Shani @ Sani Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 4324 of 2016 • Shani @ Sani Kumar S/O Jugal Kishor Sooryavanshi Aged About 20 Years R/O Naya Talab, Mopka, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil & District (Revenue & Civil) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sarkanda, District (Revenue & Civil) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :

Mr. Sumit Jhawar, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Mr. Vivek Singhal, Panel Lawyer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 08-08-2016

1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 14-05-2016 in connection with Crime No. 156 of 2015, registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilspur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380/34 of the IPC.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27-4-2015 a report was made by the complainant that on 26-4-2015 he went out to his native place Shivdongar Balod after locking the door and when he came back to his house, he saw that the lock of the door was broken and some goods were found to be stolen including silver ornaments and on investigation the stolen goods were recovered from the possession of the applicant which were identified by the complainant.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not committed any offence. He would further submit that the charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant is in jail since 14-5-2016 and no further investigation is required, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel oppossing the bail application would submit that apart from this case, as many as four cases like in similar nature are in the credit of the applicant, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary and documents.

6. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstnces of the case, nature and gravity of the offence and further considering the recovery made from the present applicant and past antecedents of the applicant, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

7. Accordingly the application filed uder Section 438 oftheCr.p.C., is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Raju