Pintu Jangde Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The applicant has preferred this 1^st bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime No. 75/2025, registered at Police Station – Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 191(3), 109(1) r/w 190 and 103 r/w 190 of BNS and Sections 25, 27 (1) of the Arms Act.

¶17

In this case, there are total 5 accused persons. As per the prosecution case, on 13.02.2025, the present applicant along with other coaccused abused the employees of Surya Bakery, threatened to kill them and co-accused Krishna Rajput shot Mukhlal Manjhi on his chest, as a result of which Mukhlal Manjhi died and also hit complainant Salman Ansari on the head with a stone. The allegation against the applicant is that he also assaulted Salman Ansari with a stone which

¶18

2

¶19

was seized from him. Subsequently, on report being lodged in this regard, the applicant was arrested on 14.02.2025.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR. There was a contradiction in the statement of the witnesses. Though a seizure of stone has been made from the applicant, but no blood stain has been found on that stone. He has been implicated only on the basis of his memorandum statement. He is in jail since 14.02.2025, out of 36 prosecution witnesses, only 5 have been examined till date and the trial is likely to take some time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶21

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant has assaulted injured Salman with a stone which has been seized from him. This is the matter of eye-witness. Further, the FIR was registered against three persons including two others. The bails of other two accused namely Lalita and Pankaj have already been rejected, therefore, looking to the nature of offence, the applicant may not be released on bail.

¶22

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶23

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence on record against the applicant, the seizure made from him and further considering that the matter is of eye-witnesses, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶24

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶25

However, looking to the detention period of the applicant, the concerned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

¶28

Judge

¶29

-Shubham

Pintu Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs S.K.S. Sisodiya and others

Shri Ram General Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Praffulkumar Verma

Prafulla Kumar Verma Vs Shrichand Verma

Rakesh Prajapati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ganesh Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Pintu @ Lokesh Patel @ Lokeshwar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh