Manoj Sahu & ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 342 of 2019

1. Manoj Sahu S/o Shri Budhram Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Khurdur Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. Murli Manohar S/o Manturam Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Khurdur Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicants

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer ,police Station Kota District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For the Applicants :

Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For the State :

Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer For Objector :

Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta Order On Board /02/2019

1. Heard on I.A. No.1/2018.

2. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, counsel for the Objector is permitted to assist the State counsel.

3. This is the first bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC and there is no bail application is pending before any other Court.

4. Perused the case diary provided by the learned counsel for the State in connection with the Crime No.411/2018 registered at Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 34, 120-B, 201 of IPC.

5. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 22/09/2018 at about 5 - 6 a.m. ahead to the railway gate Khurdur dead body of Baliram was found in injured condition. Suspicion was on applicants, co-accused Vinod and Anshu. During the investigation it was found that between complainant party and accused party had inimical relation. Earlier applicants, coaccused Vinod had told to the villagers that complainant party to be finished. The complicity of the applicants has described in the memorandum of co-accused Vinod @ Lalu Sahu, which is not admissible in evidence.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that they are innocent and falsely implicated in the present case, therefore, they shall be released on bail.

7. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application. He further submits that no criminal antecedents against the applicants.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the evidence available on record against the applicants it is ordered that if the applicants furnishes two solvent sureties for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each along with a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court with the condition that they shall appear before the trial Court at 11.00 am as and when directed till trial and they would cooperate during the trial, they shall be released on bail.

9. Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Sharad Kumar Gupta) Judge Kamde