Allowed

Shankar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Apr 2023MCRC/386/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a murder and conspiracy case under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC, the High Court of Chhattisgarh granted regular bail to the accused-applicant upon furnishing a personal bond. The court relied on the lack of incriminating seizure and the length of detention.

What did the court decide?

Allowance of bail application under Section 439 CrPC with a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- along with one surety for the like amount.

Shankar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M.Cr.C. No. 386 of 2023

¶5

Shankar Sahu, S/o Late Rohit Sahu, aged about 19 years, R/o Choubeybandha, Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House Officer, Police Station Magarlod, Police outpost Karelibadi, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶9

----Non-applicant

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Govt. Advocate. For Objector/complainant : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate.

¶11

Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Chandravanshi

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

17-04-2023

¶14

The accused/applicant has preferred this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on regular bail in connection with Crime No. 189/2022 registered at Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶15

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that applicant along with coaccused persons namely Nikhil Sahu & Lochan Sahu hatched conspiracy to cause murder of Yashwant @ Babban Dewangan, who was allegedly having illicit relation with mother of co-accused Nikhil Sahu, and assaulted upon his head by means of bamboo club, as a result he died and thereafter, they threw the dead-body of the deceased in the river in order to conceal the evidence and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

¶16

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question, as he has never been involved in the alleged crime in any manner. It is submitted that the applicant has been implicated in the alleged crime only on the basis of memorandum statement of main accused – Nikhil Sahu and nothing has been seized from the applicant except his own mobile and motorcycle, which do not implicate in any manner to the applicant in respect of commission of alleged crime. It is further submitted that the applicant is in detention since 17.08.2022; chargesheet has already been filed and conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail.

¶18

Per contra, learned counsel for the State / non-applicant, who is well supported by counsel for the Objector, would submit that the applicant has actively participated in the crime in question, hence, his application is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary as well as material available on record.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the facts of the case, particularly considering the evidence collected by the Police against the present applicant; no incriminating seizure has been made from the applicant; and further his pri-trial detention; charge-sheet has already been filed; I am inclined to release the applicant on regular bail.

¶21

The application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant is accordingly allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with

¶22

¶23

one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court with following further conditions:-

¶24

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the concerned Investigating Officer as and when required.

¶25

(ii) that the applicant 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶26

(iii) that the applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

¶27

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

(N.K.Chandravanshi) Judge

¶30

Amit/-

¶31

Shankar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar 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

Sanju Nihal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Payal Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ditektar Patre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Bhaina Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Kamaluram @ Motu Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shekhar Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh