Dismissed

Gulsheer Aehmad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Apr 2024MCRC/1404/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a bail application filed by an accused arrested in connection with a murder case. The court held that given the presence of the accused with a suspect vehicle containing bloodstains near the crime scene, there was sufficient material against him not to grant bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; applicant continued to be in custody.

Gulsheer Aehmad Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 1404 of 2024

¶5

Gulsheer Aehmad Son Of Mohd. Ayyub Ansari Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Tadhar, Thana Mauganj, District -Rewa (Mp) Presently Residing At Karoda Nala, Aadhartal, District - Jabalpur (M.P.). (Wrongly Mentioned As Gulesar Aehmad In Order A-1) (In Jail).

¶6

------Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Chowki Junapara, Aarakshi Kendra Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Wrongly Mentioned As Civil Lines, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh In Order A-1).

¶9

------- Non-applicant

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. Surendra Singh, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Soumya Rai, Advocate For Non-applicant-State : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, G.A.

¶11

SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER

¶12

15/04/2024

¶13

This first bail application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 469/2023 registered at Chowki – Junapara, Arakshi Kendra – Takhatpur, District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned As Civil Lines, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh In Order A-1) for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 364, 368, 302, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶14

Case of prosecution is that, on 02.09.2023 Bhagwan Ram Bishnoi (hereinafter for brevity referred to as deceased) have left his farmhouse for his home at about 07:42 P.M. on his motorcycle bearing no. CG 10 AL 1334 to Kota, District – Bilaspur. When he did not reach to his house for quite long time, Shravan Kumar Bishnoi

¶15

¶16

went out for his search and during his search, he saw the dead body of Bhagwan Ram Bishnoi (deceased) near Bandhia Talab, Bashajhal. Prior to the finding of the dead body of the deceased, near the place of lying of the dead body, accused Sanam Ansari along with other friends were found present with one white I-20 Car bearing no. MP-20-CL-9305. However, when they went to search and saw the dead body of the deceased, after sometime, accused Sanam Ansari along with other friends and car was not found at that place. The incident was reported to the concerned police station and based upon which, the aforementioned crime was registered initially, against the suspect Sanam Ansari. During the course of investigation, applicant was arrested on 05.09.2023.

¶17

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant would submit that applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the instant case, he has not committed any offence as alleged. There is no eye-witness to the incident nor there is any connecting piece of material available in the charge-sheet against the applicant. The memorandum statement of the applicant recorded by the police under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is not admissible piece of evidence as the memorandum statement of the applicant was recorded prior to his arrest.

¶18

He also submits that at the time of recording of the memorandum statement, applicant was not in custody of police. Hence, it cannot be used as an evidence against him. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh and Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2023 SCC (Online) SC 1302. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant would further submit that the seizure made from the applicant is also not admissible in the aforementioned facts fo the case.

¶19

¶20

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that just one day before the incident, some dispute arose between the accused Sanam Ansari with the deceased on the ground of payment of the vegetables. Just before the dead body was found lying near the Badhiya Talab, accused Sanam Ansari along with other coaccused persons was found present near that place with one I-20 Car bearing no. MP-20-CL-9305 and one I-10 Car bearing no. MP-20CJ-8733. As per the C.C.T.V. footage of Toll Plaza, the aforementioned cars were found crossing the Toll Plaza towards Jabalpur. In the I-20 Car bearing no. MP-20-CL-9305, during the course of investigation at the instance of the applicant was seized and during search of the car, bloodstains were found inside the car.

¶21

Learned State Counsel also contended that police recorded statement of Md. Zaheer who is registered owner of the Hyundai I- 20 Car bearing no. MP-20-CL-9305 in which, it has come that the applicant who is an employee of Md. Zaheer, have borrowed his car to go to his native place Rewa, Madhya Pradesh on 02.09.2023 in the morning at about 10:00 A.M. and he returned back the car on 03.09.2023 in the morning which prima facie shows that the I-20 Car which is used in the commission of offence was borrowed by the applicant. The same car was found returning towards Jabalpur in the Toll Plaza at night about 11:23 P.M. There is sufficient material against the applicant in the instant crime, hence, he is not entitled for bail.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the case diary.

¶23

Perusal of the material available in the case diary would show that there was some dispute between the deceased with Sanam Ansari

¶24

¶25

who is brother of the applicant. On 02.09.2023 in night, Sanam Ansari along with others in 02 Cars were found present near the place where dead body of deceased Bhagwan Das was found. It is also appearing from the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of Md. Zaheer that the car which was found present on the spot along with accused Sanam Ansari and others, the said car was found returning towards Jabalpur at night at about 11:23 P.M. and it was borrowed by the present applicant from its original owner Md. Zaheer. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I do not find present to be a fit case to allow the application for grant of bail.

¶26

Accordingly, the bail application for grant of bail is dismissed.

¶27

Sd/- d/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶28

Dey

Gulsheer Aehmad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulsheer Aehmad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandramauli Satyanarayan Tiwari Vs Smt. Jyoti Tiwari

Abc Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yogesh Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Amar Babuvani @ Kundan Vani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amar Babuvani @ Kundan Vani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Virendra Singh Rai Vs State of Chhattisgarh