In a significant judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court granted bail to Sunit @ Sumit Singh, accused in a murder and robbery case, while sharply criticizing the investigation’s handling by the police. The judgment, delivered by Justice Subodh Abhyankar, highlighted grave lapses in the investigation and called for immediate reforms to prevent further miscarriages of justice.
Case Background:
The case, numbered M.Cr.C.No.28712-2024, pertains to a serious criminal matter where the accused, Sunit @ Sumit Singh, was implicated in a crime involving murder and robbery. The incident occurred on June 18, 2020, and the applicant was arrested on December 2, 2020. He has since been in custody. The charges against him include Sections 302, 34, 450, 397, 398, 114, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
The accused had filed six bail applications; three were withdrawn, and two were temporarily allowed due to health reasons. Advocate Abhay Saraswat argued this latest bail application on behalf of the applicant, while Public Prosecutor Shri Virendra Khadav represented the State.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
Justice Subodh Abhyankar allowed the bail application after considering the extended custody duration and the trial’s slow pace, noting that only 11 of the 29 witnesses had been examined. The court found the delay unacceptable, particularly since the remaining witnesses had not yet appeared.
A critical point raised by the defence was the questionable recovery of a piece of evidence—a pant worn by the accused at the time of the incident—which was seized six months after the arrest. The defense argued that the DNA evidence obtained from the pant was fabricated, as it was improbable for the accused to retain the garment in the same condition for that duration.
The court, after examining these circumstances, allowed the bail application with conditions. The accused is to furnish a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one solvent surety and is required to appear before the trial court as needed.
Sharp Critique of the Investigation:
Justice Abhyankar was particularly critical of the police investigation. He emphasized the “sheer lapses in the investigation” and condemned the “unprofessional and callous approach” of the investigating officer, specifically noting the failure to collect chance fingerprints from the crime scene. The court found the explanation provided by the police—stating it was impossible to take fingerprints due to multiple people entering the house—unconvincing.
In a scathing observation, Justice Abhyankar stated, “It is apparent that there are sheer lapses in the investigation, which are the result of an unprofessional and callous approach adopted by the investigating officer, and this is not an isolated incident.” He further remarked, “It appears that whatever observations made by this Court or the other courts in this regard, are only for the satisfaction of their own conscience.”
Directive for Investigation Reform:
Highlighting the recurring flaws in criminal investigations, the court directed the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, to form a Serious Crimes Investigation Supervising Team in each district. This team, led by a senior police officer not below the rank of an IPS officer, will supervise all serious crime investigations to ensure accountability and thoroughness.
Case Title: Sunit @ Sumit Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Number: M.Cr.C.No.28712-2024
Bench: Justice Subodh Abhyankar
