Sunil Makhija v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Page No.1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.CR.C. No. 6936 of 2015

1. Sunil Makhija, S/o. Ladhda Ram Makhija, aged about 35 years, R/o. Village-Rohni Villa Apartment House No.002 Priyadarshani Nagar, Police Station-New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Civil and Revenue District - Raipur (C.G.) ----Applicant

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station - New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. O.P. Sahu, Govt. Advocate For Complainant : Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 15/12/2015 1.

This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.42/2015, registered at Police Station - New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 363, 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.04.2015, a girl namely Sakchhi Makhija was missing and subsequently the mother of the Girl, namely Karishma Makhija on 21.04.2015 informed to the police that present applicant has admitted the fact that he has committed murder of the girl and lodged the body in the train namely Navtanva Express and thereafter, the applicant was arrested. The cause of murder of the

Page No.2 child was stated to be illicit child.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence. He would further submit that the body of the girl was not found on search being made by the police. Further submits that mother/complainant wife of this applicant has now supporting the case for grant of bail to the applicant and the applicant is in jail since 22.04.2015, therefore, he prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.

5.

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

6.

Having regard to the extra judicial confession made and the way the complainant/wife has supported the case for grant of bail and taking into facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to allow this application.

7.

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Balram