Shailendra Singh Alias Shelu Tomar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The applicant has filed this second application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The first application was rejected on merits vide order dated 1/10/2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No.33033/2019.

The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Hazira, Gwalior in connection with Crime No.292/2019 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 341, 147, 148, 149, 120B, 294 of the IPC and 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, 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. The present applicant went to Balistar and after taking the weapons of offence from him, handed over the same to assailants, who in turn gave him a country made pistol to keep.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated. The applicant is in custody since 22/7/19. Charge-sheet has been filed and no further custodial interrogation is required. He is not named in the FIR, but has been impleaded on the basis of memo of co-accused Balistar recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act, which has no evidentiary value. No Test Identification Parade has been conducted. He cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period as an under-trial. There is no likelihood of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for bail is made.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in the opinion of this Court, learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to point out any material change in circumstances after rejection of the earlier bail application on merits except filing of charge-sheet. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Virupakshappa Gouda Vs. The State of Karnataka ((2017)5 SCC 406), mere filing of charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On the contrary, filing of the charge-sheet establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the charge-sheet for trial of the accused person. Therefore, there is no reason for this Court to take a different view in the matter.

The application, accordingly, stands dismissed.