Akram Ansari v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 995 of 2019 Akram Ansari S/o Ishat Ansari Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Gaajar Thana Ramchandpur District Balrampur Chhattisgarh. ----Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Police Station Ganj District Raipur Chhattisgarh-Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Wasim Miyan, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta Order On Board 21.02.2019 1.
This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. preferred by the applicant before this Court and no other bail application is pending before any other Court.
2.
Perused the case diary provided by the counsel for the State in connection with crime No.333/2018 registered at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 392, 34 of Indian Penal Code.
3.
Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 31.10.2018 at about 6:30 a.m. near the Khalsa School, Raipur, co-accused Parmeshwar and three other unknown persons reached there. Co-accused Parmeshwar and three other unknown persons stole Rs.28,000/- and one Adhar Card from the pocket of the complainant Sahat Ram. On the memorandum of the applicant, Rs.1500/- were seized from him.
4.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, therefore, he may be released on bail.
5.
On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application, however, he submits that no criminal antecedent is reported against the applicant in police case diary.
6.
The Test Identification Parade was not conducted regarding the applicant.
7.
The complicity of the applicant has been described in the memorandum of the co-accused Parmeshwar Chandel, Deva Ram Baghel, Sandeep Sahu and on his own memorandum.
8.
As per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, an accused of any
offence gives some information in custody and in consequence thereof, any fact is discovered then such portion of the information is admissible as is distinctly relates to the discovery. Such information may confessional or not. 9.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madhu -v- State of Kerala [(2012) 2 SCC 399] has laid down the following judicial precedent:- "Relevance of confessional statement would depend upon discovery of unknown facts based on information supplied by accused if any fresh facts have been discovered on basis of confessional statement made by accused, the same would be relevant. If not, confessional statement cannot be proved against the detriment of accused."
10.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jitendra Kumar -v- State of Haryana [(2012) 6 SCC 204] (to be taken out from Library) has laid down the following judicial precedent:- "What has been recorded in disclosure statement of accused cannot be taken to be confession of accused in relation to commission of crime but other part by which motorcycle was recovered would be portion admissible in evidence. Admissible part can be safely segregated from inadmissible part in this statement."
11.
Looking to the provision of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and aforesaid judicial precedents, laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhu (supra) and Jitendra Kumar (supra), this Court finds that the information given by an accused through memorandum is admissible in evidence to such extent it relates to the discovery of some incriminating article. 12.
The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur did not consider the aforesaid well settled legal principle though it should have considered this aspect.
13.
Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that there is no likelihood of the accused to abscond and tamper the evidence; and the trial is likely to take some more time for its final disposal, this Court is inclined to give benefit of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that if the applicant furnishes one solvent surety for a sum of Rs.25,000/- along with a personal bond in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court with the condition that he shall appear before the Trial Court at 11:00 am as and when directed till trial and he would co-operate during the trial, he shall be released on bail.
14.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- (Sharad Kumar Gupta) JUDGE