High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRC/6026/2019dismissed

Vinod Singh @ Sonu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-09-12Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 6026 of 2019 • Vinod Singh @ Sonu S/o Shiv Singh Rajput Aged About 25 Years Village Korbi, Chowki - Korbi, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Nandini Nagar, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Shri Rahil Kochar, Advocate For Respondent /State : Shri B.L.Sahu, PL Hon'ble Smt.Justice Rajani Dubey Order On Board 12/09/2019 This is the fourth bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. Earlier two bail applications filed by the applicant were rejected vide order dated 06.10.18 and 01.03.2019 on merits by detailed order and the third bail application was also dismissed for want of prosecution.

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 28.05.2018 and as per the medical report, there is no external or internal injury found on the person of the prosecutrix and no definite opinion has been given by the doctor. He however submits that most of the witnesses have been examined. He has placed his reliance in the matter of 2017 SAR (Criminal) 979 (Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit Vs. State of Maharastra) ; 2012 SAR (Criminal) 276 (Dipak

Shubhashchandra Mehta Vs. CBI and Another and 2018 SAR (Criminal) 559 (Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another.

On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the prosecutrix was examined before the trial court and she has not supported the case of the prosecution. Heard counsel for the parties.

I find no change in the circumstance of the case and further in the light of the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no ground to entertain the fourth bail application. Same is accordingly dismissed. The trial Court is however directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It would be the duty of the applicant to apprise the Court about the passing of this order.

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge suguna