Ramanand Jangde v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 6342 of 2020 • Ramanand Jangde, S/o Late Parasram Jangde, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Mokhala, Police Station Arang, (Wrongly Mentioned as Aurang in the impugned order), District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicant

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh Through: Station House Officer Police Station- Arang (Wrongly Mentioned as Aurang in the impugned Order), District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Adv.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sahu, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 14.01.2021

1. The accused/applicant has moved this third bail application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 215/2019 registered at Police Station- Arang, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 341, 147, 148 of IPC & Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act.

2. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive the same after examination of the material witnesses vide order dated 16.12.2019 passed in MCRC No. 6956/2019.

3. The second bail application of the applicant was dismissed vide order dated 09.06.2020 passed in MCRC No. 1818/2020.

4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the brother of deceased lodged complaint in the police station stating therein that on 05.04.2019 he went to village for his agriculture work and while returning he saw the applicant and other co-accused person

beating his brother Chintamani, nephew Manish and Narendra with knife, sword and wooden stick as a result of which Chintamani, brother of complainant received injury on his head and fell down on the spot and similarly nephew of the complainant also received grievous injury. During treatment, Chintamani died in the hospital. Based on this, offence has been registered. Present applicant has been taken into custody on 03.05.2019.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that there is no evidence regarding the presence of the applicant at the place of incident and the applicant is in jail since 03.05.2019, there is no likelihood of his case being decided in near future, therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail.

6. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application submitting that on the memorandum of the present applicant, one knife has been seized from the possession of the applicant and he did a very heinous crime and it is not a fit case to release him on bail.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, especially nature and gravity of crime in question, at this stage, I am not inclined to release him on bail.

9. Accordingly, his application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected.

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Ruchi