Aman Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - Santosh Singh S/o Late Kedarnath Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Sankra, Tahsil Sundargad P.S. Town District- Sundargad ( C.G.) ( Wrongly Mentioned Aman Sharma Ors. Before Name Of Applicant And Not Mentioned Late Before Father Name In The Order Sheet )

¶13

... Applicant

¶14

Versus

¶15

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

¶16

	... Non-applicant
	M.Cr.C. No. 5924 of 2024
For Applicant For Non-applicant	: Mr. Adhiraj Surana, Advocate : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General M.Cr.C. No. 5875 of 2024
For Applicant	: Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate
For Non-applicant	: Mr. VinayPandey,Dy. Advocate General
SB	: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Order On Board

03.09.2024

2 / 4

As the above bail applications arise out of the same crime number, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶21

These are the first bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to applicants, who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 788/2023 registered at Police Station Telibandha, District – Raipur (CG) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

¶22

Case of the prosecution is that, applicant was having love affair with one Sweeety Gavli, resident of Delhi, applicant has purchased a flat for her in Delhi. Thereafter, some dispute arose between them and their relations became strained. Co-accused Sunil Kumar came to know that Sweety Gavli has developed relationship with one Sandeep Jain of Raipur, whereupon he contacted applicants for causing death of Sandeep Jain. On 12.12.2023, applicant Aman Sharma went near the house of Sandeep Jain, followed him and near Labhandi he fired at Sandeep Jain from his pistol, which misfired, upon which Sandeep Jain came near to Aman Sharma, caught hold of him, then Aman fired another gun shot which hit on the chest of Sandeep Jain. Co-accused Aman tried to fire more gunshots but Sandeep Jain succeeded in snatching pistol from him and thereafter he caught hold of Aman, called the police and handed over him to police. During investigation, based on memorandum statement of Aman Sharma, applicant Santosh Singh and co-accused Sunil Kumar were also arrested.

¶23

Learned counsel for respective applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the crime. They also

¶24

3 / 4

¶25

submit that total 08 witnesses have been examined before the learned Trial Court which also includes the material witnesses of the case including the complainant. Complainant has refused to identify the applicants. One of the co-accused namely, Sunil Kumar Kedia who is stated to be the main accused and conspirator has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 14.08.2024 in M.Cr.C. No. 5442/2024, case of the applicants is also on similar footing. Applicants are in jail since 20.12.2023, hence, they may be enlarged on bail.

¶26

Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for applicants. However, he do not dispute the submission of the counsel for the applicants that the material witnesses have now been examined including the complainant.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

Taking into consideration, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission of the counsel for the respective parties and further considering that one of the accused Sunil Kumar Kedia alleged to have hatched the conspiracy of committing offence, submission of counsel for applicant based on deposition of witnesses, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow these bail applications.

¶29

Accordingly, the bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are allowed and it is directed that applicants shall be released on bail upon each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to satisfaction of Trial Court concerned on the conditions that:

¶30