Maya Bai Banjare v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 9001 of 2020 • Maya Bai Banjare W/o Shri Vijay Banjare Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Pardeshikapa, Chowki Chilfi, P.S. Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
----Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Chowki, Chilfi, P.S. Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant.
:
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate.
For Respondent/State :
Mr. B.P. Banjare, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 25.06.2021 The applicant has filed Third Bail Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No. 96/2019 registered at Chowki Chifli, P. S. Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the IPC.
The second bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn on 31.08.2020 passed in MCRC No. 1657/2020, however, a liberty was given to the applicant to revive the same after examination of memorandum and seizure witnesses. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the present applicant is that she along with other co-accused person has committed murder of one Ram Sahab Khandekar and tried to conceal the dead body.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He would next contend that in the second bail application of the applicant, a liberty was given to file the same after examination of memorandum and now seizure witnesses have been examined as P.W- 1 and PW.-2 but they have not supported the prosecution case. He next contended that except memorandum of herself of the applicant, there is nothing against her. The applicant is a 21 years old young lady and is in jail 26.03.2019, therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that applicant herself in her memorandum stated about her involvement in the crime in question. Furthermore, a sickle has been seized from the possession of applicant, therefore, looking to the nature of the crime, the applicant may not be granted bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the crime, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the present applicants on bail.
Accordingly, his application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge V/-