Santosh Yadav @ Kalu v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 2091 of 2020 • Santosh Yadav @ Kalu S/o Vishnu Yadav aged about 48 years, R/o Jawahar Nagar, Housing Board Colony Bhilai, P.S. Chhawni, Tahsil and District-Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : P.S. Civil Line Raipur, DistricRaipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant :
Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Adv.
For Respondent/State :
Mr. Raghvendra Verma, G.A.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 16/06/2020
1. The accused/applicant has moved this first bail application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 515/2019 registered at Police Station Civil Line Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 379, 34 of the IPC.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that, complainant Parmeshwar Naik lodged a complaint that on 05.09.2019 when his father-in-law as his wife after finishing the work from the registrar ofÏce they were heading from Khajana Chowk to Ghadi Chowk for their residence Santoshi Nagar, then an auto Driver set up them for Santoshi Nagar and went a little for and threw them from auto on the way, telling them that the auto have some problem. It is alleged that when the father-in-law of the complainant it was found that Rs. 50,000/- had been stolen from his pocket. Based on this offence has been registered against the present applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in
question. He further submits that nothing has been seized from the applicant and the applicant is in jail since 09.01.2020, there is no likelihood of his case being decided in near future, therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the allegation against the applicant is of serious in nature; therefore, no case is made out for grant of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence, facts and circumstances of the case, detention period of applicant and further considering that the applicant is in jail since 09.01.2020, and the trial is likely to take some time for its final disposal, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
7. Accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. He is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court.
8. It is made clear that if the applicant has already been released on bail pursuant to the bail bond 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), he need not furnish bail bond afresh and the bail bond already furnished shall be deemed to be the bail bond furnished in compliance of the order of this Court, but if he has not furnished the bail bond earlier, then he will be required to furnish bail bond within four weeks from today. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge H.L. Sahu