Jitendra Kumar Ramteke vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 November, 2022

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Jitendra Kumar Ramteke vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 November, 2022

Bench: Rajani Dubey

                                 1

                                                               NAFR
        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                       MCRC No. 9455 of 2022
    Jitendra Kumar Ramteke S/o Shri Tulsi Ramteke, Aged About 38
     Years, R/o Baihakuwa, Thana & Tahsil - Daundilohara, District -
     Balod (C.G.)
                                                       ---- Applicant
                              Versus
    The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer,
     Police Station - Kodekurse, Distt.- North Baster Kanker (C.G.)
                                                    ---- Respondent

For Applicant. : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, PL Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 24.11.2022

1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No. 01/2022 registered at Police Station- Kodekurse, District North Baster Kanker (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 398, 120-B, 511, 324, 450 & 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act.

2. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.07.2022 passed in MCRC 3305/2022, however, liberty was reserved in favour of the applicant to file the same after examination of the material witnesses.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been 2 falsely implicated. He further submits that charge-sheet has been filed and except the memorandum of the applicant there is no material available against the applicant. The memorandum witnesses have been examined by the trial Court but they did not support the prosecution case. The applicant was arrested on 22.01.2022 and since then he has been languishing in jail, therefore, he may be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and submits that applicant with co-accused persons entered the house of complainant impersonated them as Naxal persons, threatened the complainant and his family members showing the weapons and also assaulted one of his family members with knife, and tried to commit the offence of robbery. So, looking to the gravity of the crime, he may not be released on bail.

5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

7. Accordingly, the second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey) Judge V/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court