Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rajendra Singh Gurjar on 1 July, 2015
Author: Sanjay Yadav
Bench: Sanjay Yadav
MCRC-10272-2015
(THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs RAJENDRA SINGH GURJAR)
01-07-2015
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
M.Cr.C. No.10272/2015
The State of M.P.
Vs.
Rajendra Singh Gurjar
Present: Honâble Shri Rajendra Menon, J. &
Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Yadav, J.
_________________________________________________________
Shri P. K. Kourav, learned Additional Advocate General with Shri
Piyush Dharmadhikari and Shri Prakash Gupta for the applicants-
State.
Shri Surendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel with Shri
Vinod Tiwari, for the respondent.
____________________________________________________
ORDER
(1/7/2015.) This application has been filed under Section 439 (2) seeking quashment of a bail granted to the respondent by this Court on 8.6.2015 in M.Cr.C. No.8922/2015. In the application it is indicated that Rajendra Singh Gurjar is accused in the VYAPM case and is a middle man who has been instrumental in getting certain persons selected as Sub Inspector (Transport) in the recruitment process held in the year 2013 and there are specific allegations with regard to the non applicant acting as a middle man in the matter of induction of Surendra Singh Gurjar and various other candidates as Sub Inspector (Transport). It is indicated in the application that when the matter was heard on 8.6.2015, the Special Police Investigating Authorities could not brief the counsel properly because the application for bail was filed only on 5.6.2015 and it was taken up for hearing on 8.6.2015 by the Vacation Bench after a Court Slip was granted. It is said that non applicant is indulging in interferring with the investigation, written complaints were received against him and on 6.4.2015 he had also made a false complaint with regard to conspiracy hatched by the STF for harassing him. Specific case for threat and trying to pressurize one Kalyan Singh whose son-in- law has been appointed is indicated in the application. Shri P. K. Kourav points out that various important aspects of the matter could not be pointed out to this Court at the time of hearing and as the non applicant is middle man he tried to indicate that in the case of similarly situated co accused, bail have not been granted, particularly where the accused is middle man.
2. Shri Surendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel refuted the aforesaid and argued that allegations made now for cancellation of the bail are unfounded, baseless and are afterthoughts. He invited our attention to the judgment of State of Gujarat Vs. Salimbhai Abdulgaffar Shaikh and others â (2003)8 SCC 50 to say that principles for cancellation of bail are not applicable in this case.
3. However, Shri P. K. Kourav points out that in the original file of M.Cr.C. No.8922/2015 a report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police of STF, M.P., Bhopal dated 29.5.2014 addressed to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal, with regard to the complaint against the non applicant was available and this fact could not be brought to the notice of the Court. As a result bail was granted. It is indicated that non applicant is a middle man and there are serious allegations against him, investigation into the matter is not complete and if at this stage, he is enlarged on bail, he will interfere with the investigation and harass the witnesses.
4. Shri P. K. Kourav invited our attention to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Basit @ Raju and others Vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Choudhary and another â (2014) 10 SCC 754, para 14 of the said judgment and argued that in this case evidence and material are available to show that the non applicant is interferring with the course of investigation, he is tempering with the evidence and witnesses, he is indulge in threatening the witnesses and simple investigation, when he is enlarged on bail is not possible and therefore, bail be canceled.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we find that the main allegation for cancelling the bail of the non applicant is that he is trying to influence Kalyan Singh and his family whose son-in-law has got illegally appointed as a Sub Inspector. We with a view to verify the facts stated by Shri P. K. Kourav as to whether the contentions are correct, summoned the original records of M.Cr.C. No.8922/2015 and we find that in the original record apart from various other documents a certified copy of the th communication dated 29 May, 2015 addressed by the Deputy Superintendent ST of M.P., Bhopal is available and in the said communication, following objections have been raised with regard to the non applicant :-
Ãvkosnd 06-04-2015 vkjksih dks v/;{k jktsUnz egksn; flag }kjk ,lvkbZVh fnukad O;kie ekeys Hkksiky esa >wVk Qlkus ckcr~ ys[k fd;k Fkk A f'kdk;rizdj.k dks fyf[kr f'kdk;r dh Fkh A ftlesa mls tkap ds nkSyrnkSjku flag f'kdk;r xqtZj esa ds layXu 'kiFk i= fd;s ds x;s dY;k.k laca/k esa flag flag dY;k.k firk ls flagiwNrkN }kjk dj dFkuflag dY;k.k fy;kdsx;k ftlesaizdj.k nkekn vkjksih ds jktsUnz vkjksih lq/khj ekjus xqtZj dh /kedh ,oa dY;k.k nsuk rFkk flag MEij ds lsiq+=ksa dqpyok dks nsus tku ls crk;k gS 'kiFk A i= dY;k.k nsdj flag dh flag jktsUnz ifRudsJherh fo:) vk'kkfj'rsnkjksa mlds nsoh }kjko ifjokj fd;k gSdsAyksxksa dks tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsuk ys[k vkosnd@vkjksih xokgksa ,oa }kjk /kuoy lkf{k;ksa dks ,oa tuoy ds vk/kkj Mjk&/kedkdj lk{; ij dks ivkosnd@vkjksih z H k k f o r d j u s jktsUnz d h i z c yflagl a dh H k kO;kie o u k ds g SvU;A izdj.kksa flag] esa vkjksih vks0ih0/kujkt 'kqDyk] fot; flag] lq/khj vt;
'kekZ] iaokj]
fodze bUnzHkku
j?kqoa'kh]
eksguflag]
gksuk ikbZ xbZ gS] ;kno
ftldh,oa vU;
foLr`r ls dbZ
foospuk ckj
dh ckrphr
tkuk gS
A
vkosnd@vkjksih }kjkds vkilh lkBxkaB dj nykyksa ds
lkFk
esa feydj ,d
lQyrk izkIr ekfQ;kdjkbZ :i esa QthZ
xbZls gS rjhds
rFkk ls ijh{kk
okLrfod
vH;fFkZ;ksa
izdj.k dh vHkh dks muds
foospuk vf/kdkj
tkjh gS oafpr
vkjksih fd;k
lsx;k gS A
lacaf/kr
vU;
tkuk i{kksa
'ks"k gS ls,slh
iwNrkN
fLFkfr dhesatkuk
;fn rFkk lk{;
vkjksih dks ,df=r
tekur dh
dk
ykHk
izHkkfor fn;k tkrk
djusdjus gS
dk iz;kl rks vkjksih
djsxk lk{; u"V djus ,oa
vkosnu fujLr dh d`ik djsaAAvr% vkosnu dk tekur
(Emphasis Supplied)
While considering the bail application of the non applicant, these facts were not specifically pointed out to us and therefore, now from the material adduced and produced before us in this proceeding, we find that these allegations against the non applicant are prima facie sufficient enough to deny bail to him.
6. That apart, in para 5 of the order passed by us on 8.6.2015 we have granted liberty to the Investigating Authorities to seek cancellation of the bail, if any other aspects remains or after the applicant is released on bail, he is found misusing the same.
7. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances and material that came on record, we see that while granting bail to the non applicant, sufficient incriminating material and which may have adverse effect on the investigation were not considered and these are sufficient ground for canceling the bail to the non applicant.
8. Accordingly, this application is allowed. Bail granted to the non applicant stands canceled. He may surrender before the STF. (RAJENDRA MENON) (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE JUDGE