Allowed

Kaliram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Apr 2024MCRC/1432/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed three bail applications filed by persons arrested in connection with illegal sand mining operations and assaulting government officials. The court granted regular bail subject to bond and conditions despite the existence of criminal antecedents for some applicants.

What did the court decide?

The bail applications were allowed. Applicants released on regular bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety in like sum.

Kaliram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 1432 of 2024

¶5

Kaliram Sahu S/o Lakhan Lal Sahu Aged About 64 Years R/o Kutena, Police Station- Panduka, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

------Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Panduka, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

------- Non-applicant

¶10

MCRC No. 1921 of 2024

¶11

Surendra Kumar Birje S/o Lt. Budhram Birje Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Kutena, Police Station Panduka, District Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶12

------Applicant

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer of Police Station Panduka, District Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶15

-------Non-applicant

¶16

MCRC No. 2046 of 2024

¶17

Tikaram S/o- Ramlal Sahu, Aged About 51 Years R/o Village- Kutena Police Station- Panduka, District- Gariyabandh Chhattisgarh.

¶18

Lokesh Kumar Sahu, S/o Kishanlal Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o VillageKutena Police Station- Panduka, District- Gariyabandh Chhattisgarh.

¶19

Vimal Sahu, S/o- Nohar Sahu, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village- Kutena Police Station- Panduka, District- Gariyabandh Chhattisgarh.

¶20

Khuluram Mahilang S/o- Budhuram Mahilang Aged About 51 Years R/o Village- Kutena Police Station- Panduka, District- Gariyabandh Chhattisgarh.

¶21

Mahendra Sahu, S/o - Lalji Sahu, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village- Kutena Police Station- Panduka, District- Gariyabandh Chhattisgarh.

¶22

------Applicants

¶23

VERSUS

¶24

State of Chhattisgarh through-the Station House Officer of Police StationPnaduka, District- Gariyabandh Chhattisgarh.

¶25

-------Non-applicant

¶26

For Applicant : Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Adv. and Mr. Paras Sahu, Adv., Mr. Zakir Anam Shah, Adv. (MCRC No. 1921/2024 & MCRC No. 2046/2024); Mr.

¶27

Shrawan Agrawal, Adv. (MCRC No. 1432/2024)

¶28

For State : Ms. Surpriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate

¶29

¶30

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶31

ORDER ON BOARD

¶32

(16/ 04 /202 4)

¶33

As all the applications are arising out of the same crime number, they are heard together and decided by this common order.

¶34

Applicants have filed these first bail applications under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of regular bail as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 21/2024 registered at Police Station – Panduka, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506, 147, 148, 149, 186, 353, 332, 427 of IPC.

¶35

Case of prosecution in brief is that on 29.01.2024 the officials of the State Government received information of illegal sand mining activity, they hired private vehicle Scorpio and reached Kutena sand mine in the night. They found two Hyva bearing No. CG07CN9029 and CG07CP8195 and three chain mountain machines involved in illegal sand mining activity. After looking upon the Government officials, operators of the two chain mountain machine fled away from the spot, however drivers of two Hyva and one chain mountain machine operator were caught. While they were being brought to the police station Panduka, on the way at about 12:00 in the night, vehicles of the Government officials were intercepted by some persons who came in Bolero vehicle bearing No. CG23J8605 and one car bearing No. CG04M5562 manhandle the Government officials and also abused them in filthy language. They also assaulted by means of hand, fist, damaged the vehicle of the officials by club and lathi. The incident was reported in the concerned police station, based upon which aforementioned crime was registered, during investigation applicants were arrested on 31.01.2024 and other co-accused on 20.02.2024.

¶36

Learned Senior counsel for the applicants in MCRC No. 1921/2024 and MCRC No. 2046/2024 submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the crime, as they have objected the arbitrary and illegal action on the part of Government officials. They have not committed any offence as

¶37

¶38

alleged. He also contended that the offence under Section 332, 353 of IPC are bailable offence. Applicants are in jail since last about 1 ½ months and therefore they may be enlarged on regular bail.

¶39

Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, learned counsel for applicant in MCRC No. 1432/2024 submits that applicant was arrested on 31.01.2024, he has been falsely implicated in the crime, hence, he may be enlarged on regular bail. Learned counsel for the parties also contended that after investigation, charge-sheet is filed and the offences are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class, it may take some time to conclude.

¶40

Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for applicants and would submit that applicants obstructed the Government officials from discharging their official duty. They have also abused them and damaged their vehicle. She submits that there are criminal antecedents against applicants Tikaram, Lokesh Kumar, Mahendra Sahu and Kaliram. However, upon asking, she submits that all the offence under IPC are prior to 2020 against Kaliram Sahu and along with offence under IPC 08 Istagasa were also registered. There are criminal antecedents of Tikaram, Lokesh Kumar Sahu, Khuluram Mahilang, Mahendra Sahu. However, she does not dispute the chart prepared in application of the earlier crimes registered against the applicants in MCRC No. 2046/2024.

¶41

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶42

Taking into consideration, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation in which applicants were arrested, period of pre-trial detention, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial may take some time to conclude, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow these bail applications.

¶43

Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed. It is directed that the applicants shall be released on regular bail, upon each of the applicant furnishing a bail bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum

¶44

¶45

to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that-

¶46

a) Applicants shall appear before the Trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance.

¶47

b) The applicants shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶48

c) If the applicants are found involved in similar offence in future, it will be open for the State to apply for cancellation of Bail.

¶49

Certified copy as per rules.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶52

/pwn

Kaliram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaliram 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

Gulsheer Aehmad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amar Babuvani @ Kundan Vani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amar Babuvani @ Kundan Vani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raja Ram Netam Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Amit @ Balla Kuldeep Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sagar Devnath Vs State of Chhattisgarh