Dismissed

Suresh Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Mar 2023CRA/260/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the special leave petition against the rejection of a regular bail application. The appellant, charged with offences related to Naxalite activities and setting fire to a telecom tower generator, failed to establish a prima facie case for bail.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed against the order rejecting the bail application was dismissed, and the order dated 10.01.2023 was upheld.

Suresh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 260 of 2023

¶5

Suresh Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Shri Babulal Sahu, aged about 34 Years, By Caste Teli, R/o Village Chilparas, Panidober, Thana Koyalibeda, Tahsil Pakhanjur, Distt. North Baster Kanker (C.G.).

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Koyalibeda, Distt. North Baster Kanker (C.G.).

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Appellant Mr. Amit Patel, Advocate. For State Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Government Advocate.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ. Order on Board

¶12

(15.03.2023)

¶13

Radhakishan Agrawal, J.

¶14

This is an appeal by the accused/appellant under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the Special Judge, N.I.A. Act/Scheduled Offence, Kanker, District North Baster Kanker, C.G. rejecting the regular bail application of the appellant under Section 439 Cr.PC.

¶15

The appellant has been arrested in connection with the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 435 of IPC and Sections 10, 13, 38(2) & 39(2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention)

¶16

¶17

Act, 1967 by Police Station – Koyalibeda, District North Baster Kanker, C.G. under Crime No.21/2022 on 28.12.2022.

¶18

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.12.2022 at about 3:00 am, ASI Virendra Singh Dhruv of Police Station Koylibeda, received information that some naxalites, gathered unlawfully, set ablaze the generator of Jio Company Mobile Tower in village Badragi and ran towards forest area. Thereafter, police party went to the field of Shyam Singh Mandavi where tower was installed, prepared the panchnama and recorded the statements of eye-witness-Shyam Singh Mandavi as well as of the villagers. They have informed that on the date of incident, some naxalites gathered near tower, they were naming each other as Mainu Negi, Ganesh Kadiyam, Suresh Sahu, Dev Gawade, Mani Ram Markam, Rameshwar Vadde, Sukdu Potai, Sonsai Darro, Sunil Anchla and also raising slogans Lal Salam Comrade, affixed the banner on the tower and set the generator of Jio Company Mobile Tower on fire.

¶19

During investigation, present appellant was arrested and he admitted that he is working for the banned Mayobadi Sangathan and used to supply necessary articles to the members of Mayobadi Sangathan. From the possession of appellant, police has seized 30 meters wire, 2 pieces of banner, 5 pieces of parchal detonator and one mobile set. On report being lodged to the above effect, offence under the aforesaid Sections have been registered against the appellant.

¶20

¶21

Learned Special Judge found prima facie material of involvement of the appellant in the offences charged against him and considering the other materials on record, came to the conclusion that appellant is not entitled for grant of regular bail and, accordingly, rejected the application of the appellant filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, against which, this appeal has been preferred.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in connection with the aforesaid crime. According to him, the present appellant has no criminal antecedents and he was not at all involved with regard to the alleged offence. He further submits that there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with or influencing the witnesses and that conclusion of trial is likely to take some time. It is further contended that since the charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, the appellant who is in jail since 28.12.2022 be enlarged on bail. The appellant is also ready to abide by all such conditions as may be imposed by this Court while granting bail.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the appeal by submitting, i nter alia, that prosecution has brought out sufficient material on record connecting the appellant's involvement, which prima facie shows that the appellant is actively participated in the alleged offence in question. As such, learned Special Judge is fully justified in

¶24

¶25

rejecting the bail application of the appellant and this appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the material placed before us on behalf of the State.

¶27

9.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, further considering the prima facie material available on record, it appears that the appellant along with the other co-accused naxalites have actively participated in setting ablaze the generator of Jio Mobile Company installed in the field of Shyam Singh Mandavi and thus engaged in naxal activity which shows the direct involvement of the appellant in the crime in question and further considering the fact that appellant has clearly been named by eye-witness- Shyam Singh Mandavi in his statement as being part of group of 8-10 naxalites, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and the learned Special Judge is justified in rejecting his bail application.

¶28

Accordingly, the appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶29

Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶30

Akhilesh

Suresh Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Sahu 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

Mugul Ram Uraon Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rupchand Dahariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bel Singh Nag Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Saroj @ Sanjay Kamar Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar Anchal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rajeshwar Prasad Dwivedi Vs State of Chhattisgarh