Chandrabhushan Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 7294 of 2015 • Chandra Prakash @ Krishna Ratre S/o Late Puniram Ratre Aged About 27 Years R/o Rakshapali, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
--- Petitioner
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent MCRC No. 7737 of 2015 • Harishchandra Bareth S/o Babulal Bareth @ Baburam Aged About 29 Years (Not Mentioned Impugned Order), R/o Purunga, Police Station Chhal, Tahsil - Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
--- Petitioner
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent MCRC No. 7743 of 2015 • Parvej Khan S/o Imtiyaj Khan Aged About 21 Years R/o Chhatamuda, Chowki Jutemil, P.S. Kotwali, Raigarh, Distriat Raigarh Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Gharghoda, District : Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent MCRC No. 7780 of 2015 • Chandrabhushan Singh S/o Brijesh Singh Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Kurubhantha, Tahsil Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
--- Petitioner
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For the applicants :
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent :
Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 18.01.2016
1. These are four bail applications filed filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of regular bail to the applicants in connection with Crime No. 186/2015 registered at P.S. Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 379/34 IPC.
2. Since all these four bail applications are relating to same crime number, they are being decided by this common order.
3. As per the prosecution, on 08.07.2015, a report was lodged by the complainant Tapan Mandal of T.R.N. Power Plant Project that some cable wires were stolen from the plant. The applicants who were unloading the cable wire were caught hold of and were asked to produce the documents but it was not produced. Subsequently it was found that the applicants with the help of other co-accused have stolen the cable wire and thereby committed offence.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and there is no evidence available against them. He further submits that the bail applications of similarly placed co-accused Abhay Singh, Vikram Dewangan, Niranjan Singh have been allowed by this Court vide order dated 02.12.2015 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos. 6456, 6588 & 6614 of 2015 respectively and the case of the present applicants are not different from that of those persons who have been enlarged on bail. He further submits that the charge sheet in this case has been filed and applicant Chandra Prakash @ Krishna Ratre is in jail since 08.07.2015 and the other applicants are in jail 12.07.2015 and for all these reasons, they may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. However, after verification he do not dispute the fact that similarly placed co-accused have been enlarged on bail by this Court.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, further taking into the nature and gravity of the offence, charge sheet has been filed and looking to the pre-trial detention of the applicants as also the fact that similarly placed co-accused have been granted bail by this Court, I am inclined to release the applicants on bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed and the applicants are directed to be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. They shall also appear before the trial Court as and when directed by the said Court.
8. C.c. as per rules.
Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE Rao