High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRC/4189/2020rejected

Parmanand Jamre And ORS. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2020-09-29Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra3 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order reserved on 17-09-2020 Order delivered on 29-09-2020

1. Parmanand Jamre S/o Rupau Jamre Aged About 47 Years,

2. Kuleshwar Thakre S/o Gautariha Thakre Aged About 26 Years,

3. Nandkumar Panche S/o Sukhram Panche Aged About 41 Years,

4. Lokesh Jangde S/o Parmanand Jangde Aged About 25 Years,

5. Noharlal Thakre S/o Ramawatar Thakre Aged About 23 Years,

6. Narsingh Panche S/o Limtariha Panche Aged About 37 Years

7. Mohanlal Panche S/o Guhriram Panche Aged About 48 Years,

8. Jalchand Panche S/o Mohanlal Panche Aged About 20 Years,

9. Bajaru Panche S/o Guhriram Panche Aged About 44 Years All are R/o Village Gongle, Police Station Salhewara, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicants

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police StationSalhewara, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Applicants Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent /State Mr. K.K. Singh, Govt. Advocate

(Proceedings through Video Conferencing) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board

1. Heard.

2. The applicants have preferred this first bail application under Section 439 of CrPC, as they are arrested in connection with Crime No.25/2020, registered at Police Station Salhewara, District Rajnandgaon (CG), for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Present nine applicants have allegedly assaulted Narad Panche (since deceased) at about 11 pm on 10.05.2020.

4. It is argued that names of three applicants i.e., Kuleshwar (applicant No.2), Nandkumar (applicant No.3) and Jalchand (applicant No.8) have not been mentioned in the FIR, therefore, at least these three applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application.

6. Vivek Jamre and Chowa Ram @ Mamraj are the two eye witnesses who have seen the occurrence. In the diary statement these two witnesses have named all the applicants as the persons who assaulted the deceased. Moreover the

deceased had made oral dying declaration to his sister-in-law ( Bhabhi) Parwati Panche and Panchu Panche.

7. Considering the eyewitness account and oral dying declaration made by the deceased to the witnesses, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicants.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. SD/- (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Judge Gowri