Allowed

Sandeep Khura and Anr. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Dec 2017MCRC/6438/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur allowed the first bail application filed by two applicants accused of theft and house trespass under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The Court set them at large on bail after considering their submission of false implication and the fact that similar cases resulted in bail elsewhere.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail by furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000 each with one surety each of similar amount.

Sandeep Khura and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 6438 of 2017

¶5

Sandeep Khura S/o Shri Kueli Khura, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Gidmal, Thana Belpuda, Civil & Revenue District Balangir (Chhattisgarh)

¶6

Purno Tandi S/o Shri Jagbandhu Tandi, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Gidmal, Thana Belpuda, Civil & Revenue District Balangir (Chhattisgarh)

¶7

---- Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh Through the Station House Officer, Police Station Mahasamund, Civil & Revenue District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Non-applicant

¶11

For Applicants – Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State – Shri Arvind Shukla, Panel Lawyer.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order on Board

¶13

04-12-2017

¶14

Heard on the application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. This is first bail application before this Court by the applicants for regular bail. The applicants were arrested on 30-06-2017 in connection with Crime No.247/2017 registered at P.S. Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, C.G. for the offence under Section 457, 380 of the IPC.

¶15

It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. They are in jail since 30-06-2017. No case is made out against them on the basis of prosecution documents. Hence, it is prayed that the applicants may be granted regular bail.

¶16

3 . Learned counsel for the State/non-applicant opposes the application and submission made. It is submitted that as per the memorandum statement given by the applicants they have made

¶17

-2-

¶18

admission that they have committed six similar offences of theft, though on the basis of these admissions after investigation 4 offences were registered and the applicants are being prosecuted in four different cases before the courts concerned regarding the offences of house trespass and theft. Hence, the applicants are not entitled for grant of regular bail.

¶19

4 . In reply, learned counsel for the applicants submits that out of 4 prosecution cases, the applicants have been granted bail by the lower Court in three cases, this is the only case in which the application has been rejected by the trial Court as well as by the Sessions Court

¶20

5 . Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case diary.

¶21

Complainant Pawan Kumar Dadsena lodged the FIR that ornaments of silver worth Rs.5000/- were stolen from his place of residence by unknown persons after breaking entry into the said household. During investigation one ornament silver pajeb has been recovered at the instance of the applicants, which has already been identified by the complainant, consequent to that the applicants are being prosecuted.

¶22

Considering on the submissions made and contents of the case diary, value of the article of theft and the facts that the applicants have been released on bail by the courts concerned in similar cases against them, trial of the case is likely to take some time, I am of the considered view that the applicants should be enlarged on bail in the present case.

¶23

Consequently, the application (MCRC No.6438/2017) filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. by the applicants is hereby allowed. It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on each of them

¶24

-3-

¶25

furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, for his appearance as and when directed.

¶26

Certified copy as per rules.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

¶29

Aadil

Sandeep Khura and Anr. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Khura and Anr. 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

Chandrashekhar Kiran Giri Vs State Bank Of India and Anr.

Sandeep Singh Sailoni Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Manharan Singh and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Janmajay Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Seema Kewat Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Seema Kewat Vs State Of Chhattisgarh