Chattisgarh High Court
Krishan Yadav @ Bholu Khutiya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 November, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
M.Cr.C. No. 7000 of 2021
1.Krishna Yadav @ Bholu Khutiya, S/o Manish Khutiya (Wrongly mention in the order as Krishna Khutiya), aged about 18 years, Caste- Mahkul, Occupation- Labor, R/o Village Thirikona Luchaki Panchayat- Kantiprakashpur, P.S. & Tahsil - Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.)
2. Manish Sonwani, S/o Dular, aged about-19 years, Caste - Turri (Basodh), Occupation- Labor, R/o Kantiprakashpur, P.S. & Tahsil - Ambikapur, Distt-
Surguja (C.G.) (In jail)
---- Applicants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Station House Police Station Kotwali -
Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.)
----Non-applicant
For Applicants : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate.
For Non-applicant : Mr. Roshan Dubey, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Order On Board
26.11.2021
(1) The applicants/accused have preferred this first bail application under Section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing them on regular bail in connection with Crime No. 268/2021 registered at police Station Kotwali Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 394/34 of IPC.
(2) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 7.3.2021 the complainant was coming from Turiyabira Lundra to Ambikapur in his pick-up vehicle bearing registration No. CG-15 A 6891 and when he reached near Luchaki Ghat, three unknown persons looted Rs.8,000/- cash and one Nokia mobile from him. Based on above facts, present crime was registered against unknown persons under Section 394 read with Section 34 of IPC and on the basis of memorandum statement of the 2 applicants, some of the stolen articles have been seized from them.
(3) Learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that applicants are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. He would next submit that FIR was lodged against unknown persons. Neither Test Identification Parade has been conducted in this case nor stolen articles have been seized from the applicants, which could connect them in the commission of present crime. He would next submit that applicants are in custody since 8.3.2021; charge- sheet has been filed and as the applicants are permanent resident of District Sarguja, hence, there is no chance to influence the prosecution witnesses or absconding of the applicants, therefore, the applicants may be enlarged on regular bail.
(4) Per contra, learned counsel for the State while opposing the submissions made by counsel for the applicants, would submit that there are three cases have been registered against the applicants, which shows that applicants are habitual offender, hence, the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail.
(5) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary as well as well as material available on record.
(6) Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, nature & gravity of the offence, detention period of the applicants; charge-sheet has already been filed and also totality of the facts, I am of the view that it is a fit case to release the applicants on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
(7) Accused/applicants are directed to be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. They are directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
Sd/-
(N.K. Chandravanshi) Judge D/-
3 4