Areef & ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 5565 of 2020
1. Areef S/o Kasam Aged About 25 Years By Caste Musalman, R/o Village Andhaki, Police Station Birhor, District Nooh, Haryana
2. Ashique S/o Sher Mohammad, Aged About 23 Years By Caste Musalman, R/o Village Adbar, Police Station Nooh, District Nooh, Haryana ---- Applicants
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 applicants have moved this application for grant of bail as they are arrested in connection with Crime No.200/2020 registered at Police StationKatghora, 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 applicants and other co-accused were found having involved in preparation of dacoity and from the vehicle, in which, the applicants were 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 applicants would argue that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case and they have not committed any such offence and they were only travelling in the vehicle. It is also submitted that the desi katta is found to be in non working condition, as charge sheet has been filed, the applicants 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, in which, applicant were travelling which shows that the present applicants and other co-accused are involved in alleged act of preparation of dacoity. The applicants and 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