Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 284 (CHH)

SAJID KHAN @ GOLD. v. STATE OF C. G.

2009-10-29

T.P.SHARMA

body2009
ORAL ORDER 1. The applicant has filed this application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail, as he is in custody in connection with Crime No.189/ 2 009 (Criminal Case No.7 63/2009 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kanker), registered at Police Station Kanker, for the offence punishable under Sections 394 of the I.P.C., 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 3. This is the first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of regular bail. No other application of this nature is pending before this Court or before the Court below. The application is supported by the affidavit of Yasmin, mother of the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and statement of Smt. Meera Tandia has not been supported by the statements of other eyewitnesses. Identification of the accused is suspicious and the applicant is in custody since 19-6-2009. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the application and submitted that the applicant has committed robbery by using deadly weapon country made pistol and snatched money, mobile phone, golden ring .&purse after stopping the taxi. The article snatched from Smt. Meera Tandia has been recovered from the applicant herein under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and same has been identified by owner of the article Smt. Meera Tandia. Driver of the taxi has identified the applicant herein in the identification parade. 6. On due consideration of the material collected on behalf of the prosecution, commission of the offence of robbery by using deadly weapon, recovery of articles at the instance of the applicant, identification of article by the owner and identification of the accused/applicant by the taxi driver, I do not find any case for grant of bail to the applicant. The application is, therefore, rejected. 7. Material collected on behalf of the prosecution reveals that the applicant has committed the offence of robbery by using deadly weapon country made pistol which is punishable under Sections 397 read with Section 394 of the I.P.C. 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, same is triable by the Court of Sessions not by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class. But the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanker while dismissing the bail application of the applicant has not considered this legal aspect of the case. 8. Copy of this order be sent to the Sessions Judge, Kanker; the Additional Sessions Judge, Kankerwho has dismissed the bail application of the applicant and the concerned Judicial Magistrate for taking appropriate action in accordance with law. Copy of this order be sent by Fax also. Application Dismissed.