Roop Kumar Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C. No.5589 of 2015 APPLICANT :
Roop Kumar Sharma, (In Jail) S/o Manju Ram Sharma, Aged about 56 years, R/o Sundripara, Mova, Police Station Pandri,Raipur District Raipur (C.G.)
Versus
NON-APPLICANT :
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the applicant :
Shri P.P. Sahu, Advocate.
For the respondent/ State : Shri Ashok Swarnakar, P.L.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 27-10-2015 Learned counsel appearing for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this bail application.
2.
Permission granted.
3.
Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) JUDGE Kvr
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB : Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M.Cr.C.No. 6826 of 2014 APPLICANT :
Sudhil @ Sudhir Ekka
Versus
NON-APPLICANT :
State of Chhattisgarh.
Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: Mr. Shivendra Bharadwaj, counsel for the applicant. Mr. Luv Sharma, P.L. for the State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O R D E R
(22-12-2014) Heard.
2.
The applicant has moved this application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No.113/2014 registered at Police Station Bagbahar, District Jashpur for offence punishable under Sections 363 and 370 of the IPC. The applicant has been arrested on 25-07-2014. 3.
Allegation against the present applicant is that he abducted and took away some boys, namely Karan, Vinod Yadav, Jainandan Khadiya, Ramesh Khadiya, Tejkumar Paikra and Rajesh Kumar to Karnataka in order to exploit them and thereby committed the aforesaid offence.
4.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the father of Karan, namely, Fucha Ekka has sworn in an affidavit indicating that the present applicant did not abduct his son Karan and his son Karan had gone outside to earn money at his own will. The present applicant is in jail since 25-07-2014. Therefore, he may be released on bail.
5.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the application for bail.
6.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering that complainant Fucha Ekka, the father of abducted boy Karan had lodged complaint in the Police Station against the present applicant against abduction of his son Karan and other five boys of his village and made a statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. during investigation before the Investigating Officer regarding the said abduction by the present applicant, but after recovery of the six abducted boys from the possession of the present applicant by the police, filing the affidavit of Fucha Ekka of non-involvement of the present applicant in the offence, which clearly indicates tampering of prosecution witness by the present applicant, I do not consider it a fit case to release the applicant on bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, the instant bail application stands rejected. J U D G E Kvr