High Court of Chhattisgarh granted regular bail to the applicant in a case involving grievous hurt and arms offense, considering no custodial interrogation needed, charge-sheet filed, and victim not examined.
Bail allowed on personal bond of Rs.25,000 with one surety in like sum to be furnished to the concerned trial Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
M.Cr.C. No. 3376 OF 2015
Veer Bhadra Sahu S/o Shri Ramadhin Sahu aged about 27 years, Village Torla, Post Bhurka, Tahsil Abhanpur, Thana Gobra Nayapara District Raipur (C.G.), Civil and District Revenue Raipur (C.G.)
---Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer New Rajendra Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
---Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Siddharth Rathore, Dy. Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order on Board
18/08/2015
1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 44/15, registered at Police Station New Rajendra Nagar Raipur District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 307 of I.P.C. and 25, 27(1) of Arms Act.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24/04/2015 applicant assaulted Dr. Hemant Sahu, In-charge Lecturer by knife, by which, he was suffered grievous injury, which was sufficient to cause death.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He would further submit that no custodial interrogation is required and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in jail. He would
2
further submit that six witnesses have been examined and victim is not appeared till this date to get examine and only muscle deep injury was found. He would lastly submit that charge sheet has been filed and applicant is in jail since 24/04/2015 therefore, he may be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case; further taking into consideration the nature and gravity of offence; no custodial interrogation is required; trial is likely to take some time; six witnesses have already been examined; charge sheet has been filed and applicant is in jail since 24/04/2015, this Court is of the opinion that present is the fit case, in which, the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
8. It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for his appearance as and when directed.
9. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE
Tiwari
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant regular bail to the applicant under Section 439 CrPC
Whether custodial interrogation is required in the present case
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Veer Bhadra Sahu
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
