Natwar Singh Gond v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C. No. 1625 of 2020 Shukwar @ Ganjaha, son of Budhram, aged about 45 years, resident of Gumiyabhatha P.S. Urga, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba (C.G.) (not mentioned in the impugned order sheet of the learned court below) ---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through : Station House Officer, Police Station Urga, Distict Korba (C.G.) ----Non-applicant M.Cr.C. No. 1816 of 2020 Natwar Singh Gond, son of Bholaram, aged about 29 years, R/o. Village Baksara, Pantora, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through : the Station House Officer, Police Station Urga, District Korba (C.G.) ----Respondent M.Cr.C. No. 1847 of 2020 Sunil Kumar Yadav, son of Bhaggulal, aged about 21 years, R/o. Village Baksara, Pantora, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through : The Station House Officer, Police Station Urga, District Korba (C.G.) ----Respondent For Applicant : Mr. P.K. Patel, Adv. in M.Cr.C. No. 1625/2020. For Applicants : Mr. Govind Ram Miri, Adv. in M.Cr.C. Nos. 1816/2020 & 1847/2020 For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Devesh Chand Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 15/05/2020 (1) All the bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arise out of a common Crime No. 16/2020, registered at Police Station Urga, District Korba, for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323 & 326/34 of IPC, therefore, they are being heard analogously and decided by this Common Order. (2) Case of the prosecution, in brief is that, present applicant along with other coaccused persons assaulted the complainant with hand & fist and also the Tangia, as a result of which he suffered grievous injuries including fracture, which were sufficient to cause his death.
(3) Learned counsel appearing for the respective applicants submit that applicants have been falsely implicated in the crime in question as they have not committed any offence. They further submit that applicants have been arrested on 19.02.2020 and the trial is likely to take some time for its final disposal and, therefore, applicants may be released on bail.
(4) On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail applicantion. (5) Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence, in particular the the applicants have been arrested on 19.02.2020 and no custodial interrogation is required; this court is of the view that it is a fit case to release the applicants on bail. Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed. (6) Accused/applicants are directed to be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. They are directed to appear before the trial Court on
each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (7) It is made clear that if the applicants have already been released on bail pursuant to the bail bonds already furnished in view of the order passed by the High Power Committee constituted in compliance of the order of the Supreme Court of India dated 23.03.2020 in the matter of In Re : Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in Prisons (Suo Moto Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020), they need not furnish bail bonds afresh and the bail bonds already furnished shall be deemed to be the bail bonds furnished in compliance of the order of this Court, but if they have not furnished the bail bonds earlier, then they will be required to furnish bail bonds within four weeks from today. (8) Certified copy, as per rules.
Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge D/-