Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 172 (CHH)

JUGNU SINGH v. STATE OF C. G.

2005-04-28

DHIRENDRA MISHRA

body2005
ORDER Heard. M. Cr. C. Nos. 462/2005, 807/2005 and 604/2005 are being decided by this common order as three applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail have been filed which are arising out of the same crime No. 43912004 registered in Police Station Kurudh, Dhamtari for the offences punishable under Sections 364-A, 365-A,511 read with Section 34 and 120B of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The case of the prosecution is that on 23-11-2004 an attempt was made by some unidentified persons to kidnap the minor boy namely Kanha @ Ayush aged about 10 years who was studying in St. Mary School, Kurudh. It is alleged that a person claiming himself to be a servant of the complainant namely Bal Krishna Agrawal came of the school of the minor and informed that his father has sent him to bring the child namely Suyash whereupon the child was called. However he said that he shall be going soon after his school hours. After the school hours, the servant of the minor reached the school to take him home. At that time also the same person was standing there in a white Maruti Van No. CG 04 ZD 6184 whereupon the principal of the school enquired from the father whether he had sent some one in the afternoon to take the minor home and on his refusal the minor was sent to his home along with the teacher of the school. This matter was reported by the complainant namely Bal Krishna Agrawal in the police station which was recorded in the daily diary. However no investigation was conduced on that day. It was further case of the prosecution that on 25-11-2004 five number of persons were standing before the house of the complainant in a Indicia car and they were trying to wipe the number plate of the said vehicle. On information being sent to the police station they were apprehended by the police on the spot and on the basis of which the investigation conducted, and subsequently the accused persons who were seven in number were arrested by the police for the aforesaid offences. It is also stated that an identification parade was conducted on 26-112004 and on that day accused person namely, Amal Banerjee was identified by Shalini Sharma, Stephen Peter and one teacher namely Padma. It is also stated that an identification parade was conducted on 26-112004 and on that day accused person namely, Amal Banerjee was identified by Shalini Sharma, Stephen Peter and one teacher namely Padma. It is also stated that the diary statement of one Ashok Kumar Sahu, ex-servant of the complainant was also recorded on 26-11-2004 wherein he stated that the accused India Kumar Verma had confessed before him on 22-12-2004 that he along with other co-accused persons shall attempt kidnapping of the minor son of Bal Krishna Agrawal on 23-11-2004 and recover a ran-son of Rs. One crore. Learned counsel for, the applicant submits that there is no evidence against the applicants that they were in any manner involved in the crime of kidnapping of the said minor or that they demanded ransom from the complainant and they hare been arrested by the police simply on suspicion. It is also submitted that no identification parade' was conducted for the identification of the applicants. It is also argued that one Jugal Kishore who is a co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 04-03-2005 passed in M. Cr. C. No. 226/2005. It is submitted that the case of the applicants and particularly the case of the applicant namely Tejpal Rana is identical to the accused appellant who had already been released on bail by this Court. On the other hand learned counsel for the State submits that offence under Section 364-A is a heinous offence punishable with death sentence Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly looking to the fact that the applicants were arrested from the vicinity of the house of the complainant while they were trying to erase the number plate of the vehicle and further that the report was lodged on 23-11-2004, the applicants should not be enlarged on bail. It is also submitted that at the instance of the accused persons some weapons have been recovered. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It is also submitted that at the instance of the accused persons some weapons have been recovered. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegations made against the applicants and further considering that on 23-11-2004 when the actual attempt was made, the complainants and witnesses had stated on that day that only one person had been identified by the minor for the purpose of kidnapping the minor and without expressing any opinion further and further considering that the co-accused Jugal Kishore has been granted bail, I am of the opinion that present is a fit case where the applicants namely, Jugnu Singh in M. Cr. C. No. 807/2005. Ramesh Verma in M. Cr. C. No. 46212005 and Tejpal Rana in M. Cr. C. No. 604/2005 should be also extended the facility of bail and accordingly the applications are allowed 'and it is directed that on the condition of applicants furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for their appearance before the concerned Court as and when so directed they shall be released on bail on the condition that: (i) they shall not commit any similar offence of which they are accused. (ii) they shall not directly or indirectly, make any, inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court. (iii) they shall not leave the State of Chhattisgarh without the previous permission of the Court. (iv) they shall get marked their attendance on each Sunday between 11.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon at P.S. Gudiyari. Bail Granted.