High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRC/2310/2019allowed

Vikky Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-05-03Hon'Ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 2310 of 2019 • Vikky Pandey S/o Gopal Pandey Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Sakri, Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent ________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Shri Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Smt. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board 03/05/2019

1. The applicant has preferred this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime No. 163/2018, registered at Police Station - Sakri, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 294, 323, 506, 307 & 436 of the IPC and Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.

2. First bail was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh after six months vide order dated 26.09.2018 passed in MCRC No. 6262/2018.

3. As per prosecution story, allegations against the applicant is that due to some previous dispute, on the date of incident, he caused injury to one Bajrang Sharma with a knife and poured petrol in the main door and lit fire in the house of complainant with intent to cause harm in limb and life of family members of the

complainant. On the basis of report made by the complainant, offence has been registered against the applicant and he has been taken in custody on 30.05.2018.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case due to some previous dispute. He further submits that the applicant is in custody since 30.05.2018, charge-sheet has been filed and trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, he may be released on bail.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case diary with due care.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence collected by the prosecution and further considering the fact that the applicant is in custody since 30.05.2018, chargesheet has already been filed and trial is likely to take some time, without further commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to release him on bail.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

9. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed.

Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Shubham