Ramesh Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested on 12.06.2024 in connection with Crime No. 384/2024, registered at Police Station City Kotwali Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 147, 148, 149, 186, 353, 332, 435, 427, 307, 440 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (PDPPA), 1984 & Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act.

¶16

Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH YADAV YADAV Date: 2024.12.10 17:35:08 +0530

¶17

2 / 10

¶18

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the present complainant who is working as In-charge Superintendent in Zila Panchayat Balodabazar has submitted a written complaint alleging that some persons belonging to Satnami Samaj has committed incident of assault, vandalism and arson on 10.06.2024. Further case of the prosecution is that alleged members of Satnami Samaj have surrounded the Collectorate and the Superintendent of Police's office and in the afternoon the Kotwar has informed that around 50-60 persons in a planned manner having clubs in their hand jumped from the boundary of the residential colony of P.W.D. and started pelting stones on the Panchayat Office. Seeing the incident of pelting stones, he closed the channel gate and rushed to the office, thereafter, he has seen that the miscreants have caused fire to the car standing at Bus stand near to their office and thereater they have also caused damage to the Government vehicle No. CG-02-9555 and thereafter they also broke the glass installed at MIS room causing loss to the Government property. It is also the case of the prosecution that these miscreants can be identified from the video made by the media persons and can also be identified by the police persons who have made an attempt to catch them. This incident can be seen from the CCTV footage also. Later on, the number of these miscreants have increased to 500-600 in number. Thereafter, they have also assaulted police personnel who were rescued with difficulty. On the basis of the said complaint, offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 186,353, 332, 435, 427, 120B IPC 03, 04 Public

¶19

3 / 10

¶20

Property Damage Prevention Act 1984 were registered against them.

¶21

This Court vide order dated 13.11.2024 has directed the State to file affidavit explaining how much loss to the public exchequer has been caused by the action of the accused persons and on 19.11.2024 has also directed to the State to produce the video of procession to demonstrate how many persons assembled on the spot. This Court has also directed the In-charge Cyber Cell Baloda Bazar to appear and explain the factual matrix. In pursuance of direction the State has filed affidavit of Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali wherein he has stated in paragraph 5 of the affidavit as under :-

¶22

“5. It is most humbly submitted that in the instant crime, the damage of Government and public property that were made by the accused, the estimated amount is 4,03,950/-. Copy of photographs related to the concerned damages of properties are filed herewith as Annexure D-1. It is further submitted that overall damages in that concerned crime in 13 FIRs, is estimated 10,21,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Crores Twenty One Lakhs).”

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated only because he is a member of Satnami caste and the applicant has been arrested only on grounds of suspicion since the FIR was lodged against unknown offenders. Memorandum statement of applicant was recorded and seizure of stones and a stick have been shown in the challan against the present applicant. However, no seizure has been actually made from the present applicant and entire matter is cooked up. No documents or evidence has been placed in final report to show that the present applicant was actively participating in committing the alleged crime.

¶24

4 / 10

¶25

He would further submit that there is no direct and substantial evidence against the present applicant in the entire charge-sheet. The incident took place on 10.06.2024 and the applicant was arrested on 12.06.2024. however, the memo of arrest shows applicant being arrested on 13.06.2024. He would further submit that the TIP has been done in violation of the norms required under the law for identification parade as such, involvement of the applicant for the aforesaid offence is illegal. He would further submit that from the basis of materials so collected by the prosecution under Section 307 of the IPC cannot be made out. He would further submit that except this section, all the sections are triable by the Magistrate. The medical document itself suggests that the injuries inflicted were not grievous as per the medical documents annnexed with charge sheet. He would further submit that the only incriminating documents available against the present applicant are: i. Seizure memo, ii. Test Identification Parade (hereinafter referred as “TIP”) and he would submit that both the above documents are apparently faulty in itself. To substantiate his submission he would refer to the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shivmani and Anr. Vs State reported in (2023) INSC 1027 . He would further submit that nature and gravity of offence alone cannot be the sole ground for rejection of bail. To substantiate this submission he has referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Dharmraj {SLP (Crl) NO. 2256/2022 dated 29.08.2023}.

¶26

He would further submit that to establish criminal conspiracy the prosecution should prove that there is meeting of minds between the

¶27

5 / 10

¶28

persons. He would further submit that it is essential to establish that there was some common object to be achieved and there was meeting of minds. For this submission he has referred to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT Vs. Nalini & Other { (1999) 5 SCC 253}. He would further submit that pretrial detention of present applicant would only amount to harassment.

¶29

He would further submit that applicant is a old age person having no criminal antecedent and a retired public servant, no chance of absconding, no chance of influencing the witnesses, no political affiliation. Lastly he would submit that the investigation has been completed, charge-sheet has been filed and he is in jail since last 5 months, thus he would pray for allowing the bail petition.

¶30

On the other hand learned State counsel vehemently objected the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant would submit that after registration of the FIR sufficient material has been collected by the prosecution and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. He would further submit that the applicant has been identified by the complainant and the mobile record of the applicant also suggest his presence at the place of occurrence, Thus, he would submit that there was involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime, therefore, he would pray for rejection of the bail.

