High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRC/830/2016rejected

Sandeep @ Banti Kalate And ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-03-01Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Misc. Criminal Case No.829 of 2016 Lalit Kumar @ Sonu Sarthi, S/o late Bakalu Sarthi (wrongly mentioned as Sitaram Sarthi), aged about 20 years, R/o Indira Nagar, Police Station Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.) ---- Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant AND Misc. Criminal Case No.830 of 2016

1. Sandeep @ Banti Kalate, S/o Maniram Kalate, aged about 20 years, R/o Indira Nagar, Tamnar, Police Station Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.)

2. Roshan @ Bhola Kalate, S/o Chhabilal Kalate, aged about 20 years, R/o Basanpali, Tamnar, Police Station Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.) ---- Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicants:

Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate.

For Non-applicant:

Mr. Avinash Singh, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 01/03/2016

1. Since both the applications are arising out of the same crime number, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The accused/applicants have moved these bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for releasing them on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No.152/2015, registered at Police Station Tamnar, Distt. Raigarh, for the offence punishable under Sections

341 and 394 of the IPC.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 1-8-2015, the applicants robbed Rs.5,000/- and Rs.7,000/-, respectively, from the truck drivers - complainants and they also robbed mobile phone.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in the case. The applicants are in jail since 4-8-2015 and 8-8-2015 and charge-sheet has been filed.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail applications.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

7. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of offence, facts and circumstances of the case and consequent recovery of robbed amount, I do not consider it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicants. Consequently, both the applications stand rejected.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma