Jitendra Kumar @ Bhupendra Sahu, v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 2543 of 2019 Jitendra Kumar @ Bhupendra Sahu, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Jhajhpuri Kala, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh .

---- Applicant

Versus

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Lormi District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent Along with MCRC No. 2614 of 2019 Bhavani Sahu S/o Ramnihora Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Jhajhpuri Kala, P.S. Lormi, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Lormi, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For the Applicant :

Shri Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate in MCRC No.

2543/2019 and Shri Samir Singh, Advocate in MCRC No. 2614/2019 For the State :

Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta Order On Board /04/2019 1.

Above mentioned bail applications arise out of a common Crime No. 123/2019 registered at Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli for the offence punishable under Sections 294/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(n) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, therefore, they are being heard analogously and decided by this common order. Both bail applications filed under Section 439 of CrPC.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that complainants Sajjan Kumr Anchal and Govind Anchal are resident of village Jhajhapuri. They are the member of Scheduled Caste. On 21/03/2019 at about 8 a.m. near the Community Hall applicants abused complainants on caste basis and

pelted stone on the roof of house of complainants.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that they are innocent and falsely implicated in the present case, therefore, they shall be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application. He further submits that no criminal antecedents against the applicants.

5. Looking to the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the fact that there is no likelihood of the accused to abscond and tamper the evidence, it is directed that if the applicants furnishes one solvent surety for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each along with a personal bond in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court with the condition that they shall appear before the trial Court at 11.00 am as and when directed till trial and they would cooperate during the trial, they shall be released on bail.

6. Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Sharad Kumar Gupta) Judge Kamde