Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 236 (CHH)

VENKTESH SHARMA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2007-03-29

SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2007
SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD. This order shall dispose of M. Cr. C. No. 392/2007, M. Cr. C. No. 504/2007 and M. Cr. C. No. 523/2007 as all the bail applications arise out of a similar crime number. ( 2 ) THESE are the 3 bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicants, who have been arrested in connection with crime No. 597/2006, registered at Police Station Old Bhilai, Bhilai, for commission of the offence punishable under sections 224, 225, 307, 328 and 120b of the IPC. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 20. 11. 2006, 8 persons were sent from Central Jail raipur to Durg for their production before the concerned Courts. After their production, the police personnels, who had to take the prisoners from Durg to Raipur, availed the facility of 2 Scorpio vehicles, which are said to be arranged by the accused persons including the co-accused of this case namely Nasibuddin, Sirajuddin and Rajesh (who are also prosecuted in this case ). The allegations are that when these vehicles were passing through a place in between charoda and Janjgiri, some food material like cakes and sweets etc. were given by the said 3 persons to the police personnels, in which, some poisonous substance was mixed due to which, those police personnels became unconscious and ultimately, the said 3 accused persons fled away from the police custody. The specific allegation against the applicant-Venktesh Sharma is that after the said incident, he had a talk with the co-accused person Nasibuddin on his mobile phone and he had provided a motorcycle and rs. 1,000 to Nasibuddin for running away from the vicinity of the concerned area. The allegations against the 2 other co-accused persons namely Vijay Singh and Nirmal singh are that they had arranged those vehicles for travelling the accused persons from Durg to Raipur. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants argue that admittedly there are no allegations under Section 307 IPC against these applicants, as it does not come in the evidence that either they had provided the poisonous food to the police personnels or they in any manner, had aided for providing such food to them. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants argue that admittedly there are no allegations under Section 307 IPC against these applicants, as it does not come in the evidence that either they had provided the poisonous food to the police personnels or they in any manner, had aided for providing such food to them. They further submit that initially the offence was registered under Sections 224, 328 and 120 IPC, but later on, it was converted into the aforementioned sections. They also submit that the applicants are in jail since 23. 11. 2006 and 13. 12. 2006, therefore, their applications for regular bail be considered. They pray for releasing the applicants on regular bail. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail applications. However, he also could not answer the query satisfactorily as to why the police personnels had availed the facility of such vehicles arranged by the accused persons for travelling from Durg to Raipur, whereas, they were having the railway warrant for their own travelling and also for travelling of the accused persons, on which they had come from Raipur to Durg in the morning session. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the conduct of the police officials and also considering the alleged role attributed to the present applicants, which is admittedly not in relation to administration of the poisonous substance, I am of the opinion that present are the fit cases, in which these applicants should be released on regular bail. ( 7 ) THEIR applications tiled under Section 439 Cr. P. C. are allowed. It is directed that these applicants shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 25,000 with one surety each in like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court for their appearance before the said Court on each date of hearing till the disposal of the trial. ( 8 ) IN the result, M. Cr. C. No. 392/2007, m. Cr. C. No. 504/2007 and M. Cr. C. No. 523/2001 are allowed. Certified copy as per rules. Application allowed. --- *** --- .