Nitin Sorya @ Raj v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 1721 of 2016 • Nitin Sorya @ Raj S/O Ratan Lal Sorya Aged About 28 Years R/O Sector-2, Pocket-15, H. N. -75, Thana Begampur, District - Rohni Bahri, Delhi. ----Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Supela, Out Post - Vaishali Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For appellant :

Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State.

:

Mr. Adhiraj Surana, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

(Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, J) Order on Board (18-04-2016)

1. Heard.

2. The applicant has moved this application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail, who have been arrested on 02-092015 in connection with Crime No. 1083 of 2014 registered at Police Station Supela, Out Post Vaishali Nagar, District Durg (CG), for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 420, 467, 471, 120-B, 34 of the IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on account of abetment and abduction by the present applicant along with other co-accused, Manish Jaiswal and Sandhya Jaiswal along with their son committed suicide in the intervening night of 24th & 25th December, 2014 and thereby the applicant committed the aforesaid offence.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant has not committed any offence and it is the accused persons namely Harvinder Singh and Ashok Kumar who are main culprits. Present applicant is a monthly paid employee in the Citizen Finance Company, Delhi. He would further submit that charge-sheet has been filed in the case, applicant is in jail since 2-9-2015 and no further

custodial interrogation of the applicant is required by the prosecution. therefore, present applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the bail application would submit that there is sufficient evidence to connect the applicant with the crime in question, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

6. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the applicant and the manner in which the deceased persons committed suicide along with their baby and the evidence available on record, I do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of bail.

7. Accordingly, the instant M.Cr.C., is liable to be and is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Raju