MALKHAN SINGH VISHNOI Vs. DIRECTOR CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present petition is for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.RC.7(5)2011-SC.l/ CBI/New Delhi registered at Police Station C.B.L., New Delhi for offence under Section 120B read with Sections 364, 302, 201 of the IPC Section 3(2)(v ) of the SC/ST Act.

(2.) While praying for release of the petitioner on bail, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a sitting Member of the Rajasthan State Legislative Assembly. He is victim of circumstances and being made a scapegoat in the present case. It was contended that the petitioner was neither named in the first report nor in the second report and neither in the complaint. He was not even named in the first charge-sheet. His name was systematically dragged into the case on the basis of the false statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. The evidence against the petitioner is hearsay. No eyewitness and documentary evidence has been produced in support of that evidence. The necessary ingredients of offence of criminal conspiracy i.e. agreement, preparation and meeting of mind are entirely missing in the present case. There is not even a suggestion of participation of the petitioner in the alleged offence. It was further submitted that the petitioner is injudicial custody since 19.12.2011 and the trial of the case is still not commenced. There are almost 300 witnesses and more than 3000 pages of charge-sheet; and there are 17 accused persons. It was further argued that there is no legal evidence against the petitioner to sustain the charge of hatching criminal conspiracy. The petitioner is accused of executing a conspiracy through Paras Ram. The said Paras Ram has been discharged from the offence under Section 120B of the IPC by the trial court vide order dated 4.10.2012. Moreover, the charges against the present petitioner are incorrectly framed and as a result, the C.B.I. itself has filed Revision Petition No. 3 022/2012 against the order of framing of the charges against the petitioner before High Court. To make out a case for bail, it was also argued that conspiracy is shown between 23.7.2011 to 1.9.2011, whereas it is evident from the charge-sheet that til) 15.8.2011, monetary negotiations were going on between Bhanwari Devi and representative of Mahipal Maderna for securing the CD back against payment of Rs.50,000. When the monetary negotiations failed and Bhanwari Devi disagreed with the mode of payment, the representatives of Mahipal Maderna allegedly hatched and executed the plan of her elimination. The petitioner is nowhere in the picture during entire period. It was further argued that even if the allegation against the present petitioner is true, then also no substantive offence is made out against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner took the Court through the charge-sheet filed by the C.B.I, to show that the name of the petitioner is nowhere in the circuit persons either as conspirator or abettor in any manner whatsoever and his name has been falsely injected by the C.B.I, without any foundation. There is not a single evidence against the petitioner to support the charge of hatching a criminal conspiracy. It was further stated that the statement of co-accused Amar Chand was taken under allurement. Accused Sahirarn nowhere states that the petitioner had hatched upon conspiracy. Even Rajesh Parihar (D-182) does not name the petitioner. While meeting the submission of C.B.I, that there are 32 witnesses claiming that there was illicit relationship between the petitioner and deceased Bhanwari Devi and an illegitimate child was born out of such relations, and that there is no evidence that the petitioner had ever wanted to eliminate the deceased.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the statement of Amar Chand wherein he stated that he had heard that Bhanwari Devi had CD in her possession qua her physical relation with Mahipal Maderna and Mahihan Singh submitted that the said information with Amar Chand was hearsay and no such CD qua the petitioner has been produced till date. The only CD available is the CD involving accused Mahipal Maderna. The statement of lliyas was also read out by learned counsel for the petitioner. It was stated that as per the said statement of lliyas, who was the friend of Shahabudeen, no role was attributed to the petitioner and that it is evident from the statement of Babu Lai Bishnoi that the reaction of the present petitioner when he had heard about the death of Bhanwari Devi was that even though the said crime had been committed by Mahipal Maderna, he (Malkhan Singh) would be blamed for the same on account of his relation with deceased Bhanwari. These statements were read out to show that the petitioner had neither committed the offence nor had intention to commit the offence.