Allowed

Radheshyam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Mar 2017MCRC/1012/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a second bail application under Section 439 CrPC. Finding that seizure witnesses denied the prosecution's case, the court inclined to release the applicant on bail bonded to the satisfaction of the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Radheshyam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Corruption | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCRC No. 1012 of 2017

¶4

Radheshyam S/o Sukhiram Sonwani, Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Chuchrungpur, Thana Suhela, Civil & Revenue District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh --- Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh --Respondent

¶7

For the applicant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Wasim Miyan, Panel Lawyer

¶8

Hon'ble Shri Justice GOUTAM BHADURI

¶9

Order on Board

¶10

01.03.2017

¶11

This is second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 177/2016 registered at P.S. Suhela, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act.

¶12

The prosecution alleges that when a raid/inspection was conducted by the Police on 08.11.2016, from the possession of the applicant approximately 14.470 bulk litres of illegal liquor was seized.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the earlier bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.02.2016 with liberty to file the same after examination of the seizure witnesses. He submits that now the seizure witnesses namely Nutan Verma and Durgesh have been examined and they have not supported the case of prosecution, therefore, the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.

¶14

Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application. However, he is not able to dispute the fact that the above seizure witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution.

¶15

Taking into consideration the fact that both the seizure witnesses have denied the case of prosecution as also the fact that the applicant is in jail since 08.11.2016 without any further observation on merits of the case, this Court is inclined to release him on bail. Accordingly, this application is allowed.

¶16

The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed.

¶17

C.c. as per rules.

¶18

Sd/GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE

¶19

R a o

Radheshyam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radheshyam 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

Smt. Monalisha Agrawal Vs Mahdev Pehihari

Satyendra Kumar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rekhchand Banote Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Narsingh Kuraiti Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mohnish @ Manish Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Nayak Vs State Of Chhattisgarh