Dismissed

Ritesh Pandey @ Lutu Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC25 Jan 2022MCRC/77/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This rejection order dismissed a second bail application filed by an accused contesting charges of public nuisance, fraud, assault, attempt to murder, carrying offensive weapons, and similar offences where earlier bail had been refused due to past antecedents.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for regular bail is rejected and the application is dismissed in view of the applicant's 14 pending antecedents.

Ritesh Pandey @ Lutu Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCRC No. 77 of 2022

¶4

Ritesh Pandey @ Lutu Pandey S/o Vinay Pandey, Aged About 20 Years R/o Ganesh Chowk, Chingrapara Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Chhattisgarh through- Station House Officer, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent

¶7

For the applicant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Raghavendra Verma, Govt. Advocate

¶8

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

¶9

Order on Board

¶10

25.01.2022

¶11

This is second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 556/2020 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G) for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 307 read with section 34 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The first bail application was rejected on 06.07.2021.

¶12

As per the prosecution case, a report was lodged by the complainant Lala Ram Yadav that on 08.06.2020 the applicant along with other accused assaulted his brother Guddu Yadav @ Bala Yadav and when the complainant came to his rescue, in such process, he along with Guddu Yadav sustained injuries, thereby the offence has been committed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complainant has been examined and he has not supported the case of prosecution, therefore, at this stage, the

¶14

applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that looking to the past antecedents, the earlier bail was rejected.

¶16

A perusal of the earlier order would show that the bail was rejected especially on the ground of past antecedents of the applicant apart from the assault so caused by him in the instant case.

¶17

Considering the past antecedents of the applicant as 14 cases stand registered against him and no plausible explanation is there as to why 14 cases have been accumulated to the credit of accused, it is not a fit case to reconsider the bail. Only examination of the victim/ complainant in the instant case would not accrue a ground to reconsider the bail. It is for the trial Court to consider and assess all the statements of witnesses on merits amongst other aspects after the entire evidence is recorded. Therefore, I am not inclined to allow this bail application. Accordingly, it is rejected.

¶18

Sd/GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE

Ritesh Pandey @ Lutu Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritesh Pandey @ Lutu Pandey 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

Sonu @ @ Shivam Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gokul Mandal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Parmeshwar Bharadwaj @ Parmeshwar Bhaskar @ Tilli Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Divyadeep Singh Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Biransay Kujur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yogesh Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh