Viplav Majumdar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:20984

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 3110 of 2025

¶6

Viplav Majumdar S/o Vijay Majumdar Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- P. V. 67 Satyanagar, Thana And Tahsil- Pakhanjure, District- Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.)

¶7

--- Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pakhanjure District- Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.)

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Govt. Advocate

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶13

Order On Board

¶14

07/05/2025

¶15

Applicant has filed this third bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.123/2023, registered at Police Station – Pakhanjure, District – Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 302, 201, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 01.12.2023 in M.Cr.C. No.7269 of

¶16

BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN

¶17

Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.05.08 16:08:50 +0530

¶18

2

¶19

The second bail application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 18.04.2024 in M.Cr.C. No.2407 of 2024.

¶20

Case of prosecution, in brief, is that husband of deceased Rekha Majumdar, lodged merge intimation that his wife Rekha was found dead on 15.07.2023 behind his house. Based upon merg intimation, FIR was registered for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. against unknown person. During the course of investigation, applicant who is brother in law of deceased was arrested on 16.07.2023.

¶21

Learned counsel for applicant submits that after rejection of second bail application on merits, material witnesses have been examined before the trial Court including memorandum and seizure witnesses and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Applicant is in jail since 16.07.2023 and thereby applicant has completed about more than one year 10 months of pre-trial detention. Hence, applicant may be enlarged on regular bail.

¶22

Learned counsel for State opposes the submission of learned counsel for applicant and would submit that there are specific allegation against applicant of committing the alleged offence. He further submits that submission of learned counsel for applicant based deposition of witnesses is subject matter of appreciation by the trial Court. He however, do not dispute the submission of learned counsel for applicant that memorandum and seizure witnesses have been examined before the trial Court.

¶23

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

¶24

3

¶25

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission of learned counsel for respective parties, period of pre-trial detention of applicant, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this bail application.

¶26

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 following conditions :-

¶27

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶28

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶29

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in

¶30

4

¶31

accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶32

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶33

However, this Court hope and trust that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶34

Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

¶35

Certified copy as per rules.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶38

Balram

Viplav Majumdar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viplav Majumdar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manrakhan Sahu Vs Saraswati Sahu

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Firoz Ansari

Mu. Dudo Bai Vs Baldev Ekka

United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Paras Jain

Laxmi Narayan Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Rahul Namdev Vs State of Chhattisgarh