Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Arora vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 May, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 22 nd OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 15044 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
RAKESH ARORA S/O SHRI KASHMIRILAL ARORA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
BUNGALOW NO. 48, NEEMUCH, TEHSIL AND DIST.
NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI AJAY KUMAR MISHRA - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI KARTIK
TIWARI- ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION NEEMUCH CITY,
DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI AJAY RAJ GUPTA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND SHRI RISHI TIWARI
- ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR)
This application coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is first application filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C in crime
no.43/2024 under section 307, 341, 34, 120-B of IPC and section 25, 27 of
Arms Act registered at police station Neemuch Kant District Neemuch.
As per the prosecution story is that on 05/02/2024 the aforesaid crime
was registered against an unknown person on a written complaint made by the
complainant Narayan Singh S/o Bhagwat Singh Rathore on the pretext of 4
unknown assailants who came in a black creta Car bearing no. MP-44-CB-2430
and assaulted injured Ashok by fire arm. It was alleged that on 04/02/2024 at
about 4:30 PM complainant was going in front of city light furniture Neemuch
and ahead of him injured Ashok S/o Kashmirilal was going in his Volvo Car
bearing registration no. DD- 02-G-1100 and the complainant were escorting him
from behind in a black Scorpio for his security.
It was further alleged that as soon as they reached at City Light furniture
shop, a black color Creta Car bearing registration no. MP-44- CB-2430 came
and the same was parked in front of the Volvo Car. It was alleged that from the
said Creta car 4 unknown assailants came out and started firing gun shots over
the car of injured Ashok. It was further alleged that the complainant along with
others got down from their car and in defense shot gun fire over the assaulting
party.
It was further alleged after the altercation 3 unknown assailants left the
spot leaving the car behind and one assailant was lying on the ground in an
injured condition, hence the report.
During the course of investigation, it was revealed that Injured Ashok is a
resident of Neemuch city and is in a business of buying and selling of
properties. It was further revealed that co-accused Jai Kumar @Babu S/o
Tolaram Sindhi is also in the same business along with one Arpit @ Lucky S/o
Omprakash Singhal and the parties were having inimical relations over the said
business.
It was further revealed that co-accused Jaikumar @ Babu Sindhi was
arrested in year 2021 by CBN in a case pertaining to NDPS Act and for safety
reasons he was shifted to Central Jail Ujjain. It was revealed that co-accused
Jaikumar @ Babu Sindhi regularly use to communicate in respect of murder of
Ashok Arora in jail. It is further alleged by the prosecution that injured Ashok
Arora and present applicant are the real brother and due to dispute regarding
family property, the relation between the two brother were not cordial.
It was further alleged that co-accused Jaikumar @ Babu Sindhi during the
course of his incarceration at Central Jail Ujjain came in contact with co-
accused Nisar @ Ahmed Adil and other co-accused persons. It was further
revealed that co-accused Babu @ Mazhar secured his bail from this bench and
was released from Jail and similarly co-accused Nisar @ Ahmed Adil was also
released on bail.
It was further reveled that main accused co-accused Jaikumar @ Babu
Sindhi was also released on temporary bail for a period of 1 month on account
of medical exigencies and there they hatched the conspiracy to commit murder
of injured Ashok.
It was further alleged that during the course of conspiracy the other
accused persons also involved the present applicant since the applicant was not
having cordial relation with injured Ashok.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that except memo of co-
accused Babu Sindhi and co-accused Akram there is no evidence connecting
the present applicant with the commission of the offence. It is argued that he
has been implicated only on the basis of suspicion and the memo of co-
accused under section 27 of Evidence Act which is not admissible in evidence.
Learned counsel for the respondent/state and objector opposed the
prayer and submits that in the statement of Babu Sindhi and Akram name of the
present applicant was mentioned that he had hired professional shooters and
conspired to commit the present offence. They have heavily relied on the memo
of co-accused Akram who had stated that in the farmhouse of Babu Sindhi, two
persons had come and one of them was short heighted and mustache. On the
basis of that, it is said that the applicant was the same person who had made
conspiracy for commission of this offence. It is also submitted that a mobile of
the applicant has been seized. However, the prosecution could not point out
any call details of the applicant with the co-accused persons from the said
mobile. Counsel for the state submits that there are three criminal record of the
applicant.
Learned counsel for the objector placed reliance on the judgment passed
in the case of Esher Singh Vs. State of A.P reported in (2004) 11 SCC 585 .
He referred para no.35 wherein it is stated that in a case of conspiracy, there
cannot be any direct evidence.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
that in the present case, except memo of co-accused Babu Sindhi and Akram
under section 27 of the Evidence Act, there is no other evidence connecting the
present applicant for making conspiracy for commission of this offence. There
is neither call details nor CCTV footage. The memo of co-accused cannot be a
basis for making out a prima faice case against the applicant.
The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the objector would not
render any assistance in the present case as the said case was not dealing with
the grant of bail but was considering the appeal against the order of conviction.
The investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed,
therefore, prima facie case is made out for grant of conditional bail. Therefore,
without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the application is
allowed.
It is directed that applicant Rakesh Arora shall be released from custody
upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only)
with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below on the
following conditions :
(i) That applicant shall not influence the witnesses and
shall not indulgence in any offence during the bail and if
he indulges in any offence during the bail, the
prosecution may file an application for cancellation of
bail.
(ii) The applicant shall mark his presence before the
concerned police station on every 15th day of the month
during the pendency of trial.
(iii) The applicant shall surrender his passport before
the trial Court.
A typed copy of this order is being forwarded to the Office of the
Advocate General, on their email address, for intimation to the Police Station
concerned. The office is directed to forward a copy of this order to the court
below.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
