Chattisgarh High Court
Rohit Padey @ Sunny vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 January, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9311 of 2022
1. Rohit Padey @ Sunny S/o Ravishankar Padey Aged About 23 Years
R/o Near Shiv Mandir Pandritarai, P.S. Devendra Nagar, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Rahul Padey S/o Ravishankar Padey Aged About 21 Years R/o Near
Shiv Mandir Pandritarai, P.S. Devendra Nagar, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh. --- Applicants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pandri, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh. Respondent
For Applicants - Shri Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For State - Shri Adil Minhaj, GA For objector - Shri Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate Order on Board by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput 23/01/2023 This first application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants who are in custody in connection with Crime No. 339/2022 registered at Police Station - Pandri, District Raipur, CG for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC and sections 25, 27 Arms Act.
2. Case of the prosecution in short is that on 25.09.2022 when complainant Vikram Nag along with others was advancing towards his colony for Durga Puja with statue of Goddess Durga, some quarrel took place between him and the accused persons. Thereafter, they assaulted him with hand and fist and during that act, one of them namely Rahul took sharp edged weapon and assaulted in thigh.
3. Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution, as according to it the injury suffered by the victim could not be caused with the knife seized. 2
He submits that the dimension of the knife would also not make out a case under sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act. He further submits that the applicants are in jail since 26.09.2022 and the trial may take some more time for conclusion, therefore, they may be granted bail. He submits that applicant Rahul Pandey was even granted interim bail by this Court and did not misuse the said liberty.
4. State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the application for bail and submits that the applicants are habitual offenders and therefore, it is not a fit case for granting bail to them.
5. Counsel for the objector also opposes the application for bail and submits that the applicants being habitual offenders would be harmful to the victim again if granted bail.
6. Considering the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of injuries opined by the doctor, the allegations made against them, that they are in jail since 26.09.2022, and that the trial may take some time for conclusion, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to release the applicants on bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed and they are directed to be released on bail on each of them furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for their appearance before that Court as and when so directed.
7. The applicants are however directed to appear before the concerned Police Station on the second and fourth Monday of every month, till the trial is concluded. They shall also not influence any of the witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case in any manner whatsoever and if anything like this comes to the notice of the Court below, it may cancel the bail granted to them.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi