Dismissed

Shyam Sunder Deep @ Rinku @ Jatta v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC22 Jun 2023MCRC/2498/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC for offences under the IPC. The court rejected the plea due to the applicant's criminal antecedents and lack of explanation, though allowed re-approach upon delay in trial after six months.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed. Applicant allowed to repeat prayer for bail if trial not concluded within six months.

Shyam Sunder Deep @ Rinku @ Jatta Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCRC No. 2498 of 2023

¶4

Shyam Sunder Deep @ Rinku @ Jatta S/o Diwakar Deep, Aged About 28 Years R/o Near Dr. Mishra Clinic, Nehru Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶8

---- Respondent

¶9

For Applicant Mr. CR Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State Ms. Usha Chandrakar, Panel Lawyer

¶10

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶11

22/6/2023

¶12

Heard.

¶13

This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.15/2023 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Raipur (CG) for the offence under Sections 294, 327, 392, 506 of the IPC

¶14

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.1.2023, at about 6:00 p.m., when the complainant, who was on his friend’s motorcycle, stood near the traffic signal in front of a English liqour shop at Police Line, the applicant came near him and asked money for buying liquor. When the complainant refused to give him money, the applicant slapped him three times and also threatened him to life. The applicant also snatched an i-phone from the complainant. Hence, the offence has been registered.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is

¶16

innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The applicant is in jail since 14.1.2023. Hence, he prays for releasing the applicant on bail.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application. He submits that there are 13 criminal antecedents of the applicant.

¶18

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly considering that there is no explanation with regard to the criminal antecedents of the applicant, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. However, it is observed that if the trial is not concluded within six months, the applicant shall be at liberty to repeat the prayer on the ground of delay in trial. Sd/-

¶20

( Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶21

Shyna

Shyam Sunder Deep @ Rinku @ Jatta v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sunder Deep @ Rinku @ Jatta 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

Bunty Shaha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohammad Sameer Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Avinash Giri Goswami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Kumar Jangde Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manbodh @ Lakhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lalit Matari @ Jeetu Matari Vs State of Chhattisgarh