Mukesh Manikpuri v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 9357 of 2020 1.

Mukesh Manikpuri S/o Devidas Manikpuri, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Shyam Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.).

---- Applicant

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.). ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Shri Pragalbha Sharma Advocate.

For Non-Applicant/State : Shri Dinesh R.K. Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Justice Shri Gautam Chourdiya Order on Board 08/03/2021 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. 621/2018, registered at Police Station Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section, 498-A, 304-B, 306 & 302 of Indian Penal Code.

2) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant only 6 months after marriage with deceased Prerna Manikpuri started physically and mentally harassing her in connection with demand of dowry of Rs. 2 Lakh. Being fed up with this ill treatment, on 26/09/2018 the deceased committed suicide at her matrimonial home by pouring Tarpin Oil on her body and died on 09/10/2018.

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 17/12/2018, 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 nature of allegation against the applicant, the fact that till date of passing of the impugned order dated 21/10/2020, 14 prosecution witnesses were examined and only 5 witnesses to be remained the trial appears to be in progress and likely to be concluded in near future, therefore, 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