Madhya Pradesh High Court
Darbarsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
High Court of Madhya Pradhesh; Bench At Indore
M.Cr.C Nos.57295/2021, 58090/2021, 57274/2021 1
M.Cr.C No.57295/2021
(Lakhan Vs. State of MP)
M.Cr.C No.58090/2021
(Darbar Singh Vs. State of MP)
M.Cr.C No.57274/2021
(Arvind Vs. State of MP)
Indore; Dated 04.12.2021
Shri A.S Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant-Lakhan.
Shri A.K Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant-Darbar
Singh.
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant-Arvind.
Shri Aditya Garg, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Shri S.Seth, learned counsel for the objector.
With the consent, heard finally.
ORDER
Since all the bail applications are founded upon the same factual backdrop/crime and crime number, on the joint request of the parties, the matters were analogously heard and decided by this common order.
The applications of Lakhan and Arvind are second applications and the application of Darbar Singh is first application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C arising out of crime no.487/2021 under section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B/34 of the IPC registered at police station Badwah, Khargone.
While arguing second bail application of Lakhan, Shri A.S Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant-Lakhan submits that FIR No.487/2021 dated 14.08.2021 is based upon a written complaint by Smt.Manoj Yadav W/o Netrapal Singh Yadav dated 11.07.2021. It is clear that it is averred that the complainant's husband is owner of agricultural land bearing survey no.170, Village Katghata, Tehsil High Court of Madhya Pradhesh; Bench At Indore M.Cr.C Nos.57295/2021, 58090/2021, 57274/2021 2 Barwah District Khargone, which is in her possession and complainant received a credible information that some persons have tried to impersonate her husband by preparing forged identification documents in order to sell the aforesaid land. Upon receiving the said information, firstly, the complainant lodged an objection on 15.01.2021 at Registrars Office, Badwah. Since despite filing of said objection, the Power of Attorney dated 23.01.2021 has been executed by impersonator of complainant's husband in favour of co- accused Arvind Tiwari, it was alleged that two co-accused persons Atul Kumar Shrivastava and Ankit Sharma who are witnesses of Power of Attorney dated 23.01.2021 have aided the impersonator and Arvind Triwari in preparing the said forged documents. The complainant could obtain their names from the office of Sub- Registrar, Barwah. It was further alleged that the complainant received a letter dated 28.01.2021 on her whatsapp from Sub- Registrar Office, Barwah. In turn, she approached the said office to represent the case on 05.02.2021. Thereafter, only sub-registrar issued a letter to police station. Upon receipt of complaint, the police registered the FIR number 487/2021 under section 420, 467, 471 and 34 of the IPC on 14.08.2021.
Shri A.S Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant-Lakhan submits that during the investigation, the applicant aged about 70 years and a retired government servant was arrested with the aid of a memorandum prepared under section 27 of the Evidence Act of the co-accused persons and was arrested on 17.08.2021. The previous application was withdrawn with liberty to renew it after chalan is filed. Since chalan is filed and there is no likelihood of tempering the witnesses or material, the applicant a septuagenarian be released on bail.
High Court of Madhya Pradhesh; Bench At Indore M.Cr.C Nos.57295/2021, 58090/2021, 57274/2021 3 Learned counsel for the applicant by taking this Court to the transcription of conversation between accused person and the witnesses urged that this conversation is not sufficient to arraign the applicant. The genuineness and validity of conversation is yet to be established before the Court below. The applicant will not temper the evidence or material. He may be enlarged on bail.
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant-Arvind urged that this applicant became Power of Attorney holder of Netrapal Singh Yadav. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He borrowed the arguments of Shri A.S Rathore and contended that the case of prosecution is founded upon the conversation which has no legs to stand, if tested on legal principles.
Shri A.K Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant-Darbar Singh contended that this applicant is witness to the sale deed wherein the imposter of Netrapal Singh appeared. He also borrowed the arguments of Shri A.S Rathore.
Shri Aditya Garg, learned counsel for the respondent/state and Shri S.Seth, learned counsel for the objector opposed the said bail applications. It is common ground that the applicant Lakhan Singh is the father of Netrapal and father-in-law of complainant Smt.Manoj Yadav. As per the complaint, Netrapal Singh is not traceable since 11.08.2015. A missing person report was duly lodged in 2015 itself.
Learned counsel for the respondent and objector urged that the impostor projecting himself to be Netrapal Singh got a Power of Attorney registered on 15.01.2021 in Registrars Office, Barwah. During the investigation, it is found in the CCTV footage that, the present applicants were present in the Registrars Office. The telephonic conversation amongst themselves also shows that the High Court of Madhya Pradhesh; Bench At Indore M.Cr.C Nos.57295/2021, 58090/2021, 57274/2021 4 whole action of registration of fake Power of Attorney and sale deed is brain child of all of them.
Shri Aditya Garg, learned counsel for the respondent/State urged that sim/cell number of missing Netrapal Singh was issued to some other person by the concerned telecom company. The applicant Lakhan and other co-accused persons could trace the said person residing in Uttar Pradesh. They approached the said person and by using his sim/phone number, obtained the OTP so that a fake Aadhar Card of missing Netrapal Singh could be issued. After obtaining the said Aadhar Card, on the strength of said Aadhar Card of missing Netrapal Singh, they produced Arvind as Netrapal Singh and got the documents registered. If the applicants are released, they can temper the evidence and even influence the witnesses.
The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above.
The nature of incident prima facie shows that the allegations are very serious. The father-in-law of the complainant namely Lakhan Singh allegedly is the mastermind of the entire incident.
Considering the serious nature of accusation and involvement, it will not be proper to release the applicant Lakhan till substantial prosecution evidence is recorded. For the same reason, other co-accused persons do not deserve bail at this stage.
I find substance in the argument of Shri S.Seth based on (2017) 5 SCC 406 (Virupakshappa Gouda and Anr Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr.) that bail application cannot always be allowed solely or exclusively on the ground that fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence is that accused is presumed to be innocent until found guilty by the competent court. There must be a scrutiny of factual foundation. As discussed, in the facts and circumstances of this case and by taking into account :-
High Court of Madhya Pradhesh; Bench At Indore M.Cr.C Nos.57295/2021, 58090/2021, 57274/2021 5
1. Nature of accusation and severity of punishment;
2. Reasonable apprehension of tempering with witnesses or threat to complainant in my view, the applicants do not deserve bail at this stage. They may renew their bail applications after statement of substantial prosecution witnesses are recorded.
With the aforesaid liberty, the present M.Cr.Cs stand dismissed.
(Sujoy Paul) Judge sourabh Digitally signed by SOURABH YADAV Date: 2021.12.06 10:32:27 +05'30'