Suryabhan Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J

This is the first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant Suryabhan Singh apprehends his arrest in

connection with Crime No.329/2020, registered at Police Station Majholi, District Jabalpur (MP) for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323

and 34 of the IPC.

As per prosecution case, on 29/09/2020 complainant Prashant Singh Rajput lodged a report at P.S. Majholi, Distt. Jabalpur averring that, between

12 and 1 pm deceased Vikas Singh, Rajkishore, Dharmendra and he were standing at Negai Tiraha, Indrana, where co-accused Ujyar Singh came in

a jeep which was being driven by co-accused Jogendra Singh. Applicant Suryabhan Singh and co-accused Chhotu @ Chandrabhan were also standing

there. Due to previous enmity, Ujyar Singh fired a gunshot targeting deceased Vikas Singh with intent to kill him. The bullet hit his stomach, thereafter,

Chhotu Singh took the gun from his father Ujyar Singh and fired a gun shot at Vikas and the bullet hit his head. Applicant Suryabhan assaulted him

(Prashant Singh) by butt of the same gun, due to which he sustained injury in his head. He took Vikas to Metro Hospital Jabalpur then Medical

College Jabalpur, where doctors declared him dead. On that, police registered Crime No.329/2020 at PS Majholi Distt. Jabalpur for the offence

punishable under Sections 302, 323 and 34 of the IPC against applicant Suryabhan Singh and co-accused Jogendra Singh, Ujyar Singh, and Chhotu @

Chandrabhan and investigated the matter. During investigation, police on the basis of call details and the mobile tower location and CCTV footage,

found that applicant Suryabhan Singh and co-accused Jogendra Singh were not present on the spot at the time of incident. So, the police did not file a

charge sheet against them. On the charge-sheet filed by the police, learned Magistrate directed the police to further investigate the matter. The Police

again after investigation, filed a further investigation report but even in that report, police stated that it was found that the offence was committed only

by co-accused Ujyar Singh and Chhotu Singh. On that, learned JMFC, Sihora vide order dated 10/3/2021, issued bailable warrant against applicant

Suryabhan Singh and co-accused Jogendra Singh. On that, applicant Suryabhan filed anticipatory bail application which was rejected by the learned

ASJ Sihora. On that, the applicant filed this anticipatory bail application.

On 30/09/2020, co-accused Ujyar Singh also lodged a report at P.S. Majholi, Distt. Jabalpur averring that on 29/09/2020 at around 12:45 pm, when

he reached Negai Tiraha, Indrana, by his Jeep bearing registration No.MP20H5011 which was being driven by Bablu, he met Vikas Singh and Prasant

Singh. They abused him and when he objected, Prashant Singh assaulted him by stick due to which he sustained injury in his head and Vikas Singh

assaulted him by kicks and fists. On that, he fired with his point 0.22 licency gun, due to which Vikas sustained gunshot injuries in his stomach and

head. Prashant also assaulted him by stick, due to which his gun was broken and he sustained injury on fingers of his left hand. On that, police also

registered Crime no.0331/2020 at P.S. Majholi Distt. Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 325, 506 and 34 of the IPC

against deceased Vikas and complainant Prashant Singh Rajput.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submitted that due to

old enmity, the complainant implicated the whole family of Ujyar Singh in the crime. At the time of incident, the applicant was not present at the spot,

but was at Jabalpur. Even co-accused Ujyar Singh himself lodged the report regarding the incident stating that in the incident, he fired at Vikas Singh.

Police also after investigating on the basis of CCTV footage, mobile location of the applicant and the statements of witnesses found that at the time of

incident, the applicant was not present on the spot but was at Jabalpur. Learned JMFC wrongly issued warrant against the applicant.

He further submitted that even otherwise, in the FIR lodged by complainant Prasant Singh alleged eyewitness of the incident, there is no allegation

against the applicant that the applicant fired at deceased Vikas Singh. The only allegation against him is that in the incident, he assaulted Prashant

Singh. While Prashant Singh sustained only simple injuries. The charge sheet has also been filed, so the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not

required. There is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial. In the

event of arrest, his reputation will be ruined. Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail. In this regard, learned

counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on Apex Court judgments passed in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra

& Others reported in (2011)1 SCC 694,Vasanti Dubey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2012) 2 SCC 731 and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami

Vs State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2021) 2 SCC 427.

Learned counsel for the State as well as objector opposed the prayer and submitted that before the incident, deceased Vikas lodged the complaint

against the present applicant on which, police registered NCR on 30/7/2020 at P.S. Panagar, Distt. Jabalpur and the applicant filed anticipatory bail

application. Since, deceased Vikas Singh had filed an objection in that case, so in order to take revenge, the applicant and co-accused murdered the

deceased. The Sessions Court as well as High Court dismissed the bail application of the applicant.

Learned counsel of the objector further submitted that in the FIR lodged by complainant Prashant Singh, eye witness of the incident, it is clearly

mentioned that the applicant was present at the spot and he took part in the incident and assaulted Prashant Singh by butt of the gun due to which

Prashant Singh sustained injury in his head. He also fired at Prashant Singh by gun. Applicant is an influential person, so police wrongly exonerated the

applicant, who was very much involved in the crime. He further submitted that police only on the basis of tower location of mobile no. 6261630433 and

9589791899 and the CCTV footage, took the view that at the time of incident, the applicant was not present on the spot. But, there is no evidence on

record to show that sim no. 6261630433 and 9589791899 were allotted to applicant by the service provider. The incident is said to have occurred

between 12 to 1 p.m., while the CCTV footage collected by the police was of 2 p.m. So, only on the basis of tower location of mobile no. 6261630433

and 9589791899 and the CCTV footage, it cannot be said that at the time of the incident, the applicant was not present on spot. If the applicant is

released on bail, he would tamper with the evidence, so the applicant is not entitled to get anticipatory bail. In this regard, learned counsel for the

objector also placed reliance on the Apex Court judgment passed in State of Maharashtra vs. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple reported in (1984) 1 SCC

446.

However, the name of the accused is mentioned in the First Information Report, investigating officer after investigation, on the basis of the

statements of witnesses, tower location of mobile no. 6261630433 and 9589791899 and the CCTV footage, found that the accused was not on the spot

at the time of the incident. His presence was found at Jabalpur at that time. The judgement of the Apex Court passed in the case of State of

Maharashtra vs. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple (supra) does not help the objector because the plea of alibi is proved or not will be decided at the time

of judgement after evaluating all the evidence. The veracity of the investigating officer’s report can not be ascertained at this stage, because it

requires evidence to decide. But, at this stage that report is one of the favouring factors to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicant. In the FIR, there

is no such allegation against the applicant that he fired at the deceased or instigated co-accused Ujiyar Singh to fire at the deceased. The only

allegation, against the applicant in the FIR, is that he assaulted Prashant Singh, who sustained a simple injury. Charge-sheet has been filed, custodial

interrogation of the applicant is not required. So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that if

the applicant surrenders himself before concerned court within fifteen days from today, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a

personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his

regular appearance before the Court during trial.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-

The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to

dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for compliance.

C.C. on payment of usual charges.