Allowed

Arun Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC28 Sept 2016MCRC/5234/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail applications filed by two applicants for offences including culpable homicide and unlawful assembly. The court held that the complainant who registered a false report was the actual cause of death, and ordered the applicants released on a personal bond with surety.

What did the court decide?

Both bail applications allowed; applicants directed to be released on personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety.

Arun Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCRC No. 5234 of 2016

¶4

Arun Yadav S/o Ramkumar Yadav Aged About 22 Years, R/o Handipara, Near Radhakrishna Temple, Police - Station - Aazad Chowk Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Police - Station - Maudahapara Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶8

--- Respondent

¶9

And

¶10

MCRC No. 5917 of 2016

¶11

Neeraj Sonkar S/o Mahendra Sonkar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Bhatagaon Ganesh Chowk Dirhapara, Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, Civil & Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Applicant

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Chhattisgarh Through : Station House Officer, Police Station Mohdapara, Raipur, Civil & Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

---- Respondent

¶16

For applicants - Shri U.K.S. Chandel and Shri B.L. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State – Shri Anupam Dubey, Dy.G.A.

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order

¶18

28/09/2016

¶19

Both these bail applications are decided by this common order as they are arising out the same crime number.

¶20

The applicants have preferred this application for grant of bail as they are arrested in connection with Crime No.46 of 2016 registered in Police Station Maudahapara Raipur Civil and Revenue Distt. Raipur (C.G.) for offence punishable under sections 307, 325, 147, 148 & 149 of Indian Penal Code & 25, 27 of Arms Act.

¶21

As per the prosecution case, a report was made by one Monu @ Tanjin that on 31/03/2016 when the complainant Monu @ Tanjin who was called by Sumit Raksel when he reached there, altercation took place over

¶22

¶23

the old issue and Sumit Raksel assaulted Monu @ Tanjin by way of a knife and stabbed and the other co-accused also assaulted and tried to kill the complainant. Thereby, offence is committed.

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that Monu @ Tanjin alongwith two friends came to the house of Sumit Raksel and the applicants who were talking with each other at the relevant time, at that time Monu @ Tanjin fired bullet shot on Sumit Raksel whereby he died and after the bullet shot the applicants alongwith family members of Sumit Raksel tried to catch hold of the accused, two of the accused fled away but Monu was caught since he was also trying to flee away scuffle took place. He submits that because of the bullet shot made by the complainant, Sumit Raksel died for which Crime No.45/2016 was registered whereas in order to over come such act, false report has been made. He further submits that nature of injury is not fatal to the extent and two are shown to be simple in nature. He submits that taking into background of the case, the way the incident happened, applicants may be released on bail.

¶25

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

¶26

During the earlier hearing case diary of Crime No.45/2016 was called which shows that Monu @ Tanjin had fired bullet shot whereby Sumit Raksel died, at that time two of the accused fled away while Tanjin was caught who is complainant here in this case and he was beaten. Perused the FIR in the present case and also report. Considering the FIR and the allegation, the way the offence has been committed and also considering the medical report, this court is inclined to release the applicants on bail.

¶27

Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed and it is directed that the applicants shall be released on each of them furnishing personal bond

¶28

¶29

for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of concerned trial court for their regular appearance before it as and when directed.

Sd/-

(Goutam Bhaduri)

JUDGE

gouri

Arun Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Yadav 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

Kinshuk Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Karan Khushalani Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Karan Jaiswal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Professor N.d.r.chandra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Pawan Singh @ Babu Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jogendra Prasad Kushwaha Vs State Of Chhattisgarh