Ravi Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 8924 of 2020 1.

Ravi Verma S/o Vijay Verma, Aged About 22 Years, R/o In Front Of Durga Temple, Kailash Nagar, Birgaon, Police Station Urla, District Raipur (C.G.).

---- Applicant

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer Police Station Urla, District Raipur (C.G.).

---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Shri Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Jitendra Shukla, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Justice Shri Gautam Chourdiya Order on Board 27/01/2021 1) The applicant has preferred this Firs t Bail Application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 118/2020, registered at Police Station Urla, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code.

2) Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 12/03/2020 some unknown persons committed Marpeet with Ramesh Gupta (deceased) by club and thereafter he was admitted in Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur. On report being lodged by son of the deceased namely Amrit Lal Gupta on 14/03/2020 offence under Section 307 of IPC was registered against unknown persons. During investigation statements of the witnesses were recorded wherein they stated that Ramesh Gupta was assaulted with club, hands and fists by Ravi Verma, Anil Khute and Deepak Ghritlahre. Thereafter, the aforesaid accused persons were arrested on

15/03/2020. Since injured victim Ramesh Gupta died on 16/03/2020 during treatment, offence under Section 302 of IPC was also registered against the accused persons and after completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed before the concerned Court.

3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 15/03/2020, charge sheet has already been filed and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, the present applicant be released on bail.

4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the bail application.

5) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.

6) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which assault was allegedly made by the applicant on the deceased as well as the eye witness account, without commenting anything on merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the application is rejected.

-Sd/- (Gautam Chourdiya) Judge Chandrakant