Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 50 (CHH)

GAJPATI SAHU v. State of C. G

2002-06-21

FAKHRUDDINUDGE

body2002
ORDER Heard. This is the third bail application. The first one was dismissed on 22-12-2000 directing as under:-- "After arguing the case, learned Counsel for the applicant seeks to withdraw the petition. Petition is accordingly dismissed. The applicant is forewarned that he shall not move an application under Section u/s 438, Cr.PC, before the Lower Court as he is not pressing his application before the High Court." 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a teacher, and if he is arrested his interest will be adversely affected. 4. Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand submits that there are allegations against him. The prosecution story is that on 6th Sept., 2000 at 9.30 p.m. in Village Khajari, meeting was called where the hands and legs of complainant Tukaram were tied and then he was beaten and his tongue has been cut by knife and there are also piercing injury in eye of the victim. The dying declaration of Tukaram was recorded on 7-9-2000 wherein he has stated that the applicant Gajpati Sahu and Ramlal had played the role. Other co-accused have forcibly opened his mouth and had caused knife injury on the tongue. Similar is the statement of Shanti Bai. Counsel for the applicant then contended that the other co-accused have been released on bail under Section 167(2), Cr.PC. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, material on record and without expressing any further on the merits of the case, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. The applicant, if so desire, may surrender before the Competent Court and file suitable application and in case such an application is filed, then the Court hearing the said application shall decide the same on its own merits as early as possible. 7. Another important question raised by the petitioner is non-filing of the challan within 90 days. The challan has been filed beyond the period of 90 days, i.e., on 27-12-2001, but in fact, the same should have been filed on or before 14-12-2001. 8. Non-filing of the charge-sheet within 90 days is a serious matter and in the instant case, charge-sheet was not filed till 14-12-2001 and has been filed only after about 12/13 days. The delay of each day requires explanation. 9. Let separate M.C.C. be registered. 8. Non-filing of the charge-sheet within 90 days is a serious matter and in the instant case, charge-sheet was not filed till 14-12-2001 and has been filed only after about 12/13 days. The delay of each day requires explanation. 9. Let separate M.C.C. be registered. Explanation from Station House Officer, be called for through the Superintendent of Police, concerned. The report be also called for from the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur regarding monitoring of all Sessions cases where the challan has not been filed and the list thereof be submitted on the next date of hearing. 10. List the M.C.C. on 9th August, 2002. 11. This petition is disposed of with the directions aforesaid. Certified photocopy as per rules. Petition Dismissd.