Madhya Pradesh High Court
Samvart Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-20628-2017
(SAMVART SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 09-02-2018
Shri Imtiaz Hussain, Advocate for applicant.
Shri Vivek Lakhera, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Shri Manish Dutt, Senior Advocate, with Shri T.P. Jaiswal, Advocate for complainant.
sh Case diary is available.
This is first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of e ad anticipatory bail.
The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime Pr No.148/2017 registered by Police Station Gora Bajar, District Jabalpur a for offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 of IPC hy and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act.
ad It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated. In fact he was not present in Jabalpur on M the date of the incident and had gone to Ranchi on 26/9/2017 by of Shaktipunj Express vide PNR No.8662918146. A representation was made by the wife of the applicant to the police in this regard and the rt police after entertaining the application, has decided not to file the ou charge-sheet against the applicant and has kept the investigation C pending under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C.
This Court by order dated 22/11/2017 had directed the h ig investigating officer to remain present before this Court, who appeared H on 27/11/2017 and made a statement that the investigation is going on and the final report is not prepared. Thereafter, the case was adjourned on 8/12/2017, 18/12/2017, 21/12/2017, 2/1/2018, 9/1/2018 and 23/1/2018 on the request of counsel for the State because the final report was not ready. Today also, the counsel for the State prayed for some time to seek instructions in the matter. Since the bail application was being adjourned awaiting the outcome of the investigation made by the police and the Advocate General's Office had no information with regard to the progress in the investigation, therefore, the Public Prosecutor was directed to keep the investigating officer present in the Court, as the matter is of a local police station. In compliance of the direction given by this Court, Mr. Devendra Pratap Singh Chauhan, Town Inspector, Police Station Gorabajar, District Jabalpur appeared in person. When it was enquired from him that why he did not respond to the communications sent by the office of the Advocate General, then it was replied by him that he never received any communication from the office of Advocate General.
This Court by order dated 27/11/2017 had exempted the investigating officer from personal appearance and had directed him to submit the progress report, but thereafter no report was submitted by sh investigating officer. He was not required to be informed in this regard e and it was his duty to comply the order of this Court, but that was not ad done. It is further submitted by Shri Lakhera, Public Prosecutor that on Pr 10/1/2018, the S.P., Jabalpur had also directed the investigating officer to get the reply prepared, however, a letter was sent by investigating a officer dated 16/1/2018 informing that investigation is pending. It hy appears that investigating officer after getting exemption from ad appearance never tried to get the reply prepared pointing out the M progress in investigating, as a result of which, this Court was left with no other option but to adjourn the cases on number of times. This of conduct of investigating officer cannot be appreciated and is indicative of disrespectful attitude towards the Court proceedings. The rt investigating officer is directed to remain more vigilant in future.
ou Be that as it may. It is for the SP, Jabalpur to look into the affairs C of his own office and he must ensure that any communication sent by h the office of Advocate General requiring any compliance of the order ig of this Court is properly attended by his subordinates. Under the hope H and belief that proper steps shall be taken by the SP, Jabalpur in this regard, Mr. Devendra Pratap Singh Chauhan is heard with regard to the steps taken by him to verify the claim of the applicant that he had travelled to Barkakana on 26/9/2017 by Shaktipunj Express.
It is submitted by Mr. Devendra Pratap Singh Chauhan that initially a party was sent to Calcutta, where a certificate was issued that the tickets in the name of the applicant and his family members were issued, however, no other information was given that whether the person who had travelled on the said ticket was in fact the applicant or not. Then, again a party was sent to Dhanbad, where the police party was informed by the railway authorities that the Ticket Checker posted at Jabalpur had checked the tickets and only he will be in a position to state whether the applicant had really travelled on the said ticket or not. When the statement of the said Ticket Checker was recorded, then he informed that he had not checked the tickets of the passengers travelling in coach S-8 and in fact it was the another Ticket Checker posted in Dhanbad, who had checked the tickets of the passengers travelling in the said coach. It is submitted that whenever a police party is required to be sent out of station, then every time he is sh required to take permission from the senior police officers, which e takes 8-10 days. He has already applied for permission from the SP, ad Jabalpur and he is awaiting for the permission of the SP, Jabalpur and Pr as soon as the permission is received, he will sent the police party to Dhanbad to record the statement of the said Ticket Checker. However, a Mr. Devendra Pratap Singh Chauhan himself expressed that although hy a railway ticket might have been issued in the name of the applicant, ad but still it is very difficult to say that whether it was the applicant, who M had travelled on the said ticket or somebody else had travelled on the said ticket.
of In view of the statement made by Mr. Devendra Pratap Singh Chauhan that still he is unable to collect even a single piece of rt evidence, which may indicate that the applicant was not in Jabalpur on ou the date of incident and still the investigation is pending and at present C he is awaiting the permission from SP, Jabalpur to send the police h party to Dhanbad, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose ig would be served by keeping this bail application pending, therefore, H the case has been heard on merits.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated.
Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State as well as the counsel for the complainant that the FIR was lodged promptly and the name of the applicant was specifically mentioned in the FIR. The statement of the injured witnesses were recorded, who have specifically stated about the active participation of the applicant in the commission of crime. Vikas Yadav, who has expired in the incident, had received as many as 10 incised wounds, whereas multiple incised wounds have been received by three other victims.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh and Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur for necessary information.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) sh JUDGE Arun* e ad Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Pr Date: 2018.02.12 14:42:39 +05'30' a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H