Devnandan Yadav And ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 7676 of 2018 1.

Devnandan Yadav (wrongly mentioned as Yav in the order sheet) S/o Late Asadu Ram Yadav, aged about 50 years, R/o Hathimunda, Chowki Rajgamar, Police Station Balco Nagar, Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.). 2.

Naresh Yadav S/o Devnandan Yadav, aged about 22 years, R/o Hathimunda, Chowki Rajgamar, Police Station Balco Nagar, Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.).

3.

Kartik Ram Manjhwar S/o Ramu Manjhwar, aged about 26 years (not mentioned in the order sheet of the learned Court below) R/o Hathimunda, Chowki Rajgamar, Police Station Balco Nagar, Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.).

--- Applicants

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Chowki Rajgamar Aajak Korba Civil and Revenue District Korba (C.G.). ---- Respondent For Applicants :

Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate For Respondent :

Mr. Shangarsh Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order on Board 16/11/2018 1.

The Applicant has preferred this First bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No. 29/2018 registered at Police Station Chowki Rajgamar Aajak Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 186, 147, 353 and 332 of the IPC and Section 3 (2) 5 of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (henceforth 'the Act') 2.

As per prosecution story, on 30/09/2018 complainant Varjun Singh (Constable) and another constable Mahendra Sidar went to village Uparwara, Hathimuda to serve one permanent warrant which was

issued against one Vedu Korva. It is alleged that at that time, the Applicants along with other co-accused persons abused them and assaulted them. A report was made by Varjun Singh. On the basis of the said report, offence has been registered and the Applicants have been arrested on 05/09/2018.

3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants submits that the Applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Prima-faice no case under the Act is made out against the Applicants. They are in custody since 05/09/2018 and the trial will take some time, therefore, they may be released on bail. 4.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. 6.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that the Applicants are in custody since 05/09/2018 and trial will likely to take some time, without further commenting on merit of the case, I am inclined to release the Applicants on bail. 7.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8.

It is directed that the Applicants shall be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the said Court, as and when directed. Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Rahul