MP High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Two Cops Accused Of Shielding Wanted Criminal By Staging His Fake Encounter In 2009

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to two cops booked for allegedly conspiring to shield a man by staging his fake encounter in 2009, after the man was found to be alive in 2012. 

Justice Subodh Abhyankar noted that Anil Patidar, one of the accused-cops, was not named by the witnesses as the person who forced them or persuaded them to wrongly identify the dead body as that of the criminal— Bansilal Gurjar.

The bench also noted that the second accused cop Mukhthar Rashid Qureshi was posted at another police station, and had gone to the spot only when he was called.

The Court was rather surprised that the case-dairy was silent about T.I. Parshuram Singh Parmar, who was named by the witnesses as the person who pressurized them to make wrong statements.

"TI Parmar's name has also been taken by the Bansilal Gurjar himself, who had stated that TI Parmar had told him that he would manage everything, and he would not be searched by the police party anymore," the Court noted.

The case originated from alleged encounter of Bansilal Gurjar, a wanted criminal, on February 8, 2009. At the time, the deceased-accused was identified as Bansilal by his family members and independent witnesses. A magisterial inquiry conducted in 2009 also concluded that the body belonged to Bansilal. 

However, in 2011, another accused, Ratanlal, was arrested in a separate case and disclosed that Bansilal was alive. This led to the arrest of Bansilal on November 20, 2012 and registration of an FIR under Sections 419 (punishment of impersonation), 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery for cheating), 471 (using forged documents as genuine) and 474 (possession of forged documents) of IPC. 

Subsequently, writ petitions were filed before the High Court seeking independent investigations into the killing of an unidentified person who was falsely presented as Bansilal. The court, thereafter, directed the CBI to investigate the encounter and the role of police officers. 

A fresh FIR was thus registered by the CBI on December 8, 2014, under Section 307 (attempt to murder), 353 (assault to deter public servant from duty), 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from duty), 302 (murder), 120-B (punishment of criminal conspiracy), 193 (punishment for false evidence), 119 (public servant concealing design to commit offence), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence or giving false evidence) of IPC and Section 25 (unlawful acquisition, possession or manufacture of arms) and 27 (crime of using prohibited arms or ammunition) of Arms Act. 

The CBI alleged that the police officers conspired to shield Bansilal by staging a fake encounter and killing an unknown person. Per CBI, Bansilal's family members also retracted their statements, claiming to have been pressured by police personnel to identify the deceased as Bansilal. 

A post-mortem report referred to AIIMS indicated that one of the injuries on the deceased's body suggested repeated blunt force trauma, which was inconsistent with a road accident. The CBI also alleged that false evidence was created to suggest crossfire, including fabricated bullet injuries to police personnel. 

During the investigation, three police personnel were already arrested. The CBI opposed the bail applications, arguing that the seriousness of the allegations warranted custodial interrogation. 

Senior Counsel representing the petitioner Anil Patidar argued that he was falsely implicated and was not involved in the encounter. Patidar, who served as SDOP in Manasa, maintained that he had cooperated with the investigation and that all actions taken by him were properly documented. 

Similarly, counsel for the other petitioner Mukhthar Rashid Qureshi argued that the officer was only called to join the police team on duty and had no direct involvement in the alleged conspiracy. 

The bench noted that multiple witnesses, including the family members of the deceased and an independent person, admitted that they had earlier identified the body as Bansilal under police pressure.

The court noted that one witness had stated that he was threatened by the police officers, claiming that on "...he was taken to identify the body, and was shown the body in the hospital, who had put on t-shirt, jeans and sports shoes of Bansilal Gurjar, and the Head Constable Bhagwan Singh also showed the face of the deceased to him and told him that the body is of Bansilal Gurjar, however, this witness told him that the body was not of Bansilal Gurjar, however, Bhagwan Singh insisted that Bansilal Gurjar is also known to him, and thereafter, he was made to give his statement that he had identified Bansilal Gurjar".

The court further observed that the prosecution's case primarily revolved around TI Parshuram Singh Parmar, and none of the witnesses specifically implicated Anil Patidar in forcing false identification. The court also recorded that Patidar had remained available to the CBI since 2014 and had not attempted to evade investigation. 

The Court thus allowed the plea.

Case Title: Anil Patidar v Central Bureau of Investigation (M.CR.C. No.24925-2025)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 190

For Applicants: Senior Advocates Vivek Singh and Veer Kumar Jain with Advocates Shivendra Singh Rawat and Rizwan Khan

For CBI: Advocate Manoj Kumar Dwivedi 

Click here to read/download Order