Ramdarsh Mishra vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This is the second bail application filed by applicant Ramdarash Mishra under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.584/2018, registered at P.S. Mauganj, Distt. Rewa (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 of the IPC.

The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 30-4-2019 passed in M.Cr.C.No.14090/2019.

As per the prosecution case, the land bearing survey No.137/2 area 0.482 Hect. situated at Village Mudaria Teh. Mauganj was owned by Raj Kali, mother of complainant Vijay Shankar Dwivedi. On 06.08.2013, she had gone out from her house and thereafter, she did not return. On the report of complainant, police registered missing person case at Police Station Mauganj and tried to search her but she did not find. It is further alleged that on 28.10.2016, co-accused Usha Tiwari impersonating herself as Raj Kali executed the sale deed of said land in favour of co-accused Hari Shankar Jaiswal. Co-accused Raj Kumar Vishwakarma and Santosh Patel are the attesting witnesses of the said sale deed and the applicant was also involved in the crime.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence. Police only on the basis of the statement of co-accused Usha Tiwari implicated the applicant in the crime. The applicant is not the beneficiary of the said sale deed and neither the applicant executed the said sale deed nor did he witness of the said sale deed. Complainant himself gave the said disputed land to the applicant for cultivation. This fact is also admitted by the complainant in the complaint filed by him before the JMFC Mauganj, Rewa. The statement of co-accused recorded by the JMFC under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. is not admissible against the applicant in the evidence. The applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial. In the event of arrest, his reputation will be ruined. Under these circumstances, applicant prays for anticipatory bail. In this regard, he also placed reliance on Apex Court judgement passed in Rabindra Kr. Pal @ Dara Singh v. Republic of India, (2011) 2 SCC 490.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that co-accused Usha Tiwari impersonating herself as Raj Kali executed the sale deed of survey no.137/2 area 0.482 Hect. situated at village Mudaria Teh. Mauganj in favour of co-accused Hari Shankar Jaiswal. The applicant was also involved in the deal, so he should not be released on anticipatory bail.

The Apex court judgement Rabindra Kr. Pal @ Dara Singh v. Republic of India (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the applicant do not assist the applicant. Because in the instant case at present there is no prima facie evidence on record to show that learned trial court did not follow the procedure as mentioned in Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. while recording the statement of co-accused Usha Tiwari. The earlier bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 30-4-2019 passed in M.Cr.C.No.14090/2019 since then there is no change in circumstance. The applicant is still absconding. The anticipatory bail of other co-accused Pushpraj and Harishankar have already been rejected by the Apex Court vide order dated 09.05.2019 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4240/2019 and vide order dated 01.05.2019 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3600/2019 respectively. So this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Hence, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.