Allowed

Gangaram Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC21 Nov 2022MCRC/5178/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a bail application filed by three accused in a murder case. Considering the prolonged pre-trial detention and lack of conclusive evidence against them, the court directed their release on bail. Conditions included furnishing sureties and appearing on trial dates.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail by furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each with one solvent surety for the like amount.

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

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 5178 of 2022

¶5

1. Gangaram Yadav S/o Shri Bhairam Yadav Aged About 40 Years

¶6

1. Tukaram Yadav S/o Shri Bhairam Yadav Aged About 38 Years

¶7

1. Riddhiram Goswami S/o Shri Shankargiri Goswami Aged About 46 Years

¶8

All R/o Village Gorakhpur PS Lalpur, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - SHO Fasterpur, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Non-Applicant For the Applicants : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Dy. A.G.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board

¶14

21.11.2022

¶15

The applicants have preferred the frst bail application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of regular bail as they are in jail since 13.01.2020 in connection with Crime No.548/2015 registered at Police Station- Fasterpur District- Mungeli (C.G.) for the ofence punishable under Sections 302, 397, 404, 460, 34 of IPC.

¶16

The case of prosecution in brief, is that the complainant namely Kishori Lal Kesharwani had lodged the report stating that his aunt/deceased was residing separately in her house in village Gutheli, and he used to visit to take care of her. In the intervening night of 1617/11/2015 some unknown persons committed murder of his aunt and her dead body was lying in the courtyard of the house. Therefore, FIR has been lodged.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have not committed any ofence and have been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the alleged incident took place on 17.11.2015 thereafter Police did not investigate the involvement of the present applicants in any sense. He further submits that suddenly on 13.01.2020 the applicants were arrested and their memorandum statement was recorded on the same day. On the basis of that memorandum statement certain articles alleged to have been looted

¶18

¶19

from the house of the deceased were recovered after lapse of 5 years even otherwise these articles were not identifed by the prosecution witnesses. He submits that majority of the witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the case of prosecution. He further submits that the Police only found the involvement of the present applicants not of the other co-accused. He also submits that the statement of one witness namely Rupesh Yadav was recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, in which he stated that the applicants are likely to commit the ofence even that this witness has not supported the case of prosecution, applicants are in jail since 13.01.2020, trial has not concluded as yet and looking to their pre-trial detention, they may be released on bail.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that though the alleged incident took place on 17.11.2015 and on investigation statement of one Rupesh was recorded under Section 164 of CrPC and he categorically named the present applicants that they are likely to commit the ofence however, he fairly submits that this witness Rupesh has not supported the case of prosecution before the trial Court and he does not point out the alleged recovery was made from the instance of the applicants and present applicants are identifed by the prosecution witnesses or not and also submits that there is three previous criminal antecedent against the present applicants. The trial Court will make all endeavours to conclude the trial expeditiously.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the evidence collected so far, detention period of the applicants and trial has not concluded as yet almost two and half years has been passed, I am inclined to allow this bail application.

¶23

Accordingly, the bail application fled by applicants is allowed and it is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-each with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. They shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given by the said trial Court, till disposal of the trial.

¶24

It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and the trial Court will decide the case on its own merit without being infuenced by any

¶25

¶26

observation made hereinabove. It is also made clear that the complainant or State is at liberty to move an application regarding cancellation of bail of the applicants in the event of applicants involving themselves in similar ofence in future and if any conditions violated by them. It is made clear that applicants shall not try to tamper or infuence with any of the witnesses.

¶27

Certifed copy as per rules.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶31

Parul

Gangaram Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangaram 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

Nand Mohan Pandey @ Niraj Kumar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Komal @ Kallu Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Komal @ Kallu Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Janiram Bhardwaj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devnarayan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sushil Kumar Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh