Explore a recent legal case where the court analyzed the grant of anticipatory bail in a detailed manner. The court’s scrutiny of the legal aspects surrounding the bail provisions sheds light on the complexities involved in such decisions. This analysis offers valuable insights into how judiciary evaluates bail applications in light of legal principles and evidentiary considerations.
Facts
- Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh filed applications for anticipatory bail.
- High Court allowed Jogendra Singh’s application noting he was not present at the spot of the crime according to the investigating officer’s report.
- Trial Court rejected their applications citing omissions of the investigating officer and witness statements assigning a specific role to them.
- High Court allowed both Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh’s applications for anticipatory bail based on Call Data Records, CCTV footage, and witness statements confirming their presence in Jabalpur.
- Dispute between deceased-Vikas Singh and accused originated from complaints filed by Vikas Singh against the accused persons.
- High Court observed that the investigating officer’s report could not be questioned at this stage.
- High Court granted anticipatory bail to Suryabhan Singh as the only allegation against him resulted in a simple injury.
- Further investigation showed the involvement of Ujiyar Singh and Chandrabhan Singh in the death of Vikas Singh.
- Investigating officer’s supplementary challan indicated evidence of Ujiyar Singh and Chandrabhan Singh’s involvement in Vikas Singh’s death.
- Jogendra Singh withdrew his application and sought bail under Section 439 of the CrPC.
- Allegations of threats due to illegal sand mining business.
- Assault with lathi on Jogendra Singh by deceased-Vikas Singh and appellant.
- Accused arrived in a jeep driven by Jogendra Singh.
- Complaints and counter-complaints filed by both parties.
- Previous criminal antecedents of deceased-Vikas Singh’s family alleged by accused.
- Incident involving shooting and injury as reported by Jogendra Singh.
- Role of accused and location at the time of the incident questioned.
- Statements and FIRs filed by various parties related to the incident.
Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election
Arguments
- Arguing against the judgment of the Single Judge, the Counsel for the appellant raised several submissions.
- The Single Judge relied on the investigating officer’s report to conclude that two accused could not have been present at the crime scene.
- The Counsel argued that vital circumstances related to the crime were overlooked by the investigating officer, as highlighted in previous court orders.
- The appellant and other witnesses stated that the accused were present at the scene and each had a specific role in the crime.
- Another Single Judge had denied anticipatory bail to one of the accused in a separate case, emphasizing the seriousness of allegations.
- The Counsel for one of the accused contended that his client was not present at the crime scene, providing an alternate explanation from the FIR lodged by the deceased’s father.
- Inconsistencies were pointed out regarding the injuries suffered by the appellant and the actions attributed to Suryabhan Singh in different statements.
- The deceased also had criminal antecedents, adding to the complexity of the case.
- Submission of counsel for accused focuses on variance between statements of appellant under Section 161 and Section 164 of CrPC
- Specific variances highlighted include time of arrival at Negai Tiraha and details of the shooting incident
- Arguments presented by learned Senior Counsel and Counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh regarding the sustainability of anticipatory bail
- FIR attributes roles to Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh in the crime
- Statement of appellant under Section 161 of CrPC outlines sequence of events leading to the death of Vikas Singh
- Material not subject to detailed examination at this stage; focus on correctness of parameters for grant of anticipatory bail by Single Judge
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Analysis
- Various deficiencies in the investigation process have been highlighted, including failure to notice eye-witness statements, reliance on selective CCTV footage, lack of fingerprint analysis, and reliance on CDRs without proper verification.
- The JMFC ordered further investigation due to these deficiencies, indicating a need for more evidence to emerge.
- The enmity between the deceased and the family of the appellant is acknowledged, but the focus is on determining the events of the incident rather than the underlying causes of the enmity.
- The nature of the injury caused to the appellant and the events leading to it will be decided during the trial phase, where prosecution evidence will be crucial.
- The FIR and statements under sections 161 and 164 are consistent regarding the actions of Suryabhan Singh towards the appellant, while the role of Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh is disputed.
- The Single Judge’s decision is criticized for overlooking significant aspects of the case.
- Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh’s defense relies on the counter FIR filed by Ujiyar Singh, which claims they were not present at the crime scene.
- The investigating officer’s report and supplementary challan indicate a prima facie case against Ujiyar Singh and Chandrabhan Singh, but the roles of Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh remain unresolved.
- Vikas Singh visited Rajkishore Rajput’s house at 9 am on 29 September 2020.
- Vikas Singh asked Rajkishore Rajput to meet him at Negai Tiraha.
- Rajkishore Rajput arrived at Negai Tiraha with Dharmender Patel at 12 noon.
- The statement of Dharmender Patel, an eye-witness, under Section 164 of the CrPC, aligned with the statements of the appellant and Rajkishore Rajput.
- Rajkishore Rajput informed Dharmender Patel about the arrival of the deceased-Vikas Singh at Negai Tiraha.
- After committing the murder, the four accused left in their jeep.
- The FIR and statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC implicate Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh in the crime.
- The order granting anticipatory bail overlooked crucial aspects such as the nature and seriousness of the offence, along with the specific allegations against Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh.
- There is sufficient evidence to warrant the cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court.
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Decision
- Appeals allowed.
- Impugned judgments granting anticipatory bail to Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh set aside.
- Judgments dated 1 July 2021 and 31 May 2021 of the Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh overturned.
- Pending applications, if any, also disposed of.
Case Title: PRASHANT SINGH RAJPUT Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (2021 INSC 645)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001202-001202 / 2021
