Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghvendra Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 September, 2021
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
M.Cr.C.No.41909/2021
( Raghvendra Singh Tomar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh )
(1)
Gwalior, dated : 06.09.2021
Shri Rajmani Bansal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Manish Nayak, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant. I.A.No.25116/2021, an application for urgent hearing is considered and allowed.
Heard on IA No.26153/2021, an application under Section 301(2) of the Cr.P.C.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant and his associate is permitted to assist the prosecution.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Case diary perused.
The applicant has filed this fourth application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. First application was dismissed on merits vide order d.24.06.2020 passed in M.Cr.C.No.16169/2020 and second and third applications were dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dt.07.09.2020 and 10.05.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.31950/2020 and 13634/2021 respectively.
The applicant has been arrested on 19.08.2019 by Police Station Hajeera, District Gwalior, in connection with Crime No.292/2019 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 120B, 307, 302 of IPC subsequently HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C.No.41909/2021 ( Raghvendra Singh Tomar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ) (2) enhanced Sections 294, 201, 202 of the IPC, 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.
Prosecution story, in short, is that on 10/7/19, at about 1 PM, when complainant's brother Sudip alias Pankaj Sikarwar was coming along with Raju Parmar, in the way, he was intercepted by Sanjay Tomar, Raman Chauhan and Parmal Tomar, who were hiding behind a house. From the other side of the house Bhaiji Chauhan, applicant - Raghvendra Tomar and 2-3 unknown persons also came out. They all started firing incessantly at Pankaj causing several firearm injuries to him. When complainant came forward to his rescue, he was also fired at, who somehow saved himself, Thereafter, firing, all the miscreants fled away on their Motorcycles, while Pankaj ultimately succumbed to such injuries.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The applicant is in custody since 19.08.2019. Charge-sheet has been filed. No custodial interrogation is required. He has not named in the F.I.R. but has been implicated on the basis of memo of co-accused Balister recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He was not present on the spot and has not committed any crime. From bare perusal of the charge-sheet it can be seen that there is no overt act assigned to the applicant. There is no act prior to the incident as such the offence under Sections 307 and 302 of IPC are not made out against him. It is also submitted that in view of outbreak of COVID 19, detention of the applicant in HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C.No.41909/2021 ( Raghvendra Singh Tomar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ) (3) already congested prison may be detrimental. Applicant is permanent resident of District Gwalior and there is no likelihood of absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this court. With the aforesaid submissions prayer for grant of bail is made.
Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer and submitted that the applicant was also involved in making conspiracy to kill Pankaj Sikarwar @ Sudip. First application filed by the applicant was rejected on merits. On such grounds, they pray for dismissal of the bail application.
However, it would not be desirable to enter into the merits of the rival contentions at this juncture.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, custody of the applicant, coupled with the fact that trial is not likely to conclude in near future and prolonged pre-trial detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/committal Court for his appearance on the dates given by the concerned Court. The HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C.No.41909/2021 ( Raghvendra Singh Tomar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ) (4) applicant shall also furnish a written undertaking before the concerned court that he will abide by the terms and conditions of various circulars, as well as, orders issued by the Central Government, State Government and local administration from time to time such as maintaining social distancing, physical distancing, hygiene etc. to avoid proliferation of Corona virus.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him.
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
5. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
6. The applicant shall not commit any other offence during pendency of the trial, failing which this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to the Bench.
7. The applicant shall appear and mark his presence before HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C.No.41909/2021 ( Raghvendra Singh Tomar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ) (5) the S.H.O. of the police station concerned once in a month till conclusion of the trial.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
Certified copy/E-copy as per rules.
(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge SP SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE 2021.09.07 10:30:25 +05'30'