Chattisgarh High Court
Haridwar Singh @ Hari Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 January, 2023
Order Reserved on 03.12.2022
Order Pronounced on 27.01.2023
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8772 of 2022
Haridwar Singh @ Hari Singh S/o Rameshvar Aged About 45
Years R/o Taranagar Sikariya, Thana Bihta, District Patna, Bihar,
Currently Reside C/o House Of Bhola, Thather Basti,
Godaripara, Chrirmiri, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of
Police Station Podi, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For the Applicant/s :- Ms. Deepali Gupta, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Dy. AG _______________________________________________________________ CAV Order Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput The applicant has preferred this First bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail as he is in custody in connection with crime No. 155 of 2021 registered in Police Station Podi, District Koriya, CG for ofence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 30.09.2021 Sameer Ahmad @ Baba was going on his motorcycle, on the way Virendra Singh and Haridwar Singh @ Hari Singh took lift from him and they went to one restaurant for breakfast. When they went near Sarbhoka Dam, Virendra Singh & Haridwar Singh stayed there and Sameer Singh @ Baba went to Mutton shop. Next morning at about 7:30 am when Pradeep Singh and Satyanaryan were going to nearby Sarbhoka Dam, they saw dead body of deceased Virendra Singh. The present applicant has been implicated in this case on the basis of last seen together.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any ofence and has been falsely implicated in the case. She further submits that the dead body of the deceased was found in Sarbhoka Dam on 01.10.2021 which was seen by one witness. Thereafter the postmortem was conducted on the same day and it is revealed in the postmortem that he died of drowning. She further submits that according to the postmortem report, the period of death is between 36 to 72 hours. She submits that the case of the prosecution is basically rested on account of last seen theory which has been brought by witness Sameer Ahmed @ Baba who happens to be an unnatural witness because he stated that he saw the deceased with the present applicant alive till 30.09.2021 and the time gap between the time of death and the last seen together is too much and it is possible that somebody else might have committed the crime. She further submits that the evidence of last seen is weak piece of evidence and until and unless more admissible piece of evidence is brought on record, conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of only last seen theory. S he placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (2014) 4 SCC 715 and Navaneethakrishnan Vs. State by Inspector of Police (2018) 16 SCC 161, and the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and connected matter (Criminal Appeal No. 1118 of 2014). She lastly submits that the applicant is in jail since 03.10.2021; charge-sheet has already been filed and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, applicant may be released on bail.
4. State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the dead body was found on 01.10.2021 and in the inquest report it was found that his hand was tight but it is not mentioned that the hand was tight in the back side. He further submits that according to the postmortem report, the death occurred between 36 to 72 hours and according to the statement of witness Sameer Ahmed @ Baba he has seen both the applicant and the deceased together on 30.09.2021 at about 9 am. He further submits that there are certain injury was found in the hand and wrist of the deceased which goes to show that he cannot of his own tight himself and therefore the circumstances are prevailing against the present applicant as there are some quarrel on account of some amount for smoking Ganja and last seen theory is also there, so there are sufcient circumstantial evidence against the present applicant therefore, the application may be rejected.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the case diary.
6. Considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The prosecution case basically rested upon the theory of last seen together. To support the theory the prosecution has recorded the statement of Bhola Kumar Tamrakar and Sameer Singh @ Baba. Apart from this, the prosecution has also recovered Rs. 260/- from the possession of the present applicant at the instance of present applicant. It is true that evidence of last seen together is not a very strong peace of evidence and some other circumstances have to be seen, apart from the last seen theory to indicate commission of crime and the applicant is guilty of the said crime. The case in hand, apart from the statement of these two witnesses projecting the last seen theory, recovery of Rs. 260/- from the possession of the applicant, on the basis of his memorandum statement is there. The Doctor has conducted postmortem and opined that the death has occurred between 36 to 72 hours prior. The postmortem was conducted on 01.10.2021 between 4 to 4:30 pm. According to the postmortem report the death of the deceased might have caused at about 4 - 4:30 Am on 30.09.2021 or prior to it, statement of witness Sameer Singh @ Baba stated that he has seen the deceased and the applicant alive till 9 am on 30.09.2021. The citation relied upon by the counsel for the applicant in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (2014) 4 SCC 715 and Navaneethakrishnan Vs. State by Inspector of Police (2018) 16 SCC 161, whereby the Supreme Court acquitted the accused who was convicted on the basis of last seen theory.
7. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence collected by the prosecution, applicant is in jail since 03.10.2021, and considering the nature of allegations; trial may take some time for conclusion; without commenting on the merits of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.
8. Accordingly, the bail application filed by applicant is allowed and it is directed that on applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given by the said trial Court, till disposal of the trial.
9. The applicant shall not leave the territory of State of Chhattisgarh without prior permission of trial Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge PAWAN