Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2020
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No. 6483/2020
(Dharmendra vs. State of MP)
Indore: Dated:- 24/02/2020:-
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Pathak, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
ORDER
1. This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.709/19 registered at Police Station - City Kotwali Mandsaur under Section 392, 365, 419, 34 of IPC.
2. According to the prosecution case on 27/11/2019, complainant Umraomal Jain had come Mandsaur to deliver gold jewellery weighing 111 grams at the shop of Sajanmal Gajendra Kumar Mehta from Ratlam. After deboarding the train at Mandsaur Railway Station, when he came out of the platform at 10:30 and was about to take an auto rickshaw, a police constable came and asked him to come with him to Police Station. The complainant tried to contact President of Mandsaur Sarafa Vyapari Sangh, but he did not allow him. At that time, one I-20 car having no number plate arrived there. A person in civil dress came out and both the constable and that person in civil dress forced the complainant to sit in the car but he refused, because it was not looking like an official police car. At the same time one other constable in uniform 2 came on a motorcycle. Both the constables asked him to sit on motorcycle and made him to sit between both of them. They took him near to the police petrol pump via Nahata Chourah. I-20 car also followed them and reached there. leaving the complainant and the other constable sitting behind him, the constable, who was driving the motorcycle left the place. A person came out of the car. Both, the constables stayed on the spot and the person came out from the car, forced him to sit in that I-20 car. He sat beside the driver seat and constable in uniform sat on the back seat. They drove the car through Nahata Chourah, BPL Chourah and reached up to the police control room. The complainant asked them to stop the car at Police Control Room, but they did not stop. He tried to pull the hand break of the car but the person sitting behind him in police uniform restrained him to do so. They further took the car towards Highway via MIT Chourah. The constable sitting behind him snatched his bag, took out gold jewellery and asked him to reveal more jewellery, stating that he had information that he (complainant) had some more jewellery. He also searched his pant, shirts but find nothing. During the search, they were threatening him to keep quiet. After sometime, they stopped the car at Dalouda. The police constable get off the car and disappeared along with his jewellery. The person sitting on the driving seat moved the car and after covering some distance stopped it before Manankheda Toll, took out both SIMs of his mobile and destroyed them and asked him to get 3 off the car. Leaving him on the road, he went off towards Mandsaur. The complainant took a bus and came back to his home at Ratlam, revealed the incident before his family and thereafter lodged the report.
3. During investigation, after going through the recording of close circuit cameras installed at various places, the police identified a constable Yuvraj, who brought the complainant from the railway station up to the police petrol pump by motorcycle. On interrogation, he revealed that he was asked to do so by constable Dharmendra (petitioner), stating that co-accused Gopal has instructed him to do so. Constable Dharmendra (petitioner) was also taken into custody and interrogated. He admitted his involvement, along with constable Gaurav Singh, who was in I-20 car. Both Dharmendra (petitioner) and Gaurav named co-accused Gopal in their disclosure statement stating that on his instruction, they have taken the complainant to the police station.
4. The bail is pleaded on the ground that the petitioner is a public servant, was on duty at some different place. His career is at stake for the offence not committed by him There is no possibility of his absconding. He is in jail since 02/12/2019. Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. He is implicated only on the basis of statement of co- accused Yuvrajsingh recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. There is no test identification parade conducted by the prosecution. The applicant is in jail since 02/12/2019, 4 therefore, he be granted bail.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer, stating that in all close circuit cameras, 3 persons were seen, who are identified as constables Yuvraj, Dharmendra (petitioner) and Gaurav. CDR (Call Detail Report) showing in and out calls between Constables Dharmendra, Gaurav is also pressed into service, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any leniency.
6. Considering the evidence collected during investigation, recording of close circuit cameras, no case for granting bail is made out, therefore, the application is dismissed.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
soumya
Soumy
Digitally signed by
Soumya Ranjan Dalai
DN: c=IN, o=High Court of
Madhya Pradesh Bench
a Indore,
postalCode=452001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
Ranjan
2.5.4.20=f4d2118683e843
22bb5797cf28ee60671538
b737cf52962d84d7b5278
97e53ac, cn=Soumya
Dalai Ranjan Dalai
Date: 2020.02.28 18:16:47
+05'30'