Sanjay Minj v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Page No.1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 743 of 2018 • Sanjay Minj S/o Late Shri Ramkhelawan Minj @ Ramkhilawan Minj Aged About 26 Years R/o Near Saraswati Shishu Mandir School, Ward No. 10 Imalipara, Balrampur Police Station Balrampur District Balrampur Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Ramanujganj District Balrampur Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent __________________________________________________________ For Applicant :

Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :

Mr. Ashok Swarnkar, Panel Lawyer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board 16/04/2018

1. This is the second bail application of this applicant. The first bail application of this applicant has been decided on 28.11.2017 in MCRC No.3650/2017 and rejected on merits. This bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.126/2016, registered at Police StationRamanujganj, Civil District-Sarguja, Revenue District - Balrampur(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 394 & 398 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that trial of this applicant is

Page No.2 getting delayed, out of 20 witnesses listed in the prosecution case only 6 have been examined so far. This applicant is in jail since 29.12.2016, hence looking to the delay in conclusion of trial, it is prayed that applicant be enlarged on regular bail.

3. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submissions made in this respect. It is submitted that no case is made out for grant of bail.

4. Heard both the parties and perused the case diary.

5. The previous bail application decided just about 4 months prior to this application. According to the counsel for State, only the formal witnesses are remaining to be examined in this case, the case is not likely to take more time for its conclusion, hence, looking to this fact that this application has been brought soon after the rejection the earlier application and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial of the case in near future, for this reason, I am of this opinion that this is not a fit case for grant of bail.

6. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is rejected.

7. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial in the case against the applicant and to decide it as soon as possible. Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Nisha