Allowed

Shiva Bansal @ Babu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Aug 2019MCRC/2564/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court in Bilaspur allowed two bail applications filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The applicants were charged with offences including attempts to murder and grievous hurt. Despite a victim suffering a skull fracture, the court opined the case was a fit instance for granting regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications allowed; applicants directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety each in like sum.

Shiva Bansal @ Babu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M.CR.C. No. 2564 of 2019

¶5

Shiva Bansal @ Babu S/o Brijlal Satnami Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Baradawar, Police Station - Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House Officer, Police Station Baradwar, District -Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

AND

¶11

M.CR.C. No. 2590 of 2019

¶12

Devprasad @ Budhwa, S/o. Mehattar, Aged About 45 Years

¶13

Rajulal @ Raju Bansal, S/o. Mehattar, Aged About 30 Years,

¶14

Brijlal @ Thunu, S/o. Mehattar Aged About 50 Years, All are By Caste - Satnami, R/o. Ward No. 11, Baradwar, Police Station Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶15

---- Applicants

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House Officer, Police Station Baradwar, District -Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

---- Respondent

¶19

For Applicants : Mr. K.K. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Aaditya Sharma, P.L.

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

Order On Board

06/08/2019

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.

¶25

These are the first bail applications 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.199/2018, registered at Police Station – Baradwar, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 294, 506-B, 323, 324, 307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. No case is made out against the applicants. The applicants are in jail since 16.12.2018. The case has been investigated and charge-sheet has been filed. Hence, it is prayed that the applicants may be enlarged on regular bail.

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and the submissions made in this respect. It is submitted that one of the victim Kanhaiya had a injury of fracture on his skull, therefore, looking to the injuries caused to the victim, the applicants are not entitled for grant of regular bail.

¶28

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

¶29

The case of the prosecution in brief is this that because of previous enmity on the date of incident, the applicants engaged in fight with complainant Mukesh and assaulted him with club and by batton of an

¶30

¶31

axe causing injuries to him. When Kanhaiya, brother of Mukesh came to intervene, he was also assaulted and caused injuries. In the MLC report, it has been confirmed that Kanhaiya has suffered a fracture on his skull.

¶32

Considered on the submissions made and the contents of the case diary. After considering the evidence present in the case diary i.e. proposed for the purpose of prosecution, this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case, in which, the applicants should be enlarged on regular bail.

¶33

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

¶34

It is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on their 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 trial Court, for their appearance as and when directed.

¶35

Certified copy as per rules.

¶36

Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

¶37

Balram

Shiva Bansal @ Babu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiva Bansal @ Babu 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

Balakdas Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sandeep Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Shakuntla Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jaiprakash Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devprasad @ Budhwa & Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh