Ramsingh Rajput v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3765 of 2017 • Ramsingh Rajput S/o Kangala Rajput, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bhathapara, Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli, CG ---- Respondent For applicant Mr. Palash Tiwari, Adv.
For Respondent/State Mr. D.R. Minj, Dy. Govt. Adv.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta Order On Board 17-111. This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. preferred by the applicant before this Court and his no bail application is pending before any other court.
2. Perused the copy of the case diary produced by counsel for the State in connection with Crime No. 34/2017 registered in police station Lormi, Distt. Mungeli (CG) for offence punishable under Section 302, 201 and 436 of the IPC and also heard counsel for the parties.
3. Prosecution story in brief is that applicant Ramsingh Rajput gave information in P.S. Lormi on 9-1-2017 at about 20.45 hrs that he and his wife deceased retured back to their house after manufacturing bricks. Leaving the wife - the deceased in house he went to shop. One shop owner Rajkumar told that his house is burning. Then he went there and found that the deceased had died. As per post mortem report, the deceased died due to asphyxia. During investigation it has been found that when the applicant and the deceased were in the house a quarrel had taken place between them. During investigation, a lantern containing kerosene and a match box were seized from the applicant at his instance. It is alleged that the applicant demanded
money from the deceased to purchase liquor and gutka and after altercation the applicant killed the deceased by throttling and poured kerosene oil, lit it and went away.
4. Charge sheet has been filed. The applicant is in custody since 30-12017.
5. Counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated hence he may be released on bail.
6. On the other hand, the Panel Lawyer appearing for the state opposed the bail application.
7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the seriousness of the alleged offence and also the impact of granting bail on the society, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
8. Consequently, the MCRC is dismissed.
Sd/- (Sharad Kumar Gupta) Judge Pathak