Santosh Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3670 of 2015 1.

Santosh Singh, Son of Baijnath Singh, aged about 38 years, resident of Village Charwada (Bihar).

2.

Ashok Choudhary, Son of Yakshiyan Choudhary, aged about 45 years, resident of Village Chandbigha (Bihar). 3.

Dhananjay Gupta, Son of Sudesh Gupta, aged about 30 years, resident of Village Churiya, District Rohtas (Bihar) 4.

Vipin Singh, son of Chandradeep Singh, aged about 50 years, resident of Village Dutubigwa, Post-Dev, District Aurangabad (Bihar) 5.

Jayant Singh, son of Amerika Singh, aged about 35 years, resident of Village Sattar, District Aurangabad (Bihar) 6.

Teman Lal Sahu, son of Nammu Lal Sahu, aged about 40 years, resident of Village Bhendarwani, Police Station Bhakhara, District Dhamtari (C.G.).

---- Applicants

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicants :

Shri Vikash Pradhan, Advocate For Non-applicant :

Ms. Anusuiya Rajput, Panel Lawyer for the State.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 17/07/2015 Heard on admission.

(1) This is the third bail application filed under Section 439 of the

Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicants, who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.34/2015 registered at Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. (2) The first bail application of the applicants was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive the same after material prosecution witnesses are examined by order of this Court dated 15.04.2015 passed in M.Cr.C. No.1126/2015 and the second bail application of the applicants was dismissed as withdrawn by order of this Court dated 13.05.2015 passed in M.Cr.C. No.2373/2015.

(3) Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case and the applicants are in jail since 08.02.2015 and, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.

(4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.

(5) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case; and further considering the statement of the prosecution witnesses, I do not find any new or good ground to entertain the third bail application, therefore, the third bail application is rejected. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of 45 days from today.

Certified copy, as per rules.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-