Balram Singh @ Ballu Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2636 MP

     1                                            M.Cr.C.No.20405/2021



          HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                 M.Cr.C.No.20405/2021
         (Balram Singh @ Ballu Tomar Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior Bench: Dated 23.06.2021
      Shri Arun Paterya, learned counsel for the applicant.

      Shri G.P. Chourasiya, learned PP for the respondent/State.

Shri R.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant.

Matter is heard through Video Conferencing.

The applicant has filed this second bail application u/S.439

Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on

31.03.2020, by Police Station- Phoop, District- Bhind, in

connection with Crime No.93/2020, for the offence punishable

under Sections 307, 294, 506, 34 and 302 of IPC.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that

the applicant is suffering confinement since 31.03.2020 and he

already suffered almost 15 months of incarceration whereas

charge-sheet has already been filed. It is further submitted that it

is case of free fight because applicant also sustained grievous

injuries wherein he suffered bone deep injuries over his scull as

well as fracture over his arm and also his son Kuber Singh

sustained lacerated wound over his head and other parts of body.

Counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the cases of Gajanand Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR

1954 SC 695, Munir Khan Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR

1971 SC 335 and Puran Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR

1976 SC 912 and submitted that when both the parties involved

in free fight then individual act is to be seen. It is further

submitted that at the instance of applicant also cross-case was

registered against the present complainant party. Applicant is

aged about 40 years old and already suffered sufficient period of

custody as pretrial detention. Learned counsel specifically

submitted that he has filed a list of criminal cases pending against

the complainant Jitendra Singh and other members of

complainant party alongwith this application and all members of

complainant party were having criminal record. Confinement

amounts to pretrial detention. He undertakes to cooperate in trial

as well as investigation and would available as and when

required. He would not be a source of embarrassment or

harassment to the complainant. He would not move in the vicinity

of complainant party and shall abide by the terms and conditions

as imposed by this court. He further intends to perform

community service voluntarily by serving the environment and

National/Social cause by contributing his part voluntarily to

purge his misdeeds. Therefore, he prayed for bail.

Learned PP for the State opposed the prayer and submitted

that one criminal case has been registered against the applicant in

year 2005 for offence under Section 341/294 of IPC. It is further

submitted that it is true that applicant also sustained injuries, but

he and other co-accused were instrumental in inflicted grievous

injuries to the complainant Jitendra Singh who succumbed to the

injuries. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this bail application

and further submitted that if bail is granted then stringent

condition may be imposed over him so that applicant may not

intimidate the witnesses.

Learned counsel for the complainant also opposed the

prayer and submitted that complainant was an army personnel

and was killed by applicant and other co-accused. Applicant may

intimidate the witnesses, therefore, his bail application may be

dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC

and considered the arguments advanced by them.

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned

counsel for the parties and apparently looking to the period of

custody and the injuries sustained by the applicant, it appears that

applicant be given benefit of bail because case might be

precipitated on the spur of moment and was a case of free fight

prima facie (only for bail purpose), this court intends to allow the

application but with certain stringent conditions and with

reformatory measures as per judgment passed in the case of Smt.

Sunita Gandharva Vs. State of M.P. and another reported in

2020(3)MPLJ (Cri.)247, without commenting on the merits of

the case, the application is allowed. It is hereby directed that the

applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond

of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) with two solvent

sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

After release, the applicant is further directed to strictly

follow all the instructions which may be issued by the Central

Government/State Government or Local Administration for

combating the COVID -19 pandemic.

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 them from

disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; and

7. The applicant would not move in the vicinity of complainant party and would not be a source of embarrassment or harassment to the prosecution witnesses and would not try to contact the witnesses through in person or through anybody else or through electronic means and shall not disturb the complainant party to undertake their regular activities including agricultural activities, otherwise this benefit of bail shall immediately be withdrawn.

8. The applicant shall mark his presence before the police station concerned on every Sunday and Thursday between 10.00 am to 2.00 pm till statements of eye-witnesses as prosecution witnesses are being held.

