TINKU Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is in custody in Crime No. 21/94 registered for the offences under sections 302, 120 -B, I.P.C. and 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

(2.) THE allegations against the applicant are with regard to his being involved in the conspiracy of the main offence and at the omission of offence, he is said to have held the deceased and the co -accused Bhim alias Dev Datt is said to have fired which resulted in the death of Manoj alias Nango Rawat. The incident is dated 19th January 1994 at about 10.15 p.m. as the time has appeared in the statement of the prosecution witness Ram Kishore. The prosecution has examined Ajay Sharma and Ram Kishore as the eye -witnesses of the incident. Admittedly, both the witnesses maintained the curious silence for about 3 days. The statement of Ajay Sharma was recorded by police on 22.1.94 whereas the statement of Ram Kishore came to be recorded on 24.1.94. The counsel for the complainant has also placed reliance on the statement of one Pradeep, who is the witness to the fact of alleged conspiracy, to do away with the deceased and his statement too was recorded on 21.1.94. So is the case with one witness Subhash Saxena.

(3.) AT this stage without meaning to comment on the merits and in view of the above circumstances considering the statements of four witnesses - - Ajay Sharma, Ram Kishore, Pradeep Chauhan and Subhash Saxena - - and their conspicuous silence of even not disclosing the fact to the complainant, the application deserves to be allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ - with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/ - each to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. Datia, on the condition that the applicant shall surrender to the custody of that Court a week earlier to the date that may be fixed for recording the prosecution evidence.