Kapildev Nayak v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 681 of 2015 Kapildev Nayak S/o Prahlad Ram Nayak Aged About 45 years Occupation Agriculture, Caste Aghariya, R/o Village Gindola, Police Station Bhupdevpur, Civil & Revenue District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---- Applicants

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station - Bhupdevpur, Tahsil Kharsiya, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent Shri Pramod Verma, senior counsel along with Ms. Deepali Pandey, counsel for the applicant/s.

Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State. Order On Board 05/08/2015 Heard.

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.108/15 registered at police station - Bhupdevpur, Distt.-Raigarh (CG) for alleged commission of offence under Section 304/34 of IPC. 2.

Prosecution case is that the applicant and other accused prepared a trap by laying electricity wires and getting it connected to the main supply of line of high voltage, due to which, one Narayan, who came in contact with the same and died due to electrocution.

3.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is alleged to be involved in preparing trap by one of the co-accused who has been arrested, which by itself, cannot be said to be incriminating evidence against the said applicant. He further submits that the preparation for such trap, at the most, was for catching animals and at the most, it could be a case of Section 304-A IPC which is bailable in nature. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant had no personal interest in laying trap and it is not situated at or around the house / land of the deceased.

4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that in the memorandum of other accused, the applicant has been named as one of those, who have been laying electric wires and getting it connected with the high voltage line. Therefore, prima facie, offence under Section 304 IPC is made out and it is also submitted that the other two co-accused have been arrested. 5.

Considering the aforesaid submission, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. The application is accordingly rejected. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Deepti