Ratna Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 5648 of 2016 • Ratna Verma W/o Malikram Verma Aged About 33 Years R/o Nayapara, Near Durga Mandir Chouk Sirgiti, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

--- Applicant

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Belha, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent For the applicant :

Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate For the Respondent :

Mr. Neeraj Jain, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 26.09.2016

1. This is first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 111 of 2016 registered at P.S. Belha, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 307, 34, 120(B), 201, 414 IPC read with Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.

2. As per the prosecution case, one Govind Singh, Assist Manager of Central Bank lodged a report that on 03.05.2016 while he was going on motorcycle along-with clerk Mohan Marai to deposit the amount in Bank, on the way, some of the persons looted the cash amount of Rs.8 lakhs and fired Pistol thereby the complainant received gun-shot injury on his thigh and admitted in hospital. On investigation it was found that the applicant who is the wife of accused Malikram tried to cause disappearance of evidence by hiding the looted cash given by her husband and she has been arrested.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the charge has been framed against the applicant only for the offence u/s 201 of IPC and no further investigation is necessary. He placed on record the charge framed against the applicant and would submit that in view of this fact, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail. However, he do not dispute the fact that only for the offence u/s 201 IPC the charge has been framed against the applicant.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the degree of allegations against the applicant and as per the charge framed by the trial Court the applicant was accused of offence only u/s 201 IPC for causing disappearance of evidence being the wife of main accused and further looking to the detention period of the applicant as she is stated to be in jail since 16.05.2016, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.

6. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on her executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. She will also appear before the trial Court as and when directed by the said Court.

C.c. as per rules.

Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE R a o