Mohan Dhimar And ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.CR.C. No. 6821 of 2017 1.
Mohan Dhimar, S/o. Premlal Dhimar, aged about 25 years, 2.
Monu Dhimar, S/o. Premlal Dhimar, aged about 23 years, Both are residents of Village- Pandadah, Tehsil & P.S. Khairagarh, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---- Applicants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Police Station - Khairagarh, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Abhisek Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Ashok Swarnakar, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board 07/12/2017 1.
This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicants, who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.78/2017, registered at Police Station - Khairagarh, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 294, 324, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.
At the very outset, the learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the bail application in respect of the applicant No.1 - Mohan Dhimar, hence, the application of the applicant No.1 - Mohan Dhimar is dismissed as withdrawn. 3.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicant No.2 has been falsely implicated in this case. Complainant in this case has suffered injuries, which can not be regarded as grievous in nature or dangerous to her life, apart from that, facts of the case itself shows that applicant No.1 was the assailant, applicant is in jail since 07.10.2017, therefore, it is prayed that applicant No.2 be enlarged on regular bail.
4.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and the submissions made in this respect. It is submitted that there is clear and categorical statement against the applicant No.2 about participation in the offence as alleged, hence he is not entitled for grant of bail.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case diary.
6.
The facts of the case are that on the date of incident, complainant - Sunita Rajak was present on the spot, when both the applicants arrived at on the spot and were quarreling with Vikas Rajak. Complainant went to the spot and tried to intervene on which, applicant No.1 assaulted her with knife used for cutting of vegetables and caused injuries, whereas the applicant No.2 assaulted her with hands, fists and kicks. Complainant had to undergo medical treatment in the hospital for almost 18-19 days. On the basis of the information given,
case has been registered against the applicants and presently the case is before the trial Court.
7.
Considering the submissions and the contents of the case diary and particularly looking to the allegations against the applicant No.2 and the statement of the witnesses, and no purpose would be served, if the, applicant No.2 is kept in custody till the conclusion of trial, this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case, in which, the applicant No.2 - Monu Dhimar should be enlarged on regular bail. 8.
Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of the applicant No.2- Monu Dhimar is allowed. 9.
It is directed that applicant No.2 - Monu Dhimar shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for his appearance as and when directed. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Balram