Shahid v. State Of Chhattisgarh,

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 5517 of 2020 • Shahid S/o Yunus Aged About 23 Years, By Caste - Musalman, R/o Village - Adbar, Police Station - Nooh, District Nooh, Haryana. ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - District Magistrate Korba, District - Korba Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent ___________________________________________________________________ For Applicant :

Mr. Nitesh Shrivas, Advocate.

For State :

Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 20/10/2020 Heard.

1. The applicant has moved this application for grant of bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No.200/2020 registered at Police Station- Katghora, District- Korba, C.G. for the offence under Sections 399 & 402 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

2. Prosecution case is that the applicant and other co-accused were found having involved in preparation of dacoity and from the vehicle, in which, the applicant was travelling along with co-accused, large number of weapons which included desi Katta, sword, blade, rod and sabbal were found.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not committed any such offence and he is only driver of the vehicle and not connected with other accused. It is also submitted that the desi katta is found to be in non working condition, as charge sheet has been filed, the applicant may be granted bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes and submits that large number of weapons of different kinds were seized from the vehicle which was driven by the present applicant which shows that the present applicant and

other co-accused are involved in alleged act of preparation of dacoity. The applicant and all other co-accused belong to other state.

5. Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly taking into consideration the large number of weapons of different kinds which alleged to have been seized, present is not a fit case for grant of bail.

6. The bail application is accordingly rejected. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Ravi