Allowed

Kumari Bai Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Mar 2022MCRC/1463/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the second regular bail application of applicant No. 2, Savitri Yadav, convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC, citing lack of eye-witnesses and uncorroborated prosecution statements. The court dismissed the application of applicant No. 1 as not pressed.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for Applicant 2/ Savitri Yadav on bond and surety of Rs. 25,000 each with conditions to appear in court and not tamper with witnesses.

Kumari Bai Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 1463 of 2022

¶5

Kumari Bai Yadav W/o Chaitram Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Navagaon, Police Station Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶6

Savitri Yadav W/o Ram Prasad Yadav Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Lavsara, Police Station Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶7

------Applicants

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh through: The Station House Officer, Police Station Baradwar, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶10

------- Non-applicant

¶11

For Applicants : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Govt. Adv.

¶12

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶13

ORDER

¶14

15/03/2022

¶15

Applicants have filed this Second Bail application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of regular bail as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 13/2021 registered at police station Baradwar, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶16

Learned counsel for applicants submits that this is second bail application, first bail application filed by applicants for grant of bail was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.01.2022 with liberty to revive the prayer after examination of material witnesses.

¶17

Learned counsel for applicants, at the outset, submits that he is not pressing the bail application with regard to applicant No. 1/ Kumari Bai Yadav and application be heard with respect to applicant No. 2/ Savitri Yadav.

¶18

Case of prosecution is, that in the intervening night of 0809.01.2021 at about 02:00 am, Umenda Ram Yadav upon hearing noise of door knocking in the house of Kumari Bai Yadav,

¶19

¶20

peeped out the window and saw Shankar Lohar knocking door of the house of Kumari Bai Yadav. After some time he also heard some noise of quarrel in the house of Kumari Bai. Thereafter, he along with Kotwar and another went to the house of Kumari Bai where they found Shankar Lohar lying dead in the courtyard inside the house of Kumari Bai. Merg was reported to concerned police station and applicants were arrested on 11.01.2021.

¶21

Learned counsel for applicant No. 2 submits, that as per the material available in the charge-sheet, deceased Shankar Lohar came to the house of applicants in the mid-night (about 02:00 am), knocked the door of house of Kumari Bai. She opened the door and upon which deceased entered into the house and thereafter incident took place inside the house. He also pointed out that as per material available in charge-sheet, it is also case of prosecution that the deceased asked to make physical relationship with Kumari Bai which was the cause of dispute. The assault on account of the illegal demand of making physical relationship might be by Kumari Bai. There is no eye witness to the incident. Applicant No. 2 was arrested only on the basis of memorandum statement of Kumari Bai. Except memorandum statement of co-accused, there is no other material available to connect applicant No.2 in the crime. Witnesses of memorandum statement of Kumari Bai have been examined and they have not supported the case of prosecution. Copy of deposition sheet of Geeta Lal Lohar, PW-2, and Sachin Kumar Lohar, PW-3, are placed on record as Annexure A-3. He submits that Applicant 2- Savitri Yadav is aged about 51 years, is in jail since 11.01.2021. The witnesses who have been examined before the trial Court have not supported the case of prosecution, hence, applicant No. 2/ Savitri Yadav may be enlarged on bail.

¶22

Learned State counsel, while opposing the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants, would submit that it is the incident of intervening night at about 02:00 am, inside the house of applicants where applicant Savitri Yadav was residing with her daughter, hence, it cannot be said that applicant 2/ Savitri Yadav was not involved in commission of crime. He also submits that in the memorandum statement of Kumari Bai, it has come that the deceased was making illegal demand of making physical

¶23

¶24

relationship with her. Witness Umenda Ram Yadav is yet to be examined who saw deceased entering into house, hence, applicant-Savitri Yadav is not entitle for bail. However, he does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for applicants that Savitri Yadav was arrested on the basis of memorandum statement of Kumari Bai and witnesses to memorandum statement are examined.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

Taking into consideration, nature of allegations, facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the alleged incident took place, there is no eye-witness to the incident, submission of learned counsel for applicants that witnesses to memorandum statement have not supported the case of prosecution; and also period of detention of applicant No. 2, being lady, aged about 51 years, without commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to allow the bail application with respect to Applicant No. 2.

¶27

Accordingly, bail application with respect to applicant No. 2/ Savitri Yadav is allowed and the application with respect to applicant No. 1/ Kumari Bai Yadav is dismissed as not pressed. It is directed that the applicant No. 2/ Savitri Yadav shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that-

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

Certified copy as per rules.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶34

P a w a n

Kumari Bai Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Bai Yadav 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

Vimlarani and Ors. Vs Jagdish Lal and Ors.

Prakash @ Bunti Gaharwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivshankar Rahi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Peeli Bai Vs Director, Mohan Jute Mill p Ltd. and Ors.

Lalit Kumar Sahu Vs Municipal Corporation, Durg and Other

Bharat Krishi Kendra Vs Union of India