Dharmendra Jain v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 2737 of 2020

1. Dharmendra Jain, S/o Shri Trilokchand Jain, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Ward No. 14, Village and Post Surgi, Police Chowki Surgi, Police Station- Basantpur, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

2. Devendra Jain, S/o Shri Trilokchand Jain, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 19, Village and Post Surgi, Police Chowki Surgi, Police Station- Basantpur, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

3. Trilok Chand Jain, S/o Late Dhigarmal Jain, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Ward No. 19, Village and Post Surgi, Police Chowki Surgi, Police Station- Basantpur, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicants

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Station House Officer, Police Station- Basantpur, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Adv.

For Respondent/State : Dr. Veena Nair, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 29.05.2020

1. Heard on admission.

2. Admit.

3. The accused/applicants have moved this first bail application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for releasing them on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 132/2020 registered at Police Station- Basantpur, DistrictRajnandgaon, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of I.P.C.

4. The prosecution story, in brief is that, In the intervening night of 08-09/09/2018, deceased Pawan Kumar Sahu committed suicide

by hanging himself, leaving a note wherein it is alleged that he got married to elder daughter of applicant No. 1 (Dharmendra Jain) in Arya Samaj, but later on both of them were separated by force and he was tortured by the present applicants. Thereafter, offence has been registered against the present applicants.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the applicants are in jail since 06.05.2020, there is no likelihood of their case being decided in near future, therefore, the present applicants may be released on bail.

6. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application and the submission is made in this respect. It is submitted that the allegation against the applicants is of serious in nature, therefore, no case is made out for grant of bail.

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

8. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence, facts and circumstances of the case, and further considering the facts that the applicants are in jail since 06.05.2020 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.

9. 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 local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. They are directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court. 10.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. 11.Certified copy, as per rule.

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Ruchi