,rn~ }kjk ;g Hkh funZsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkosnd 20 ikS/kksa dk Qy nsus okys isM+ vFkok [email protected]½ jksi.k djsxk rFkk mUgs vius vkl iMksl esa isM+ksa dh lqj{kk ds fy, ckM+ yxkus dh O;oLFkk djuh gksxh rkfd ikS/ks lqjf{kr jg ldsA vkosnd dk ;g drZO; gS fd u dsoy ikS/kksa dks yxk;k tk,s] cfYd mUgsa iks"k.k Hkh fn;k tk,A

^^o`{kkjksi.k ds lkFk] o`{kkiks"k.k Hkh vko';d gSA^^ vkosnd fo'ks"kr% 6&8 QhV Åwaps ikS/[email protected]+ksa dks yxk;sxs rkfd os 'kh?kz gh iw.kZ fodflr gks ldsaA vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djus ds fy,] vkosnd dks fjgk fd;s tkus dh fnukad ls 30 fnuksa ds Hkhrj bl U;k;ky; ds le{k o`{[email protected]/kksa ds jksi.k ds lHkh QksVks çLrqr djus gksxsaA rRi'pkr~] vxys rhu o"kZ rd gj rhu eghus esa vkosnd ds }kjk bl U;k;ky; ds le{k izxfr fjiksVZ çLrqr dh tk,xh A o`{kksa dh çxfr ij fuxjkuh j[kuk vkosnd dk drZO; gS D;ksafd i;kZoj.k {kj.k ds dkj.k ekuo vfLrRo nkao ij gS vkSj U;k;ky; vuqikyu ds ckjs esa vkosnd }kjk fn[kkbZ xbZ fdlh Hkh ykijokgh dks utj vankt ugh dj ldrk gSA blfy, vkosnd dks isM+ksa dh çxfr vkSj vkosnd }kjk vuqikyu ds laca/k esa ,d fjiksVZ çLrqr djus ds fy, funZsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa vkosnd }kjk fd;s x;s vuqikyu dh ,d la{kfIr fjiskVZ bl U;k;ky; ds le{k izR;sd rhu ekg esa izLrqr dh tk;sxhA o`{kkjksi.k esa ;k isM+ksa dh ns[kHkky esa vkosnd dh vksj ls dh xbZ dksbZ Hkh pwd vkosnd dks tekur dk ykHk ysus ls oafpr dj ldrh gSA vkosnd dks viuh ilan ds LFkku ij bu ikS/[email protected] dks jksius dh Lora=rk gksxh] ;fn og bu jksis x;s isMksa dh Vªh xkMZ ;k ckM+ yxkdj j{kk djuk pkgrk gS] vU;Fkk vkosnd dks o`{kksa ds jksi.k ds fy, rFkk muds lqj{kk mik;ksa ds fy, vko';d [kpsZ ogu djuk gksxsaA bl U;k;ky; }kjk ;g funsZ'k ,d ijh{k.k izdj.k ds rkSj ij fn, x, gSa rkfd fgalk vkSj cqjkbZ ds fopkj dk izfrdkj] l`tu ,oa izd`fr ds lkFk ,dkdkj gksus ds ek/;e ls lkeaktL; Lfkkfir fd;k tk ldsA orZeku esa ekuo vfLrRo ds vko';d vax ds :i esa n;k] lsok] izse ,oa d:a.kk dh izd`fr dks fodflr djus dh vko';drk gS D;ksafd ;g ekuo thou dh ewyHkwr

izo`fr;ka gSa vkSj ekuo vfLrRo dks cuk, j[kus ds fy, budk iquthZfor gksuk vko';d gSA ;g funsZ'k vkosnd ds }kjk Lor% O;Dr dh xbZ lkeqnkf;d lsok dh bPNk ds dkj.k fn;k x;k gS tks LoSfPNd gSA ^^;g iz;kl dsoy ,d o`{k ds jksi.k dk iz'u u gksdj cfYd ,d fopkj ds vadqj.k dk gSA^^ It is expected from the applicant that he shall submit photographs by downloading the mobile application (App) prepared at the instance of High Court for monitoring the plantation though satellite/Geo-tagging.

Application stands allowed and disposed of. E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Anand Pathak) Judge Rashid

RASHID Digitally signed by RASHID KHAN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT Of M P BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=23377d7d214c811801fc322b576ca4e

KHAN d1954237f6324416af3985b5e9940ed42, serialNumber=111cc474a72b078dc9a89f3cb1 3bb668fd8e0e91beda3cb721bbd836d768b09 c, cn=RASHID KHAN Date: 2021.06.24 11:07:21 +05'30'