Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 333 (CHH)

DINESH KUMAR AGRAWAL v. STATE OF C. G.

2006-06-23

D.R.DESHMUKH

body2006
ORDER Heard on application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. which pertains to Crime No. 12912005 of P.S. Darima (Sarguja) for the offences punishable under Sections 307,452,435,354,294,323 read with Section - 34 ofIPC and under Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution story in brief is that one Somar Das was under the employment of Vinay Kumar Singh @Raja who is a contractor. Since Somar Das did not report on duty. On the intervening night of 26th & 27th December, 2005 at about 1.30 A.M. Vinay Kumar Singh@ Raja accompanied by Manoj and the applicant went to Village-Belkharikha and threatened Somar Das to Report on duty. As per the statement of So mar Das, the present applicant Dinesh Kumar Agrawal Manoj and one another surrounded Somar Das while Vinay Kumar Singh @ Raja assaulted Somar Das with kicks and fists. It was also alleged that on being exhorted by Manoj. Vinay Kumar Singh @ Raja pointed a pistol on the temple of Somar Das and fired two shots in the air. When Somar das went inside his hut on the pretext of bringing his clothes, he heard Vinay Kumar Singh@ Raja saying that they would assault him on way. Frightened Somar Das tried to escape. On being exhorted by Manoj, Vinay Kumar Singh @ Raja fired another shot at Somar Das but missed. Dhana Bai and Kusumi Bai were brought out of the house by pulling their hair. The huge hay stack lying nearby was also set on fire. Shri Manindra Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate has argued that the applicant Dinesh Kumar Agrawal was arrested on 05-05-2006 by Police Station Darima for the aforesaid offences and his bail application was rejected on 17-52006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur. It was argued that no over act whatsoever was alleged against the applicant in the entire incident and that the applicant had only accompanied Vinay Kumar Singh@ Raja to the house of Somar Das and was a mere silent spectator. It was further alleged that the applicant has undergone operation of Hemiaon 13-4-2005. It was also contended that the applicant was an old person aged 65 years. On these grounds, it was prayed that the applicant was entitled to be released on bail. It was stated that co-accused Vinay Kumar Singh@ Raja and Manoj had been arrested and were in jail. It was also contended that the applicant was an old person aged 65 years. On these grounds, it was prayed that the applicant was entitled to be released on bail. It was stated that co-accused Vinay Kumar Singh@ Raja and Manoj had been arrested and were in jail. On the other hand, Shri Ashish Shukla, learned Govt. Advocate has opposed the bail application while contending that the statement of So mar Das recorded under Section-161 of Cr.P.C clearly showed that the applicant shared common intention with Vinay Kumar Singh @ Raja in commission of the aforesaid offence. It was also pointed out that the applicant had surrounded Somar Das while he was beaten by Vinay Kumar Singh @ Raja by kicks & fists. It was also argued that Somar Das and ladies in the house were terrorised. Dhana Bai & Kusumi Bai were brought out of the house by pulling their hair. The huge hay stack kept in the vicinity was set on fire. It was also contended that an attempt was made to terrorize and frighten the main witness Somar Das i.e. the complainant even before the main accused was arrested and if the applicant who was an associate of Vinay Kumar Singh @ Raja, was released on bail, the possibility that the witnesses will be dissuaded from giving evidence could not be ruled out. Having heard rival submissions, I have perused the case diary. The presence of applicant along with Vinay Kumar Singh @ Raja and Manoj on the intervening night of 26th & 27th December, 2005 at village Belkharikha is clearly borne out from the material available in the case diary and is also not disputed. It is also shown that the applicant had shared common intention in threatening Somar Das to return to duty and surrounded him while he was beaten. An attempt has been made in the past to dissuade Somar Das from disclosing true facts by pressurizing him to file a compromise application before this Court even before the arrest of Vinay Kumar Singh @ Raja. This is revealed by order dated 20.4.2006 passed by this court in M.Cr.C.No.288/2006. An attempt has been made in the past to dissuade Somar Das from disclosing true facts by pressurizing him to file a compromise application before this Court even before the arrest of Vinay Kumar Singh @ Raja. This is revealed by order dated 20.4.2006 passed by this court in M.Cr.C.No.288/2006. If one tries to visualize the scene of occurrence, the manner in which the applicant and his associates at the dead of night went to Belkharikha fully prepared to threaten and intimidate Somar Das, fired shots in the air and also at Somar Das, outraged the modesty of women by pulling their hair and set the huge hay stack on fire, demonstrates prima facie that the applicant was not a mere silent spectator but fully shared the common intention with the co-accused. Such incidents are on the increase since law breakers feel that using their influence, position in society, money power as also muscle power they can easily get away form the clutches of law and dissuade witnesses from giving evidence against them. This tendency has to be curbed at any cost. Witness protection is the need of the hour. Merely imposing some conditions and enhancing the amount of bail would in no manner curb such tendency. Considering the manner in which the applicant is alleged to have shared common intention with Vinay kumar Singh @ Raja and Manoj, the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above and also the likelihood that on being released on bail, the prosecution witnesses will be dissuaded from giving evidence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, M.Cr.C. No. 1609/2006 is dismissed. Application Rejected.