Madhya Pradesh High Court
Awadh Bihari Singh Tomar @ Pintu Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 29 June, 2017
Mcrc. 6046/17 & M.Cr.C. No.6362/17
(Bhoopendra Singh Tomar & Anr. Vs. State of MP &
Awadh Bihar Tomar Vs. State of MP)
29.06.2017
Mrs. Sangeeta Pachori, , counsel for the
applicants.
Shri J.M.Sahni, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Shri Amit Sharma, counsel for the complainant. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Since both the applications are connected with the same crime, therefore, decided by present common order.
The applicant Awadh Bihari Singh Tomar @ Pintu is in custody since 05.06.2017 and the remaining applicants are in custody since 20.05.2017 relating to Crime No. 247/2017 registered at Police Station - Thatipur, District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 387, 294/34 of IPC and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are reputed citizens of the locality, who have no criminal past as such. They are partners of the complainant and a false FIR has been lodged by the complainant for the offence under Section 387 IPC, whereas it is not alleged in the FIR that at the time of the incident the applicants had any fire arm or any deadly weapon so that life of the complainant was in danger. Also it would be apparent from the FIR that it was lodged with a delay of atleast six hours. Under these circumstances, it would be apparent that no case is established against the applicant, whereas they had filed a counter FIR against the complainant etc. that they sent two persons to kill the applicant Awadh Bihari Singh Tomar. It is further submitted that the offence of extortion was not found proved because at the time of Mcrc. 6046/17 & M.Cr.C. No.6362/17 (Bhoopendra Singh Tomar & Anr. Vs. State of MP & Awadh Bihar Tomar Vs. State of MP) incident the complainant had no money and it was not possible for any one to extort any money from him. Under these circumstances, even no offence under Section 384 of IPC is made out against the applicants. The applicants are in custody without any substantial reason. Under these circumstances, the applicants pray for bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the bail application.
Learned counsel for the complainant also opposes the bail application.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants may be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that the applicants be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand Only) each with a surety bond of the same amount each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, to appear before the Trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.
This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
Certified copy as per rules.
(N.K. Gupta) Judge vv