Bablu Kumar Sonwani @ Ramnath v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Page No.1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.CR.C. No. 86 of 2016

1. Bablu Kumar Sonwani @ Ramnath, S/o. Late Rajaram, aged about 25 years, By Caste- Ghasiya, R/o. Near Mahamaya Temple, Ambikapur, P.S. & Tahsil- Ambikapur, District - Sarguja (C.G.) ----Applicant

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House Officer, Police Station - Kotwali, Ambikapur, District - Sarguja (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 20/01/2016 1.

This is the first bail application 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.360/2015, registered at Police Station - Kotwali, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 302, 397, 460, 411, 201, 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.07.2015 at about 10.00 pm, the applicant alongwith other co-accused to commit theft entered into the house of one Niro and they were taking away the TV at that time Niro caught hold and thereafter, the applicant caused blow on his head and the accused Nikki Khan assaulted by rod due to which Niro died and thereafter, the accused persons stolen the TV and cash of Rs.500/-. Subsequently investigation was made and the applicant was arrested and on his memorandum TV was seized from the house of one Chhotu Chaudhari, to whom the TV was sold.

Page No.2 3.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. She would further submit that the applicant has been arrested only on the basis of presumption and there is no eye-witness in this case. She would further submit that by seizure of the amount, the applicant can not be connected with the crime. She would further submit that the applicant is in jail since 26.09.2015 and the charge-sheet in this case has been filed, therefore, the counsel prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.

5.

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

6.

Perused the case diary and the charge-sheet. Perusal of the chargesheet shows that at the instance of the co-accused one mobile was seized and from the house of the Chhotu Chaudhari, TV was seized, which was stated to be stolen. Considering the recovery so made on the basis of memorandum, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

7.

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

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Balram