Tare Singh Tomar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The applicant has filed this first application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Hazira, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.292/19 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 307, 302, 120B, subsequently enhanced 294, 201, 202 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, it surfaced that applicant was involved in the conspiracy to kill Pankaj Sikarwar and prior to the incident, had got himself arrested in Banda (U.P.) under the Arms Act in order to ditch the Investigating Agency and avoid culpability in the offence in question. It also transpired that the applicant along with his nephew main-accused Parmal Singh etc., owing to previous animosity and to avenge the murder of one Abhishek, had hatched the conspiracy and had attempted on the life of Pankaj Sikarwar on several occasions.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated. The applicant is in custody since 18/8/19. He is not named in the FIR, but has been impleaded on the basis of memo of co-accused persons recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act, which has no evidentiary value. There is no allegation of firing against him. 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. It is submitted that the applicant has been found involved in hatching conspiracy of the crime. Besides, he has criminal antecedents of five cases to his discredit.

Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, no case for grant of bail is made out.

The application, accordingly, stands dismissed.