Allowed

Sudarshan Das Mahant v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Apr 2024MCRC/1806/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a bail application under Section 439 CrPC. Despite a prima facie charge of murder, the court framed no opinion on the merits and granted bail on personal bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of the applicant on regular bail on furnishing a personal bail bond of Rs.25,000 with one surety and compliance with standard conditions.

Sudarshan Das Mahant Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 1806 of 2024

¶5

Sudarshan Das Mahant S/o Dashrath Das Mahant Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Jarve P.S. Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. (name of the applicant incorrectly and incompletely mentioned as Sudarshan Mahant in impugned order)

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate District JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Advocate For State : Mr. K.K. Baharani, Panel Lawyer

¶11

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board

¶12

03/04/2024

¶13

Applicant has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail as he was arrested in connection with Crime No.391 of 2023 registered at Police Station –Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa, for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

¶14

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.05.2023 ambulance was called from the house of applicant and when ambulance came, wife of applicant was found dead. Morgue was reported to the concerned police station, dead body was sent for postmortem. During morgue inquiry, memorandum

¶15

¶16

statement of applicant was recorded and, thereafter, FIR was registered and during investigation applicant was arrested.

¶17

Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime. He has not administered poison to his wife. He further submits that from the allegation levelled against the applicant, as appearing from the statement of brother of the deceased, is that applicant assaulted the deceased, however, the cause of death is not due to assault but by consuming poison. Hence, offence as alleged against the applicant would not be made out.

¶18

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the submission of learned counsel for the applicant. He submits that in the statement of brother of deceased it has come that applicant intimated him that after assault, he administered poison to the deceased.

¶19

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the said statement of brother of deceased is recorded after recording of memorandum statement of applicant after about 6 months. In the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC. immediately after the incident no such allegation of administering poison is levelled.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State do not dispute the above submission of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶21

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, material collected by the police during course fo investigation, submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, without commenting anything on merit of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶24

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail on his furnishing a personal bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that:-.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

Certified copy as per rules.

¶28

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

¶29

Praveen

Sudarshan Das Mahant v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudarshan Das Mahant 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

Shankar Pal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arvind Singh Vs Director of Enforcement

Sunil Kumar Chandravanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Kumar Uboveja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prabhat Vishwas Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nitish Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh