Partly allowed

Lokesh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jun 2022MCRC/1632/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court disposed of two bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Santosh Kumar Yadav's application was rejected, with liberty to revive it after examination of a witness. Lokesh Yadav's bail was allowed on personal bond with one surety.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for Lokesh Yadav on personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety; bail rejected for Santosh Kumar Yadav

Lokesh Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCRC No. 10214 of 2021

¶4

Santosh Kumar Yadav S/o Ramesh Kumar Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o 147, Durga Chowk, Bhatapara (Jaraud) Riwalakhauli, Police Station Kharora District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kharora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent.

¶7

WITH

¶8

MCRC No. 1632 of 2022

¶9

Lokesh Yadav S/o Shri Genduram Yadav, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Jaroda, Near Shitla Mandir, P.S. Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant.

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kharora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent.

¶12

CAUSE TITLE TAKEN FROM CIS PERIPHERY

¶13

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Applicants : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Adv. & Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Alok Nigam, Govt. Adv.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶15

17.06.2022

¶16

This is the first application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail filed by the accused/applicants who have been arrested on 25.06.2021 in connection with Crime No.18/2011 registered at Police Station Kharora, District Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 & 34 of IPC.

¶17

2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that son of the deceased Toshanlal Sen lodged the FIR on 15.01.2011 that on 14.01.2011 his father went to village Farhada to watch orchestra but did not return home till the night and next day in the morning one Jeluram Sen informed him that dead body of his father is lying in the field having injuries and blood stains in his head and intimation to this effect was also recorded.

¶18

Thereafter, on 28.11.2011 a closure report was submitted before the Court below. However, on the basis of secret information the applicants were interrogated and their memorandum was recorded. It was also came to the effect that the applicant Santosh had also made extra judicial confession before one Anil Diwan and after the incident the applicants were absconded from the village for about 10 years. Thereafter during investigation offences have been registered against the present applicants.

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the accused/applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. Counsel for the applicants further submit that earlier police has filed closure report and on the basis of fabricated evidence the applicants have been roped in the aforesaid crime in question. Durga Bai Sahu (PW-1), the star witness, and other witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the applicants have been in custody since 25.06.2021 and if they may be set at liberty by granting bail, they would abide by all terms and conditions imposed on them while granting bail.

¶20

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail. He read over the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Durga Bai Sahu. Upon being asked, he fairly admits that in her statement Durga Bai Sahu has not stated anything about the assault to the deceased by coaccused Lokesh Yadav. State counsel also submits that one Anil Diwan to whom the applicant Santosh had made extra judicial confession has not been recorded therefore, considering the involvement of the the present applicants in the crime in question, their application are liable to be rejected.

¶21

5. Having considered the submission of the parties, nature of

¶22

allegation, pretrial detention and involvement of the applicant Lokesh Yadav in the aforesaid offence, without commenting anything on merit, I am inclined to grant bail to him. However, considering the role played by the applicant Santosh Yadav and involvement in aforesaid crime, his application is rejected.

¶23

6. Accordingly, the application filed by the applicant Santosh Kumar Yadav is rejected however, at the request of his counsel, liberty to revive his prayer for bail after examination of Anil Diwan is granted.

¶24

7. The application filed by Lokesh Yadav is allowed and it is directed that on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, he shall be released on bail. He is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of case.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶27

Ajay

Lokesh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokesh 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

Rajkumar Chouhan @ Chhotu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khorbahara @ Mahettaru Singh Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohammad Washim Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kalapdhari Murum Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gulshan Ram @ Budeh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nandkishor Jaiswal @ Nandu Vs State of Chhattisgarh