Sushil Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Regard being had to the similitude of the crime based on crime No.191/2020, on the joint request of the parties, these applications for grant of anticipatory bail were heard finally.

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicants have been falsely implicated.

As per prosecution story, 194 boxes of Goa liquor were recovered from an open place i.e. Jungle of Hardua. There is no iota of material except memorandum prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of Jassa @ Anoop wherein he changed his previous stand and took the names of present applicants. To elaborate, Shri Kochar urged that this Court passed an order dated 21.08.2020 in M.Cr.C. No.25469/2020 and asked the prosecution as to what is the material on the strength of which these applicants were arraigned as co-accused. The second memorandum statement of Jassa was recorded on 27.08.2020 wherein he took the names of Mohit Singh @ Sibbu and Sushil Singh whereas in the previous statement recorded on 27.07.2020 he took the name of Mohit Singh Parihar only by stating that the liquor was kept in the custody of Mohit Singh. Thus, there is clear improvement made by the prosecution in order to meet the query of this Court.

In nut-shell, Shri Kochar submits that (i) the applicants have been falsely implicated on the basis of the statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, (ii) although the statement was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, no consequential recovery of liquor is made from the present applicants. He urged that in cases of similar nature arising of Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, this Court has even set aside the FIR in many cases because the FIR was founded upon the statement of co-accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and no consequential recovery was affected. He placed reliance on (2004) 10 SCC 657 Anter Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and judgments of this Court reported in 2010 SCC Online MP 378 Ashok Nanda Vs. State of M.P., 2014 SCC Online MP 7579 Rajveer Singh Vs. State of M.P., 2014 SCC Online MP 2529 Suresh Upadhyay Vs. State of M.P., 2016 SCC Online MP 1564 Dalumal Vs. State of M.P., lastly reliance is placed on an unreported judgment passed in M.Cr.C. No.34048/2018 Dinesh Parchwani Vs. State of M.P., wherein it is held that on the basis of Section 27 of the Evidence Act memorandum statement only, accused cannot be implicated.

In view of this argument, Shri Kochar submits that the applicants will co-operate with the investigation and they will not influence any material/evidence, etc. Thus, the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail.

Shri Anuj Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer opposed the bail applications on the basis of case diary. He did not dispute that there are two memorandums of Jassa @ Anoop, one is recorded on 27.07.2020 and another is recorded on 27.08.2020, almost after 6 days from the date of order passed by this Court on 21.08.2020 in the case of applicant Sushil Singh. Shri Anuj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer shared both the memorandums on the computer screen. In the first memorandum recorded on 27.07.2020, Jassa @ Anoop (main accused) took the name of Mohit Singh alone by stating that liquor was kept in possession of Mohit Singh. However, he subsequently took the name of remaining applicants on 27.8.2020 namely Sibbu and Sushil Singh. Shri Anuj Shrivastava further informed that there is criminal record of present applicants.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Considering the variations in statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act memorandums mentioned herein above and the nature of accusation, I deem it proper to grant anticipatory bail to both the applicants.

Accordingly, without expressing any view on the merits, both the applications are allowed.

It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants, namely Sushil Singh and Sibbu @ Abhishek Dwivedi by the Police Officer in the aforesaid crime, they be released on bail on their each furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer (Investigating Officer ) for their regular appearance before the Police during the investigation or before the Court during trial.

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

The applicants will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by them.

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

The applicants will not indulge himself/themselves 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 applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

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

The applicants 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 Station House Officer for compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.