Allowed

Mohatab Suman @ Raja v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jul 2023MCRC/3063/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed two bail applications filed under Section 439 CrPC against accused persons arrested for theft and robbery involving a religious idol and unauthorized possession of arms. The court granted bail despite the serious nature of the charges, noting the release of co-accused in similar cases and the lack of criminal past by the applicants.

What did the court decide?

Both bail applications allowed; applicants released on personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties each, subject to standard bail conditions.

Mohatab Suman @ Raja Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C. No.3063 of 2023

¶4

Mohatab Suman @ Raja S/o Shri Naresh Suman, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Chouha, Chowki Malhar, P.S. Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Non-Applicant

¶7

M.Cr.C No. 3151 of 2023

¶8

Sumeer Rai S/o Shri Saupatram Rai Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Chauha, Post Office Tikari, Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Chowki And Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh .

¶11

---Non-Applicant

¶12

For respective Applicants: Shri Praveen Shrivastava and Shri Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocates. For Non-Applicant/State: Shri GP Kurrey, PL.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board

¶14

06.07.2023

¶15

These are the 1 st bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the Applicants, who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.483/2022 registered at Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur (CG) for the offence under Sections 458, 397, 395 and 120-B IPC as

¶16

¶17

also under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.

¶18

Case of the prosecution is that the present Applicants, in connivance with the co-accused, have committed theft at Ganesha Temple, village Pali and stolen an idol of Lord Ganesha of ancient times and from the memorandum of co-accused Yuvraj Tasdon, idol of Lord Ganesha, one sabbal and mobile have been recovered, from Applicant-Mohatab Suman @ Raja, motorcycle and from ApplicantSumeer Rai, silver particles of stolen idol of Lord Ganesha have been recovered. It is alleged that the said robbery has been committed at the gun point, which was recovered from co-accused Nishant Kumar Ghosh @ Sachin, therefore, the offence as aforesaid has been registered against the present Applicants.

¶19

Learned counsel for the Applicants submit that the Applicants have been falsely implicated in the crime in question for which, they have been arrested on 04.12.2022, co-accused Nishant Kumar Ghosh @ Sachin and Yuvraj Tandon have already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench vide orders dated 12.04.2023 and 26.04.2023 passed in M.Cr.C Nos.11258/2022 and 2918/2023 respectively and co-accused Atul Bhargaw has also been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 24.04.2023 passed in M.Cr.C No.1360/2023, the case of the present Applicants is also identical in nature, they have no criminal past and conclusion of trial is likely to take quite some time, therefore, they may also be released on bail.

¶20

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Non-Applicant/State opposed the bail applications. However, he does not dispute that the case of the present Applicants is similar to that of the co-accused, who have been granted bail.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering that the coaccused have been granted bail, the Applicants have no criminal past and further considering their the pre-trial detention, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to allow the applications.

¶23

Accordingly, both the applications are allowed and it is directed that on Applicants’ furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

¶24

(a) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court.

¶25

(b) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and (c) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶26

(d) the Applicants and the surety shall submit a copy of their adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court.

¶27

(e) they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future.

¶28

(f) they shall furnish all the details of movable and

¶29

¶30

immovable property, bank accounts and his family members i.e. wife and children and shall not alienate the immovable property without the written permission of the concerned Court below.

¶31

(e) if the Applicants move out of the district, they shall intimate the same in writing to the concerned Court below and the jurisdictional police station and if their mobile remains switched off for any reason, they may immediately report the same to the concerned police station.

¶32

It is made clear that if any of the conditions is violated by the Applicants, then the bail granted to them shall automatically stand canceled without any further reference to the Bench.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶35

Priya

Mohatab Suman @ Raja v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohatab Suman @ Raja 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

Amit Sharma Vs Shri Sanjeev Ranjan

Gopal Sagar Vs Shri Himanshu Tiwari, Joint Director

Malik Ram Vs Yashwant Kumar

Naeemuddin Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shailesh Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Preetam Sethiya Vs Smt. Panawati Sethiya