Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Yusuf Chandrakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 October, 2022

Author: Rajani Dubey

Bench: Rajani Dubey

                                                                      NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                              MCRC No.8440 of 2022
   1.     Yusuf Chandrakar son of Amrit Lal Chandrakar, aged about 19
          years, resident of village Birgahni, Police Station Baloda, Distt.
          Janjgir-Champa (CG)
   2.     Sanjeet Kumar Anant son of Laxmi Prasad Anant (wrongly
          mentioned as Kartikram Anant), aged about 19 years, resident of
          Village Buchihardi, Police Station Baloda, Distt. Janjgir-Champa
          (CG)
   3.     Akash Mathur son of Muktavan, aged about 19 years, resident of
          Dongri, Police Station Baloda, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG)
                                                             ---- Applicants
                                                                      in Jail
                                       Versus
         State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
          Station Hirri, Distt. Bilaspur (CG)
                                                           ---- Respondent

For Applicants : Shri Vipin Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Roshan Dubey, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order On Board 14/10/2022 The applicants have preferred this first bail application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of regular bail as they are arrested in connection with Istagasa No.11/2022 registered at Police Station - Hirri, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 41(1-4) of CrPC, Section 379, 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

02. As per the prosecution case, the police party during the course of patrolling, on the basis of secret information, stopped one Brezza car having no number plate and seized total 455 liters of diesel, worth Rs.40,000/- from there along with one crowbar, sword and four pipes. The applicants could not produce any document or bill of the said articles.

03. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the crime in question merely on the basis of suspicion. Till date no report has been lodged regarding theft of diesel etc. The applicants are in jail since 3.9.2022; the offences are triable by the Magistrate and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, the applicants may be released on bail.

04. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.

05. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

06. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations against the applicants, the detention period of the applicants who are about 19 years old and that conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicants on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

07. It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the said Court as and when directed, till final disposal of the trial.

sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan