Vishal Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 2516 of 2020

1. Vishal Singh S/o Ramesh Bahadur Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o - Quarter No. 6 C, Street 2 Sector 7, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

2. Chandan Patel S/o Nagin Bhai Patel (Wrongly Mentioned As Negi Bhai Patel) Aged About 26 Years R/o - Quarter No. 5 D, Street 2 Sector 7, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

3. Anand Pandey S/o Shailesh Pandey Aged About 26 Years R/o - House Number 14, Street 6, Kohka Bhilai , Tehsil And DistrictDurg, Chhattisgarh.

4. Ramesh Bahadur Singh S/o Late N.B. Singh Aged About 61 Years R/o - Quarter No. 6 C, Street 2 Sector 7, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicants

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O Bhilai Nagar/ajak Durg District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Applicants.

:

Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :

Mr. Sameer Sharma, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 22.05.2020

1. Heard.

2. Admit.

3. The default as pointed out by the Registry is overruled.

4. The accused/applicants have moved this first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing them on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 136/2019 registered at Police Station -Bhilai Nagar/Ajak Durg, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 327, 452, 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(D) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

5. The allegation against the present applicants is that, they have hurled abuses to the complainant by using his cast name i.e. 'Gond' for the purpose of defaming him. Based on that, after investigation, offence has been registered against the applicants and they have been arrested.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. He next submits that applicants are in jail since 19.03.2020 and they are ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the conditions and directions, which may be imposed by this court, therefore, the present applicants may be released on bail.

7. Per contra, State counsel opposes the bail application.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

9. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence, facts and circumstances of the case and further considering that the applicants are in jail since 19.03.2020 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 applicants on bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

10. Accused/applicants are directed to be released on bail on their executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each, with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. They directed to appear before the said Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court.

11. It is made clear that if the applicants have already been released on bail pursuant to the bail bonds 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), they need not furnish bail bonds afresh and the bail bonds already furnished shall be deemed to be the bail bonds furnished in compliance of the order of this Court, but if they have not furnished the bail bonds earlier, then they will be required to furnish bail bonds within four weeks from today.

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Vijay Sahu