Brijlal Kaiwatya And ORS. v. State Of Chhattisgarh
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 532 of 2016
1. Brijlal Kaiwatya, Ram Dulare Kaiwatya Aged About 46 Years R/O B. Seem Colliery, Khongapani, P.S. Jhangrakhand, Tehsil Manendragarh, Civil & Revenue District Koriya Chhattisgarh.
2. Raghuveer Chauhan S/o Banshi Aged About 40 Years R/o B. Seem Colliery, Khongapani, P.S. Jhangrakhand, Tehsil Manendragarh, Civil & Revenue District Koriya Chhattisgarh.
3. Beeru Chauhan S/o Banshi Aged About 25 Years R/o B. Seem Colliery, Khongapani, P.S. Jhangrakhand, Tehsil Manendragarh, Civil & Revenue District Koriya Chhattisgarh.
4. Manrakhan Sahu S/o Kachhiram Aged About 36 Years R/o B. Seem Colliery, Khongapani, P.S. Jhangrakhand, Tehsil Manendragarh, Civil & Revenue District Koriya Chhattisgarh. --- Applicants
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Jhangrakhand, Civil & Revenue District Koriya Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For the applicant :
Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate.
For the Respondent :
Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Govt.Adv.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 29.07.2016
1. Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 68 of 2016 registered at Police Station Jhangrakhand, Distt. Koriya (mentioned as Jhagarakhand in the impugned order) for the offences punishable under section 457, 380, 447 of IPC, the applicant has filed this application u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. As per the prosecution case, a report was made by one Suchit Singh that he was in possession of a shop which was given to him on rent by Pramila Singh wife of Ashok Singh and on 19.04.2016 when Suchit Singh came to
open his shop, he could not open it as it was closed and some wall was constructed which could have been from inside and thereafter when the wall was broken it was found that the goods kept in the shop were missing and at that time, the present applicants came there and stated that the shop has been given to them and therefore, they are in possession and he could not open it.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated only on the basis of presumption and no evidence is available to show that the applicants were involved in any way. He further submits that the main dispute is between the complainant and landlord Ashok Singh, however, their names have been included.
4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail.
5. Perused the case diary documents and the statements.
6. Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the applicants and the role played by them, I am inclined to allow this bail application.
7. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with the aforesaid offence, they shall be released on bail by the officer arresting them on each of them executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer arresting them or the concerned Investigating Officer. The applicants shall also abide by the following conditions :-
(i) that they shall make themselves available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required;
(ii) that they shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer;
(iii) that they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
C.c. as per rules.
Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE R a o