Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 132 (CHH)

DINESH MISHRA v. STATE OF C. G.

2008-05-09

SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2008
ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. : Heard. This is an application 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.56/2008, registered at Police Station - Mandir Hasoud, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The once of the prosecution is that on 13.1.2008 at about 9.00 p.m, the deceased namely Maneshwar was beaten by the applicants by hands and fists. Maneshwar himself lodged the report to the police, which was taken into Rojnamchasana dated 14.1.2008. In the said report, he did not mention the names of the applicants. On account of injuries, Maneshwar was admitted to hospital. He remained in hospital from 14.1.2008 to 30.1.2008, during which Leprotomy was done and he was discharged on 30.1.2008. It appears that thereafter, he was again hospitalized and ultimately he died on 26.2.2008. The post-mortem report of the deceased would show that the cause of death was cardio respiratory failure as a result of abdominal injuries and its complication. During the Course of investigation, on 26.2.2008, statement of Ram Kumar Dora was recorded by the police, who disclosed that the deceased was beaten by the applicants by Lands and fists. It was, on his statement, the applicant/accused persons were taken into custody on 27.2.2008 and they are in jail since the said date. Shri Maneesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants argues, that the applicants/accused persons were not named by the deceased in his report, which was reduced into writing in Rojnamchasana. He also argues that even the deceased had not told that he was accompanied by Ram Kumar Dora while he was beaten by them. He further argues that Ram Kumar Dora states that he was accompanying the deceased and he had seen that the deceased was beaten by the accused persons. h, fact, if Ram Kumar Dora was accompanying the deceased, the deceased must have mentioned the names of the applicants in Rojnamchasana given by him. His argument is that Ram Kumar Dora is a created witness and he was not accompanying the deceased and he had not seen the Rojnamchasana. h, fact, if Ram Kumar Dora was accompanying the deceased, the deceased must have mentioned the names of the applicants in Rojnamchasana given by him. His argument is that Ram Kumar Dora is a created witness and he was not accompanying the deceased and he had not seen the Rojnamchasana. He also argues that the death of the deceased was not instantaneous as the incident took place on 13.1.2008 and the deceased died on 26.2.2008 and the merg intimation sent by the hospital would show that he had died on account of abdominal burst that means a complication arising out of the surgery conducted upon the deceased in between 14.1.2008 to 30.1.2008. He submits that in the post-mortem report, it comes that there were many infections on account of surgery, therefore in fact, the death of the deceased has not occurred on account of giving beating to him, but cause of death was post surgical development and the offence would not fall under Section 302 IPC. He prays for releasing the applicants on regular bail. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes these arguments. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly the circumstance that the names of the applicants are not contained in the Rojnamchasana report given by the deceased and that there are allegations regarding beating the deceased by the hands and fists and further that the death of the deceased was not instantaneous and he died almost after about 11/2, months of the date of incident and the evidence of only one eye witness was recorded after a very long period of the incident i.e. on 26.2.2008 (after death of the deceased), I are of the opinion that present is a fit case to enlarge the applicants on regular bail. Their application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is directed that the 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 the 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. Certified copy as per rules.