¶31

Learned State counsel would submit that the present case relates to the large scale violence and fire incident which took place in the Balodabazar- Bhatapara district and it is a rare occurrence of such a

¶32

6 / 10

¶33

large scale of violence in the State of Chhattisgarh which has caused damage of Government and public property to an estimated amount is 4,03,950/-. He would further submit that in all 13 FIRs have been registered by the incident committed by the same mob at different places at Baloda Bazar District which is not a big district, is estimated to Rs.10,21,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Crores Twenty One Lakhs).

¶34

He would further submit that the accused persons have acted in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy and have committed the offence of rioting, used criminal force, assaulted the public servants to prohibit them from discharging their duties, by obstructing the public way they have caused wrongful confinement, caused damages to the property, set fire the buildings and vehicles, and attacked the Police Officers.

¶35

He would further submit that after registration of the F.I.R., the coaccused persons of the case; namely Tejram Banjare, Ramesh Jangde, Vikas Bande were arrested and they have specifically mentioned in their memorandum statement recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, that the present applicant namely Ramesh Banjare was involved in the incident and he has also caused damage and vandalism during the incident. The applicant in his memorandum statement has admitted his presence during the incident alongwith other co-accused persons and on the basis of his memorandum statement, pieces of stones, bamboo pieces were recovered from the present applicant. During the incident the Police Officer has also received injuries.

¶36

7 / 10

¶37

He would further submit that the serious allegations have been leveled regarding the involvement of the present applicant in the violence and agitation which ultimately resulted in destruction of Public Property and public building at a large scale; wherein at the Collectorate building more than 257 vehicles have been burnt up, including the vehicles owned by Government officers, 3 fire extinguisher vehicles and many vehicles belonging to general public have also been burnt during the incident. It would be pertinent to mention here that the vehicles of one of the judicial officer of the Family Court has also been burnt for which a different F.I.R. has been registered. Looking to the nature and gravity of the offence which resulted in destroying the peace & rule of law of the entire State as well as the role of the applicant in provoking the riots and the role in causing damage to the public property, his bail application may kindly be rejected.

¶38

I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the diary and also seen the video clippings which have been produced by the Investigating Officer in pursuance of the direction given by this Court.

¶39

From the case diary, it is quite vivid that the prosecution has collected material against the present applicant because of his location position of his mobile number as traced out by the cyber crime. The applicant after arrest has given his memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act wherein he has admitted his presence and has also narrated the incidents taken place at Baloda Bazar. The club and stones have been seized as per his memorandum statement. The manner in which offence has been

¶40

8 / 10

¶41

committed causing not only public property by damaging the Government building, setting the Government vehicles and Fire Services on fire and also setting the vehicles of common people on fire causing huge loss at public at large. In the diary, photographs of the burnt vehicles and damaged property have also been annexed. Due to the illegal act committed by the applicant along with the other persons the peace and tranquility of the Baloda Bazar district is jeopardized. The applicant along with other accused has not only caused loss to the property but also the records kept in office of Tahsil which may cause difficulty to the persons whose properties rights documents have been burnt in the fire. The Photographs annexed with the diary shows that the accused persons have put the white flag on the place which was reserved for National Flag at Collectorate office it clearly shows that their action is against the nation and its sovereignty.

¶42

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) and Another {2021 (6) SCC 230} has held in paragraph 23 as under :-

¶43

The principles governing the grant of bail were reiterated by a two judge Bench in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496:

¶44

“9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other

¶45

9 / 10

¶46

circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

¶47

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

¶48

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

¶49

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

¶50

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

¶51

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

¶52

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

¶53

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

¶54

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

¶55

“10. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it to be illegal...”

¶56

The considerations which must weigh with the Court in granting bail have been formulated in the decisions of this Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh13 and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee14(noted earlier). These decisions as well as the decision in Sanjay Chandra (supra) were adverted to in a recent decision of a two judge Bench of this Court dated 19 March 2021 in The State of Kerala v. Mahesh15 where the Court observed:

¶57

“22…All the relevant factors have to be weighed by the Court considering an application for bail, including the gravity of the offence, the evidence and material which prima facie show the involvement of applicant for bail in the offence alleged, the extent of involvement of the applicant for bail, in the offence alleged, possibility of the applicant accused absconding or otherwise defeating or delaying the course of justice, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being threatened or influenced or of evidence being tempered with, and danger to the safety of the victim (if alive), the complainant, their relatives, friends or other witnesses….” Similarly, the Court held that the grant of bail by the High Court can be set aside, consistent with the precedents we have discussed above, when such grant is based on non-application of mind or is innocent of the relevant factors for such grant.

¶58

10 / 10

¶59

Even otherwise the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant questioning the TIP, quality of the material collected by the prosecution regarding conspiracy, gravity of injury to the victims are his defence which require thread-baring analysis of evidence which can be done by the trial Court only after recording of the evidence. Thus, considering the law laid in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod (supra) and also looking to the gravity of the offence and manner in which the offence has been committed, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

¶60

Accordingly, present bail application sans merit is rejected.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶63

Manish

Ramesh Banjare v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Banjare v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saroj Chandrakar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Arvindra Bandhe Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nikku Rajwade Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Baliram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Kumar Sonwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Barmaram Korram Vs the State of Chhattisgarh