Anticipatory Bail Granted to Police Officers in Fake Encounter Case; Custodial Interrogation Unnecessary Given Long Investigation Span: Madhya Pradesh High Court. - 2025-09-20

MP High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Senior Police Officers in 2009 Fake Encounter Case

INDORE: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to two police officers, including a serving Additional Superintendent of Police, in connection with a 2009 case involving an alleged fake encounter. The court, presided over by Justice Subodh Abhyankar, ruled that the custodial interrogation of the officers was not necessary, given their availability throughout the lengthy investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) which began in 2014.

---

Case Background: The Encounter That Wasn't

The case revolves around a police encounter on February 8, 2009, in which notorious criminal Bansilal Gurjar was reported to have been killed. The matter was seemingly closed after Gurjar's own family members identified the deceased. However, the case took a dramatic turn in 2012 when it was discovered that Bansilal Gurjar was, in fact, alive. He was subsequently arrested, leading to a CBI investigation ordered by the High Court in 2014 into the killing of the unidentified person and the role of the police officers involved.

The applicants, Anil Patidar, who was the Sub-Divisional Officer of Police (SDOP) at the time and is now an Additional S.P., and Mukhthar Rashid Qureshi, then a Sub-Inspector, sought pre-arrest bail, apprehending their arrest in the CBI case registered for murder, criminal conspiracy, and other serious offences.

Arguments Before the Court

Counsel for the Applicants: Senior Counsel Shri Vivek Singh, representing Anil Patidar, argued that his client was falsely implicated and had cooperated with the CBI investigation whenever summoned since 2014. It was contended that the original identification of the body was confirmed by Gurjar's family and a Magisterial Enquiry, and Patidar could not be held responsible for witnesses later changing their statements under alleged pressure from other officers.

Senior Counsel Shri V.K. Jain, for Mukhthar Rashid Qureshi, submitted that his client was merely a part of the police team constituted for the operation and was not the primary officer in charge.

Counsel for the CBI: Shri Manoj Dwivedi, representing the CBI, vehemently opposed the bail applications. He highlighted the gravity of the offence, where an innocent person was murdered to shield a criminal. The CBI pointed to evidence suggesting the fabrication of the encounter, including a medical report from AIIMS indicating the deceased suffered a "localized crush injury by blunt force," inconsistent with a road traffic accident as claimed. Furthermore, injuries to other police officers were found to be caused by a blunt object, not gunshots. The CBI also noted that three other police personnel had already been arrested in the case.

Court's Reasoning and Observations

Justice Abhyankar, after a careful perusal of the case diary, noted several critical factors that tilted the balance in favour of granting bail.

"The court observed that during the CBI investigation, several witnesses resiled from their earlier statements, claiming they were forced by the police to wrongly identify the deceased. However, the judgment highlighted, "none of the witnesses have disclosed the name of the applicant Anil Patidar, as the person who forced them or persuaded them to identify the wrong person, instead, they have taken the name of Parshuram Singh Parmar, T.I. of the Police Station, Kukreshawar."

The Court found it "rather surprising" that the case diary was silent on the role or status of Inspector Parshuram Singh Parmar, around whom the entire conspiracy seemed to revolve, according to statements from witnesses and even from Bansilal Gurjar himself.

The pivotal reason for granting bail was the timeline and the applicants' conduct. The Court stated:

"In such circumstances, when the applicant Anil Patidar was available to the CBI throughout since 2014, and it is also not anybody’s case that the applicants has absconded or has not turned up on his duties, this Court is of the considered opinion that under the facts and circumstances of the case, his custodial interrogation would not be necessary."

Applying the same logic to Mukhthar Rashid Qureshi, who was part of the team but not central to the alleged conspiracy, the court found he also deserved to be released on anticipatory bail.

Final Decision

The High Court allowed both applications, directing that in the event of arrest, Anil Patidar and Mukhthar Rashid Qureshi be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 each with one solvent surety of the like amount. They have been ordered to cooperate with the investigation as and when required and to abide by the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The decision underscores the principle that pre-arrest bail can be granted even in serious cases if custodial interrogation is deemed unnecessary, especially after a prolonged investigation period where the accused has been available and cooperative.