Dismissed

Ramesh Singh @ Rinku Thakur v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Jul 2016MCRC/2331/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this 4th bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C, the applicant sought release after the prosecutrix was cross-examined. The High Court held that since only 4 out of 34 prosecution witnesses remained to be examined, bail was improper at that stage, though directions were issued to ensure their presence.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected; directions issued to ensure presence of remaining prosecution witnesses.

Ramesh Singh @ Rinku Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M.Cr.C No. 2331 of 2016

¶5

Ramesh Singh @ Rinku Thakur S/o Late Vijay Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o Bhairamgarh, Police Station Bhairamgarh, Bijapur Civil District Dantewada, Revenue District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station Police Station Bhairamgarh, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

------Non-Applicant

¶10

For Applicant: Shri Vikram Dixit, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State: Shri Neeraj Jain, Govt. Advocate.

¶11

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri P. Sam Koshy, J Order On Board

¶12

04.7.2016

¶13

This is the 4th bail application preferred by the Applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C as he was arrested on 3.5.2013 in connection with Crime No.9/2013 registered at Police Station – Bhairamgarh, Bijapur (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. All the earlier bail applications have been disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to revive the same after the prosecutrix has been examined. The 2nd and 3rd applications were filed as the prosecutrix was avoiding appearance for cross-examination after her examination-in-chief was over.

¶14

This Court on 4.12.2015, while refusing grant of bail to the Applicant,

¶15

had directed that the Trial Court should take all positive measures for an early

¶16

¶17

conclusion of the trial as expeditiously as possible. The instant 4th bail application has been filed by the present Applicant after the prosecutrix has entered appearance before the Court below and has been cross-examined.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the Applicant drawing attention of the Court to the deposition of the prosecutrix submits that there are clear indications from the statement of the prosecutrix that she was a consenting party to the physical relationship that she had with the Applicant and therefore, the offence under Section 376 IPC is not made and that the present Applicant is in jail for almost more than 3 years and therefore, he may be released on bail.

¶19

On the other hand, State counsel however opposing the bail application submits that it is a case where there were 34 witnesses cited by the prosecution and out of them, 30 have been examined and only 4 witnesses are left who shall also be examined at the earliest and therefore, it would not be proper at this juncture to grant bail to the Applicant and therefore, the same may be rejected.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that only 4 witnesses remain to be examined out of 34 cited by the prosecution, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be proper to release the present Applicant on bail at this juncture. However, it is directed that the Court below shall take all necessary steps for ensuring presence of the remaining witnesses and if necessary, the Court would also issue necessary instructions in this regard to the concerned Superintendent of Police for ensuring necessary instructions be issued for the presence of the witnesses as it is said that all the 4 witnesses are police personnels or are departmental witnesses.

¶21

¶22

With the afore mentioned observations the present bail application stands rejected.

¶23

Sd/(P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE

¶24

Priya

Ramesh Singh @ Rinku Thakur v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Singh @ Rinku Thakur v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ritesh Kumar Sharma Vs Kuber Sharma

Gaya Ram Dewangan Vs Smt. Sunita Dewangan

Smt. Prashunna Bai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Harpreet Singh Rikhraj Vs Pavneet Kaur

Shailendra Verma Vs Smt. Indrani Bai

Pratap Bhattacharya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh