that as mentioned above, Anshu Singh had talk with Gopal on his Mobile ending with 1852 and Deepak. Anshu Singh talked to Gopal Singh Somwanshi on 23.10.2021 and 08.11.2021 so on whereas he talked to Deepak on 30.01.2021, 04.07.2021, 19.09.2021, and 9.12.2021. It is submitted that there is huge racket which is either indulging in the work of money laundering for cheating innocent persons or other economic fraud.

Shri Amitabh Gupta and Shri Jitendra Arya, in their turn, submits that I.O. has yet not visited the godown where the wheat to be procured was seen. It is submitted that it is un-heard that on a phone call such a huge amount will be transferred. It is also submitted that no KYC details or IMEI details have been taken by the I.O. so to connect the present applicants with the crime and, therefore, looking to their age and period of custody, they may be admitted to bail.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record and also taking into consideration, that investigation is still going on. There are

several loose ends which are being tied now. There is prima facie availability of material showing involvement of the present applicants, in my opinion this is not a fit case to extend the benefits of bail to the applicants where I.O. has been able to prima facie demonstrate their involvement.

I have highest regard for the judgment of the Coordinate Bench but fact of the matter is that Supreme Court in case of Joginder Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and another, 1979 Cr.L.J. 333, has categorically held that the case is committed to the Court of Sessions and accused are not committed to the Court of Sessions and also the investigating agencies is empowered under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. to further investigate the matter after filing of the charge sheet but not to re-investigate the matter.

I am of the opinion that there may be some technical lacunae here and there but at the Stage when investigation is going on and it is evident that there is a huge racket and one of the applicants Gopal Singh Somwanshi has criminal history of two more cases registered at Amritpur Fatehgarh and Rajepur Fatehgarh, Uttar

Pradesh under Section 21, 22 of NDPS Act and 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, this is not a fit case to extend benefit of bail, pending further investigation in the matter. Accordingly, these applications fail and are dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Tabish