Ramjeev Singh & ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 5441 of 2020

1. Ramjeev Singh & Anr. S/o Jaimangal Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o Annpara, Police Station Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.

2. Sanjay Kumar Pando S/o Naku Pando Aged About 35 Years R/o Annpara, Police Station Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicants

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent ___________________________________________________________________ For Applicants :

Shri Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate For State :

Shri Dinesh Tiwari, Dy.G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 29/10/2020

1. Heard on application for grant of bail.

2. The applicants have been arrested on 10.03.2020, on the allegation of having committed offence under Sections 302, 201, 34, 449 of I.P.C. They moved this application for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 10/2020 registered at Police Station- Ramchandrapur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.).

3. Prosecution case is that the applicants and other co-accused person have murdered the deceased namely Phoolkunwar.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that the applicants are falsely implicated, they were not involved in the said offence. There was no eye witness account to the incident. The so called eye witness Indravati has not seen the incident except initial stage of quarrel. As per her statement, she was sitting together alongwith the deceased and the present applicants and they were consuming liquor. At that time, some pity quarrel took place, thereafter, Indravati left their company and went away, therefore, it is not known as to

who killed the deceased.

5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the statement of the eye witness Indravati shows that while she was sitting along with them and consuming liquor, quarrel had taken place and the applicants started assaulting the deceased. At this point of time, the eye witness Indravati left their company. Later on, deceased was found dead. The Post-mortem report shows that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and was due to the assault and strangulation.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the gravity and material involved in the case and further considering the statement of the eye witness Indravati that applicants were involved in the incident of quarrel, present is not a fit case for grant of bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Nadim