Allowed

Takendra Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Feb 2024MCRC/500/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First bail applications by eight accused in a murder case involving communal forces. The court considered the lateness of prosecution witness statements and relied on similar precedents. The court allowed bail requiring a personal bond with conditions against tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail for Rs. 25,000/- with one surety, upon furnishing a personal bond and adhering to conditions of regular appearance and no tampering with witnesses.

Takendra Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 500 of 2024

¶5

1- Takendra Sahu S/o Paras Ram Sahu Aged About 22 Years

¶6

2- Lokesh Sahu S/o Chaturram Sahu Aged About 23 Years

¶7

3- Varun Sahu S/o Ramkumar Sahu Aged About 19 Years

¶8

No.1 to 3 all are R/o Village Kongiyakhurd, P.S. Parpodi, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶9

4- Homendra Netam S/o Neelkanth Netam Aged About 25 Years

¶10

5- Chandan Sahu S/o Dev Kumar Sahu Aged About 20 Years

¶11

6- Chintaram Sahu S/o Birjhu Sahu Aged About 68 Years

¶12

No. 4 to 6 all are R/o Village - Korvay, Tehsil - Saja, P.S. - Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶13

7- Ram Nishad S/o Hiresh Nishad Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Kongiyakhurd, P.S. Parpodi, Tahsil-Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶14

------Applicants

¶15

VERSUS

¶16

1- State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶17

------- Non-applicants

¶18

AND

¶19

MCRC No. 504 of 2024

¶20

1- Dakeshwar Sinha @ Hariom S/o Gautam Sinha Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Chechanmeta Biranpur, P.S. Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶21

2- Manish Verma S/o Nand Kumar Verma Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Khairi, P.S. Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.),

¶22

3- Samaru Netam S/o Jethuram Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Korvay, P.S. Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶23

4- Puran Patel S/o Khem Kumar Patel Aged About 20 Years

¶24

5- Rajkumar Nishad S/o Sanjay Nishad Aged About 20 Years

¶25

6- Bhola Nishad S/o Shravan Nishad Aged About 23 Years No.4 to 6 all are R/o Village Padmi, P.S. And District Bemetara

¶26

(C.G.)

¶27

7- Dudhnath Sahu S/o Kamal Sahu Aged About 27 Years,

¶28

8- Arun Rajak S/o Manharan Rajak Aged About 18 Years

¶29

¶30

No.7 and 8 R/o Village Pendarwani, P.S. Gandai, District K.C.G. (C.G.)

¶31

---- Applicants

¶32

Versus

¶33

1- State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Saja, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶34

---- Respondent

¶35

For applicants : Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, Advocat For Non-applicants-State: Ms. Supriva Upasne, Govt. Advocate

¶36

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶37

ORDER ON BOARD

¶38

07/02/2024

¶39

These are the first bail applications filed by the applicants under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 92/2023 registered at Police Station – Saja, District – Bemetara, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 109, 302, 201 and 153 (A) of I.P.C.

¶40

Case of the prosecution is that, on 11.04.2023 at about 09:00 A.M., the Village Kotwar of Village Pipariya reported to police authorities about lying of 02 dead bodies near Murum Khadan, Chechanmeta, Village Biranpur. Based on the report, morgue was registered and thereafter, F.I.R. was also lodged on the same date. During course of investigation, police authorities came to know that due to the murder of one boy of Hindu Community, there was a dispute between the two sects of community and there was agitation at Pipariya Chowk, Village Biranpur. During investigation, C.C.T.V. Footage was also

¶41

¶42

collected by the police authorities, in which, accused persons in the said agitation were found present. Based upon which, the 08 accused persons were interrogated and based on their memorandum statement as well as on the basis of C.C.T.V. Footage accused persons were arrested.

¶43

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the instant case without there being any material evidence available. Applicants have been made accused only on the basis of CCTV Footage of Pipariya Chowk, Village – Biranpur, where applicants were found present at the spot where the crowd was making agitation against murder of one Hindu boy. Merely presence of applicants in crowd would not make applicants as part of the persons who have allegedly committed the murder of late Rahim @ Munnu and Idul Mohammad. Initially police projected Neelkanth @ Nilu Sahu and Jagdish to be eye-witnesses to the incident and after about two months i.e. 24.06.2023, statement U/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. of five persons namely Md. Jafir, Ishuk Khan, Armaan Mohammad, Kalim Khan and Azharuddin were recorded. Statement of aforementioned witnesses are suspicious. The eye-witnesses namely Neelkanth @ Nilu Sahu and Jagdish have now been examined and they have not supported the case of prosecution. Identically situated two accused persons namely Rajesh Sahu and Ajay Sahu have been enlarged on bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.6512 of 2023 vide order dated 06.12.2023, hence, applicants may also be enlarged on regular bail.

¶44

¶45

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants and would submit that FIR was registered based on the intimation made by village Kotwar stating that two bodies are lying at particular place. During the course of investigation, CCTV Footage was collected and statement of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded including statement of aforementioned five persons. On putting specific query with regard to the date of incident and the date of recording statement of five persons as mentioned above, learned State counsel upon going through the case diary submits that date of incident is 11.04.2023 and statement is recorded on 24.06.2023.

¶46

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and their submission placed on record.

¶47

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations material available in the case diary, submission of learned counsel for applicants that witnesses Neelkant @ Nilu Sahu and Jagdish have not supported the case of the prosecution, further the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of five persons as mentioned above were recorded after more than two months of the date of incident, without commenting anything on the merits of the case I am inclined to allow both these applications for grant of bail.

¶48

Accordingly, both the bail applications filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of

¶49

¶50

Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to satisfaction of Trial Court concerned on the conditions that:

¶51

(i) Applicants shall appear before the Trial Court concerned regularly on each and every date unless exempted from appearance.

¶52

(ii) Applicants shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶53

(iii) If applicants is found involved in similar offence in future, it will be open for the State to apply for cancellation of bail.

¶54

Certified copy as per rules.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶57

Balram

Takendra Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Takendra 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aakeshwar Yadav @ Aakheshwar Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Amrit Lal Madhukar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shankar Jagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suraj @ Rahul Malar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dakeshwar Sinha @ Hariom Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deepak Suryawanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh