Kamlesh Bai v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 4105 of 2016 • Kamlesh Bai W/O Fagu Ram Jangde Aged About 39 Years R/O Village Maro, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :

Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 27-07.2016

1. This is a second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 30-07-2015 in connection with Crime No. 289 of 2015 registered at Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC. First bail application was dismissed on merit on 16-12-2015.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the death of Manisha Jangde took place on 21-7-2015. Before death, Manisha Jangde was earlier married to Amit jangde in June 2014. After 15 days of the marriage, it was found that she was having two months of pregnancy which was enquired by Amit Jangde that Manisha was in love affair with Amit Baghel and a Panchayat meeting was convened on 31-10-2014 in which

deceased herself stated that she was in love affair with amit Baghel. Thereafter, the applicant along with her son poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze and thereby the aforesaid offence was committed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the applicant is innocennt and she is in jail for the last more than one year, therefore, she may be released on bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposing the bail application would submit that there is sufficient evidence to connect the applicant with the crime in question and out of total 20 witnesses, 14 witnesses have been examined in this case, therefore, she is not entitled to be released on bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and other documents

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any changed circumstances to reconsider the repeat bail application.

7. Accordingly, the second bail application is also liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Raju