Arvind Kumar Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 6407 of 2020 • Satish Verma S/o Chhabilal Verma Aged About 19 Years By Caste Lodhi, R/o Village Chandgadi, Thana And Tahsil Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
• The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., ---- Respondent MCRC No. 6595 of 2020 • Arvind Kumar Sahu S/o Lt. Kacharu Ram Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o - Village - Bendridih (Paradah), Chowki Machandur, Thana/ ThasilKhairagarh, District - Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh), ---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon District - Rajnandgaon, (Chhattisgarh).
---- Respondent .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant in M.Cr.C.
:
Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate.
No. 6407 of 2020 For Applicant in M.Cr.C.
:
Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate.
In 6595 of 2020 For State :
Mr. Rakesh Sahu, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya Order On Board 27-11-2020 Heard.
1. Both the applications are being decided by this common order as they
arise out of the same crime number. The applicants have moved this application for grant of bail as they are arrested in connection with Crime No.389 of 2020 registered at Police Station- Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G) for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 499,503, 504, 507, 505 (b) of IPC and Section 84-B of IT Act.
2. The allegation against the present applicants is that they had supplied the audio to the newspaper agency for publishing the same in the newspaper and as per the contents of that audio, the voice was shown to be the voice of Chief Minister that he had announced for opening a liquor shop at village Padadha, thereby the aforesaid offence has been committed.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. There is no direct evidence against the applicants and only on the basis of suspicion they have been arrested by the Police. They would further submit that except offence under Section 505(b) of IPC, all other offence are bailable. It is further submitted that the applicants are in jail since 1-9-2020 and that trial is not likely to be concluded early, therefore, at this stage, the applicants may be granted bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application.
5. Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations levelled against the applicants and further considering the fact that except offence under Section 505(b)
of IPC, all other offence are bailable, the applicants are in jail since 19-2020 and trial is not likely to be concluded early, at this stage, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicants.
6. Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed. It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- along with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court on the condition thata) They shall appear before the Trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance.
b) They shall not in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
7. The applicants are being granted bail on the condition that if the applicants are again found involve in similar commission of offence, it would be open for the State to apply for cancellation of the bail. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- (Gautam Chourdiya) Judge Raju