Vinod Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 2987 of 2020
1. Vinod Verma, S/o Late Mohan Lal Verma, Aged about 38 years,
2. Gendram Yadav S/o Maniram Yadav, Aged about 38 years, Both R/o Village Rawan, P.S. Balodabazar, District Balodabazar, Bhatapara (CG) ---- Applicants • Versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Baloabazar, Bhatapara(CG) ---- Respondent For Applicants :
Shri A.S. Rajput, Advocate For Respondent :
Shri Raghvendra Verma, G.A.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 16.6.2020
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. 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. 720/2019, registered at Police Station - Balodabazar, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 435, 341, 394, 34 of the IPC.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant has lodged a report that on 1.12.2019, while he was going to deliver the clinker from Emami Cement Factory to Dagori, at about 8.00 pm, he stopped on the way and went to take
dinner at Bijju Dhaba Risda but after taking dinner he attends the phone call and forget to pay the bill and went away. Thereafter, the applicants chased him and at some distance took him out of the truck and beaten him, looted Rs.400/- and set the engine of truck on fire.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the applicants were demanding the bill amount of dinner and the complainant has deliberately made the act of talking on phone. He further submits that the applicants are in jail since 7/8.5.2020 and trial is likely to take some time for its final disposal, therefore, they may be released on bail.
6. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the nature of allegations against the applicants and yet charge sheet has not been filed and trial is likely to take some time for its final disposal, I am of the opinion that present is a fit case, in which, the applicants should be enlarged on regular bail.
8. Accordingly, the application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
9. It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety each in like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for their appearance before the said Court as and when directed till the disposal of
the trial.
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 23.3.2020 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 rules.
Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge sunita