PRASHANT SINGH RAJPUT versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.

Citation: [2021] 10 S.C.R. 161 · Decided: 08-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
161
PRASHANT SINGH RAJPUT
v.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1202 of 2021)
OCTOBER 08, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 439 – Anticipatory bail
in murder case – FIR and the statements under ss. 161 and 164
indicated a specific role in the crime to the two respondents – High
Court granted anticipatory bail to the two respondents – Challenge
against – Held: The order granting anticipatory bail ignored
material aspects including nature and gravity of the offence and
specific allegations against the respondents – Hence sufficient case
made out for cancelling anticipatory bail granted by High Court.
Bail: Challenge to an order granting bail and application
seeking cancellation of bail granted – Difference in the approach
the Court should adopt – The considerations that guide the power
of an appellate court explained in Mahipal case.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The material at this stage cannot be examined
with a fine toothcomb in the manner of a criminal trial. What needs
to be determined is whether the parameters for the grant of
anticipatory bail were correctly formulated and applied by the
Single Judge. [Para 21][174-A]
2. In relation to the present incident, the appellant’s case
is supported by the FIR, his statements under Sections 161 and
164 of the CrPC, and the statements of the other two eye-
witnesses under Section 164 of the CrPC. On the other hand,
respondents rely on the counter FIR filed by co-accused according
to which they were not present at the scene of crime and
co-accused shot the deceased in self-defense.The orders of the
JMFC advert to the contents of the FIR registered at the behest
of the appellant. The investigating officer’s first report dated
161
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 161
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
15 December 2020 indicated that there was a prima facie case
against the co-accused. The supplementary challan dated 8 March
2021 indicates that more material had emerged during the course
of investigation as against the events portrayed in the FIR
registered at the behest of co-accused. Hence, the case portrayed
by the appellant could not have been ignored by solely relying on
the counter-FIR. [Para 27][178-A-D]
3. The High Court has placed reliance upon the report
submitted under Section 173 of the CrPC on 15 December 2020
to hold that the respondents were not present when the incident
occurred. However, the High Court has not addressed the clear
deficiencies in the course of the investigation which have been
highlighted in the order of the JMFC dated 13 February 2021
and the trial Court’s order dated 24 March 2021. These are, inter
alia: (i)the failure to notice eye-witness statements; (ii) reliance
on CCTV footage for the period of time after incident had occurred,
ignoring prior or contemporaneous footage; (iii)not collecting
CCTV footage between Jabalpur and the scene of offence; (iv)
relying on CDRs without determining if the respondents had
actually used the number; and (v) not conducting any finger print
analysis. In the order dated 13 February 2021, the JMFC
identified these deficiencies with the investigation and directed
further investigation. Upon the submission of the supplementary
challan, the JMFC noted in their order dated 10 March 2021
that the challan was only in relation to co-accused, and did not
address the role of the respondents. The obvious deficiencies in
the investigation have pointed out the errors in the trial Court’s
order rejecting the respondent’s applications for anticipatory bail.
The Single Judge has, however, overlooked these crucial aspects.
[Para 28][178-D-H]
4. It was also argued on behalf of respondents that while
the appellant’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC is that
the respondents also shot at the appellant, the FIR and his
statement under Section 161 of the CrPC only record that he hit
him with the butt of the gun. The trial is yet to take place where
the evidence adduced by the prosecution will be appreciated,
and the veracity of appellant’s claim in his statement under Section
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
163
164 can be determined there. However, at the present stage, the
FIR and both the appellant’s statements under Section 161 and
164 are consistent in as much as that respondent did hit him in
his head with the butt of the gun. An argument has also been
raised in relation to the nature of the injury caused to the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.