PRASHANT SINGH RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(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: