Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhagirath vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 August, 2020
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C. No.22996 of 2020
Bhagirath Vs. State of M.P.
Indore, Dated:- 13/08/2020
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner--
Bhagirath S/o Amarsingh.
Shri Akhil Godha, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
1. This is the second/repeat application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in crime no.135/2017 under section 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the IPC registered at police station Narsingharh District Rajgarh.
2. First application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 01.07.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.18674 of 2020.
3. The earlier bail was withdrawn as Narendra Singh S/o Ram Singh Thakur whose land was mutated in the name of the petitioner was not examined before the Trial Court.
4. This time the petitioner has come with an affidavit of Narendra Singh S/o Ram Singh Thakur that he had settled the dispute and sold his disputed agricultural land bearing Survey No.16, area 2.204 hectare situated in village-- Hulkhedi in the name of son of the petitioner.
5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that due to limited functioning of the Court in the wake of spread of Corona pandemic, statement of Narendra Singh S/o Ram Singh Thakur before the Court is 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.22996 of 2020 Bhagirath Vs. State of M.P. not possible in near future, but in all respects his case is identical to the case of Harisingh, who has been granted bail by this Court by order dated 01.07.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.18674 of 2020.
6. Learned Panel Lawyer fairly admitted the parity as claimed by the petitioner.
7. The order passed in favour of Harisingh reads as under:-
"1. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present petition with respect to petitioner no.1 Bhagirath.
2. Prayer is allowed.
3. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed as withdrawn qua petitioner no.1 Bhagirath.
4. This is the first application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C in crime no.135/2017 under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC registered at police station Narsingharh District Rajgarh.
5. Facts of the case in brief are that on 06.03.2017 Samandar Singh, Prem Singh, Narayan Singh, Harnam and some other persons approached the Collector, Rajgarh with a complaint that after taking illegal gratification, the Patwari of their village Hulkhedi, Tehsil Narsingharh is mutating/transferring their lands in the name of other persons showing them dead and also by changing their caste and religion etc. They referred that in this manner, he has transferred the land of Kishan Lal, Chhatar Singh and even the land of Tehsildar Sihore- Narendsingh in the name of other persons, while they are all alive and are cultivating their lands. An inquiry was directed and assigned to the Tehsildar Narsingarh, who found the allegation true that the land of several farmers have been mutated in the name of persons, who are neither successor nor purchaser of the land. On the direction of the Collector, Rajgarh, S.D.O Narsinghgarh directed the SHO of Police Station Narsinghgarh to register FIR. In the investigation, the allegation was found proved. It was further found proved that a group of officials and private persons was involved in the alleged crime. They all conspired and mutated the land of the persons alive, showing them dead.
6. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is one of the 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.22996 of 2020 Bhagirath Vs. State of M.P. beneficiary of such mutation. Land of Narayansingh and Premsingh was mutated in his name by showing them dead.
7. In addition to the ground taken earlier, the ground taken by the petitioner this time is that all the witnesses whose land had been mutated in the name of the petitioner and other persons have turned hostile. Copies of the statements of Samandar Singh PW/1, Chhatar Singh PW/2, Mishrilal PW/3, Dilip Kumar PW/4, Premsingh PW/5, Narayan Singh PW/6, Meharban PW/7 and Swadansingh PW/8 have been annexed with the petition. They all have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution.
8. Learned panel lawyer appearing for the State failed to point out any evidence to show that the petitioner had ever applied for or had taken any advantage from the alleged mutation.
9. Considering the aforesaid, coupled with the period of custody and the age of the petitioner, I deem it proper to allow him bail. Therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, the application is allowed.
10. It is directed that the petitioner Harisingh S/o Amarsingh be released from custody on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Trial Court as and when required further subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments on frivolous grounds to protract the trial;
(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly allure or make any inducement, threat or promise to the prosecution witnesses, so as to dissuade them from disclosing truth before the Court;
(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or involve in any criminal activity;
(iv) In case of his involvement in any other criminal activity or breach of any other aforesaid conditions, the bail granted in this case may also be cancelled."
8. In reply to the specific query regarding the fact as to whether the petitioner had ever applied for the disputed mutation or had ever taken any benefit/advantage from the alleged mutation, the learned Panel Lawyer fairly admitted 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.22996 of 2020 Bhagirath Vs. State of M.P. that no such document is available on record to draw any adverse inference.
9. In view of the aforesaid, considering the parity as well as the affidavit of Narendra Singh so also unprecedent circumstances of spread of Covid-19 pandemic, I deem it appropriate to allow the application and the same is allowed in the same terms, as is allowed in the case of Hari Singh.
(Virender Singh) Judge Pankaj Digitally signed by Pankaj Pandey Date: 2020.08.13 15:47:51 +05'30'