Allowed

Mitlesh Yadav v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Oct 2023MCRC/5969/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh allowed a second bail petition filed by Mitlesh Yadav under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court, noting lack of criminal antecedents and release of other co-accused, directed his release on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties.

Mitlesh Yadav Vs the State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No.5969 of 2023

¶4

Mitlesh Yadav S/o Sanjay Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Village - Navadih, Thana Trikunda, District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶5

---- Applicant (In Jail) Versus

¶6

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Trikunda, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶7

---- Non-applicant

¶8

(Cause title is taken from C.I.S. )

¶9

Present:- Shri Prafull N. Bharat, Sr. Advocate appears along with Shri Shubhank Tiwari, counsel for the applicant. Shri Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State.

¶10

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order On Board

¶11

05.10.2023

¶12

This is the second bail petition filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested on 01.03.2023 in connection with Crime No. 04/2023, registered at Police Station-Trikunda, District BalrampurRamanujganj(CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 341, 332 and 353 of IPC. First bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 15.05.2023 in MCRCNo.2247/2023.

¶13

Case of the prosecution is that a report was initially lodged by the applicant-Mithlesh Yadav and others against one Shiv Kumar Singh and others in connection with Crime No.66/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 323, 325, 307 and 506 of IPC, but no action was taken against them, therefore, the applicant and others got annoyed and have gathered near the concerned police station and started protesting forcefully while blocking

¶14

¶15

the main gate. It is alleged further that when the applicant and others were advised to leave the said place, they didn’t stop their protest and opened the main gate forcefully while dashing the police authorities and their employees, therefore, the alleged offence has been registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime. It is contended further that the applicant and others have lodged a report against the accused Shiv Kumar Singh and others for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294, 323, 506, 325 and 307 of IPC in connection with Crime No.66/2022 and a counter FIR was, therefore, lodged against the present applicant and others in connection with Crime No.67/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 341, 332 & 353 of IPC, in which, few of them were arrested, but none were, however, arrested in the crime i.e. Crime No.66/2022, though one of the offence was punishable under Section 307 of IPC. It is contended further that despite writing a letter to the Sub Divisional Officer, Ramanujganj in this regard on 28.02.2023, no arrest was made in the said crime, therefore, they gathered near the concerned police station for protesting, but have been implicated in a false case while registering an offence initially under Sections 147 and 341 of IPC (both bailable) and thereafter implicated them for the offence under Sections 332 and 353 of IPC. Further contention of the applicant is that the other coaccused person namely Anil Yadav has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20.07.2023 passed in MCRC No.3486 of 2023, while other coaccused persons namely Dinesh Yadav, Abhay Yadav and Sunil Yadav vide order dated 11.08.2023 in MCRC No.5466 of 2023. It is contended further that after rejection of the first bail application vide order dated 15.05.2023 passed

¶17

¶18

in MCRC No.2247 of 2023, one of its applicants namely Santosh yadav had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and his bail application was rejected therein while taking into consideration of his criminal antecedents, but since no criminal antecedents are there of the present applicant, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail, particularly when other co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Non-Applicant/ State, while opposing the bail application submits that though no criminal antecedents are there with regard to the present applicant, but, the manner, in which, the offence has been committed, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire case diary carefully.

¶21

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the detention period of the applicant, who is in jail since 01.03.2023 and that by considering further that no criminal antecedents are there with regard to the present applicant and as the other co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail, I am, therefore, inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties in like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. The applicant shall appear before the concerned trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said court.

¶23

SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

¶24

Tumane

Mitlesh Yadav v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mitlesh Yadav v. the 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

Ramnarayan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Naresh Kumar Sankat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narendra Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Indrajeet Singh Adiley Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Benedik Kumar Jojo Vs Circle Manager State Bank of India

Prashant Kumar Joshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh