Allowed

Shivprasad @ Chandoriha v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 May 2023MCRC/301/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an application under Section 439 CrPC for bail in a murder case. The High Court observed missing links and contradictions in the investigation records, noting a significant delay in lodging the missing report. Finding the prosecution case highly improbable, the Court granted bail. Headnote: Bail granted in murder case due to discrepancies in investigation and delayed FIR. Disposition: Allo

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Applicant released on bail with personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and two sureties of like amount.

Shivprasad @ Chandoriha Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 301 OF 2023

¶5

• Shivprasad @ Chandoriha, S/o Shobhit Ram Pando, aged about 27 years, R/o Daulatpur Raichuan, Police Station Udaipur, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.)

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

versus

¶8

• State of Chhattisgarh, through: the Station House Officer, Police Station Udaipur, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.)

¶9

… Respondent

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastva, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

¶11

[01/05/2023]

¶12

1. The present is an Application under Section 439 of CrPC seeking for grant of bail to the Applicant who is in jail since 29.8.2022 in connection with Crime No.133/2022 registered at Police Station Udaipur, District Surguja for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 34 & 120-B of IPC.

¶13

2. Case of the Prosecution is that the present Applicant, in connivance with the other co-accused persons, is said to have assaulted the deceased, Shivprasad Pando @ Thullu, in between 10.7.2022 and 15.7.2022 and have killed him and, later on, it is said that the body of the deceased was thrown in a pit near the bank of Atem river in Village Daulatpur Raichuan under Tahsil Udaipur, District Surguja.

¶14

3. Learned Counsel for Applicant submits that plain perusal of the contents of the Case Diary would reveal that there are many missing links and also great disparities and contradictions on the alleged dates on which the statements of the persons examined in the course of investigation were recorded and also in respect of material persons.

¶15

4. Learned Counsel for Applicant further submits that it is a case where most of the statements recorded during the course of investigation do not have specific date on which the statements were recorded. Moreover, the

¶16

-2-

¶17

dates which are recorded do not match with the prosecution story at large. Therefore, the prosecution story becomes highly improbable.

¶18

5. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, opposing the Bail Application, submits that it is a case where the present Applicant was having some private dispute with the deceased. The accused persons decided to eliminate the deceased. In the process, they found the deceased in some isolated area in between 10.7.2025 and 15.7.2022 during which time they assaulted the deceased with lathi and caused his death and thereafter thrown his body in a pit on the bank of Atem river.

¶19

6. The statement of one Jagat Kevat was recorded in the course of investigation who has narrated the fact that the accused persons had gone to the house of Jagat Kevat and where they have made a statement of they having assaulted the deceased and caused his death. Jagat Kevat, in turn, is said to have informed the said fact to the wife of the deceased, who is said to have informed the police authorities. 7. Heard the contentions put forth on either side and perused the record. The missing report, for the first time, was lodged on 21.8.2022. The FIR was lodged on 28.8.2022. The memorandum statement of the present Applicant was recorded on 29.8.2022. The recovery of the dead body of the deceased and the lathi used in the assault by the Applicant was made on 29.8.2022. Meanwhile, there seems to be a statement recorded of one Rakesh and where also no date is reflected in his statement.

¶20

8. Given the fact that there are many missing links and irregularities in the material available in the Case Diary, particularly, in respect of the dates on which the narration of facts has taken place and also taking note of the fact that though the deceased went missing on 10.7.2022 however the missing report was lodged after 1½ month on 21.8.2022, this Court, prima facie, finds the entire case of the prosecution to be highly improbable.

¶21

-3-

¶22

Therefore, the present seems to be a fit case where the Applicant can be enlarged on bail.

¶23

9. Accordingly, the Application under Section 439 of CrPC is allowed. It is ordered that the Applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court for his appearance as and when directed by the Trial Court.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(P. Sam Koshy)

¶26

/sharad/ Judge

Shivprasad @ Chandoriha v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivprasad @ Chandoriha 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

Rajendra Kumar Kushwaha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jageshar Lahre Vs Shri Md. Qaiser Abdulhaque

Bhuneshwar Pratap Singh Raj Vs Shri Md. Qaiser Abdulhaque

Smt. Manshi Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dilip Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajmed Beck Vs State of Chhattisgarh