Dismissed

Dhanaru Shori and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Apr 2018MCRC/1136/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected a bail application for two applicants charged under the Explosive Substances Act for possessing a hand grenade and a tifin bomb. The court held that considering the gravity of the offence and the applicants' failure to explain their possession, the case was not fit for regular bail.

What did the court decide?

The bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is rejected; the applicants are to remain in detention.

Dhanaru Shori and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M.Cr.C. No. 1136 of 2018

¶5

Dhanaru Shori S/o Gagaru Shori, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Aihara P.S. Mardapal, District Kondagaon (C.G.)

¶6

Mangatu S/o Sonaru, aged about 28 years, R/o Village Mandora P.S. Chhotedongar, District Narayanpur (C.G.)

¶7

----Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Police Station Mardapal, District Kondagaon, (C.G.) -- Non-applicant

¶10

For Applicants : Mr. Pravin K. Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. G. A.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

16/04/18

¶14

This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.17/2017, registered at Police Station- Mardapal, District Kondagaon, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of The Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

¶15

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.09.2017, one hand grenade and one tifin bomb was unauthorizedly found in possession of applicants No. 1 and 2 respectively and thereby committed the aforesaid offence.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants

¶17

¶18

have not committed any offence and they have falsely been implicated in crime in question. He would also submit that the applicants are in jail since 13.09.2017 and charge-sheet has already been filed, and no useful purpose will be served by detaining them in jail, therefore, they may be released on regular bail.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶21

Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case; further taking into consideration the nature & gravity of the offence; and the fact that no explanation was offered by the applicants as to how they came in possession of those explosive substances, I do not find the presevnt is a fit case, in which, the applicants should be enlarged on regular bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. deserves to be and is hereby rejected. No cost(s).

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

(Sanjay K. Agrawal)

¶25

Judge

¶26

Priyanka

Dhanaru Shori and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanaru Shori 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

Shanmbhoo Ram Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gyan Jyoti Public School, Padauli Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Asha Suryavanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manish Potai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Virendra Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shri Shyam Ispatindia and Anr. Vs Asst. Commiss. of Income Tax and Anr.