Nandi @ Narendra Singh vs State Of M.P

G.S. Ahluwalia, J

This second application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of bail. The first application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated

30/9/2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.35767/2020.

The applicant has been arrested on 9/6/2020 in connection with Crime No.160/2020 registered at Police Station Gohad, District Bhind for offence

under Sections 302, 307, 323, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution case, the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons came to the

field of the complainant and started stopping the complainant and his family members from cultivating the field. It is also mentioned in the FIR that co-

accused Ashok Gurjar, Ramveer Gurjar and Kallu Gurjar were armed with guns. When the deceased Devendra Singh replied that he has purchased

the land from one Ashok Thapak, therefore, he would cultivate the same, then all the accused persons including the applicant started abusing the

complainant and also started assaulting the victims by fists and blows as well as Lathis. Thereafter, Ashok Gurjar fired a gunshot causing death of

Devendra Singh. While escaping from the place of incident, co-accused Kallu Gurjar ran over the tractor on the body of victim Ramdulare, as a result

of which, he sustained injuries. After hearing gunshot noise, other witnesses came on the spot. It is submitted that if the entire allegations as mentioned

in the FIR are considered, then it is clear that there is no overt act on the part of the applicant. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that this

repeat application has been filed mainly on the ground of period of detention as the applicant is in jail from 9/6/2020, i.e. 8 months.

Per contra, the counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and it is submitted that the applicant was the member of an

unlawful assembly and was sharing the common object.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

So far as the question of period of detention is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another

reported in (2018) 12 SCC 129 has held that in crimes like murder, mere fact that accused was in custody for more than one year, may not be a

relevant consideration.

In this case, the offence has been committed in a most gruesome manner. Not only one person was killed, but one of the co-accused ran over the

tractor over Ramdulare causing multiple injuries including fracture of second and third metatarsal bones of left foot. Further, from the case diary, it is

clear that the applicant has a criminal history. Crime No.247/2008 was registered for offence under Sections 307, 323, 294 of IPC, Crime

No.332/2016 was registered for offence under Sections 323, 294, 506, 34 of iPC as well as Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Crime No.40/2015 was registered for offence under Sections 323, 294, 324, 506B and 147 of

IPC.

Looking to the prominent role played by the counsel for the applicant coupled with his criminal antecedents, no case is made out for grant of bail.

Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.