Madhya Pradesh High Court
Somendra @ Shanky Soni vs State Of M.P. on 2 November, 2020
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C No.42231/2020
Somendra @ Shanky Soni Vs. State of MP 1
INDORE; DATED - 02/11/2020
Heard through video conferencing.
Shri Manu Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Chetan Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Crime No. Under Section Police Station
988/2020 420 IPC & 3 r/w the Public Lasudia Indore
Gambling Act and 66 of IT Act
As declared by the petitioner, this is the first application filed under section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner began with the argument that only inculpatory evidence against the petitioner is confession of co- accused Sourabh, Ravi and Jitendra made before the police and recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act, which is hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act, therefore the petitioner be granted bail.
3. Learned panel lawyer has opposed the bail but has fairly admitted that there is no other evidence available in the case diary except the aforesaid disclosure statement of the co-accused persons.
4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 08.10.2020, the police received a secret information that in flat no.1405 block AT-01 in Pinnacle Dreams Colony, some persons are betting on IPL match between Hyderabad Sunrisers and Kings XI Punjab. A team of police proceeded for the spot and another constable proceeded for seeking search warrant. They both reached on the spot simultaneously and knocked the door. A boy opened the door. He revealed his name as Jitendra Raghuwanshi. The police showed him the search warrant, entered in the room and found two more boys and two girls sitting HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.42231/2020 Somendra @ Shanky Soni Vs. State of MP 2 before the TV and watching IPL match between Hyderabad Sunrisers and Kings 11 Punjab. They were having an open note book and a register before them. It appeared that they were accepting bets, therefore, they all were taken into custody. The police recovered two samsung mobiles and cash of Rs.2400/- from Jitendra, one TV, one TV remote, one register, one Vivo mobile phone, one Oppo mobile phone, and cash of Rs.3000/- from Sourabh, two diaries, one HP laptop, one Vivo mobile and cash of Rs.2600/- from Ravi Singh, one Vivo mobile, one bottle of red wine and cash of Rs.1000/- from Ms. Gora Sanket and one Vivo mobile, one bottle of red wine and cash of Rs.1235/- from Ms. Prerna Uppal.
5. The case was registered against them. They were interrogated. Sourabh, Ravi and Jitendra revealed that they were accepting bets on behalf of and as per instruction of the present petitioner Shanky, who had provided them link, which he himself had taken from Anil Rathore and that they were only working on 3% commission.
5. There is nothing in the case diary to buttress the revelation made by the co-accused persons. There is no evidence that any link to get the people play online betting was provided by the petitioner.
6. Having regard to the evidence collected during the investigation and other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail, therefore, the present petition stands allowed.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of the petitioner's arrest or surrender before the police within a month of this order, the petitioner Somendra @ Shanky Soni S/o Govind Soni shall be released on bail on his furnishing a HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.42231/2020 Somendra @ Shanky Soni Vs. State of MP 3 personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned. The applicant would abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.
(Virender Singh) Judge sourabh Digitally signed by SOURABH YADAV Date: 2020.11.03 10:27:15 +05'30'