Dismissed

Suresh Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Aug 2018MCRC/3253/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected two first bail applications under Section 439 CrPC lodged by Suresh Singh and Rameshwar Gound arrested for robbery and other offences. The court held it is not a fit case for bail as the trial is pending and witness statements cannot be evaluated at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications filed under Section 439 CrPC are rejected.

Suresh Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

M.CR.C. No. 3253 of 2018

¶4

Suresh Singh, S/o. Laxman Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o.- Abhaypura, P.S.- Sadabad, District- Hathras (U.P.).

¶5

---- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Pandri, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

AND

¶10

M.CR.C. No. 5187 of 2018

¶11

Rameshwar Prasad Gound @ Pandit, S/o. Shri Rajendra Prasad Gound, Aged About 27 Years, R/o. Village Aliyabad, Police Station -Raya, Distt. Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.

¶12

---- Applicant

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Station House Officer, Police Station Pandri, District -Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶15

---- Respondent For Applicants : Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Dy. G.A.& Mr. Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer,

¶16

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

¶17

06/08/2018

¶18

Both the bail applications are heard and decided together by this common order as they are arising out of the same crime number and the incident.

¶19

¶20

These are the first bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.265/2016, registered at Police Station- Pandri, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 392/397, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 & 27 of Arms Act.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. Applicants are in jail since 11.11.2016. No case is made out against them according to the material present in the charge-sheet. It is submitted that one of the coaccused has been granted bail by this Court and both the applicants are similarly placed. Apart from that prosecution witnesses have not made specific identification of this applicants. The witness Pravin Nahata has though identified the applicant – Suresh Singh in examination in chief but has made a statement in rebuttal in his crossexamination. Applicants are in jail since long and the trial against hem is still not concluded. Hence, it is prayed that both the applicants may be enlarged on regular bail.

¶22

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail applications and the submission made in this respect. It is submitted that applicant – Suresh Singh is the main assailant, who fired the country made fire arm on the injured person and he has been identified in test identification parade, as well as before the Court by the main witnesses in this case. Another applicant namely Rameshwar Prasad was absconding, who was subjected to test identification parade after his arrest and he has also been identified by one of the witness in this case as person engaged in commission of crime in

¶23

¶24

question, hence, no case is made out for grant of bail. Hence, both the applications may be rejected.

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶26

The case against the applicants is this that on the date of incident, the complainant Pravin Nahata was shot and injured by a country made fire arm and the cash and scooter in his possession was looted by some unknown persons. During the investigation, the applicants in both the cases were apprehended and were subjected to test identification parade, in which they have been identified by the witnesses concerned.

¶27

Statement of the witnesses given before the trial Court can not be scrutinized and evaluated for the purpose of grant of bail. It is the privilege of the trial Court to scrutinize and give finding about the truthfulness or falsity of the statement given by the witnesses. Hence, after due consideration on all the material present in the case diary, this Court is of the opinion that present is not a fit case, in which, the applicants should be enlarged on regular bail.

¶28

Accordingly, the bail applications filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. are rejected.

¶29

Certified copy as per rules.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

¶32

Balram

Suresh Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Singh 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

Dilip Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhagwan Dasvaishnav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dev Charan Kewat Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Arun Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Uttar Seth Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohammad Israil and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh