Dungru Singh And ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Page No.1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.CR.C. No. 7867 of 2016

1. Dungru Singh, aged about 22 years, S/o. Shri Mayer Singh, R/o. Village- Piprani, P.S. - Tanda, District - Dhar (MP).

2. Noor Singh, aged about 25 years, S/o. Shri Chandra Singh, R/o. Village- Getta, P.S. - Tanda, District - Dhar (MP). Mob.: 9589776278. ----Applicants

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Police Station - Telibandha, District - Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicants : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Neeraj Jain, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 13/12/2016 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.151/2016, registered at Police Station - Telibandha, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 399, 402 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

2.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.06.2016 on a secrete information received that the applicants along-with other co-accused are planning for dacoity at certain place, they were apprehended at about 10.30 p.m. and thereafter on the memorandum, it revealed

Page No.2 that the applicants along-with other co-accused tried to plan to commit dacoity at Raipur.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that without any evidence, the applicants are inside the jail. It is further submitted that probable place of dacoity has also not been investigated and only on presumption, the applicants are arrested. It is further submitted that similarly placed co-accused, Ban Singh has been enlarged on bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 6033/2016 vide order dated 03.10.2016, therefore, the counsel prays that the applicants may also be enlarged on bail.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application, however, he is not able to dispute the fact that similarly placed co-accused has been enlarged on bail.

5.

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

Perused the case diary and the documents. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence available against the applicants and the fact that from the applicant No.1 one Gupti and from the applicant No.2, air-gun have been recovered and further considering the fact that similarly placed co-accused has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 03.10.2016, in M.Cr.C.6033/2016, this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case, in which, the applicants should be enlarged on regular bail. 7.

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.

Page No.3 8.

It is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for their appearance as and when directed. 9.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Balram