Rajmal & ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No.5907 of 2020

1. Rajmal Son Of Sheku Aged About 28 Years Resident Of Tadvi, Village Poha, P.S. Udaygarh, District Alirajpur (Madhya Pradesh), Madhya Pradesh

2. Bharat Bhuriya Son Of Shekuram, Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Kedar Faliya, Village Chhoti, Jamali, P.S. Udaygarh, District Alirapur (Madhya Pradesh), Madhya Pradesh ---- Petitioners

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mujgahan, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicants :

Shri S. P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State:

Shri Samir Sharma, PL Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 20/10/2020 Heard.

1.

The applicants have moved this application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No.67/2019 registered at Police Station Mujgahan, District Raipur for the offence punishable under Section 457 & 380 of the IPC. The applicants were arrested on 18-12-2019. 2.

Case of the prosecution is that the applicants committed theft of gold, silver and cash and from their possession, stolen articles have been recovered, which are said to be valued Rs.4 Lakh.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that when the applicants were arrested, number of false cases are registered against them by the police by registering separate cases of theft at different places. He submits that the police has prepared false seizure of articles from the applicants. It is lastly submitted that at this stage, when investigation is complete, charge sheet has been filed and the applicants are in jail since 18-12-2019, the applicants may be granted bail.

4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application by

submitting that the applicants are habitual offenders and they are involved in number of theft cases. He would submit that valuation of cash and articles seized from the possession of the applicant is Rs.4 Lakh. 5.

Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the parties, particularly taking into consideration the amount involved in the present case, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicants on bail. 6.

Accordingly, the bail application(M.Cr.C.No.5907 of 2020) is rejected. SD/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Tumane