Raja Gurjar vs State of Madhya Pradesh

S.K. Palo, J.—This is the first application for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested on 16.10.2014 in connection with Crime No. 165/2014, registered at Police Station Bilaua District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Section 365 of IPC and under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.

It is alleged that on 6.10.2014 the complainant Ravindra, along with Lokendra were carrying milk in the motor cycle to be supplied at Gwalior. At about 6 AM at village Bastri near Patpari Jungle, the accused persons namely Bhure Singh, Arvind, Raja, Officer, Bhupendra Singh, Phool Singh, Raghuveer, Mukesh, Sirman, Veerbal and Kallu Baghel abducted him and beaten him. They fired firearms while abducting him.

The accused Sirman, Kallu Baghel armed with guns. Accused Arvind and accused Afficer armed with country made pistol, Accused Bhura was also armed with country made pistol, Accused Phool Singh was having 12 bore gun. Accused Raja, Raghuveer armed with Danda (wooden stick), Accused Veerbal armed with iron rod, Accused Mukesh armed with Lathi and Accused Bhura was empty handed.

Complainant was surrounded by the accused persons, who came out from behind bushes. Accused Sirman inflicted injury by the Butt of the gun, which hit on the right arm of the complainant. He fell down from the motor cycle. Milk, which he was carrying in the cans spread on the ground. The accused Officer twisted Safi (Turban) and used as a noose at the neck of the complainant. Accused Kallu Baghel hit on the back by the butt of the gun. He was taken to the fields. The accused Mukesh and Officer caught the hands of the complainant and dragged him into the Jungle. Accused Veerbal took the gun from Kallu and fired in the air. Accused Sirman also fired in the air. They blind folded him by cloth. The accused Bhupendra and Arvind also tide his hands by Safi (Turban). Complainant was taken to the temple of Rajan. Accused Sirman told to throw the complainant into Kund (Tank), but some passer-by were taking bath. Therefore, he was taken towards a house at a distance of half KM. His blind fold was opened. He was allowed to wash his face. Then they stayed there for some time. When it was getting dark, the complainant was taken to a garden near the temple at village Mohana. The accused Sirman, Kallu, Officer and Raja guarded, him whereas the other accused persons went away. At 10 PM they returned with food. All of them ate and made the complainant to eat Roti with Achar. They unfolded his hands and he was allowed to walk. They reached Lakhanpura at 12 PM. His hands and legs were tide. Every one went to sleep. Next day in the morning at about 6 AM they opened a Safi, in which they kept Boondi (sweet eatable). All the accused ate the Boondi and the complainant was also allowed to eat Boondi. Then he was taken towards Mohana village. Some people of the village came there. The accused Sirman directed all the accused persons to switch off their cell phones. Officer said if he speaks by the mobile phone, the police can trace them. The whole day they remained there. All of them took food which was brought by someone. At the night the abductee was taken to the jungle. He was tide by rope. In the morning there was commotion every one was running here and there. Because police had come. The abductee was left there tide, as they saw some police men coming. Complainant shouted at the police men. He told the police about himself. His rope was untide. The police tried to trace out the accused persons. The complainant was taken to the Police Station, Bilaua.

On behalf of the applicant Raja Gurjar, it is submitted that only a Lathi was seized from him. He is innocent, Due to land dispute the applicant has been falsely implicated. The investigation is complete. All the accused were arrested. Therefore, the applicant be given the benefit of bail.

Learned P.P. for the State opposed the application vehemently and it is submitted that from accused Mukesh, Kallu, Sirman 12 bore Katta and guns were seized. From accused Raja, Officer, Bhure, Raghuveer and Phool Singh Lathis were seized.

It is also claimed that in the FIR all the accused persons are named. Police party searched the abductee and recovered from the jungle on the second day.

Besides, it is also claimed that there are six criminal cases were registered against the accused Arvind. Nine criminal cases were registered against accused Officer. Eleven ashes were registered against accused Raja. Four criminal cases were registered against accused Mukesh, Nine criminal cases have been registered against accused Bhupendra and three criminal cases have been registered against accused Phool Singh.

In view of the above, the applicant and the other accused persons with pre-planning and with preparation committed the offence. Therefore, the applicant is not entitle to the benefit of bail.

On behalf of the complainant, the learned counsel has suggested that the application of regular bail of accused Bhure was rejected on 9.12.2012. The argument putforth by the counsel for the applicant that the earlier bail application of accused Bhure was rejected on the ground that the accused are yet to be arrested, charge sheet is yet to be filed, investigation is in preliminary stage. Therefore, discretion was not exercised in favour of the applicant. Now, that the investigation is complete, charge sheet has been filed therefore, the application for regular bail may be considered, is not correct.

Contrary to it, counsel for the complainant argued that subsequent to the rejection of the bail application of accused Bhure on 9.12.2014, charge sheet has been filed in December 2014. However, subsequent to that application for regular bail filed on behalf of the co-accused Arvind (M. Cr. C No. 11717/2014) was rejected on 18.2.2015 on merits. Therefore, there is no change in the circumstances. It is also contended that the accused Veerbal, Bahadur are yet to be arrested. Therefore, no change in the circumstances for grant of bail.

The actions of the one accused, in the present case, cannot be considered in isolation. Because there was meeting of mind and accused persons in furtheranance of their common object committed the crime and acted differently, but their action cannot be considered differently. For each one of them acted according to the plan. Besides, the statement of abductee under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. illustrated the whole incident vividly and involvement of the applicant in the crime has been made clear.

Keeping in view the whole incident at a glance, I find it is not a proper case to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.

Accordingly, application is rejected.