Chattisgarh High Court
Yashaswi Ramteke vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 August, 2022
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Page 1 of 2
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 4960 of 2022
Yashaswi Ramteke, S/o Pramod Ramteke, Aged About 19 Years,
Mamta Nagar, Lane 6, Ward No. 19, Rajnandgaon, District-
Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
--- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, the Police
Station Kotwali, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
--- Respondent
For Applicant : Ms. Neelam Jaiswani, Advocate. For State/ Respondent : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 17/08/2022
1. This is second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested on 05.08.2021 in connection with Crime No. 0456/2021 registered at Police Station- Kotwali, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 364, 294, 324, 506, 342, 147 & 148 of IPC.
2. The first bail application of the applicant bearing MCRC No. 9131 of 2021 has been dismissed by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.12.2021.
3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the applicant along with co-accused with a common intention had abducted the complainant because of their previous enmity over the money and have beaten the complainant by lathi & knife etc., therefore, offence as mentioned above has been registered against the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as offence under Section 364 of IPC has been made out only because of the fact Page 2 of 2 that complainant is son of Police Officer. There is no iota of evidence which can be said that applicant has committed offence. He would further submit that the trial has not begun even after lapse of more than one year, the applicant is in jail since 05.08.2021 and the trial will take some time for its final disposal, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the bail application.
6. The order-sheet of the case has also been filed by the applicant along with the applicant would reflect that the trial programme has already framed by the trial Court and the matter was fixed for 05.03.2022 for prosecution evidence and on 08.04.2022, 11.04.2022, 10.05.2022 & 27.06.2022, but the trial has not begun.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the second bail application filed by the applicants should be considered. As the trial has not begun even after lapse of one year, learned trial Court is directed to make an endeavour to complete the trial within an outer limit of one year six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The applicant is also directed to cooperate with the trial and will not take unnecessary adjournment.
8. With these observations and directions, the instant bail application is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun