SACHIN TOMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is first application filed under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the applicant as he has been arrested on 1/6/2023 in connection with Crime No.312/2023 registered at Police Station Gola Ka Mandir, District Gwalior (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Ss. 294, 323, 452, 365, 147, 148, 149, 379 of IPC. Prosecution case, in brief is that on 31/5/2023 at about 09-09:30 hours applicant along with 14 other co-accused persons armed with wooden stick came to the house of the complainant in two Scorpio and one Bolero vehicle.

(2.) They told the complainant to open the gate and thereafter started assaulting him with wooden stick and when his son Kuldeep, wife Pushpa, sister Nidhi and daughter-in-law came to intervene in the matter, then the applicant and co-accused persons entered into the porch of the house of the complainant and took the complainant and his son forcefully in vehicle bearing registration No. PB23-J-6618. The applicant and co-accused persons thereafter assaulted the complainant and his son on the way and they took them at their house situated at Ghuraiya Market, where the police had reached and took them at the police station. After the aforesaid incident, co-accused Seema Tomar and applicant's wife entered into the house of the complainant and stolen jewellery and documents etc. Complainant's sons mobile is also in possession of applicant and co-accused Ravindra.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per prosecution case itself, assault was made outside the house of the complainant. The allegations with regard to theft of jewellery and documents have not been alleged against the applicant. Complainant's son's mobile is alleged to be in possession of the applicant and co-accused Ravindra, however, nothing has been seized from the possession of the applicant. All the offences except offence punishable under Ss. 452 and 365 of IPC are bailable in nature. Complainant and his son were released on the date of incident itself. Injuries found on the body of the injured are of simple in nature. Admittedly, there was a matrimonial dispute between the complainant and his daughter-in-law. The applicant has been implicated only because he is the close relative (brother) of the complainant's daughter-in-law. His custodial interrogation and custodial trial is no more required, therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that the applicant along with 14 other co-accused persons entered into the house of the complainant, abducted the complainant and his son and assaulted them brutally, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.