Allowed

Ravi Ahirwar, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Dec 2021MCRC/6877/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh in Writ Petition MCRC No. 6877 of 2021 granted regular bail to an applicant arrested in a robbery-mugging case involving IPC offences and Arms Act violations. The Court was inclined to release him due to the lack of prosecution witness corroboration and trial delay.

What did the court decide?

All the three bail applications were allowed (current one). Applicant released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one local surety in the like sum.

Ravi Ahirwar, Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCRC No. 6877 of 2021

¶4

Ravi Ahirwar, S/o Totaram Ahirwar, Aged About 30 Years R/o Tikrapara, Near Mana Bhancha Talab, Police Station Kotwali, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Applicant (In jail)

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Lorami, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh

¶8

---- Respondent

¶9

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Applicant : Ms Seema Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, GA

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶11

Order on Board

¶12

09.12.2021

¶13

This is third bail application. First bail application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 26.04.2019, and the Second application was treated as dismissed on 13.01.2021 due to non-compliance of Court order dated 17.12.2020.

¶14

Applicant has preferred this application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of regular bail as he was arrested in connection with Crime No.462 of 2018 registered at Police Station- Lorami, Outpost Chilfy, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 393, 397, 398, 411 211 and 34 of the IPC, and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act.

¶15

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, complainant is running a Jewellery Shop. On 26.10.2018 at 3 pm when he was returning back from rural market with a bag containing silver ornaments, ie 10 pairs of Anklets, 15 pairs of pairee , 05 bracelets, one waist chain, toe rings and

¶16

Mcrc 6877 of 2021

¶17

¶18

other silver ornaments, one unknown person came on Motorcycle and dashed his Motorcycle, showed a pistol and looted the bag containing silver ornaments and ran away from spot. FIR was registered, based upon which applicant was arrested.

¶19

Ms Seema Singh, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that as per allegation, only one person came, looted the bag containing silver articles on gun point and ran away. There is no mention of any other accused person accompanying the main accused, who is stated to be Sampat Saket. Applicant was arrested on the basis of suspicion from Bilaspur, along with his Motorcycle, and Mobile phone. Other articles shown to be seized from possession of applicant is false. She further submits that seizure witnesses Sanjay Jaiswal and Bandhu Das have been examined before trial Court as PW1 and PW2 respectively, who have not supported case of prosecution. Except the alleged seizure of anklets and Pistol, there is no material to connect the applicant with instant crime. She submits that applicant is in jail since 14.11.2018. There are 20 enlisted witnesses to be examined by prosecution, out of which, only 9 were examined and trial may take some time. Hence, applicant may be enlarged on regular bail.

¶20

Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, learned State counsel opposing the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, submits that during the course of investigation, Police have seized 5 pairs of Anklets, one pair of pairee , Pistol with two live cartridges, as appearing from seizure memo. However, he does not dispute submission of learned counsel for the applicant with respect to examination of seizure witnesses before trial

¶21

Mcrc 6877 of 2021

¶22

¶23

Court and also number of witnesses to be examined by prosecution, in support of their case.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

Taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances of the case; nature of allegations against applicant, submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and further, submission that seizure witnesses have not supported case of prosecution, applicant is in jail since 14.11.2018, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶26

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court on the condition that:

¶27

a) Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance.

¶28

b) Applicant shall not in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶29

c) If the applicant is found involved in similar offence in future, it will be open for the State to apply for cancellation of bail.

¶30

Certified copy as per rules.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE

¶33

padma

Ravi Ahirwar, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Ahirwar, 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

Govind Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Daulat Pal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Premlal Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sampal Paikra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Durga Gond @ Durga Prasad Maravi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Rasheed Vs State of Chhattisgarh