Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Chattisgarh High Court

Sodi Hidma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 April, 2022

Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal, Rajani Dubey

                                  1

                                                              NAFR
         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                      CRA No. 540 of 2022
     1. Sodi Hidma S/o Podiya, aged about 35 Years, R/o Kerlapenda,
        Kujaampara, P.S. Chintalnar, District Sukma Chhattisgarh.
     2. Sodi Hidme S/o Deva, aged about 22 Years, R/o Kistaram
        Patelpara, P.S. Chintalnar, District Sukma Chhattisgarh.
     3. Madkam Muke S/o Bhima, aged about 21 Years, R/o Nagaram,
        Dabbapara, P.S. Chintalnar, District Sukma Chhattisgarh.
     4. Lekam Hunga S/o Lekam Bhima, aged about 21 Years, R/o
        Rajpenta Schoolpara, P.S. Chintalnar, District Sukma
        Chhattisgarh.
     5. Madvi Nanda S/o Madvi Kesha, aged about 35 Years, R/o
        Rajpenta Schoolpara, P.S. Chintalnar, District Sukma
        Chhattisgarh.
                                                    ---- Petitioners
                               Versus
      State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Chintalnar,
       District Sukma Chhattisgarh.
                                                   ---- Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent. : Mr. Anmol Sharma, P.L. for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board (08/04/2022) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

1. This appeal preferred under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 25.01.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Special Court (Naxal), Dantewada, District Dakshin Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) rejecting bail application of the Appellants filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 149, 307 of IPC and Section 3 (A) of the Explosive Substance Act.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.11.2020, the present five Appellants and other co-accused persons had planted Improvised Explosive Device (I.E.D) to kill the army force, which exploded on the same day, wherein one police personnel namely Imla Umesh got injured and was remained hospitalized in the Govt. hospital for three days and thereby committed the offence under Sections 148, 149, 307 of IPC and Section 3 (A) of the Explosive Substance Act.

3. Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, learned counsel for the Appellants submits that mainly on the statements of Madkam Bheem (PW/2), Sodhi Bheema (PW/3) and Hemla Dhewa, the aforesaid offence has been registered against the Appellants. He further submits that Madkam Bheem (PW/2) and Sodhi Bheema (PW/3) have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. The statements of those witnesses have been filed before this Court. Learned counsel also submits that the Appellants are in jail since 13.12.2020 and 20.12.2020 and have completed more than 15 months in jail. He also submits that the trial is likely to take some time as such, the Appellants may be enlarge on bail by setting aside the impugned order.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the appeal would submit that the charge sheet has been filed and charges have already been framed and as such, they are not entitled for privilege of regular bail.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the rival submissions made herein above and perused the impugned order.

6. The charge sheet has been filed against the Appellants herein for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 149, 307 of IPC and Sections 3 (A) of the Explosive Substance Act. Madkam Bheema (PW/2) and Sodhi Bheema (PW/3) have 3 already been examined before the Court below and they have not supported the prosecution case & turned hostile. However, other prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined.

7. Considering the material available on record, nature of injury sustained by the injured Imla Umesh in I.E.D. blast, the detention period of the Appellants for more than fifteen months, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and further inclined to admit the Appellants herein on regular bail subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned for their appearance before it on 09.05.2022 and continue to appear there on all other subsequent dates as may be given to them by the trial Court, till the final disposal of the trial.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein above.

                  Sd/-                                           Sd/-
           (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                          (Rajani Dubey)
                 JUDGE                                       JUDGE
pkd