High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRC/6062/2015allowed

Tekram Jaiswal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2015-11-17Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri3 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 6058 of 2015 • Harinath S/o Late Motiram, aged about 44 Years, R/o Village Bodtara, Chowki Chilfi, P.S. & Tahsil Lormi, Civil Distt. Bilaspur, Rev. Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

• The State of Chhattisgarh through The Station House Officer, Chowki Chilfi, P.S. Lormi, Revenue Distt. Mungeli, Civil Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For the applicant :

Mr. P.P. Sahu, Advocate For the Respondent :

Mr. Anil Pandey, Govt. Advocate MCRC No. 6061 of 2015 • Bodu Jaiswal, S/o Dwarika Jaiswal, aged about 20 Years, R/o Bodtara Kala, Chowki-Chilfi, P.S. And Tehsil Lormi, Civil And Rev. Distt. Bilaspur And Rev. Distt. Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh through Police Of Police Station Lormi, Civil And Rev. Distt. Bilaspur And Rev. Distt. Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For the applicant :

Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent :

Mr. Anil Pandey, Govt. Advocate MCRC No. 6062 of 2015

1. Tekram Jaiswal, S/o Manglu Jaiswal, aged about 50 Years R/o Bodtara Kala, P.S. & Tahsil Lormi, Civil Distt. Bilaspur & Rev. Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

2. Ramkumar Jaiswal S/o Rambhau Jaiswal, aged about 45 Years R/o Bodtara Kala, P.S. & Tahsil Lormi, Civil Distt. Bilaspur & Rev. Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

3. Panchram Jaiswal S/o Manglu Jaiswal aged about 45 Years R/o Bodtara Kala, P.S. & Tahsil Lormi, Civil Distt. Bilaspur & Rev. Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

4. Shyamsingh Jaiswal S/o Itwari Jaiswal aged about 45 Years, R/o Bodtara Kala, P.S. & Tahsil Lormi, Civil Distt. Bilaspur &

Rev. Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

5. Rajkumar Sahu, S/o Holuram Sahu, aged about 40 Years, R/o Bodtara Kala, P.S. & Tahsil Lormi, Civil Distt. Bilaspur & Rev. Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

--- Petitioners

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through Police of P.S. Lormi, Civil Distt. Bilaspur & Rev. Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For the applicants :

Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent :

Mr. Anil Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 17.11.2015

1. These are three bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of regular bail to the applicants in connection with Crime No.362/2013 registered at P.S. Lormi, Distt. Mungeli, Distt. Mungeli (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 186, 427, 353 & 306 of IPC.

2. Since all the bail applications are relating to the same crime number, they are being decided by this common order.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on receiving secret information, the police party entered into the village and raided the place where the offence of gambling was committed and when the police tried to arrest certain persons, the villagers became annoyed and started pelting stones on the police party and caused injuries to them. However, no grievous injuries were reported to be caused to the Policemen.

4. During the course of arguments, learned counsels for the applicants submit that similarly placed co-accused Nandram Jaiswal and Sahdur Jaiswal as also Dinesh Sahu have been granted regular bail in M.Cr.C.No.5508 of 2013 and

M.Cr.C.No. 303 of 2014 respectively and being in parity with the case of co-accused, the present applicants may also be released on bail.

5. Per contra, learned counsel opposes the bail. However, he do not dispute the fact that the above co-accused have been granted bail.

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

7. Considering the material collected on behalf of the prosecution and the period of detention of the applicants and further being in partity with the case of co-accused who have already been granted bail, the present applicants also deserve to be released on bail.

8. Accordingly the applications are allowed and the applicants are directed to be released on bail on each of them furnishing personal bond in sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. They shall appear before the trial Court as and when directed by the said court. In case of two regular defaults, this bail order shall stand cancelled.

9. At the time of accepting bail bonds, the Court concerned shall minutely verify that whether any bail application of the applicants has been decided previously by the High Court or by the Supreme Court and in case the Court finds the previous bail application has been decided, the order shall automatically stands cancelled.

Cc as per rules.

Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE Rao