Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Vinod Kumar Dahariya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 May, 2022

                                       1

                                                                        NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                          MCRC No. 3734 of 2022
1.    Vinod Kumar Dahariya, S/o late Chowaram Dahariya, aged about 28
      years,

2.    Dev Prasad Paradhi @ Deva Paradhi S/o Santram Paradhi, aged
      about 30 years

      Both R/o Village Devgaon, PS Kharora, District Raipur, CG

                                                                 ---- Applicant
                                   Versus
      State of Chhattisgarh through SHO Police Station Arang, District
      Raipur, CG

                                                              ---- Respondent

MCRC No. 641 of 2022 Vijay Manhare, S/o Motilal Manhare, aged about 31 years R/o Paraswani, PS Kharora, Tahsil and District Raipur, CG

---- Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh through SHO Police Station Arang, District Raipur, CG

---- Respondent For Applicant - Shri Shailendra Dubey Adv. And Nand Kumari Kashyap, Adv For State - Shri B.L. Sahu, PL Order on Board by Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari 02/05/2022 Since these two applications pertain to same Crime No. 368/2020 registered at Police Station Arang, District Raipur, against the applicants who are in custody for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 459, 380/34 IPC, they are disposed of by this common order.

2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 13.8.2020 a complaint was made by the complainant to the effect that the present applicants and the 2 other accused persons have looted Rs. 6,80,000/- from the Government liquor shop.

3. Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been implicated in a false case. They submit that the statements of the injured witnesses namely Ghanshyam Ratre and Bhikam Chand Sonwani have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile, therefore the applicants may be enlarged on bail.

4. State counsel on the other hand opposes the prayer for bail. He submits that one case of similar nature being Crime No. 141/2020 was registered against applicant Vijay Manhared, but nothing alike is there against the other applicants.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties, considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicants are in jail since 21.10.2020 and 12.2.2021 respectively and further considering the statements of the injured witnesses named above where they have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to enlarge the applicants on bail. Accordingly, the applications are allowed and on each of them furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, they are directed to be released on bail. They shall mark their presence before the concerned Court whenever called for.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Jyotishi