Bheem Lakra @ Jaylal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 2352 of 2021 • Bheem Lakra @ Jaylal S/o Shanichra Lakra Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Tharki, Police Station- Rajpur, DistrictBalrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- Station House Officer, Police Station-Pasta, Chowki-Davra, District-Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Applicant :

Mr. D. N. Prajapati, Adv.

For Respondent/State :

Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 31/05/2021 The matter is heard through video conferencing. Heard.

Admit.

1. The accused/applicant has moved this second bail application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 47/2017 registered at Police Station - Pasta, Chowki-Davra, District-Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 450, 302, 307, 323, 120-B, 396, 511 of the IPC and 25, 27 of Arms Act.

2. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed by this Court on 20.12.2019 in MCRC No. 7075/2019.

3. The prosecution story, in brief is that on 28-29.07.2017 the present applicant along with other co-accused persons forced their entry into the house of Lakhan Yadav with intention to commit robbery and one of them fired riffle shot fatally injuring Sanjay Yadav who later died. Thereafter, the offence has been registered against the present applicant and other

co-accused persons. Present applicant has been taken into custody on 01.08.2017

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that no incriminating article or any weapon has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant. He next submits that the applicant is in jail since 01.08.2017, there is no likelihood of his case being decided in near future, therefore, the present appellant may be released on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the bail application and submits that there is clear evidence against the present applicant showing his involvement in the case. Thus, it is not a fit case where applicant may be release on bail.

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

7.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of offence, and further considering the quality of evidence in question, at this stage, I am not inclined to release him on bail.

8. Accordingly, his application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Vacation Judge H.L. Sahu