Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 163 (CHH)

Jidhan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2015-06-17

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA

body2015
ORDER : Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 1. Heard. The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 57/2015 registered at Chowki-Lawan, P.S.-Kasdol, Baloda Bazar, District-Bhatapara (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence under Sections 147, 149, 186, 353, 332, 294,336, 395 of IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution is that during conduct of the applicants, other persons entered the booth and nearby area and it is alleged that the public servant on duty was subjected to criminal force, assault and looted. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that they have been subsequently falsely implicated though they were not present at the spot. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the FIR lodged immediately after the incident their names are not mentioned. He further submits that on the next date of the incident, the written report was also submitted and in that written report also, the name of the applicants did not figure. Even at the time of filing charge-sheet by the police before the Magistrate, the charge-sheet specifically did not contain the name of the applicants as one of the accused. The applicants are being involved on the basis of statements of so called eyewitnesses whose statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded after almost one month of the incident. Therefore, false implication is there. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes prayer for grant of bail and submits that initially when the report was lodged, the police constable named, some of person having come along with some more persons and later on, the eyewitnesses whose statements were recorded has also named the applicants, therefore, in these circumstances, it is not a case of false implication. 5. Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the parties, particularly taking into consideration that in the FIR lodged on the date of the incident and the written report lodged next date, name of the applicant did not figure and that implication of the applicant is based primarily on the basis of statements recorded after almost one month of the incident, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, the applicants shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, the applicants shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- alongwith one local surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and the applicants shall abide by all the following terms and conditions - "(i) that they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; (ii) that they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. (iii) that the applicants shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial."