Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suryabhan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 December, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.53548/2021
(Suryabhan Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
Jabalpur; Dated 06/12/2021
Shri Anil Khare, learned senior counsel with Shri Manish Tiwari,
learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned G.A. for the respondent-State.
Shri Manish Datt, learned senior counsel with Shri Madan Singh, learned counsel for the objector.
This is the first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Applicant Suryabhan Singh was arrested on 20/10/2021 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.
2. 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 @ Chandrabhan took the gun from his father Ujyar Singh and fired a gunshot 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 P.S. 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 Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.12.08 11:34:55 IST 2 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 Singh filed anticipatory bail application, which was rejected by the learned ASJ, Sihora. On that, applicant filed an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 31/05/2021. Against the said order complainant Prashant Singh Rajpoot filed an appeal (Cr.A.No.1203/2021) before the Supreme Court, which was allowed vide order dated 08/10/2021. So, Police arrested the applicant on 20/10/2021 and since then the applicant is in judicial custody.
3. 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.MP-20-H-5011 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 Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.12.08 11:34:55 IST 3 offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 325, 506 and 34 of the IPC against deceased Vikas and complainant Prashant Singh Rajput.
4. 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 co-accused Ujyar Singh in the crime. At the time of incident, the applicant was not present at the spot. Even co-accused Ujyar Singh himself lodged the report regarding the incident stating that in the incident, he fired at Vikas Singh. 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 at the time of incident he was present on the spot. Learned counsel further submitted that earlier this Court vide order dated 31/05/2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.18604/2021 after appreciating all these facts of the case granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. Though, Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 08/10/2021 passed in Cr.A.No.1203/2021 set aside the order dated 31/05/2021 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.18604/2021, but only on that basis it cannot be said that the applicant is not entitled to get regular bail. The applicant is in custody since 20/10/2021. The charge-sheet has also been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, hence it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the State as well as objector opposed the prayer and submitted that from the FIR and the statements of complainant Prashant Singh Rajpoot and other eyewitness of the incident i.e. Dharmendra Patel & Raj Kishore it is clear that appellant is also involved in the crime. He further submitted that earlier this Court vide order dated 31/05/2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.18604/2021 granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. Thereafter, Hon'ble Apex Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.12.08 11:34:55 IST 4 Court after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case set aside the order and held that "the offence is of serious nature, in which Vikas Singh was murdered and the statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. indicate a specific role to Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh in the crime". So, looking to the role of the applicant in the incident and the case diary statements of Prashant Singh Rajpoot, Dharmendra Patel and Raj Kishore the applicant is not entitled to get bail. Hence, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected.
6. Earlier this Court vide order dated 31/05/2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.18604/2021 granted anticipatory bail to the applicant on the ground that "Investigating officer after investigation on the basis of the statement of witnesses, tower location of mobile Nos. 6261630433 and 9589791899 and the CCTV footage, found that applicant was not on the spot at the time of the incident. His presence was found at Jabalpur at that time of incident. At this stage that report is one of the favouring factors to grant 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 is that he assaulted Prashant Singh, who sustained a simple injury. The charge-sheet has been filed, and custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required". Against the said order complainant filed a Criminal Appeal No.1203/2021 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 08/10/2021 set aside the said order (order dated 31/05/2021) and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case held as under :-
"27. In relation to the present incident, the appellant's case is supported by the FIR, his statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC, and the statements of the other two eye-witnesses under Section 164 of the CrPC. On the other hand, Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh rely on the counter FIR filed by Ujiyar Singh according to which they were not present at the scene of crime and Ujiyar Singh shot the deceased-Vikas Singh in self-defense. The orders of the JMFC dated 13 January 2021 and 10 March 2021 advert to the contents of the FIR registered at the behest of the Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.12.08 11:34:55 IST 5 appellant. The investigating officer's first report dated 15 December 2020 indicated that there was a prima facie case against Ujiyar Singh and Chandrabhan Singh. The supplementary challan dated 8 March 2021 indicates that more material had emerged during the course of investigation as against the events portrayed in the FIR registered at the behest of Ujiyar Singh. Hence, the case portrayed by the appellant could not have been ignored by solely relying on the counter-FIR.
28. The High Court has placed reliance upon the report submitted under Section 173 of the CrPC on 15 December 2020 to hold that Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh were not present when the incident occurred. However, the High Court has not addressed the clear deficiencies in the course of the investigation which have been highlighted in the order of the JMFC dated 13 February 2021 and the trial Court's order dated 24 March 2021. These are, inter alia: (i) the failure to notice eyewitness statements; (ii) reliance on CCTV footage for the period of time after incident had occurred, ignoring prior or contemporaneous footage; (iii) not collecting CCTV footage between Jabalpur and the scene of offence; (iv) relying on CDRs without determining if Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh had actually used the number; and (v) not conducting any fingerprint analysis. In the order dated 13 February 2021, the JMFC identified these deficiencies with the investigation and directed further investigation. Upon the submission of the supplementary challan, the JMFC noted in their order dated 10 March 2021 that the challan was only in relation to Ujiyar Singh and Chandrabhan Singh, and did not address the role of Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh. The obvious deficiencies in the investigation have pointed out the errors in the trial Court's order dated 24 March 2021 rejecting Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh's applications for anticipatory bail. The Single Judge has, however, overlooked these crucial aspects.
29. Finally, it has also been argued on behalf of Suryabhan Singh that while the appellant's statement under Section 164 of the CrPC is that Suryabhan Singh also shot at the appellant, the FIR and his statement under Section 161 of the CrPC only record that he hit him with the butt of the gun. The trial is yet to take place where the evidence adduced by the prosecution will be appreciated, and the veracity of appellant's claim in his statement under Section 164 can be determined there. However, at the present stage, the FIR and both the appellant's statements under Section 161 and 164 are consistent in as much as that Suryabhan Singh did hit him in his head with the butt of the gun. An argument has also been raised in relation to the nature of the injury caused to the appellant, but this has to be decided at the stage of trial after evidence has been led.
30. The Court has to determine whether on the basis of the material available at this stage, the High Court has applied the correct principles in allowing the applications for anticipatory bail. The offence is of a serious nature in which Vikas Singh was murdered. The FIR and the statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC indicate a specific role to Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh in the crime. The order granting anticipatory bail has ignored material aspects, including the nature and gravity of the offence, and the specific allegations against Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh. Hence, a sufficient case has been made out for cancelling the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court."Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.12.08 11:34:55 IST 6
7. So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, contents of FIR, the case diary statements of complainant Prashant Singh Rajpoot and other eyewitnesses of the incident Dharmendra Patel & Raj Kishore and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
8. Accordingly, M.Cr.C. is rejected.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge as/ Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.12.08 11:34:55 IST