Chattisgarh High Court
Manoj Porte vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 July, 2022
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 5513 of 2022
Manoj Porte S/o Ramlakhan Porte Aged About 22 Years R/o
Village Palagi, P.S. Trikunda, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj
(C.G.).
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
Station Trikunda, District Balrampur-Ramanunjganj (C.G.).
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. P.K. Patel, Adv.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Shrestha Gupta, P.L.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Order on Board
28/07/2022
Heard.
1. The accused/applicant has moved this first bail application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 08/2022 registered at Police Station Trikunda, District-Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and Sections 4, 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonahi Pratarana Act, 2005.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 16.01.2022 complainant Mansai Gond lodged a report that on 16.01.2022 at about 5:00 pm, when he returned to his house, then his neighbour informed him that his wife Dilbas was gone at field and was found an injury on her head, resultant she died. It is also alleged that the applicant used to suspect the complainant's wife of practicing witchcraft 2 and there was previous enmity between the present applicant and complainant, due to this the applicant inflicted injury upon the injured with the help of a sharp-edged axe and thereby committed the offence.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that on the date of the incident, the applicant was not present on the spot and there is no witness against the applicant. He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 17.01.2022, there is no likelihood of his case being decided in near future, therefore, the present appellant may be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the present applicant did a heinous crime, therefore, the present applicant may not be enlarged on bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, especially nature and gravity of crime in question, at this stage, I am not inclined to release him on bail.
7. Accordingly, his application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) Judge H.L. Sahu