Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghuraj Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 March, 2022
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.12942/2022
(Raghuraj Singh Tomar Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior Bench: Dated 21.03.2022
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel with Shri M.K.
Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri B.M. Shrivastava, learned PP for the respondent/State.
Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant. The applicant has filed this third bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 11.12.2020, by Police Station- Ambah, District- Morena, in connection with Crime No.857/2020, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. Earlier bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn by this court.
2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he is suffering confinement since 11.12.2020 and prosecution witnesses have not yet been examined, therefore, it is a case of delayed trial. It is submitted that total 8 persons have been arrayed as accused in the case in hand and it is difficult to ascertain who opened fire over the deceased to cause him injuries. It it further submitted that report dated 07.12.2020 submitted from the office of Scene of Crime Unit, District Morena referred the case to be doubtful. Counsel fairly submitted that 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.12942/2022 (Raghuraj Singh Tomar Vs. State of M.P.) applicant bears criminal record of three cases wherein in two cases acquittal has been recorded and one case is pending still. Confinement amounts to pretrial detention. Therefore, under these grounds, he prays for grant of bail.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that report of Scene of Crime Unit, District Morena indicates that deceased was lying on his cot ([kfV;k) having his head towards south and legs towards north and from the window, opening up in East side was the place where assailant opened fire over the deceased. Entry wound is available over right abdomen. Height of window vis-a-vis cot indicates that trajectory apparently sufficient enough to cause injuries, therefore, forensically at this stage, no benefit of bail can be given to the applicant. It is further submitted that recently vide order dated 14.03.2022 passed in MCRC No.7286/2022, bail application of co-accused Prem Singh was dismissed on merits by this court on the same set of facts. Looking to the case prima facie on the basis of allegations, he seeks parity and submitted that this case also is not different than the case of co- accused Prem Singh, therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this bail application.
3
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.12942/2022 (Raghuraj Singh Tomar Vs. State of M.P.)
4. Learned counsel for the complainant also opposed the prayer and submitted that all accused were instrumental in causing injuries to the victim who succumbed to it and this is a case of murder and according to him, at this stage, evidence cannot be appreciated and it cannot be ascertained who open gun shots over the victim, therefore, he prays for dismissal of this bail application.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.
6. This is case for offfence under Section 302 of IPC alogwith Sections 147, 148, 149 of IPC. From the report of Scene of Crime Unit forensically at this stage, looking to the report, no benefit of bail can be given to the applicant because allegations appears to be available against the accused persons prima facie for bail purpose. Discussion in detail is not made so that it may not cause any impact either way in the trial, however; looking to the allegations and fact that witnesses are yet to be examined, cumulatively no case for grant is made out.
7. This court can profitably relied upon the recent judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Killu @ Kailash and others reported in (2020) 16 SCC 735, in which it has been held that every member of unlawful assembly is guilty of offence committed in 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.12942/2022 (Raghuraj Singh Tomar Vs. State of M.P.) prosecution of common object. In the present case, all these aspects of offence are yet to be unfolded in trial.
8. Application sans merits and is hereby dismissed. However, it is hereby expected from the prosecution that it shall ensure the attendance of all prosecution witnesses and shall depose them before the trial court as per law.
(Anand Pathak) Judge Rashid RASHID KHAN 2022.03.21 18:10:03 +05'30' 11.0.8