The High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected two joint bail applications filed by accused persons alleged to be involved in a murder case. The court held that the presence of investigation material and DNA samples pending made them unfit cases for bail.
Bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. rejected; investigation continued as DNA reports awaited.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Reserved for Order On : 11.09.2019
Order Passed on : 25.09.2019
M.CR.C. No. 5120 of 2019
Akahndal, S/o. Dand Dhar, Aged About 39 Years, Caste -Kolta, R/o. Rampur, Tahsil and Police Station : Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House Officer, Police Station :, Pithora, District Mahsamund Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
AND
M.CR.C. No. 5793 of 2019
Gourishanker Kaiwart, S/o. Suritram Kaiwart, Aged About 24 Years, R/o. Village Kishanpur, Police Station and Tahsil : Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House Officer, Police Station : Pithora, District Mahsamund Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
| For Applicant (in M.Cr.C. No.5120/19) |
: Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vikash Pradhan, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For Applicant (in M.Cr.C. No.5793/19) | : Mr. Govind Ram Miri, Advocate with Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate |
| For Respondent/State | : Mr. Devendra Pratap Singh, Dy.A.G. |
| For Objector | : Mr. Siddharth Rathod, Advocate |
2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
C A V O Order
25/09/2019
3
and it is submitted that co-accused Dharmendra Bariha has not consented for Narco Test, therefore, that evidence is not admissible and no complicity is found on the part of applicants in the crime committed. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicants may be enlarged on regular bail.
4
provisions of Shinds ection 27 of the Evidence Act. Hence, the application be allowed.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge
Balram
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail despite reliance on Narco-test statements obtained from a co-accused.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Selvi and Others Vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶26
Selvi and Others Vs. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Akahndal S/o. Dand Dhar
Gourishanker Kaiwart
State of Chhattisgarh
Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
