Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 57 (CHH)

BIJJU @ MAHESH KUMAR YADU v. STATE OF C. G.

2007-01-17

L.C.BHADOO

body2007
ORDER Heard. This is the application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to applicant Bijju @ Mahesh Kumar, who is in detention since 6/9/2005 in connection with Crime No. 141/2005 registered at Police Station Supela, for commission of offence under Sections 302, 307, 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 212, 216 of the I.P.C. 25 & 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. The case of the prosecution is that on 11/2/2005 at about 6.20 a.m. about 31 persons armed with deadly weapons came to the place of occurrence in a vehicle and inflicted injuries on the body of deceased Mahadeo Mahar, who succumbed to the injuries. Dehati Nalishi was recorded through one of the eyewitnesses namely, Prashant @ Gudda. The murder took place at a public place, many eyewitnesses were there and their statements have also been recored by the Police. The names of eyewitnesses are Dhanji, Chandan Sao, Linga Raju, Girvar, Prashant @ Gudda and Tarkeshwar. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the name of the present applicant does not find place in Dehati Nalishi or in FIR. He also submitted that in the statements of eyewitnesses recorded under Section 16 F Cr.P.C., the name of the present applicant is not there. Even in the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. name of the present applicant is not there, which has not been disputed by learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the name of the present applicant finds place in the memorandum of Raju, one of the accused, Prashant and Girvar identified him on 14/10/2005 after about 8 months of the incident and one month 8 days of the arrest of the present applicant. He also submitted that on similar facts one of the accused namely Jaspal @ Goldi has already been released on bail on 10/3/2006. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application. Considering the nature of allegation & evidence collected against the present accused/applicant, on similar facts Jaspal @ Goldi has already been released on bail and the fact that the accused is in detention for about I year 4 months, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case in which the accused/applicant should be admitted to bail. Considering the nature of allegation & evidence collected against the present accused/applicant, on similar facts Jaspal @ Goldi has already been released on bail and the fact that the accused is in detention for about I year 4 months, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case in which the accused/applicant should be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed and accused/applicant namely Bijju @ Mahesh Kumar is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with a surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. He is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date given by the said Court. Application Allowed.