Ramu Tomar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This is first application, under section 438 of the Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail.

Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.292/2019 registered at Police Station Hazira, Gwalior for the offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 341, 147, 148, 149 and 120B of the IPC.

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, 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.

During investigation, the country made pistol used in the offence was recovered from the applicant. After commission of offence, the assailants had handed over the weapons of offence to co-accused Balistar and went to Vaishno Devi. After returning from there, the assailants called the weapons of offence through the present applicant and co-accused Shailendra alias Shailu Tomar. The present applicant and Shailu Tomar went to Balistar and after taking the weapons of offence from him, handed over the same to assailants, who in turn gave co-accused Shailu Tomar a country made pistol to keep.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated. He is not named in the FIR, but has been impleaded on the memo of co-accused Balistar recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The first such memo was recorded on 23/7/19 which does not contain his name. However, in the second memo recorded on 25/7/19, name of applicant has been mentioned. The said memos neither have any evidentiary value nor inspire confidence. The applicant is a permanent resident of Ambah, District Morena and there is no likelihood of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is made.

In response, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and prays for its rejection. It is submitted that the applicant was involved in hatching a conspiracy to kill Pankaj alias Sudip, in pursuance whereof, he had facilitated the assailants in getting back their weapons from co-accused Balistar. As such, he had full knowledge about commission of offence.

However, it would not be desirable to enter into merits of the rival contentions at this juncture. It is well settled that the considerations governing grant of anticipatory bail are altogether different from those relevant for the prayer for regular bail.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in the opinion of this Court, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

The application, therefore, stands rejected.