Allowed

Manoj @ Bablu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 May 2018MCRC/2599/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice Arvind Singh Chandel granted regular bail to the applicant under Section 439 CrPC for offences under Section 392/34 IPC, observing that the FIR was not named, no TIDP was conducted, and no seizure was made against him, necessitating his release to ensure appearance before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs.20,000 with one local solvent surety in like sum.

Manoj @ Bablu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M.Cr.C. No.2599 of 2018

¶5

Manoj @ Bablu, son of Keshav, aged about 32 years, R/o Kshatrapati Shivaji Para, Milan Chowk, P.S. Chhawani, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh through the District Magistrate, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Respondent For Applicant : Shri Uttam Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Sameer Behar, Panel Lawyer

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶11

Order on Board

¶12

10.5.2018

¶13

1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the Applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.494 of 2006 registered at Police Station Anjora, District Durg for offence punishable under Section 392/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.12.2006, Complainant Maheshwar lodged a report that on the said date when he was returning from Khursipar in a Minidor, he was carrying one portable TV with him. 8-9 boys (passengers) were also sitting in the said Minidor. It is alleged that at about 9:20 p.m., on the road to Mahamara, one passenger of the same Minidor, by showing a knife, stopped the Minidor. Thereafter, all the passengers took bag, portable TV and cash of Rs.300/- from the Complainant and ran away.

¶15

¶16

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that the First Information Report is not a named one. The alleged incident took place on 29.12.2006. The present Applicant has been arrested only on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused Sanjay Kumar. There is no evidence available against the present Applicant regarding the crime in question. No test identification parade of the Applicant was conducted. No seizure has been made from him. He is in custody since 5.3.2018. Therefore, he may be released on bail.

¶17

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/State opposes the bail application.

¶18

5. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire material available with due care.

¶19

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the FIR is not a named one, no test identification parade of the Applicant was conducted after his arrest, no seizure has been made from him, charge-sheet has been filed, he is in custody since 5.3.2018, without further commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to release him on bail.

¶20

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶21

8. It is directed that the Applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one local solvent surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed.

¶22

Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) JUDGE

¶23

Gopal

Manoj @ Bablu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj @ Bablu 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

Sulochana Devi Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Bhawna Paikra Vs Likheshwar Paikra

Maheshwari Alias Doleshwari Vs Anirudh Patel

Sudhir Patle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gangaram @ Rakhiram Chouhan and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh