Tarun Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Applicant has filed this second bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.81 of 2023, registered at Police Station – Gol Bazar, District – Raipur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.03.2024 in M.Cr.C. No.1606 of 2024 with liberty to repeat the prayer after examination of the material witnesses.

¶13

Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 11.03.2023 information

¶14

2

¶15

is received at the Police Control Room, Raipur that Riddhi Soni is died in MMI Narayana Hospital, Raipur, based upon which, police registered morgue and dead body was sent for postmortem. As per the opinion given in the postmortem report that death of the deceased is not on account of suicide, but it is murder by strangulation, aforementioned crime was registered and applicant was arrested.

¶16

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant has not committed any offence as alleged. It is contended that the opinion mentioned in the postmortem report is not supported by the evidence of the doctor. From the evidence of the Doctor, opinion given by the Doctor in his postmortem report appears to be suspicious. Applicant is in jail since 24.03.2023. There are as many as 33 witnesses out of which only 8 witnesses have been examined till 26.06.2024. There is no other criminal antecedents against applicant and there is no apprehension that the applicant will abscond from the local limits of the Court. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for applicant and would submit that after committing the offence, applicant has confessed before one independent witnesses (P.W.-5), who had supported the case of the prosecution. However, he submits that the submission of learned

¶18

3

¶19

counsel for applicant based on the deposition of the doctor is subject matter of appreciation by the trial Court. He also does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for applicant with regard to witnesses enlisted in the charge-sheet. He submits that there is no criminal antecedents against applicant mentioned in the case diary.

¶20

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

¶21

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, period of pre-trial detention of applicant, submission of learned counsel for the parties that out of 33 enlisted witnesses only 8 witnesses have been examined till June, 2024, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this bail application.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail upon his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court below on the conditions that:-

¶23