Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gopal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2020
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No. 6668/2020, (Gopal vs. State of MP)
Indore: Dated:-24/02/2020:-
Shri C.L. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel with Shri R.K.
Pathak, 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 application under section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.709/2019 registered at Police Station -Shahar Kotwali, district - Mandsaur for the offence punishable 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 came on a motorcycle. Both the constables asked 2 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 off the car. Leaving him on the road, he went off towards 3 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, stating that the petitioner has instructed him to do so. Constable Dharmendra was also taken into custody and interrogated. He admitted his involvement, along with constable Gaurav Singh, who was in I-20 car. Both Dharmendra and Gaurav named the present petitioner 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 neither named in the FIR nor named by the complainant and he was not seen in any of the CCTV footage. The complainant has revealed involvement of 3 persons. All those 3 persons have been identified by the police itself after going through the recording of close circuit cameras as constable Yuvraj, constable Dharmendra and constable Gaurav. It is not the case of the prosecution that any 4 th person was also involved in the crime. The police have impleaded him only on the basis of disclosure statement of constables Dharmendra and Gaurav. Statement made under 4 Section 27 of the Evidence Act before the police are not admissible. He has no connection with the crime. He is a public servant, was on duty at some different place. There is no possibility of his absconding. His career is at stake for the offence not committed by him, therefore, he be granted bail.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer, stating that both the constables Dharmendra and Gaurav have named the petitioner, stating that on his instruction only they took the complainant with them. CDR (Call Detail Report) showing in and out calls between Constables Dharmendra, Gaurav and the petitioner is also pressed into service. However, learned Public Prosecutor fairly admitted that the petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor he was seen in CC camera recording of any of the place of commission of the crime. It is further not controverted that in all close circuit cameras, only 3 persons were seen, who are identified as constables Yuvraj, Dharmendra and Gaurav.
6. In reply, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel that constables Dharmendra and Gaurav were working under him, therefore, they used to call each other for official purposes. Therefore, CDR does not establish presence or involvement of the petitioner in the crime.
7. Having regard to the aforesaid contentions of the rival parties and other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. Therefore, the application is allowed.
8. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner 5 or his surrender before the Investigating Officer or before the concerned Judicial Magistrate within 30 days from today in connection with the aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. This order shall be governed by the conditions No.1 to 3 of sub section (2) of section 438 Cr.P.C.
(Virender Singh)
soumya Judge
Soum
Digitally signed by
Soumya Ranjan Dalai
DN: c=IN, o=High Court
of Madhya Pradesh
ya Bench Indore,
postalCode=452001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
Ranjan
2.5.4.20=f4d2118683e84
322bb5797cf28ee60671
538b737cf52962d84d7b
527897e53ac,
Dalai
cn=Soumya Ranjan Dalai
Date: 2020.02.27
16:11:06 +05'30'