Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 86 (CHH)

Rahul Durga v. State of Chhattisgarh

2022-02-14

PARTH PRATEEM SAHU

body2022
JUDGMENT : Parth Prateem Sahu, J. Heard. 1. This is third bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 55/2021 registered at Police Station-Mujgahan, District-Raipur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 394, 384, 34 of IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.03.2021, when complainant was returning back to his village Sivni from Raipur, on the way, applicant along with others accused persons have assaulted the complainant by means of iron pipe and forcefully took signature on blank paper. The incident was reported to concerned Police Station, based upon which, aforementioned crime was registered against total five accused persons including the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for applicant would submit that applicant has been falsely implicated in crime. He submits that as per allegation levelled in FIR and statement of complainant, the incident is of night. Complainant and his brother got examined before trial Court. Complainant in his Court statement has deposed that he is not known to applicant. Due to dark night, he could not identify the accused person. Photograph of applicant has been shown to complainant by the police prior to test identification parade and he has identified based on the said photograph shown by the police. He submits that in view of evidence of complainant and manner in which applicant was identified by complainant, test identification parade loses its evidentiary value. He further contended that except test identification parade, only memorandum statement of applicant is against him which is not having the evidentiary value, more so when memorandum statement of one co-accused Ravi Verma whom the complainant was known is not recorded by the investigating agency. Applicant is in jail since 23.6.2021. There are as many as 20 enlisted witnesses and till 10th January 2022, only 2 prosecution witnesses have been examined before trial Court. Trial may take some time, hence, applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submission of learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that applicant was identified by complainant in test identification parade and he admitted the guilt of commission of crime in his memorandum statement. Memorandum witnesses are still to be examined before trial Court and hence, applicant is not entitled for grant of bail at this stage. Memorandum witnesses are still to be examined before trial Court and hence, applicant is not entitled for grant of bail at this stage. He also pointed out that pursuant to memorandum statement, one steel rod has been seized from possession of applicant which is used in commission of crime. However, upon putting specific query to learned counsel for State whether the steel rod stated to be seized from possession of applicant was found with blood stains or not, he submits that there is no mention of presence of blood stains over steel rod in the seizure memorandum. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, submission of learned counsel for applicant with respect to Court's statement of complainant of identifying the applicant in test identification parade, period of pre-trial detention of applicant and further that out of twenty enlisted witnesses, only two witnesses got examined till 10th January 2022, without commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to allow the bail application. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail upon his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that:- a) Applicant shall appear before the trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance. b) Applicant shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Certified copy as per rules.