Suraj Kumar Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 1826 of 2020 • Suraj Kumar Singh, S/o Satyanarayan Singh, aged about 22 years, R/o village Semaria, P.S. Marha, District Singrauli, Madhya Pradesh.

---- Applicant

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Police Station - AJAK, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant.

:

Shri Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate.

For Respondent. :

Shri Siddharth Dubey, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board /06/2020 1.

The applicant has filed this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail as he is in custody since 25.01.2020 in connection with Crime No.01/2020 registered at Police Station : AJAK, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 370, 374 IPC and Sections 3(1)(i) and 3 (2)(5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act.

2.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 21.12.2019 the son of complainant Surajbali Singh along with Indrapal Singh and Sonu Basor were enticed by the applicant and other coaccused and took away them to Hyderabad for labour work for bridge construction. On 13.01.2020, the loaded tractor was overturned in which the son of complainant sustained injuries and died at the spot. Based on this offence has been registered. The applicant has been taken into custody on 25.01.2020.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He also submits that the report has been lodged by father of Surajbali Singh after his death and before that no complaint has been made by father of deceased Surajbali Singh. There is delay in lodging the report and no satisfactory explanation has been offered by the complainant. It is next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 25.01.2020, there is no likelihood of his case being decided in near future and, therefore, he may be released on bail.

4.

On the other hand, State counsel opposing the bail application submits that the present is a case of human trafÏcking where minor children were taken for labour work. 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of offence and further considering the present situation of human trafÏcking, at this stage, I am not inclined to release him on bail.

7.

Accordingly, his application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected.

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Pekde