PRASHANT SINGH RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-2021-10-38
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on October 08,2021

Prashant Singh Rajput Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

POKAR RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
NEERU YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
M.SIDDIQ VS. MAHANT SURESH DAS [REFERRED TO]
MAHIPAL VS. RAJESH KUMAR @ POLIA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

DR.DHANANJAYA Y.CHANDRACHUD,J. - (1.)A. The appeal : These appeals arise from judgments dated 1 July 2021 [ SLP (Criminal) No 5786 of 2021 (the "lead appeal")] and 31 May 2021 [SLP (Criminal) No 5788 of 2021 (the "companion appeal")] of a Single Judge of the Jabalpur Bench of the High Court for the State of Madhya Pradesh through which it allowed the applications for anticipatory bail filed by the second respondents in both the appeals under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ["CrPC"] in connection with a crime [Crime No 329 of 2020] registered at the Police Station Majholi, District Jabalpur, State of Madhya Pradesh for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 ["IPC"].
(2.)The crime was registered on the basis of a dehati nalsi/FIR lodged by the appellant on 29 September 2020. The allegation in the FIR is that the appellant was at Negai Tiraha with the deceased, Vikas Singh (who was his brother in-law) and two other individuals (Rajkishore Rajput and Dharmender Patel). It was alleged that the four accused persons, namely Ujiyar Singh, his two sons Chandrabhan Singh and Suryabhan Singh (the second respondent in the companion appeal) and his driver Joginder Singh (the second respondent in the lead appeal) arrived in a jeep. Thereafter, allegedly due to a previous rivalry, Ujiyar Singh and Chandrabhan Singh shot at Vikas Singh, while Joginder Singh held him, leading to his death while Suryabhan Singh hit the appellant on his head with the butt of his gun, leading to an injury. Upon being brought to a hospital, Vikas Singh was pronounced dead, following which the appellant got the FIR registered.
(3.)Suryabhan Singh and Joginder Singh filed applications seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, apprehending their arrest in relation to the crime. While allowing the application for anticipatory bail of Joginder Singh, the High Court noted that according to the report submitted by the investigating officer under Section 173 of the CrPC, the investigation did not reveal that he was even present at the spot of crime. The High Court observed that the veracity of such a report could not be questioned at this stage. Further, it held that even if he was present at the spot, there was no allegation against him of having fired at the deceased-Vikas Singh or having provoked Ujiyar Singh/Chandrabhan Singh to fire at the deceased- Vikas Singh. Hence, the High Court passed the following order allowing his application for anticipatory bail:
"So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that if the applicant surrenders himself before concerned court within fifteen days from today, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his regular appearance before the Court during trial.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-
1.The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be."
Similarly, while considering the application filed by Surbhayan Singh, the High Court observed that the report of the investigating officer under Section 173 of the CrPC indicated that he was not present at the spot of the incident, but was in Jabalpur on the basis of the statements of witnesses, tower location of mobile numbers of the accused persons and the CCTV footage. The High Court held that the 'only' allegation against Surbhayan Singh was that he attacked the appellant, but that it only resulted in a simple injury. Hence, the High Court allowed his application for anticipatory bail, observing:
"8... So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that if the applicant surrenders himself before concerned court within fifteen days from today, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his regular appearance before the Court during trial.

9. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-

1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.